|
Chuaigh an Cathaoirleach i gceannas ar 10:30:00
Machnamh agus Paidir.
Reflection and Prayer.
Business of Seanad
An Cathaoirleach:   I have received notice from Senator Terry Brennan that, on the motion for the Commencement of the House today, he proposes to raise the following matter: The need for the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works to outline progress on the outstanding works at King John’s Castle, Carlingford, County Louth.
I have also received notice from Senator Katherine Zappone of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Social Protection to re-evaluate the eligibility rules for the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, maintenance grant in view of the fact that parents in full-time education who are no longer eligible to receive the one-parent family payment and who need to transfer to the back to education allowance are not currently eligible to retain the grant which assists them in paying the costs of child care and commuting.
I have also received notice from Senator Denis Landy of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to maintain or increase the level of public service obligation funding provided for Bus Éireann in order that it can continue to provide services on essential routes such as route 7 from Carrick-on-Suir, County Tipperary, to Dublin during the period of transition to competitive tendering.
I have also received notice from Senator James Heffernan of the following matter: The need for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to establish an environment ombudsman's office to deal with complaints made against the Environmental Protection Agency.
I have also received notice from Senator Colm Burke of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Justice and Equality to clarify the current position on the introduction of legislation to allow the courts to grant periodic payments to those who have suffered injury as a result of medical negligence.
I have also received notice from Senator Kathryn Reilly of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to discuss the recently launched Action Plan for Jobs - Regional, with a specific focus on the Border region and on how investment and jobs can be created there.
I have also received notice from Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Health to outline the number of people on the waiting list for orthodontic treatment in the public health service in counties Galway and Mayo, to detail the length of time people have been obliged to wait, by year, for the past five years and the age range of these individuals in deciles, and to clarify what plan the HSE has in place to address the backlog.
I have also received notice from Senator Rónán Mullen of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Health to give details of the number of nursing home places in County Galway, including both public and private facilities, the number of people in the county who are awaiting nursing home places, the number there who have availed of the fair deal nursing home scheme and the number who have applied for that same scheme who are awaiting approval.
I have also received notice from Senator Fidelma Healy Eames of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Education and Skills to recognise that it makes good educational, financial and domestic sense to provide resource support hours for children with Down's syndrome with a mild learning difficulty and the need to change policy to reflect this.
I regard the matters raised by the Senators as suitable for discussion. I have selected the matters submitted by Senators Terry Brennan, Katherine Zappone, Denis Landy and James Heffernan and they will be taken now. Senators Colm Burke, Kathryn Reilly, Trevor Ó Clochartaigh, Rónán Mullen and Fidelma Healy Eames may give notice on another day of the matters they wish to raise.
Commencement Matters
National Monuments
An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris.
Senator Terry Brennan: King John's Castle in Carlingford is a very strategic edifice which is visited by thousands of tourists each year. The Minister of State's predecessor, Mr. Brian Hayes, now an MEP, visited the castle and acknowledged the fact that the local heritage trust in Carlingford was prepared to include visits to it on its heritage trail. As the Minister of State is aware, Carlingford is a medieval town and, thankfully, many monuments from the past remain in existence there. Including the castle on the heritage trail would be a major asset to the tourism infrastructure of the town. I am anxious that work at the castle to facilitate Carlingford Heritage Trust in order that it might include visits to the castle on its heritage trail should recommence as soon as possible.
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Simon Harris): I thank the Senator for again raising this matter, about which he is extremely passionate and on which he has very sincere views. He has convinced me to be passionate about it as well in the context of wanting the project to be brought to a conclusion.
As the Senator is well aware, Carlingford is an historic town with a number of fine structures, including two national monuments in State care - namely, the historic Mint building and Carlingford Castle, known popularly as King John's Castle and named after Richard the Lionheart's brother. Even though the castle is named for King John, it was actually built by Hugh de Lacy, a Norman knight who founded the town of Carlingford. Construction on the castle started prior to 1186, but there were various additions to the building over the years and many eras of architecture and history are represented. It is, therefore, an important monument and a significant priority for the Office of Public Works.
The castle is, as I have said, a national monument which has been in State care since 1919 and has been managed and maintained by my office since that time. In the initial period it had limited access and many of the interiors were not safe; therefore, large parts of it were inaccessible. A programme of stabilisation work was carried out in the 1950s, which addressed the worst of the problems apparent, but nothing further of a really substantial nature, apart from holding maintenance, has been carried out since then. More recently, the OPW's national monuments service embarked on a programme of safety works. The first phase of this, which included the putting in place of a pedestrian walkway around the outside of the castle, was completed in the past few years. The intention is to carry on with further work to extend the accessible areas and allow visitors to more easily enter the castle site. A key aspect of the work will involve the careful dismantling of a crucial 19th-century wall and its reconstruction on a new firmer foundation but with the addition of an access door through which members of the public will be able to pass. This will dramatically improve the position for visitors wanting to get into the Castle in the future.
This next phase of the works is a major conservation project and will, as I have said, improve safety, access and presentation of this important historic monument to a significant degree. A large amount of preparation work, design and careful archaeological investigation and assessment has been carried out. In 2014 the Minister for Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht signed the necessary archaeological consent required under national monuments legislation to allow the work to proceed. All of the work that has been carried out to date at the castle, though substantial, has essentially been preparatory in nature and has really just set the scene for the major element that is yet to come.
I know the Senator is eager to see that happen.
As the Senator will appreciate, the National Monuments Service of my office is, like many organisations in recent times, under a significant amount of pressure, with demands on scare resources a particular problem. However, King John's Castle is a significant priority for my office, and for me personally, and my officials have informed me that works will recommence there in the summer of this year. The amount of effort involved in bringing this to completion should not be underestimated; this is a large conservation undertaking and works will, therefore, take some time to finish.
I can appreciate fully that the Carlingford Heritage Trust is anxious to exploit the potential that a more easily accessible castle will bring to the area and I am sure that this project, when completed, will bring much visitor and tourism benefit to the town. I look forward to accepting the Senator's invitation to visit Carlingford Castle with him, I hope some time in March.
Senator Terry Brennan: That is great news and I am very pleased to hear it. I should have acknowledged at the outset the significant works done by the Office of Public Works from the 1950s to date and I compliment it on the condition of the castle. It is great news that the Minister believes works will commence in the summer. I know the difficulty involved, and restoring the original entrance to the castle will be a phenomenal achievement. I look forward to that and welcoming the Minister of State to Carlingford. We might have a cup of coffee in one of the hostelries when he comes.
Deputy Simon Harris: I very much look forward to it. I thank the Senator and the Carlingford Heritage Trust, as well as the local community of Carlingford that I know holds this castle in such high regard because, like me, it sees its potential benefit for Carlingford from a tourism, heritage and economic point of view. I very much look forward to visiting with the Senator, looking around the historic town of Carlingford and the great benefit the works recommencing in the summer will ultimately bring to the town of Carlingford.
Student Grant Scheme Eligibility
Senator Katherine Zappone: I welcome the Minister of State. I am delighted to have him respond and I am hoping for a positive outcome, as he gave to Senator Terry Brennan.
I refer to the need for the Minister for Social Protection to re-evaluate the eligibility rules related to the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, maintenance grant for parents in full-time education who are no longer eligible to receive the one-parent family payment and transferring to the back to education allowance, are not currently eligible to keep their maintenance grant, which assists them towards the cost of child care and commuting.
As of 2 July this year, any parent on the one-parent family payment with a child aged seven years or above will no longer be eligible for the payment. That means that lone parents who are currently in full-time education will now need to apply for the back to education allowance, which is granted on a discretionary basis. Hence, it will be up to individual social welfare officers to decide if these students will be granted this allowance, which will ultimately determine whether they will be able to continue in their studies. Obviously, being denied this grant would be devastating for anyone who has been working hard towards a degree for years in that they will be forced to drop out of their course. This is something that we cannot accept and must work towards changing. Even if they are granted the back to education allowance, they are not currently eligible to receive the SUSI maintenance grant and will only receive the fee portion of the grant.
As the Minister is aware, the SUSI grant consists of a student contribution towards the fees and the maintenance grant. This has been indispensable for the lone parents, of whom 97% are women, to pursue their higher education goals while on the one-parent family payment. There are many women in education full-time on the one-parent family payment and when their child moves beyond the age of seven they will be in the midst of the education, and this is impacting on them. The rate of the maintenance grant ranges from €300 to €5,915 a year and it is based on household income, living distance from the college and the number of children. It is a grant that has assisted lone parents towards the cost of child care and commuting while they are in full-time education and without that financial support most of these women will be forced out of education.
The Minister of State is here on behalf of the Minister for Social Protection and I ask that reason and common sense take hold. Good parenting tells us that children under ten years of age still need minding and cannot be left on their own while their parents are at work or in education. Their school days are short, and access to affordable after-school places is limited. That is one of the reasons I have, since the introduction of these changes, opposed the lowering of the age threshold to seven under the one-parent family payment. The Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection has promised that a child care system similar to what is found in Scandinavian countries would be in place before these changes take effect but that has not been acted on. I know that there are movements towards it. I am very familiar with what is going on in that arena but this is where we are now, and we would all agree that we do not have anywhere near such a Nordic model of child care as a public service in this country. This is where we are now, and it will impact a number of women.
The Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, are sincere when they advocate their support for lone parents to participate in education and training. I am aware of the reform the Tánaiste has introduced in that regard, but the women I am speaking about have been hit disproportionately harder than any other segment of Irish society. They are dynamic and they are driven. They do not want to have to drop out of the education course they are in the midst of because they will no longer get a maintenance grant. I ask the Minister for a guarantee that the lone parents in full-time education would be granted the back to education allowance, without discretion, and that the rules of the SUSI grant would be adjusted to better facilitate their care duties when they move to the back to education allowance.
Deputy Simon Harris: I thank the Senator for raising this matter and apologise on behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection who is not in a position to attend and who has asked me to deliver a response on her behalf.
As the Senator will know, the eligibility rules governing the payment of a student maintenance grant are a matter for the Department of Education and Skills and are set down in its legislation. In budget 2010, the Department of Education and Skills amended the eligibility criteria for the receipt of the student maintenance grants in respect of persons in receipt of the back to education allowance and the voluntary training opportunities scheme, VTOS allowance. As a result of this amendment people in receipt of the back to education allowance for all schemes, and the VTOS allowance for those pursuing a PLC course, are no longer eligible for a student maintenance grant. However, the cost of the student service charge and any fees payable to third level colleges may continue to be met by the Exchequer on their behalf. This applied to all new grant holders from the 2010-11 academic year onwards.
With effect from the academic year 2010-11, students entering or progressing to a new course are no longer eligible to hold the back to education allowance together with a student maintenance grant. These students may continue to apply to be assessed to have the student contribution and any tuition fees paid on their behalf. The Department of Education and Skills decided to discontinue the practice of allowing students to hold both the back to education allowance or VTOS allowance and a student maintenance grant simultaneously as this represented a duplication of income support payments.
In budget 2012, the Department of Social Protection introduced reforms to the one-parent family payment, OFP, in particular the reduction of the age of the youngest child for receipt of such payment to seven years of age. These changes have been implemented on a phased basis with the final phase due to take place on 2 July 2015 when the age of the youngest child will reduce to seven years for all existing and new one-family payment recipients. The purpose of the phased OFP scheme age change reforms is to reduce long-term social welfare dependency by ending the expectation that lone parents will remain outside the workforce indefinitely and to assist these customers to make their way into employment and financial independence. All customers who are affected by this reform will be supported by the Department of Social Protection to transition onto an alternative income support payment as appropriate.
In regard to the education element, given that there is no work conditionality attached to the one-family payment, recipients of the payment can participate in training and education programmes and are not obliged to inform the Department of Social Protection. In some cases, such recipients do inform the Department and, where relevant, move to the back to education allowance scheme at the start of the course. Where entitlement to the payment ceases for these recipients, they can continue - this is important - to participate in the back to education allowance scheme until their course is completed. In cases where the customer has not informed the Department of Social Protection, and they are mid-way through their studies, as the Senator outlined, the back to education allowance scheme has been amended to allow them avail of this scheme at mid-course point, assuming that all other relevant qualifying criteria are met. This allows these customers to complete their course of study while also receiving an income support payment from the Department of Social Protection. If the customer has received a student grant, they are informed that they are no longer entitled to the maintenance portion of the grant. They may, however, retain eligibility for the student contribution or tuition fee portion of the grant, if applicable. The rules that determine payment of the student maintenance grant are a matter for the Department of Education and Skills.
Senator Katherine Zappone: That is a very helpful response, of which I am most appreciative. I take it from it, first, that if they are mid-way through their education they can move automatically, as distinct from going through another assessment process.
The second point that the Minister of State is saying loud and clear is that it is a matter for the Department of Education and Science and that it has amended its legislation so as not to include the maintenance grant. That may have been done before these other changes were made by the Department of Social Protection where women are going to be left midway, by 2 July, without maintenance. We need to take a look at the Department of Education and Science being aware of what has happened in the Department of Social Protection to ensure that these women are able to stay in education which I am sure that is what the Ministers in both Departments would hope for.
Deputy Simon Harris: I thank the Senator for her comments. The Tánaiste has been very consistent in her view that she wants to help people access education, training and the workplace. The changes that have been made to the back to education allowance scheme allows a customer of the Department of Social Protection who may not have informed, nor were they obliged to inform, someone they were in study, to access the back to education allowance scheme at the mid-point in a course, which is an important change. It will mean that people who are not in receipt of the back to education allowance, but would qualify for it, can now take it up at mid-point to allow them to complete their course. I hope that is helpful to the Senator.
Senator Katherine Zappone: I thank the Minister of State. He has been very helpful.
Bus Éireann Services
An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport.
Senator Denis Landy: I thank the Minister for coming to the House to deal with this matter. I appreciate it very much.
It has come to my attention through local people and some workers in Bus Éireann that Bus Éireann intends to terminate the bus route 7 from Carrick-on-Suir to Dublin. The route commences in Clonmel, travels south east for 13 miles, then north east to Callan and on to Kilkenny and then to Dublin. Bus Éireann proposes to terminate this service from early March. No public representatives, to the best of my knowledge, have been contacted by Bus Éireann. I have had several contacts with Bus Éireann through telephone calls and e-mails. I got one standard reply from a representative of Bus Éireann which was basically an announcement. There was no interaction and a refusal to engage with me to discuss the matter.
Bus Éireann has a public service obligation and is subsidised annually by €34.5 million of taxpayers' money. The current service is used by many people from the Carrick-on-Suir area. The town of Carrick-on-Suir has a population of approximately 6,000 and the number of people who live in its hinterland brings that number up to 10,000. To the best of my knowledge, Carrick-on-Suir is the only town of its size in the country from which Bus Éireann does not provide a service directly to the capital city. There is also no direct rail link from the town to Dublin. Instead, one must travel to Limerick Junction, and wait to change trains, which means it takes three and half hours to get from the town to Dublin.
Many people rely on the bus service such as individuals who work in Kilkenny and those who avail of facilities run by the Camphill community and rehabilitation centres in Grangemockler and Callan that are located along the route. They have no other way of travelling every day to their work. Many use the route to attend hospital appointments in Dublin, to visit sick people in Dublin, to get to the airport, to attend clinics and to attend social events. People from my region use the service fairly regularly. On the Sundays of the All-Ireland championship the bus is packed in Carrick-on-Suir even before it leaves the town and makes its way to what is usually the enemy territory of Kilkenny. The bus service is very important to the town. For it to be withdrawn without any discussions or negotiations is completely unacceptable. How will the people who rely on this bus get to their places of work or the capital city from now on? Bus Éireann has made no provision to replace the service. In other places Bus Éireann has made provision and supplied feeder services.
The change to the route is the big query that I have. The travel time from Clonmel to Carrick-on-Suir, rather than leaving out Carrick-on-Suir, is only 20 minutes. I do not know how Bus Éireann can justify completely cutting off the town. It is a town of high social deprivation with high unemployment. We rely on people to come into the town with their income at the weekend. People use the bus service to go to their places of work in Dublin and spend their income in the town at weekends. Such expenditure will be affected if the bus service is cut off.
I ask the Minister to intervene in this issue, even though I know he is not directly responsible for same. In other parts of the country, when similar cases were brought to the attention of the Minister of the day, common sense prevailed. In some cases pilot schemes were put in place and some link-up services were put in place. I have outlined my case to the Minister and await his response. I thank him for coming to the House.
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Paschal Donohoe): I thank the Senator for raising this matter. He has raised it with me on a number of occasions and I am aware of his deep concern about the issue. I welcome the opportunity to respond to him formally on the floor of the Seanad and I will outline the position.
I am very much aware of the importance of this matter. I am also aware of the concern that this change is causing among the communities to which the Senator has referred. Last week, I and the Minister of State, Deputy Ann Phelan, met some residents who live along another part of the route that the Senator referred to in order to discuss this issue with them.
As the Senator is aware, the National Transport Authority has responsibility at national level for securing the provision of public passenger land transport services. This includes the provision of subvented bus and rail services by Bus Éireann, Dublin Bus and Irish Rail. The National Transport Authority also licenses commercial bus passenger services. Under the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009, the National Transport Authority assumed responsibility for the regulation of commercial bus passenger services. These services were previously regulated by my Department under the Road Transport Act 1932. The Act obliges all operators to be licensed if they are providing public bus passenger services, and it is applied equally to both private and public bus companies.
Public service obligation, PSO, services covered by public service contracts do not fall within the licensing system. Commercial bus services are licensed in accordance with the provisions of the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009 and in line with the NTA's published guidelines for the licensing of public bus passenger services. The guidelines are published on the NTA website. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the detailed provisions set out in section 23 of the 2009 Act.
Where operators apply to withdraw or curtail commercial bus services - this goes to the heart of one of the questions posed by the Senator - the NTA will grant such amendments as it has no legislative powers to refuse them. In such circumstances the NTA may examine whether, in the absence of any commercial services, there is a PSO to provide socially necessary but commercially unviable public transport services. Such examination will include an assessment of the demand for public transport services and options either to reconfigure existing PSO services or to tender competitively for the provision of services. In either event, the NTA's ability to provide such services is subject to the availability of funding.
As to the specific issue of the funding of substitute services, I am acutely aware of the concerns of many people regarding recent decisions to withdraw licensed commercial services to a number of intermediate locations on major routes into Dublin, including route 7 from Carrick-on- Suir. Major improvements to the national roads network on the M9 motorway have provided the opportunity for commercial bus operators to offer improved journey times between Dublin and regional cities in particular. What has happened is Bus Éireann and other commercial bus operators have sought to amend their licences accordingly with the consequent effect of reducing the level of service provided to a number of intermediate locations on the network.
The NTA has indicated that it will examine options either to reconfigure existing PSO services or to tender competitively for the provision of services to those areas affected by the changes. I should add that I gave a commitment to avoid further reductions in PSO funding, and for the first time since 2008, the level of funding for bus and rail services is being maintained in 2015 at the same level as in 2014. I will continue to liaise with the NTA on the issues involved. I also recently secured €110 million for public transport as part of the 2014 Supplementary Estimate for my Department, which included €45 million for Irish Rail's network renewal investment and €50 million for bus renewal for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. I assure the Senator that I will be examining this issue further in the coming weeks.
Senator Denis Landy: I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive reply and his personal interest in the matter. I acknowledge that I have been in contact with him on a number of occasions. There is a bit of ducks and drakes going on here. I have a letter that is the only correspondence I got from Bus Éireann even though I wrote to it at least five times and probably tried to ring it ten times. It states it can confirm that it has accepted an offer of a revised schedule of services for route 7 from the NTA and is in discussions with its drivers. It seems that Bus Éireann is putting the onus on the NTA when the Minister's reply shows that it is Bus Éireann that should be going to the NTA to change its routes and to see whether this is acceptable. I am delighted the Minister will take a personal interest in this and will examine it further. Will he facilitate a meeting for me with the NTA - regardless of whether it involves the Minister as well - to flesh this out and get clarity on it? We will pursue it. It is saying it will change by the beginning of March; therefore, we do not have too much time but I will be in further contact with the Minister about it.
Deputy Paschal Donohoe: The Senator has raised this matter with me on many occasions. It is appropriate that we have this debate here because it is a really important issue. The Senator already knows that it is a complicated and challenging issue. A big contributory factor to this is the fact that as our national motorway network has been upgraded - the M9 is the particular motorway that has contributed to this - the bus operators want to make use of that improved network to service more people. A consequence of this is that people who are not located immediately adjacent to that motorway or who are in places with lower population densities than larger towns or cities are now facing the consequence of that decision. That is a core cause of what is happening.
I understand very clearly that the availability of public transport or, more broadly, communal transport, be it operated by a private bus operator or public company, provides essential connectivity. A challenge that must be responded to is how that kind of connectivity can be delivered given that national routes have been upgraded and bus companies are understandably looking to make use of them. I cannot tell the Senator that I have an immediate answer to this but I can assure him that the NTA, which is the regulatory body in this area and does excellent work managing competing demands from what are often scarce resources, is examining the matter to see if a response is possible. As Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, I have an interest in this matter and will be contacting and working with the NTA to see if a response can be put in place to respond to the needs articulated by the Senator. I assure him that I will certainly keep him abreast of this because I know it is a charged matter. I met a resident recently who explained to me that if the changes were to go ahead, she did not know how she was going to get into work. That is a legitimate concern for somebody to have. I have only have a fixed amount of money and while we are in a better position than we were a year ago and an even better position than we were the year before that, it is still a fixed amount of money. I have growing demand and am trying to figure out how we can bridge that gap. The NTA is looking at this matter. I will keep in contact with the NTA about it and assure the Senator that I will keep him fully aware of and updated regarding any developments in this area.
Environmental Policy
Senator James Heffernan: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy. This matter concerns the need for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to establish an environmental ombudsman office to deal with complaints made against the EPA. This stems from a number of sources. It goes back to the report commissioned by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the previous Government, Mr. John Gormley. In fairness, it was a very comprehensive review undertaken by Mr. John McCarthy. It said that serious legislative change was needed to make the EPA more accountable and effective. It said that under the legislation covering it, the EPA had blanket statutory immunity when carrying out its functions. The report said that this was very difficult to justify in a modern context because there should be no need for that kind of statutory immunity if the EPA is carrying out its job and functions correctly. What is it afraid of? I do not see why it should be afraid of litigation if it has done everything in the right order. Perhaps that is the crux of the problem. That report also said that it would be appropriate for the agency to be brought under the remit of the Ombudsman in respect of any alleged maladministration.
I raised the matter of an environmental ombudsman with the director of the EPA, Ms Laura Burke, when she attended a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht last November. That stemmed from an interview with Ms Burke when she took over, which I read. It alarmed me because when she took over, she said she wanted to reposition the agency to support economic growth and move away from the perception that it was purely an environmental watchdog or policeman. She did say Irish businesses were broadly compliant. I do not know what kind of statement that was. Was she referring to investors who are not Irish and who might not be compliant? That investigation also noted concern among stakeholders at the apparently low level of prosecutions being taken. At the time, the director general said: What you don't want to do is go racing to prosecute. What you look at is guidance for the sector, you put in a proper licensing regime, you then do audits, inspections, etc, and you give businesses a chance to put in rectifying measures. And in the context of companies not delivering on their side of licensing, then you go to prosecutions, but enforcement is much more than prosecution.
That to me gave carte blanche to any investor and told them that the EPA is open for business, that they could do what they wanted and that the EPA would not be heavy-handed with regard to any regulation. It seemed a little lax and light touch. We have seen where light-touch regulation got this country in the past. When it comes to investment and investment in jobs, the Government's mantra has been that it is all about jobs.
Where I come from, there is a plant called Aughinish Alumina, which employs approximately 250 people. While it is great that we have those jobs in the county, the EPA should not be facilitating jobs for the sake of jobs or economic growth if human health comes second. This may be what is happening. When I questioned the director general of the EPA about whether the agency would have an argument against falling under the Ombudsman legislation, she said "Absolutely not." She stated: In drafting the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government engaged extensively with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Office of the Attorney General on this issue to achieve an acceptable legislative wording to enable administrative procedures to fall within the legislation, but excluding the quasi-judicial function of the EPA. A satisfactory form of wording was not finalised so the EPA remains exempt for the purpose of the Act. However, we have no objection to falling within that Act.
Is it that there has not been enough capital investment to create such an office? There certainly is a need for an office of the ombudsman for the EPA when decisions have to be questioned. This is in order that people will not have to go to the High Court, Supreme Court and elsewhere. There should be an ombudsman's office to protect people.
Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Dara Murphy): The Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 2012 was signed into law by the President on 31 October 2012. The effect of the Act is that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform can, by regulation, provide that entities be included under the remit of the Ombudsman.
I am advised that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, under whose remit the Environmental Protection Agency rests, had communicated to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that it wished to see the administrative functions of the EPA included in the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill 2012, but that the substance of licensing, regulation and enforcement be excluded, on the grounds that such decisions are quasi-judicial and highly technical. There are separate review and appeals structures governing these functions. As an acceptable form of wording could not be devised, the EPA was placed on the list of exempted agencies, as outlined in the Second Schedule to the Act.
The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government fully endorses the recommendation of the independent review of the EPA, which was completed in 2011 by a panel of experts from across the main areas connected to the work of the agency. It stated the "EPA should be subject to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction in respect of alleged maladministration".
In considering oversight by the Ombudsman, the review was positive about the possible impact of the EPA coming within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, as follows: The Group concluded that the EPA should be subject to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. This development would provide a free, independent complaint mechanism in the case of alleged maladministration by the EPA. The availability of such an avenue of redress would serve to increase accountability and transparency and underpin public confidence in the EPA.
However, the executive summary of the review stated clearly, "Given its quasi-judicial role in respect of licensing and the technical environmental expertise required, it would not be appropriate for the substance of decisions taken by the EPA to be subject to such review." It should also be borne in mind that EPA decisions may also be challenged in the courts by way of judicial review.
It remains the Department's position that the administrative functions of the EPA should be subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, once a satisfactory mechanism for this outcome has been developed. However, for the reasons outlined by the independent review group, the substance of the EPA's decisions in areas of licensing, regulation and enforcement should be excluded from the Ombudsman's remit.
It is not proposed to establish a new agency in the form of an environment ombudsman's office, as suggested by the Senator. The Government has put considerable time and effort into reducing the number of State bodies as part of the public sector reform process. For example, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has reduced the number of agencies under its remit from 22 to 11, including the successfully completed merger of the former Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland with the EPA in 2014.
The Department will continue to work with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to agree an appropriate mechanism for bringing the administrative functions of the EPA under the remit of the existing Office of the Ombudsman.
Senator James Heffernan: With the greatest of respect, that is just pure waffle. It is what I heard previously from the director general of the EPA, namely, that an acceptable form of wording could not be found. How many experts are working in the Department who could not formulate acceptable wording? It is no good telling this to people whose children are getting cancer.
An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator have a question for the Minister of State?
Senator James Heffernan: I do. I will show the Minister of State exactly why there is a need for an ombudsman inquiry or a different form of inquiry into the EPA. Let me refer to the preliminary documentation produced by the EPA in 2007 regarding the granting of a licence to Aughinish Alumina, the plant about which I am talking. The documents states, "Notwithstanding this clause the licensee is prohibited from commencing deposition of process residues in [...] in advance of an agreed security being in place". That means that one cannot go dumping one's rubbish until a bond is in place such that if there is a disaster there will be enough money to clear it up.
An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator have a question for the Minister of State?
Senator James Heffernan: I have.
An Cathaoirleach: Ask the question, please.
Senator James Heffernan: The meeting to which I referred resulted in the advocating of the deletion of the whole final sentence. True enough, when a licence was granted to the people who are continuing to pollute in my area, there is no sign of it at all.
An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator have a question?
Senator James Heffernan: We still have no bond in place. We still have no protection for the taxpayer or the people in Limerick and elsewhere around the country. If something goes wrong, we will be left picking up the tab again. This was a decision made by the EPA.
An Cathaoirleach: I have given the Senator a fair opportunity to ask a question.
Senator James Heffernan: That stinks to the highest heaven and has to be investigated by someone somewhere. If an acceptable form of wording cannot be formulated to bring the EPA within the remit of the Office of the Ombudsman, I despair over the quality of the staff being employed by the Government.
Deputy Dara Murphy: I reiterate that a satisfactory mechanism will be found. Decisions may be challenged in the courts or by way of judicial review.
Senator James Heffernan: At a cost of thousands or millions of euro to ordinary people.
Sitting suspended at 11.20 a.m. and resumed at noon.
Order of Business
Senator Maurice Cummins: The Order of Business is No. 1, Betting (Amendment) Bill 2013 - Report and Final Stages, to be taken at 1.15 p.m.; and No. 2, Private Members' business, Adoption (Identity and Information) Bill 2014 - Committee and Remaining Stages, to be taken at 4 p.m and conclude not later than 6 p.m.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: We are due to take the Betting (Amendment) Bill 2013 today. In that context, I do not know whether the Leader has received an indication regarding whether the Minister is going to provide an update on the gambling control Bill, which was supposed to be introduced in conjunction with the former. Last week the Minister gave a commitment to seek an update on the current status of the gambling control Bill. These two items of legislation should have been dealt with together, but that has not proved to be the case. I know that the Leader shares my concerns about this matter.
What is the position on the education (admission to school) Bill? This Bill was originally scheduled to be published in 2014 but the Government legislation programme indicates that it is due for publication this year. Only the heads of the Bill have been published. The former Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, was intent on bringing about some degree of standardisation with regard to school enrolment policies and in terms of what constitutes a catchment area. I agree with what the previous Minister was trying to do because it is very important. This week, thousands of children in Dublin and, I am sure, throughout the remainder of the country will receive letters refusing them entry to primary schools for a variety of reasons. Parents find it increasingly frustrating that schools' enrolment policies differ from each other. For example, a child might be higher up the ladder in terms of eligibility for enrolment in one school and lower down in respect of another. In addition, schools can arbitrarily redraw their catchment areas in any given year. A school can decide to expand its catchment area when it wants to increase pupil numbers and retain teaching posts but reduce it when the requirement is to keep numbers static. It is impossible for parents and children to manage in such circumstances. The education (admission to school) Bill was promised almost three years ago. It would facilitate an important reform in the area of education. I accept that she may have done so, but I certainly have not heard the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, mention it once. I am of the view that there is an opportunity for her to introduce the Bill in order that the Second Stage debate might proceed. I ask the Leader to use his good offices to discover what is the current status of the Bill.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I am sure colleagues will join me in offering best wishes to the two prison officers who were so brutally wounded yesterday during an escape by a prisoner they had accompanied to Tallaght hospital. There has been a good deal of commentary in respect of this particularly heinous attack, which is the subject of an ongoing Garda operation. Yesterday, a number of colleagues raised the issue of crime. The Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality is due to begin its hearings on gangland crime at 2.30 p.m. If colleagues have an interest in that matter or in ways in which the Government and legislators can take action, then perhaps they might consider attending.
I welcome the passage through the Seanad last night of the Gender Recognition Bill after lengthy but very constructive Committee Stage and Report Stage debates, to which many colleagues contributed. I highlight the importance of the Government's introducing the Bill in the Seanad. In fact, the Government put forward some significant amendments on foot of the debates which took place here. I refer, in particular, to the amendment which will ensure the legislation is reviewed two years after its enactment. It is clear that any changes identified during that review will be made. The Bill is progressive and it is long overdue, and we can be pleased that the Seanad had quite an impact on it.
I welcome the announcement by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, in respect of a €300 million housing investment programme which will be jointly supported by the European Investment Bank and the Housing Finance Agency. I am sure Senator Aideeb Hayden will have more to say on this matter. This is the first ever support provided in respect of housing in Ireland by the European Investment Bank. This is an extremely welcome and major investment which will facilitate the construction of an additional 2,000 social housing units in the next three years.
Senator Denis O'Donovan: I express my deep concern and alarm at the fact that two prison officers were seriously injured yesterday when accompanying a prisoner - apparently he is a diabetic - to hospital. There are serious questions to be asked in respect of this matter. How did the criminal in question, who escaped and who some years ago was serving 22 life sentences in England before absconding, arrive in Ireland in the first instance? Where did he get the knife he used in his escape? Did he bring it with him from the prison? If the answer is in the affirmative, then serious questions arise. How is it that Irish taxpayers are paying for this man to be imprisoned in this jurisdiction? I would be quite happy if he were returned to Britain serve his life sentences at Her Majesty's pleasure. Why was an armed garda not tasked with accompanying this very dangerous prisoner to hospital? Two prisoner officers were obliged to undergo surgery after he attacked them and another was seriously traumatised. What would be the position if a member of staff at the hospital had been badly injured? That could easily have happened. There are major questions to be asked about how this particular prisoner managed to escape and why no armed protection was provided for the prison officers who accompanied him to hospital. I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that the Minister for Justice and Equality come before the House to make a statement on the matter.
For logistical reasons and because the prisoner is still at large, there are the operational difficulties in this regard, but she could make a statement to assuage the fears in this House and among the public. There is deep concern, not alone throughout Dublin but throughout the country, that such a dangerous criminal is at large.
It may not be facilitated in the other House, but I also ask the Leader whether the Assaults on Emergency Workers Bill 2012, which was geared towards protecting prison officers, firemen, etc., and which was introduced in the other House by Deputy Niall Collins, could be looked at again by the Government. The Bill included measures to protect prison officers, firemen and front-line service staff. It is an important issue. It is so urgent that the Minister should come in here today, even for 30 minutes, to make a statement on this incident.
Senator Paul Coghlan: There is no doubt that changes need to be made to put city centre land and zoned and serviced land in other towns and cities throughout the State to better use. I very much welcome the reference by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, in his budget speech to zoned and serviced land. In fact, following that, he has launched a public consultation on the potential of taxation measures to encourage the development of zoned and serviced land. In that regard, interested parties are invited to submit their views on the potential of taxation. The measure is designed to encourage the development of land. People should be aware that the consultation will run for 12 weeks, from 16 February until 8 May, this year. We face much dereliction all over the place. In the interests of many sectors, particularly housing within cities, it needs to happen.
There was mention of the living city initiative. Those Senators who are from Dublin would know more about that than I would. If we are to provide for renewal and regeneration, a scheme, - similar to the wonderful scheme introduced by a previous Fianna Fáil-Labour Party Government, which enjoyed cross-party support - with proper rationale and for a limited period, and not left open-ended, would be put to proper use by those who own zoned and serviced land. The sooner that is tackled, the better. Primarily, I want to advertise the fact that there is a public consultation period and that interested parties should avail of it. I hope that, as a result of it, a good scheme will evolve.
Senator Thomas Byrne: I support Senator Denis O'Donovan's amendment to the Order of Business. It is essential that the Minister come to the House. I do not think she has said anything about it - certainly, there is nothing that I can find on the record. The prisoner concerned arrived in this country in 2012 after escaping from prison across the water in England, where he was serving 22 life sentences. We have been left with him. The Government has not protected the public from him. There is a lack of resources in the Irish Prison Service and the Garda, and the Government has let this man free and loose on the people of Ireland. That is what has happened and the people are angry about it. On that basis, I support Senator Denis O'Donovan's amendment. This is a serious public order issue. It is a serious issue which affects the health, safety and welfare of the people of Ireland. This man is on the loose and the Government has put him on the loose. The Minister should tell us what she is doing to get him back into jail and back across the water where he belongs in the worse jail in England.
Senator Aideen Hayden: Like my colleague, Senator Ivana Bacik, I welcome the announcement of the availability of €300 million, co-funded by the European Investment Bank and the Housing Finance Agency, to the voluntary housing sector for the delivery of approximately 2,000 additional units. We all will be aware of the difficult situation we are in, with almost 90,000 households on the housing waiting list. It is something the Government inherited. I am not trying to say it was entirely the previous Government's problem; of course, it was not. We faced a major international financial crisis. We are turning the corner on that crisis and it is good to see - particularly for the voluntary housing association sector, which has had difficulty in accessing finance - that it will be an important pillar in the social housing strategy. The voluntary housing association sector, notably organisations such as Clúid, which was involved in this announcement today, is active in the local community. My colleague, Senator Paul Coghlan, would be happy to know that this announcement was made in Killarney Court which is in Dublin but named after his town of origin. It is good news and I believe it will be welcomed by both sides of the House. It is one step on the way towards the recovery of social housing in this country.
Senator Paschal Mooney: Yesterday, I raised the issue of the assault on the integrity and sovereignty of this country by a major tobacco company. The company has now been joined, believe it or not, by IBEC and the US Chamber of Commerce in threatening the Government of this country on legislation that passed through this House which mandates plain packaging for cigarettes. I am merely putting down another marker that I hope this will stiffen the Government's resolve. To use American parlance directed at the US Chamber of Commerce and IBEC, "Butt out, guys." It is the right of the Parliament of this country to pass legislation that we believe is in the best interests of the health of the nation, and to suggest there will be some loss of tax revenue as a result completely ignores the significant amounts spent on the health service as a consequence of smokers suffering and, sadly, dying of lung cancer. I am keeping it on the agenda. I hope the Leader will continue to convey the stiff resolve of this House, as reflected last year in the passage of the Bill, to ensure that the Bill goes through the lower House.
I also propose an amendment to the Order of Business: that the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy James Reilly, come before the House to explain the Government's policy on child care costs. Yesterday, we heard from over 2,000 volunteers and others employed on miserly wages in the child care sector from all parts, including my part, of the country. I declare an interest in that I am chairperson in a voluntary capacity of the County Leitrim Childcare Committee and I am, in a sense, at the coalface of what is going on in child care in my county. I do not profess to be an expert in it, but I know that what they were out there complaining about yesterday is a valid and legitimate cause. It is extraordinary that people who have gone through the education system and attained qualifications up to third level are being paid €10 an hour, which is just above the minimum wage. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his indulgence. There is a desperate need for increased investment in child care in this country. We spend approximately 0.2% of GDP on this area, when the OECD average is 0.7%. That figure applies right across European countries, although the spend of some of those countries is much higher than that. We also have the highest child care costs, with the United States, which is an unenviable position for this country to be in. The child care costs imposed on hard-pressed parents in this country are 40% higher than average. Many such parents have had to leave the workforce because they cannot afford child care, which is also not in the best interests of society in general, apart altogether from the economy. For that and other reasons, it is vital that the Minister come before the House today to outline what the Government will do in response to the legitimate issues that were raised by the rally yesterday.
Senator Colm Burke: I agree with my colleague, Senator Paschal Mooney, about IBEC and the US Chamber of Commerce. My message to IBEC is clear. We are spending €260 million a week on health care. That budget will continue to increase because of the requirement for us to deal with the issues that arise as a result of people smoking. If they want to increase taxation, let them come out and state that they are in agreement with the raising of taxation on the business sector to pay for our abandonment of the plain packaging policy for cigarettes. We have taken the correct decision on this, and if we must face court challenges on it, let us do so. IBEC should not be putting out a view that is not in the best interests of Irish people.
I refer to the issue of taxation on land which is lying idle and which has infrastructure. It is fine to talk about taxation, but one of our biggest current problems in the housing market is the lack of finance for the building sector. There is a significant problem.
I had experience of it when acting for someone. We looked to the banks for finance, but they told us that they were unprepared to entertain anything involving the building industry. We can apply all of the taxation we like on land that is lying idle, but until finance is made available to the industry to start the process of building in order that we might meet our housing targets each year, we will go nowhere. We should start to examine this issue and hold a debate on determining the best way forward. We will address social housing, but we must also consider how to finance the building of houses in the private sector.
Senator David Cullinane: I support the call for a debate on child care and will gladly second the amendment to the Order of Business if it has not already been seconded. Yesterday, there was a protest on the matter outside Leinster House. A number of issues are at play. Child care provision is a major issue for many families and the lack of State-provided child care services means that a large number of low-paid people are not getting the support they need, presenting a barrier to many women returning to the labour market. According to the report of the Think-tank for Action on Social Change, TASC, that was published on Monday, 30% of a family's income is spent on child care. That is a large amount of disposable income. It is becoming a major issue and is one of the reasons for income and economic inequality in the State, given the fact that we do not invest in public services or child care. It was not that long ago that the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection stated that she would hold off on cutting the income disregard for the one-parent family allowance until there had been proper investment in community child care. The cuts went ahead, but the investment in child care did not. Many people working in the child care sector are in receipt of low pay. In the Leader's city of Waterford, people who were working full time at a child care centre for €250 per week were asked to take a 5% pay cut because of cutbacks. This is the reality for many low-paid workers in the sector. They do the courses, many have degrees and they take up jobs to provide a good and necessary service, but they are on low pay. A range of issues need to be considered.
Senator Hildegarde Naughton: I wish to raise some good news for the west, particularly rural Ireland. This week, the Minister for Health, Deputy Leo Varadkar, announced a €5.4 million increase in the national ambulance service's budget to help address service gaps in the area. Provision has been made for 50 paramedic posts in the west, some of whom will be used to staff ambulance stations at Tuam and Mulranny, while others will assist in the move from on-call to on-duty rostering. The Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, announced new arrangements to support rural schools, including some smaller schools in County Galway, via better teacher retention thresholds. Both announcements are positive news for rural Ireland. As our economy improves, it is imperative that serious consideration be given to the value of developing rural communities.
Senator Paul Bradford: I did not expect to be called so quickly. I support the argument on rural development presented at the tail end of Senator Hildegarde Naughton's contribution. We are in the latter part of the Government's term of office and cannot expect miracles at this late stage, but the concept of rural and regional affairs is worthy of more detailed consideration. Some time ago, I suggested to the Leader that we try to hold a debate on regional Ireland from the perspective of industry, planning and housing. The future of rural Ireland would also form part of the debate.
The proposed development of social housing was mentioned. I welcome it and spoke on the subject last week. It is essential that we have a well devised and well crafted plan for social housing. It is also important that the House hold the debate on housing policy for which a number of us asked last week. While every additional social housing unit is not just necessary but welcome, we must be careful about the design, style and concept of social housing. We do not want to repeat some of the mistakes made in the 1960s and 1970s when our approach to social housing caused a great deal of social difficulty, including the unfortunate near ghettoisation of certain communities. The investment announced for social housing must be welcomed, but we need to debate and make suggestions on how to proceed with a social housing plan for our people. In conjunction with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, the Leader might attempt to arrange a debate at their earliest convenience.
Senator Michael Mullins: I join colleagues in welcoming yesterday's positive announcement by the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, on assisting smaller primary schools throughout the country. It means a great deal to the parents and students of those schools, which saw themselves as being under threat in recent times. In my area, St. Teresa's primary school in Killure near Ballinasloe will remain a two-teacher school for the 2015-16 school year. The school at Laurencetown, Ballinasloe, will remain a three-teacher school. I also welcome the decision to change the threshold to 15 pupils for schools that are more than 5 km from a school of similar patronage. This will help the Church of Ireland school at Aughrim, Ballinasloe, and is good news for everyone involved. This proves that the Government is listening to Oireachtas Members who have referred to the need to ensure the fabric of life in rural Ireland is maintained. The recent appointment of a Minister of State with responsibility for rejuvenating rural development is to be welcomed. I join Senator Paul Bradford in calling for a full and frank debate on how to ensure that the quality of life in rural Ireland is enhanced in the years ahead.
Senator Catherine Noone: I join other Senators, particularly Senator Paschal Mooney, regarding the plain packaging issue. There is no more appropriate day than Ash Wednesday on which to speak of the introduction of plain packaging. I agree with Senator Colm Burke's point about IBEC and the cost added by smoking-related illnesses to the €260 million per week that we spend on health care. It beggars belief and is deplorable that IBEC and the American Chamber of Commerce would support a global cigarette company in this way.
Senator Paschal Mooney: It is disgraceful.
Senator Catherine Noone: I hope we will challenge the court actions head on and without fear.
Senator Paschal Mooney: These are only delaying tactics.
Senator Catherine Noone: Yes. It is unsavoury and inappropriate, to say the least.
On a more minor issue, I was glad to read this morning that on-street chuggers - charity muggers, those people who collect for charities by using inventive measures, to put it mildly, to ask people on the street for direct debits - will be subject to new regulations under which they will be required to hold permits. Permits are required on the streets of Dublin for far less, including busking. Where a person is handing over banking details to someone on the street, it is appropriate that the transaction be regulated to some extent. Charities would welcome this, as would I, given the fact that I called for it approximately two years ago.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Darragh O'Brien referred to the gambling control Bill. We will await the Minister's comments on same.
We were initially told that the Bill would be introduced last year, but I now understand it will not be published before the summer. I agree with the Senator that it was initially intended that the Betting (Amendment) Bill and the gambling control Bill would be run fairly closely together. Unfortunately, however, that is not the case. We will await the Minister's pronouncement on the matter when dealing with the Betting (Amendment) Bill later today. As regards the education (admission to schools) Bill, I will try to ascertain the current position and revert to the Senator.
Senators Ivana Bacik, Denis O'Donovan and Thomas Byrne extended good wishes to the prison officers who were seriously injured yesterday by a very dangerous person. As we know, that person had been convicted of many offences in the United Kingdom. I agree with Senator Denis O'Donovan that a thorough investigation should take place. My understanding is that it is an ongoing Garda operation and, consequently, it would not be appropriate for the Minister for Justice and Equality to attend the House to discuss the matter at this stage. What occurred yesterday highlights for us the work of the Irish Prison Service which goes unnoticed by many. Prison staff do tremendous work which is very dangerous. We should be grateful to the men and women concerned who work in difficult circumstances. I agree that quite a number of questions need to be answered, including why it was decided that no armed guard would accompany this dangerous man. Such questions will form part of the ongoing Garda investigation. It is to be hoped this man will be apprehended in the coming weeks. He has many sentences yet to serve in the United Kingdom, where he also escaped from a prison. That highlights the danger he poses. I agree that, if possible, the sentences should be served in the other jurisdiction.
Senator Paul Coghlan referred to proposed tax measures to encourage the use of zoned and serviced land and derelict sites. As he pointed out, there will be a public consultation process on this issue for the next 12 weeks. He also mentioned the living city initiative, which was discussed during the debate on the Finance Bill. At the time the Minister said he expected the initiative to be in place by February. They were awaiting the go-ahead from the European Union for the incentive and I hope that is still the position. The initiative would be of tremendous benefit in Dublin and other cities included in the scheme.
Senator Aideen Hayden welcomed the €300 million from the European Investment Bank and the Housing Finance Agency for the voluntary housing sector. The sector needed such an injection of cash which will go towards the cost of building 2,000 extra homes. It is good news for all concerned in the sector. Senator Paul Bradford also raised the question of housing. I have invited the Minister of State, Deputy Paudie Coffey, to attend the House to discuss the housing strategy. I hope that will happen in the next couple of weeks.
Senators Paschal Mooney and Catherine Noone referred to the perceived support of the tobacco industry by IBEC and the American Chamber of Commerce. It is Government policy that plain packaging will come into play. The Government is intent on not bowing to pressure from the American Chamber of Commerce, IBEC or anybody else. As was pointed out yesterday, this House voted unanimously in favour of the introduction of plain packaging of tobacco products. We will have legal threats from the sector, but the Government intends to proceed as planned.
Senators Paschal Mooney and David Cullinane raised the question of child care workers. There is definitely a need for greater investment in this sector. As I said yesterday, quite a number of professionals have spent three or four years in college, yet the pay scales are very low for such qualified individuals. I am sure that is one of the areas the Low Pay Commission will be investigating. We might be able to get the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy James Reilly, to attend the House for a debate on the child care sector. Many Members would appreciate the opportunity to have such a discussion.
Senator Hildegarde Naughton referred to increased funding for the National Ambulance Service, particularly in the west. This will be welcomed by everyone living in a rural area. In addition, the Senator, with Senator Michael Mullins, sought support for small rural schools, an issue that has been raised in the House on many occasions. I am glad that the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, has listened to these concerns and acted on suggestions made by many Senators and Members of the other House.
Senator Sean D. Bradford raised the question of rural and regional affairs. The Minister of State, Deputy Ann Phelan, has attended the House for a debate on the CEDRA report, but perhaps we might invite her back for a debate on rural and regional affairs. As there are many good news stories which need to be told, I will invite her back again.
Senator Catherine Noone mentioned regulations with regard to what are called charity muggers. The regulation of all such activities is necessary and will be welcomed by all concerned.
Senator Darragh O'Brien mentioned the education (admission to schools) Bill, the drafting of which is well advanced. A further provision for inclusion in the Bill was recently prepared for Cabinet approval. The Bill will be published by the end of the summer.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Denis O'Donovan has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: "That a debate with the Minister for Justice and Equality on the circumstances surrounding the escape of a prisoner from custody during a visit to Tallaght hospital be taken today." Is the amendment being pressed?
Senator Denis O'Donovan: Yes.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 24.
| Tá |
Níl |
| Byrne, Thomas. |
Bacik, Ivana. |
| Craughwell, Gerard P. |
Bradford, Paul. |
| Cullinane, David. |
Brennan, Terry. |
| Daly, Mark. |
Burke, Colm. |
| Heffernan, James. |
Coghlan, Eamonn. |
| Leyden, Terry. |
Coghlan, Paul. |
| Mooney, Paschal. |
Comiskey, Michael. |
| Mullen, Rónán. |
Conway, Martin. |
| Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. |
Cummins, Maurice. |
| Ó Murchú, Labhrás. |
D'Arcy, Jim. |
| O'Brien, Darragh. |
Gilroy, John. |
| O'Donovan, Denis. |
Hayden, Aideen. |
| O'Sullivan, Ned. |
Healy Eames, Fidelma. |
| Quinn, Feargal. |
Henry, Imelda. |
| Reilly, Kathryn. |
Kelly, John. |
| Wilson, Diarmuid. |
Moloney, Marie. |
| |
Mulcahy, Tony. |
| |
Mullins, Michael. |
| |
Naughton, Hildegarde. |
| |
Noone, Catherine. |
| |
O'Neill, Pat. |
| |
van Turnhout, Jillian. |
| |
Whelan, John. |
| |
Zappone, Katherine. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ned O'Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.
Amendment declared lost.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Paschal Mooney has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business, “That a debate with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs on Government policy on child care costs be taken today.” Is the amendment being pressed?
Senator Paschal Mooney: I hope that, because of the importance of this issue, there will be support from both sides of the House.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 22.
| Tá |
Níl |
| Bradford, Paul. |
Bacik, Ivana. |
| Byrne, Thomas. |
Brennan, Terry. |
| Craughwell, Gerard P. |
Burke, Colm. |
| Cullinane, David. |
Coghlan, Eamonn. |
| Daly, Mark. |
Coghlan, Paul. |
| Healy Eames, Fidelma. |
Comiskey, Michael. |
| Heffernan, James. |
Conway, Martin. |
| Leyden, Terry. |
Cummins, Maurice. |
| Mooney, Paschal. |
D'Arcy, Jim. |
| Mullen, Rónán. |
Gilroy, John. |
| Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. |
Hayden, Aideen. |
| Ó Murchú, Labhrás. |
Henry, Imelda. |
| O'Brien, Darragh. |
Kelly, John. |
| O'Donovan, Denis. |
Moloney, Marie. |
| O'Sullivan, Ned. |
Mulcahy, Tony. |
| Quinn, Feargal. |
Mullins, Michael. |
| Reilly, Kathryn. |
Naughton, Hildegarde. |
| Wilson, Diarmuid. |
Noone, Catherine. |
| |
O'Neill, Pat. |
| |
van Turnhout, Jillian. |
| |
Whelan, John. |
| |
Zappone, Katherine. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Ned O'Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.
Amendment declared lost.
Question put: "That the Order of Business be agreed to."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 12.
| Tá |
Níl |
| Bacik, Ivana. |
Byrne, Thomas. |
| Bradford, Paul. |
Craughwell, Gerard P. |
| Brennan, Terry. |
Cullinane, David. |
| Burke, Colm. |
Daly, Mark. |
| Coghlan, Eamonn. |
Leyden, Terry. |
| Coghlan, Paul. |
Mooney, Paschal. |
| Comiskey, Michael. |
Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. |
| Conway, Martin. |
Ó Murchú, Labhrás. |
| Cummins, Maurice. |
O'Brien, Darragh. |
| D'Arcy, Jim. |
O'Donovan, Denis. |
| Gilroy, John. |
Reilly, Kathryn. |
| Hayden, Aideen. |
Wilson, Diarmuid. |
| Heffernan, James. |
|
| Henry, Imelda. |
|
| Higgins, Lorraine. |
|
| Kelly, John. |
|
| Landy, Denis. |
|
| Moloney, Marie. |
|
| Mulcahy, Tony. |
|
| Mullen, Rónán. |
|
| Mullins, Michael. |
|
| Naughton, Hildegarde. |
|
| Noone, Catherine. |
|
| O'Neill, Pat. |
|
| Quinn, Feargal. |
|
| van Turnhout, Jillian. |
|
| Zappone, Katherine. |
|
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Paschal Mooney and Diarmuid Wilson.
Question declared carried.
Sitting suspended at 1.10 p.m. and resumed at 1.15 p.m.
Betting (Amendment) Bill 2013: Report and Final Stages
Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, and his officials. Before we commence, I remind Senators that they may only speak once on Report Stage, except for the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Also on Report Stage, each amendment must be seconded. Amendment No. 1 is in the names of Senators Darragh O'Brien, Thomas Byrne and other Fianna Fáil Senators.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: I move amendment No. 1: 1. In page 41, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:“40. The Minister shall, within 3 months of the enactment of this Act, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on measures that will be undertaken to protect vulnerable people from engaging in harmful gambling and the manner in which remote betting intermediaries must assist in this.”.
I mentioned this amendment on a previous occasion and I have retabled it. This amendment calls for the Government to lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas within three months of the enactment of the Bill, which we support, a report on the measures which will be undertaken to protect vulnerable people from engaging in harmful gambling and the manner in which remote betting intermediaries must assist in this. When the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, was in this House last week, we sought an update on the gambling control Bill and its progress and we were given a commitment on it. This is crucially important. I know that Senator Maurice Cummins, as Leader of the House, agrees that we were hoping for both Bills to be introduced in tandem. The amendment is clear and makes sense. I will not delay the House on that basis.
I would like Minister of State to advise the status of, and the progress that has been made on, the gambling control Bill.
Senator Maurice Cummins: I am sympathetic to the amendment proposed by Senator Darragh O'Brien but I await the Minister of State's response. I share the Senator's concerns about the gambling control Bill. It was intended that it would be introduced in parallel with the Betting (Amendment) Bill. I am aware it is a matter for the Department of Justice and Equality but it is not leading to the spirit that was intended in respect of them in our not having them running fairly close together. I hope the Minister of State might be able to throw some light on that in regard to the gambling control Bill.
This Betting (Amendment) Bill fails to introduce even the most basic social protection measures such as those found in other regulated jurisdictions whereby online operators are obliged to provide time-out facilities and allow players to set a maximum time limit for gambling purposes before they commence play. Such measures would be a fundamental licensing requirement in other jurisdictions. While the Bill is worthy of support, the heavy hitting in terms of the backup measures that are required will come in the gambling control Bill . I am disappointed that it has not been advanced to such a stage where we could immediately move on to discuss it within the next number of weeks. That is obviously not going to happen, but I would hope it could be enacted this year. If more resources are required in order to deal with the framing and drafting of it, they should be put in place because of its importance for people to have such a Bill in place. I am sympathetic towards the Senator's amendment and I await the Minister of State's response as to whether he can accede to it.
Senator Thomas Byrne: I second the amendment.
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Simon Harris): I thank Senator Darragh O'Brien for tabling the amendment. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, is fully in agreement on the need to provide protection for consumers and the supervision of operators providing online betting services is a first step in this direction. The Betting (Amendment) Bill puts in place a regulatory system for the remote sector, including betting intermediaries, who, up until this point, have been unregulated. The Bill provides that in order to offer betting services in this jurisdiction, a remote betting operator or betting intermediary must first secure a certificate of personal fitness from the Minister for Justice and Equality. This certificate of personal fitness determines whether a person is a qualified person to hold a remote bookmaker's or betting intermediary's licence and, together with the possession of tax clearance certificate and the payment of the appropriate licence fee, the certificate must be presented to the Revenue Commissioners to allow them to then issue a licence.
The Bill also includes specific grounds for the refusal or revocation of a certificate of personal fitness, including where a person stands convicted of an offence under specified Acts in Ireland or elsewhere, relating to the conduct of gambling where an applicant who has previously held a bookmaker's licence has in the past refused to pay sums due or conducted the business in a disorderly manner, or where an applicant is not a fit or proper person under the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. In addition, the Bill specifically provides for the extension to the remote sector of the prohibition on taking a bet or engaging in a betting transaction with a person under the age of 18 years. Up until this point there has been no regulation of this area.
As the Minister said in earlier debates during the passage of this legislation, the introduction of this Bill is an interim measure pending the enactment of the gambling control Bill. One of the fundamental principles underpinning the gambling control Bill is the protection of minors and other vulnerable persons. That Bill will make clear the responsibilities of licensed operators when it comes to ensuring that these persons are not permitted to access gambling services. The Minister for Justice and Equality will be responsible for the monitoring of the activities of operators in this regard.
I am conscious that Senator Darragh O'Brien and others have sought an update on the position regarding the gambling control Bill. The Government approved the general scheme of that Bill in July 2013. I am informed that the scheme is with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and awaiting formal drafting. However, Senators will appreciate that a significant body of priority legislation dealing with societal issues, piloted by the Minister for Justice and Equality, is already scheduled for the Oireachtas in this term, including the amendment of the Constitution (marriage equality referendum) Bill, the Children and Family Relationships Bill, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill and the Garda Síochána (policing authority and miscellaneous provisions) Bill. Accordingly, it is not possible to say when the gambling control legislation will be published but I certainly will convey to the Minister the comments of the Leader of the House and Senator Darragh O'Brien in terms of the view that this legislation needs to be seen as quickly as possible.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: Tá fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I pressed an amendment to this Bill last week to provide that warnings would be issued by Government on all gambling and betting outlets. My colleague, Senator Darragh O'Brien, brought to the Seanad's attention the number of gambling machines that are available in betting offices. I heard today that a public house in the south east, well away from the Leader's constituency, now has a mini bookie office on its premises. I read some of the research on this area and this has particular resonance for the Minister for Finance. As much €27.3 million being lost annually as a result of gaming machines.
I related two stories here last week. One is the case of parents who found their son had raised debts of €15,000 through gambling. The other case is that of a married man who had lost €80,000 in the space of six weeks and was going home to face his wife. That man came in here and asked to see me. I did not know him, I do not know why he came here and why he asked to see me other than that he said I had recently been elected and he saw my name.
It strikes me that the Betting (Amendment ) Bill 2013 is more about revenue raising than anything else. There is not one sinew of social care, social justice or social protection to be found in that Bill. I understand the purpose behind it and that when the amendment to the Bill was drafted, it was not possible to include it in it. The amendment put forward by Fianna Fáil today is the best I could possibly hope for in the light of what I heard last week.
I wonder where the power is in this country behind gambling and why it is that we are afraid to confront this issue. When I turn on my television at night, I am invited to play bingo, roulette and every other game under the sun. I get constant messages through Facebook and Twitter inviting me to engage in some form of online gambling. Last week, Senator Mary Ann O'Brien told us about how she had registered simply to see how the system works and when she attempted to deregister from an online site, she got a plethora of e-mails and messages demanding to know why she wanted to leave it. We cannot afford to sit back and wait for the promised Bill. I cannot see a way that Bill will ever see the light of day in the life of the Government. The only way we can provide some form of protection is through this Bill. I commend Fianna Fáil for putting forward this amendment in light of the fact that my amendment was defeated last week.
I ask the Minister of State to consider two actions. The first is that he genuinely consider including the Fianna Fáil amendment but, more importantly, I want the Department of Finance, given that it controls Revenue, to start getting Revenue to do the job it is paid to do. I want every gambling house and betting shop in this country raided. I want Revenue to go out and find the illegal machines in place. I understand there are gaming machines on which a VAT rate of 1% is paid when a rate of 23% should be paid on them. I want this to be examined. I do not have to walk more than two miles to where I can see a few hundred machines that are in use all day every day that no longer takes coins but take notes. That is outrageous.
Last week, we heard the Leader of the House referring to children being brought to the tote. It was the first time in my life that I remembered that I was guilty of that myself. I brought my children to the Galway races, gave them little £5 notes and told them to cast a bet. At the time I did not realise it was as lethal as handing them their first heroin shot, because it does the same damage. Gambling destroys lives.
In the Irish Independentlast weekend Mr. Liam Fay wrote about the political folly of the new Senator talking about trying to play nanny to the State with respect to gambling. Mr. Fay obviously does not understand the damage-----
Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): The Senator must desist from naming people who are not Members and not here to defend themselves.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I deeply regret naming him. However, he had no difficulty in naming me.
Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): The Senator is a public figure.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: He put his name in the public domain when he named me and put his byline to it. Therefore, I do not apologise.
Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): The Senator has an opportunity to reply to the newspaper if he so wishes. I am simply asking him not to name anyone.
Senator John Gilroy: He is doing it here.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: Perhaps it was political folly, but I do not know that it is given the damage being done to families. Families are being destroyed. Let us consider what wives are told. The man who came to see me haunts me. I have thought of him going home to his wife and asking her to sit down because there is something he has to tell her. This haunts me because in 1983 when my business went bust, I had to walk out of the Bank of Ireland at 43 Eyre Square, go home to my wife and ask her to sit down because there was something I had to tell her. I had to tell her that I had lost not alone the business but our home and everything we owned as a result of a bad business venture. I had never backed anything much in my life, but I had backed a business that went wrong. I think of the pain and suffering that my wife went through at the time.
Now let us consider that in the context of the nonsense of gambling. Let us suppose I had taken the money and put it on a horse, a roulette wheel or whatever. I may have had to explain to my family that I had destroyed their lives, lost their home and all of their assets. The man in question told me about getting up in the middle of the night to get his smartphone for a couple of shots on the roulette wheel. I asked him whether it was the excitement of waiting for the win. He said that, in truth, the excitement passed the moment the bet was laid. He said he never cared whether he won or lost, it was a question of laying the bet. Waking up in the middle of the night to lay a bet is bad form. I call on the Minister of State to take on board Senator Darragh O'Brien's amendment and to amend the Bill. We need to do something urgently.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: Senator Gerard P. Craughwell has explained better than I ever could why this amendment is necessary. We had a good debate last week when a different Minister of State was in the House. We are trying to improve this legislation. Long before Senator Gerard P. Craughwell was elected, Senator Maurice Cummins and I had been raising issues about the Betting (Amendment) Bill. We wanted this legislation before the House for a variety of reasons. It is not, as some people have suggested, to create a nanny state in any way, shape or form. One of the reasons we sought to have the Bill relates to the betting side. It would provide some controls, bring extra funds to the Exchequer and provide a level playing pitch for independent bookmakers. They are closing every week throughout the country. It would give them an opportunity to stand up against the multiples.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. The response he gave, however, related strictly to betting rather than gambling. I know this Bill will regularise online betting but it does not do the same for online gambling or for the gambling machines to which Senator Gerard P. Craughwell adverted. We reckon there are approximately 6,780 of these machines in the country. The machines are not necessarily the problem. If someone is placing a bet, I would rather he did so at a bookies. People working in local bookie's shops know their punters. They can decide, for example, that a person has done enough on a given day and should not put on another bet. However, that cannot be done online.
Last week, I raised a matter with the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh. Bookies shops are now operating roulette wheels, virtual betting and virtual racing. It is possible to watch virtual dog and horse racing, that is, computer-generated races, when there is no racing on.
Senator Maurice Cummins: They are hobby horses.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: That is not covered by the Bill because it is considered gambling as opposed to betting. Let us consider all the various screens in bookie's shops, or roulette wheels with maximum bets of €100 per number. People can go into a card club or casino. I had hoped the gambling Bill would be introduced to regularise that sector and allow a public element in casinos. It is ridiculous that they are set up as private clubs. We could regularise that sector better. At least if a person goes into one of those establishments the maximum bet is €50. Again, these are generally run by professionals.
Let us return to what Senator Gerard P. Craughwell said. The Minister of State outlined the important legislation being processed in the Department. I fully appreciate that without question. The problem is that I have looked back over notes indicating that we were promised this legislation absolutely by summer 2014. However, based on the answer provided by the Minister of State it is not going to be brought in this year. It will not be brought in during the term of the Government, unfortunately. When is it going to become important? This is not a pop at the Government, the Minister of State or the officials, who are doing their level best, but it is not a priority.
The Minister of State should consider this with his revenue hat on. Money is being lost to the Exchequer by not regulating the gambling part of the sector. It amounts to millions. We reckon it is approximately €27 million, although it is probably more.
Let us consider the size of the industry in the rest of Europe and the question of foreign direct investment. Firms are looking at other countries to develop further what they are doing, but they are not coming to Ireland because we have not regulated the sector properly. We reckon there is considerable potential in the sector. However, I am concerned that although we are bringing in the Betting (Amendment) Bill now, there is no protection for people in real terms on the gambling side or for online gambling, which is actually the largest sector.
Senators Gerard P. Craughwell and Maurice Cummins have referred to roulette, bingo and so on. It is rife throughout the country. I am not a killjoy by any stretch of the imagination and I am not into big government or controlling everything and so on, but the fact that we are bringing forward legislation without a timeline for gambling control measures is wrong, especially since everyone agrees they are needed.
We should set something down in this area. That is why the amendment was tabled in good faith. It was to provide a timeframe under which the Government would have to come back within three months. This would indicate to the industry that the Government, whatever its make-up, was serious about addressing the sector. The problem is that when this goes through, it is done. There are no measures for a proper review. I realise the Minister of State referred to reports being laid before the House. If the Bill came back amended from the Seanad, it would send the message that we have included an important amendment that should be reconsidered in the Dáil. It could go to Cabinet then which could decide to prioritise gambling control legislation and ensure that, even if it is a slimmed-down version, it would get started. We are not seeking a panacea to all our ills, but perhaps a slimmed-down version. Why not do that?
I have no wish to divide the House on the matter and I opted not to divide the House last week. Instead, I asked the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, to seek an update. The Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, has provided an update but, unfortunately, it is insufficient. If we let the Bill go through with no amendments, the matter will be done and will not see the gambling control Bill in the term of the Government. I am willing to bet my house that the Government will not produce it because of the other priorities the Minister of State has outlined. This is why I will insist on pressing the amendment.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Darragh O'Brien should not lose the house whatever he does.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: That is it. Since there is no control in this area, I could do that. The only control in that case would be my wife. That is the reason for the amendment. It is not to cause any difficulty in any way, shape or form. We all agree this is a serious matter. It should be treated as such. We need the gambling control Bill but we do not have it.
Deputy Simon Harris: I thank all Senators for the debate and discussion on this point.
I am certainly not unsympathetic towards what the Senator is trying to do. There is very little of what Senators Gerard P. Craughwell, Darragh O'Brien and Maurice Cummins said with which I disagree. I, too, have seen at first hand the damaging effects of gambling on many people, including people close to me. It can be devastating, and Senator Gerard P. Craughwell is correct in that regard. The only point on which I disagree is on the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, which I believe is doing its job. Many of the issues fall outside its scope. They might be issues for the Garda or local authority, and that is where the gambling control Bill comes into play.
The priority regarding the Betting (Amendment) Bill has always been to put in place the regulatory system for the remote sector with a view to levelling the playing field for all bookmakers, remote and traditional, in terms of betting duties. Everybody in this House is largely in agreement with that. The other issues, such as the questions on the prohibition of advertising, and the wider societal issues, some of which we have touched on today, will be dealt with in the gambling control legislation being brought forward by the Minister for Justice and Equality. On the enactment of that legislation, we will have a regulator for the entire gambling sector for the first time. This marks significant progress.
Let me outline the difficulty with the amendment and the reason I am not in a position to accept it. This is the finance-related Bill while the gambling control Bill is the responsibility of the Department of Justice and Equality. It is at Parliamentary Counsel level and will deal with the justice and legal issues.
I am not sure what the amendment will achieve that is not already being achieved in preparation for the gambling control Bill. Members on all sides in both Houses and in the Government should work together on the gambling control Bill. By producing another report outlining what should be done to protect vulnerable people, one is serving the purpose of the gambling control Bill in dealing with the wider societal issues. I do not wish to be confrontational or partisan on this, because I accept that the amendment was tabled in good faith. Much of what has been said is valid, but I argue that there are two Bills proposed by the Government for the sector that must be considered, namely the Betting (Amendment) Bill, which is to put in place a regulatory structure for remote and traditional gambling and deal with the finance side, and a justice-related Bill, the gambling control Bill, which is to deal with the wider societal issues and gambling regulation. I understand Senator Darragh O'Brien will push this amendment to a vote, but I am not in a position, acting on behalf of the Minister for Finance, to accept it.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 23.
| Tá |
Níl |
| Byrne, Thomas. |
Bacik, Ivana. |
| Craughwell, Gerard P. |
Brennan, Terry. |
| Crown, John. |
Burke, Colm. |
| Leyden, Terry. |
Coghlan, Eamonn. |
| Mooney, Paschal. |
Coghlan, Paul. |
| Mullen, Rónán. |
Comiskey, Michael. |
| O'Brien, Darragh. |
Conway, Martin. |
| O'Brien, Mary Ann. |
Cummins, Maurice. |
| O'Donovan, Denis. |
D'Arcy, Jim. |
| Power, Averil. |
Gilroy, John. |
| Quinn, Feargal. |
Hayden, Aideen. |
| Reilly, Kathryn. |
Henry, Imelda. |
| Wilson, Diarmuid. |
Higgins, Lorraine. |
| |
Kelly, John. |
| |
Landy, Denis. |
| |
Moloney, Marie. |
| |
Mulcahy, Tony. |
| |
Mullins, Michael. |
| |
Naughton, Hildegarde. |
| |
Noone, Catherine. |
| |
O'Neill, Pat. |
| |
van Turnhout, Jillian. |
| |
Whelan, John. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Thomas Byrne and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.
Amendment declared lost.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Senator Darragh O'Brien: The Bill is an important step in the right direction; it will level the playing field for independent or traditional bookmakers in respect of the multinationals of the world, and it will regulate online betting. However, I inform colleagues that it does nothing about online gambling. I ask each Member who has a concern about this area, including the Minister of State who has more power than any of us, to ensure something is done this year about gambling control. The Bill is welcome and we support it, but nothing in it relates to gambling control, which needs to be addressed urgently by the Government. Unfortunately, the Minister of State's response today on behalf of the Government tells me nothing will be done this year, but let us try to change this. I ask the Minister of State to take a message back from the Seanad today that it is not acceptable for this to be left to the next Government or a future Government and that it continue to be long-fingered. It is far too serious an issue. We have regulated one part of the industry but have left the other free. I state this on behalf of my party as finance spokesperson and leader of the group. This needs to be addressed and I ask the Minister of State to take this back to the Government very clearly. We support the Bill which is a good and important step, but nothing has been done on gambling. We need to get there much more quickly than the Government is outlining.
Senator John Gilroy: The Bill is decent legislation which goes a long way towards levelling the playing field. Senator Darragh O'Brien is 100% right in what he has said. Not a Senator in the House would disagree that the gambling element of the betting industry needs to be regulated. We all know of heartbreaking cases of gambling addiction which need to be dealt with urgently. As we stated, we could not support the amendment because we feel it would be better placed in the gambling control Bill. I believe the Minister of State will take heed of what Senator Darragh O'Brien stated - that there is no timeframe for the gambling control Bill to come to the House and this is a real weakness and flaw. I hope we will be in a position to deal with it in this term as opposed to the next term. I know it is a matter for the Minister for Justice and Equality to bring forward this legislation. It would be good if we could initiate it in this House. I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House and handling his brief so competently. We look forward to seeing the gambling control Bill as soon as possible.
Senator Maurice Cummins: I welcome the Bill which is a good first step. Its focus is on facilitating the taxation of remote betting and levelling the playing field for bookmakers. Everybody will agree with this. I cannot disagree with anything my colleague in the Opposition stated. The gambling control Bill is an essential part of the gambling and betting jigsaw which must be put in place. We have now put in place one very important piece of this jigsaw, but it will not have the desired effect until such time as we have debated the gambling control Bill and it is in place. I appeal to the Minister of State through his good offices to try to expedite the passage of the Bill in order that it will be published by summer and introduced before the end of the year. Without it, what we are doing will only deal with part of the problem. We are trying to repeal a 1931 Act, but online betting and remote betting is far ahead of the legislation, as much has changed since 1931. Much has changed since 2010 in the industry and this will continue on an ongoing basis. We are in a catch-up situation. Unless we deal with the gambling control Bill as a matter of urgency we will fall further behind. People and families will suffer as a result, and I appeal to the Minister of State to try to expedite the gambling control Bill. I thank the Minister of State and his officials, as much work has gone into the Bill. I wish him well and I hope the gambling control Bill will come before us before the summer.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I wait with bated breath for the gambling control Bill. Last night I was thinking about gambling.
As I was thinking about it, an advertisement appeared on the television offering me access to the best bingo game in the world. I could pick from five or six by dialling some number or getting online. No sooner had that advertisement finished than something came up on the television offering me roulette and blackjack. I asked myself how many ways I could have gambled if I wanted to. What could I start betting on if I wanted to? Apart from the flies walking up the wall, I could bet on any of the things I had just mentioned - card games, roulette, blackjack, poker, you name it. I could bet on live and computer-generated horse races. I could bet in and out of the cloud. I could bet with Irish-based gambling houses or gambling houses from God knows where. I started to look a little further. I can bet on currencies and stock market movements and I can engage in spread betting. I can lose or make fortunes in moments. We have seen how contracts cost one man in this country €1.2 billion. That was gambling with the livelihoods of his workers. We need controls urgently.
As I have said, there is a proble. The Revenue Commissioners have responsibility for some part of what goes on in the gaming and gambling world, while the Garda has other responsibilities. God knows who else has responsibility everywhere else. It is possible to put forward some form of task force that will go into the betting houses of this country and start rooting out the illegal machines that are there. This will regularise the revenue requirements that are there. I understand that one can license a machine for three months and operate it for 12 months. One can decide whether one is going to pay 1% VAT on earnings from gambling or 23% VAT. It seems to be very much down to the owner of the emporium or saloon to decide what they are prepared to give.
I did not get the Government health warning through. I have not given up on it and will be pushing hard for that on aspects of gambling. All we are asking is that we control it. If I run an online system, I can have a database that will work the odds against the individual. As an individual improves, I can worsen their lot. I can limit the amount they are allowed to bet on any individual race on any individual issue because I do this with technology. I can profile John Bloggs, see where he normally bets and make it harder or easier for him in order to entice him and when he is in, give him a kicking because this is what technology does.
The Leader mentioned a 1931 Act which we are updating it in 2015.
An Cathaoirleach: We have had Second Stage speeches.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I just feel very passionate about this issue.
When the Minister of State goes back to his office today, he needs to pick up the telephone and ring the head of Revenue and the Minister of State in the Department of Justice and Equality and get them to ring An Garda Síochána. Let us bring them together in a room, sit down and see what we can do without the warnings I am looking for to limit the ripping-off of people. The sum of €27.3 million, to which Senator Darragh O'Brien alluded, would take many people off trolleys and put many people into nursing homes. We are allowing the fat cats of the gambling industry to rip us off day after day. It is time to put an end to this. I have no vested interest in it, thank God. If the Minister of State can do nothing else, he can do this much. He has the power to bring in the various heads of various statutory bodies which have responsibility and tell them he wants a report on his desk within a week about what steps they have taken to ensure the law is adhered to the letter. Let us try with the gambling control Bill and look at all the aspects of gambling. Let us be very broad in our definition of gambling.
Senator Martin Conway: I am in complete agreement with Senators Gerard P. Craughwell and Darragh O'Brien on these issues. To be fair, when the Leader was Opposition spokesperson on justice, he prepared some very good Private Members' legislation in this area. This is a step in the right direction. I have no doubt about the commitment of the Minister of State in this regard because he knows only too well that lives are being destroyed.
The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality held significant consultations with various stakeholders on gambling. I made some very interesting observations during that process. If one looks at traditional betting shops, it is a way of controlling and making it a little more difficult for people who, unfortunately, find themselves addicted to gambling. It is certainly a stumbling block. If horses are non-runners, what happens to that money? We need a system like the deposits system where banks traditionally would hold on to deposits which were transferred into a fund that is used for good causes. I will not delay.
An Cathaoirleach: On the Bill, please.
Senator Martin Conway: I am speaking about it. There are millions of unclaimed prizes and money on horses that are non-runners being retained by bookies' offices throughout the country. This Bill is a step in the right direction but much more needs to be done. We should be world leaders in protecting our citizens against the scourge of gambling. We should not be catching up. We should make virtual betting illegal. An online provider should not be allowed to create these fictitious hobby-horse, pretend races. We would all have a shopping list a mile long as regards what we could do with €30 million. I want to see in the lifetime of the Government an effective and appropriate gambling control Act and I have no doubt that under the stewardship of this Minister of State, who is one of the most competent in the Government, we will see that happen.
Senator Rónán Mullen: I welcome the Bill and congratulate Senator Gerard P. Craughwell for the amendment he brought forward seeking a Government health warning and Senator Darragh O'Brien for the amendment brought forward by the Fianna Fáil Senators today. I wish both amendments had been accepted because they were excellent amendments dealing with the issues of a Government health warning and Government accountability in terms of what measures are being take to protect vulnerable people from engaging in harmful gambling. It is very important for us to take measures in the area of gambling control.
I foresee difficulties with this because some issues arise that are very similar to those that arise in the areas of alcohol and tobacco. We see how the vested interests are not slow to get their act together and to lobby politicians and those in the corridors of power. Of course, we have lobbying legislation that will, hopefully, make all of that more transparent. When I occasionally watch racing on St. Stephen's Day or Easter Monday, the power of the gambling industry lobby and their advertising in particular is quite noticeable. The same issues arise when we talk about the dangers of sponsorship of sporting events by alcohol companies and the way that lures young people into a culture of drinking. There is no doubt that this is a fact and a problem. The same can be said about these advertisements for betting companies. They are very slick and are targeted at a particular demographic, namely, young men, encouraging a culture of bravado and recklessness. There is no doubt about the truth of what Senator Gerard P. Craughwell said. It is possible to win fortunes in an instant but one is much more likely to lose fortunes.
We must be worried about the families that are being endangered and the family resources that are being compromised in an upstairs room by somebody gambling online, before anybody even knows about it.
We have to address this issue. We cannot be wring our hands about the cynical activities of the tobacco industry and the way it seeks to resist controls, plain packaging or whatever or the behaviour of the drinks companies as they seek to water down efforts to prevent the way in which they influence the culture and at the same time pretend that there is no such problem going on in exactly the same way with gambling and the betting industry. I appreciate that people have jobs in the betting industry, and I know this helps, directly and indirectly, the bloodstock industry, which is very important also.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is making a Second Stage speech.
Senator Rónán Mullen: We have important issues to wrestle with. I congratulate those who put forward amendments. I welcome the Government's legislation but hope the gambling control legislation will come soon.
Senator Michael Mullins: I very much welcome the passage of the legislation and the all-party support for it. I join colleagues in urging the Minister to put pressure on his Cabinet colleagues to bring forward the betting control Bill as soon as possible. We all want to see as much control as possible put in place but I am concerned that we will still have a major issue with gambling in this country. We need to start a major national conversation about the effects of gambling. The media need to adopt a constructive stance in this regard also. I am concerned that when local radio stations are reporting on upcoming sporting events, they give the odds that the local team will beat their neighbours. It is encouraging young people to consider whether there is money to be made on the upcoming match between two local parishes. That is sending the wrong message, and the media should be much more responsible in that regard.
There is no doubt that excessive gambling is a serious issue, particularly among young men, as previously stated. It is very easy now to access all sorts of betting opportunities, which is frightening. We need to do much more in the schools to highlight at an early age the dangers and the destruction that can be caused to families and individuals as a result of excessive gambling. I would like this House to have a major debate on a future occasion where we would flag the start of a national conversation on the problems gambling is causing here and the destruction it is causing to families.
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Simon Harris): I do not intend to detain the House other than to thank Senators on all sides for their support in passing the Bill. This is significant legislation in its own right. Nobody on this side of the House or in Government is claiming that the Bill is a panacea or some sort of magic wand solution to all the ills, many of which have been documented throughout this debate. There is a need for a gambling control Bill and the Government is committed to introducing such a Bill. Many of the issues the Senators outlined would be better placed in the context of that discussion.
I thank my officials who have put a significant amount of work into this Bill. I know that a number of Senators would have engaged with them through various Stages. I look forward to the Bill going to the other House and, ultimately, being signed into law as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 2.15 p.m. and resumed at 4 p.m.
 4 o’clock
Adoption (Identity and Information) Bill 2014: Committee and Remaining Stages
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Senator Averil Power: I move amendment No. 1: In page 6, line 35, after “the” where it secondly occurs to insert the following:“name (or, if the person has been known during his or her life by more than one name, current and former names), date of birth and ”.
This amendment is designed to make it clear that data relating to the birth, placement of adoption, procurement of adoption and adoption of the adopted person, where referred to in the Bill, will include the names, former names and dates of birth of the natural parents. This information is important to enable adoptees to establish the identity of their natural parents where the parents have a common name. Let us suppose adoptees are only given a parent's name without the rest of this information. If the name is unusual, then the adoptees could readily trace the identity of their parents. Many of these records are publicly available. I carried out a search last week. I had the name of an individual. I was able to get the birth certificate with the mother's name on it as well as all of those details straight away because the individual has an unusual name and was the only person with that name born within a ten-year period. However, someone could be in a different situation whereby the mother has a common name, for example, Mary Murphy or Mary O'Brien. There may have been several births within a short period to women of the name in question and, therefore, only having the name is of limited value. We have tabled the amendment to ensure adoptees can gain access to the other information recorded on the register of births to assist them in establishing the identity of their natural parents.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 2: In page 7, to delete lines 3 and 4 and substitute the following:“(a) where the child is, was or has been placed (including placement in foster care) with a person or body under the Child Care Act 1991 or equivalent legislation,”.
These amendments are purely designed to make some grammatical changes and to take account of the fact that a person may have been subject to similar legislation prior to the enactment of the 1991 and 2001 Acts. We are tabling these amendments in response to the remarks of the Minister on Second Stage, what we have heard from groups and individuals involved and in the absence of hearings of the Joint Committee on Health and Children. We took the view that we needed to progress the Bill because certain people are waiting for it. That is why we are putting forward these amendments. They are technical in nature.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 3: In page 7, line 5, to delete “is placed” and substitute “is, was or has been placed”.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 4: In page 7, line 5, after “2001” to insert “or equivalent legislation”.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 5: In page 7, line 6, to delete “has been placed” and substitute “is, was or has been placed”.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Averil Power: I move amendment No. 6: In page 7, to delete lines 21 to 25 and substitute the following:“ “personal data held in respect of the adopted person” includes personal data relating to the birth, placement for adoption, procurement of adoption or adoption of the adopted person that identifies the adopted person, natural parent or parents or adoptive parent or parents of an adopted person. It also includes, subject to the provisions of this Act, the name (or, if the person has been known during his or her life by more than one name, current and former names), date of birth and contact details of the adopted person and natural parent or parents, where available;”.
This is related to amendment No. 1. It is an expanded definition of personal data held in respect of the adopted person. It is designed in part to make it clear that personal data held in respect of the adopted person include the names, former names and dates of birth of the natural parents for the reasons I have outlined.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 7: In page 7, line 28, after “2010),” to insert “former and surviving spouse, former and surviving civil partner, former and surviving cohabitant,”.
This amendment serves to ensure that a person's former and surviving spouses, civil partners and cohabitants are included in the definition of a relative.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3
Senator Averil Power: I move amendment No. 8: In page 8, line 20, to delete “person.” and substitute the following:“person, including, but not limited to, the date of birth, occupation and address of each natural parent where these details are listed in the register of births, but not including the Personal Public Service number of a natural parent.”.
This is designed to clarify that the date of birth, occupation and address of the natural parents, as listed on the birth certificate, will be made available to the adopted person, subject to compliance with the provisions of the Bill. However, the personal public service number of the natural parent will not be made available. This is to address a concern flagged to us. Some people were concerned that the Bill could allow for the release of PPS numbers, although we understood the restriction was implicit in the Bill already. We wish to clarify that it does not.
Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (Deputy James Reilly): While I do not oppose the amendment, I reiterate that I foresee constitutional difficulties with the Private Members' Bill. It differs from the Bill being prepared by my Department. It does not differentiate between prospective and retrospective adoptions. In this respect it does not address the complex constitutional issues that arise in respect of the provision of identifying information to those and about those who were adopted in the past. The legal advice I have received indicates that the right to know one's identity flows from the legal relationship between the birth mother and her child. However, the effect of an adoption order is to restrict that right to know.
While I am in favour of providing adopted persons with as much information as possible about their identity, there is a difficulty surrounding the notion that a birth mother's constitutional right to privacy can be dispensed with or retrospectively changed by new legislation. As Senators are aware, my Department is developing the heads of the adoption (information and tracing) Bill. Work on the heads of that Bill is nearing completion. It will set out the information to be provided and the circumstances in which it can be provided for past and future adoptions. The Bill will be explicit on the information that must be provided for all future adoptions. All who consent to an adoption will be fully aware of the information that will be available to adopted persons on request once they reach 18 years of age.
In regard to adoptions that have taken place in the past, the issue is far more complex. I am advised that the proposed legislation can provide for retrospective identifying information to be given to an adopted person, but some restrictions must apply in respect of birth mothers who wish to protect their right to privacy. I would be concerned that the Private Members' Bill does not fully address these constitutional issues, but I am not opposing the amendment.
Senator Averil Power: As we outlined on Second Stage, we appreciate there are two rights at play here, namely, the adoptees' right to their identity and the natural parent's right to privacy. The courts have made it clear that neither of these rights is absolute. That point was made in the IO'T v. B case, and has been consistently made in constitutional cases with respect to all the rights in the Constitution. There is not a single right in the Constitution that is absolute. All of them must be balanced against competing rights within our constitutional framework.
The courts have also made it clear that the job of seeking to achieve a workable balance between competing constitutional rights is that for the Oireachtas. The Supreme Court jurisprudence makes it very clear that it is only when a case has to be brought in the first instance, and it is only if the court is of the view that the Oireachtas has got the balance completely wrong, that it will interfere. Many legal commentators would say that the Supreme Court is too deferential to the Oireachtas but under our system, the separation of powers makes it very clear that it is the job of the Oireachtas to legislate. Any Act, on being signed by the President, immediately enjoys the presumption of constitutionality. That is then only challenged if the President refers the legislation to the Supreme Court under Article 26 to test the constitutionality of a Bill or if an individual brings a case challenging it. However, when this legislation is passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, as I hope it will be with the Minister's co-operation, it will benefit from the presumption of constitutionality.
We are confident that the Bill is constitutionally sound. We have got extensive legal advice on it. Dr. Fergus Ryan, who drafted the Bill for us, is a constitutional law expert. I have consulted with other constitutional law experts who are also of the view that the Bill is constitutional. I accept these issues are arguable. That is always the situation until the Supreme Court hears a case on an individual item of legislation. Nobody can say with certainty that it would or would not uphold the Bill. One only knows that when the court considers the case, but the arguments that it is constitutional are persuasive.
We carefully balanced the two rights. In fact, it is arguable that the current situation is unconstitutional because in elevating the privacy rights of the natural parent, we have nullified any right to an identity. The current balance, if it can be called that, between privacy and identity is that in order to protect the privacy rights of some women who may wish to exert privacy, and we should be clear that that is not all of them, and for whom this may be an issue, we are prepared to ignore and give no value to the identity rights of 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 Irish adoptees. That is not a balance, and that is not correct.
Our Bill balances the two rights in a way we believe is fair. It makes the distinction between the adoptees' right to identity and to have identifying information about themselves and their family background and contact, which we accept is a different issue. The Bill makes it very clear that the adoptive parents contact details will only be released if they are happy for those details to be released. That is a fair system. It also puts in place an intermediary arrangement through which adoptees and natural parents may have contact with each other. If the natural parent is seeking to reach out to the adopted son or daughter, he or she can contact the Adoption Authority and do that and vice versa, where an adoptee wishes to make contact with his or her natural parent.
We must be clear that the current arrangement does not prevent unwanted contact. If anything, it makes it much more likely because even without a statutory right to one's birth certificate and the ability to get this information straight away as a matter of right from the Adoption Authority, adoptees can get the information themselves. They can do their own trace. Detailed guidelines have been produced by the Adoption Rights Alliance and others to assist people in doing a trace. As I said, the birth records are public documents. If one can narrow it down to a name or even a year, an adoptee can go in, look at his or her birth date and ascertain straight away from the public records the name of every female baby born on that date, if a woman is trying to do a trace. They can get the names of all the natural mothers, usually the only name on the birth certificate. They can then narrow that down using other information they are able to ascertain such as geography, and particularly if the name is unusual. They can quickly go from having a name on the birth certificate to ascertaining somebody's address.
They can refer to the electoral register. Most of the electoral registers are now online. I looked at them again last week. People can get access to the Dublin city electoral register from the comfort of their home on their laptop and get the home address. If they have a name they can get the home address of where they lived in the mid-1960s from the electoral registers because those documents are public. That takes a great deal of effort, and it is disheartening for people to have to do that on their own. It is a lonely journey, but it is not impossible and people do it, and when they get to the end of the road and they have the information, because there is no intermediary for them to go through, their only option is to make direct contact with the natural parent concerned or vice versa, if it is a natural parent tracing their adopted adult son or daughter. Nobody wants to do that. That is not a supportive situation for anybody.
As an adopted person, when I reunited with my mother I was so conscious of being sensitive to her needs and not knowing the circumstances of my birth or how difficult that may have been for her and the difficulty of the adoption. We would all prefer to have a system that is supportive of everybody concerned and has an intermediary, rather than putting people in the situation where they have to write letters out of the blue, make telephone calls or turn up on somebody's doorstep. Nobody wants to do this.
The current arrangements do not prevent unwanted contact. The arrangements we are proposing would deal with that issue but it is important to distinguish, as the Bill does, between access to identifying information and contact. Not every adoptee wishes to have contact or to re-establish a relationship with their parents. Some do, but some do not. Some simply want to know who they are. They want their own records if they spent time in a mother and baby home. They want to know if they were subject to vaccine trials. They want the rest of their medical history. They do not all necessarily wish to meet, and those who do handle it in a very sensitive way. Our approach to this area has been based on the false assumption that adoptees are irrational, insensitive people who will force themselves into the lives and the homes of their natural parents. That is incredibly offensive and unfair. It is not true, and if that is the situation in a tiny minority of cases, and that is possible under our current arrangements, we have other laws to deal with this. We have laws on harassment and so on, which are completely separate, but to assume the worst case scenario, and legislate for the worst case scenario, is incredibly unfair. It has done a great disservice to thousands of adoptees and their natural parents. It has also done a huge disservice to the women involved.
I have had a great deal of correspondence, as have Senators Jillian van Turnhout and Fidelma Healy Eames, from natural mothers since I first started talking about this issue, and many of them told me that far from seeking confidentiality, they were forced by clergy to sign agreements and swear oaths. Their baby was taken from them in the hospital immediately after they gave birth, when they were not in a fit state of mind. They were bullied into putting their child up for adoption and bullied into signing forms. I would love the Minister, the Adoption Authority or anybody else to produce a confidentiality agreement that was actually sought by an actual mother because my understanding was that it worked the other way around. The women were forced to sign papers. They were forced to swear oaths saying they would never look for their child. Many of those women have carried the hurt and the pain of that for years.
The last time we brought forward this Bill, Philomena Lee issued a plea to the Minister and the Government to accept it. She said that if this Bill had been in place when she went looking for her son, Anthony, and indeed when Anthony was looking for her, she would have met him before he died.
However, she did not meet him, because of all the secrecy and the assumption that women do not want to be reunited with their children when that is not the case. We accept, of course, that there will be some cases where women might not wish to do this. They might find it difficult because the circumstances of the birth might have been difficult for them or they might not be in a place yet where they are ready to deal with it. However, the Adoption Authority reaching out to them, making them aware of the fact that their son or daughter is looking for them and an offer of counselling might provide those women with the space to think and talk about it. For some of them it might be the first time they have talked to anybody for years.
Women have approached me to tell me their stories. One lady, who is in her 70s, told me that she gave her child up for adoption 40 years ago but she never had a conversation with anybody about it. She broke down telling me what had happened. There are many such women. I have also been contacted by women who told me that they stayed silent for so long because they were worried that their spouses would not be happy or that their sons or daughters would be annoyed that they had had a child before they were married and had not told anybody. All of those women told me that when they reached out and told their family about the child they had put up for adoption, the reaction of their sons, daughters and spouses was to ask why they had not told them about it previously. Many of the women are trapped in pain from the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s as a result of how women were treated then and the judgmental attitude there was towards them. However, they find that when they tell their adult sons and daughters about the child given up for adoption, the sons or daughters tend to say, "My God, you are my mother. I cannot believe you have been carrying this pain. Let me help you." In fact, the sons and daughters help them to get through it and look after their mother in re-establishing a relationship with the adopted child.
It is not right that, due to some obsessive and irrational fear of the worst case scenario, we do nothing for 50,000 to 60,000 adoptive people and their natural parents. It is based on false assumptions that the women do not wish to be contacted. That is not the case. In many circumstances many of them have beaten paths back to the mother and baby homes. It was Sean Ross Abbey in Philomena's case, and other women have returned to the orders seeking information but have been denied it. They, as much as their adopted sons and daughters, are equally seeking to have this legislation in place and asking the Minister to work with us in bringing it forward.
I note the Minister mentioned that he is still working on the Government's adoption information and tracing legislation. That is disappointing. There is a Bill before him that has the support of the House. It received the overwhelming support of the Fine Gael and Labour Party spokespersons on Second Stage, for which I thank them. We acknowledge that it is not perfect and we would like to work with the Minister on it. We hope that he will table amendments on Report Stage to address any of the concerns he has. However, we have a Bill while the Government does not even have the heads of a Bill, and there is only a year left. These women cannot wait any longer. I am constantly contacted by people who tell me that by the time they finally got the information they required, the person they were seeking, whether it was their mother or sibling, had passed away.
We have an opportunity to do something and we hope the Minister will work with us on doing it. We accept there is a constitutional context but we have done a great deal of work to ensure the Bill is constitutionally sound. However, we are more than willing to meet with the Minister outside the House to discuss it and to have our legal experts meet the Minister's experts to thrash this out. We must find a way of moving this forward. The excuses about why it is difficult are not enough. If the Government intends to bring forward a Bill that takes the easy option of simply legislating for open adoption in the future, that will not help anybody. There were 112 adoptions last year in Ireland but there are 60,000 people, like me, who were adopted in the past who do not have a right to their information. If the Minister simply brings forward a Bill that does something for people into the future, he will do an incredible disservice that would be very unfair to everybody who was adopted before that.
I appreciate that it is a sensitive issue and that it must be addressed carefully, but we are prepared to do that with the Minister. Other countries have legislated on this issue. The United Kingdom has had a system for 40 years whereby adoptees are entitled to the rights we are providing for in this Bill. There is precedent, therefore, and it is workable, but we must have the co-operation of the Minister to move the Bill forward.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I thank the Minister for attending the debate and for taking us to this point with the Bill. As the Minister said, the right to know one's identity and the right to privacy are two very important rights. In this Bill we believe we are achieving a workable balance that takes account of these two rights. The right to identity is a huge matter in a person's life and that is supported. Separately, however, we are respecting the right to privacy of a birth mother by providing that contact will only be made with her permission.
The right to identity is a solemn right and is essential for the individual. It includes the right to birth records and the Minister is aware of how important that is for one's medical history. However, contact only proceeds with the acknowledgement, interest and openness of the birth parent. From that point of view, this is a carefully managed process. Currently, I have a plea on my desk from a birth mother for this legislation. She placed her child for adoption in 1986. She has gone to HSE West in Galway and sought to trace the child. The HSE sent her to me. She was told that the HSE did not have enough resources but that a Bill is going through the House that could expedite the matter. I have evidence from birth parents. They say we should give the children they placed for adoption the right to their identity so the child will take the next step, hopefully, and make contact with them. For every parent the Minister might doubt would want this, I bet he has three times that number who want it.
I have two adopted children. They are teenagers and I hope that when they wish to know their identity, their information would be available. I am sure many adopted parents feel the same. The way I explain this is that it is like a triad - there is the adopted child, a birth parent and an adoptive parent. Truly, at one level they are all in this together, but the adoptive parent is ultimately the bottom of the barrel, and I accept that. The primary need is not mine, but one does want one's child, the young adopted person, to be happy. One knows that need for identity is basic and solemn. It is elementary to everything about the child, and one cannot rob them of that. Although we have handled this very carefully in terms of the constitutional advice, I would go so far as to say the right to identity is primary.
If we intend to work together on this issue, I urge the Minister to take up the offer made by Senator Averil Power, namely, that outside of this House we should meet the Minister's officials to deal with the legal and constitutional advice we have and make this a Bill we can all approve of and enact in the House.
Senator David Norris: An enormous amount of thought and preparation has gone into the Bill and the amendments. I particularly support this amendment. There appears to be an appropriate balance between competing rights - the right of an individual human being to determine and assert his or her identity, on the one hand, and, on the other, the right of the parent to privacy. I believe that balance has been achieved.
With regard to the question of this Bill being compared to a possible hypothetical Bill that is not yet in existence in the Department, I refer to the words spoken in the Dáil by Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, now Minister for Justice and Equality. Perhaps this has been done already today, but they have been quoted to me in a variety of correspondence. The Minister will see in my hand the amount of correspondence I have received from people on this issue in the past two days.
It is a real issue. It affects many people throughout the country. It is particularly powerful to hear the voices of people like Senator Averil Power who speak from direct personal experience. No one can turn their ears against this.
The Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, said in the Dáil in April 1997, which is a long time ago: It is universally accepted that denial of access to information about one's origins is denial of a basic human right. That right is enshrined in the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, and our own constitutional review group has recommended that Article 41 of the Constitution should be amended to make it abundantly clear that Ireland unequivocally subscribes to that view.
That was nearly 20 years ago. The now Minister for Justice and Equality made a very powerful contribution as a member of the Opposition in the Dáil.
There are two other things I would like to mention. Mothers very often do not look to have the information secreted. I have received a number of letters and e-mails from people. One of them states: "When I signed adoption papers I did so under coercion. I never asked for, nor was I offered, confidentiality." I am supportive of the adoptees having information about their natural parents and their birth identity after they turn 18 years of age. This information should be provided in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the adoptive person and their natural parents. I believe this amendment resolves that situation.
I wish to read another e-mail. I am not quite sure from what part of the country it came but it states, "Imagine sitting in a room in Dublin with a series of locked filing cabinets and somebody who is not directly connected or associated with me at all sitting in judgment and deciding whether or not I am entitled to the information about me contained in those filing cabinets." That is the kind of thing that would make a difference. Another piece of correspondence came from a 61 year old grandmother who was wondering from where she came and has still not got access to the information.
I have a series of people who have made inquiries for medical reasons, have been put on lists and still have not got anywhere. These are all issues which have to be confronted directly and I congratulate my three colleagues on putting this Bill forward. I strongly support it and hope it passes. I hope there is no vote and that the Government accepts it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister has already acknowledged to the House that he is not opposing the amendment, rather he has reservations. I am not sure if he wants to make a comment.
Deputy James Reilly: I thank Senators for their contributions. I reiterate that we want to do everything we can to ensure the process which is very onerous is very much simplified. I also reassure Senator Averil Power in particular that the Bill we are preparing is not only about prospective adoptions but also about current adoptions and the people who are in the situation the Senator so eloquently described. It would be wrong of me to ignore the situation.
Many people have referred to I.O'T. v. B. I will read directly from the advice. It noted that the decision of I.O'T. v. B. was not in fact about an adopted person but about two informal or de facto adopted people who remained at law the children of the birth mothers. The Chief Justice had pointed out in his judgment that he did not consider that the applicants were in the same legal position as adopted children. As detailed on page two of that opinion, Mr. Justice Hamilton pointed out that the effect of an adoption order is that all parental rights and duties of the natural parent are ended while the child becomes a member of the family of the adoptive parents as if he or she had been their natural child.
I refer to that for clarity. The Government wants to do everything it can in this situation and will be advised and interpret, in the widest way it can, the situation in order to facilitate people. We have the adoption contact preference register and we will propose that it become much more proactive, rather than the current situation where people have to wait for somebody else to register on it. The mothers whose children were adopted in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s have not come forward, even if only to provide important medical information to the children they had to give up, in the numbers for which we had hoped.
I encourage those mothers to consider making contact with Tusla or the Adoption Authority of Ireland where they will be afforded confidentiality, care and empathy. It is to be hoped they will feel able to assist their birth children in finding out from where they came. To date, however, only 3,000 of the 11,000 people on the register are mothers. Today is another opportunity for us to highlight this register and the facility available.
I will not oppose the amendment. I am anxious to improve the legal basis for access to adoption records, but my proposals to Government will have to reflect the constraints on the Legislature in providing such access if they are not to fall foul of constitutional challenge. The Office of the Attorney General has provided comprehensive legal advice to my Department that has assisted in identifying the constitutional parameters within which the heads of the Bill have to be drafted. It is on the basis of that legal advice that there is a need to take into consideration the constitutional right to privacy of the birth mother in the situation of adoption.
For further reassurance, the Bill is being actively progressed and I hope to bring it to the Government in April.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I thank the Minister. I very much appreciate the spirit in which he has come into the House in not opposing the Bill today. As Senators Averil Power and Fidelma Healy Eames said, I would hope that we could move this Bill forward because people are ageing. This is an issue to which I first came when I started working in the Children's Rights Alliance and people, including mothers and those who were now adults and were seeking their identity, came forward to me on the issue.
The Minister referred to the numbers coming forward on the register. I have spoken to people who have told me that the difficulty is that they go forward to the register with an open wound, not knowing that they can be healed, because they have to wait and hope that the other side comes forward. The Bill we are proposing involves being proactive. We are telling people if they come forward, we will seek to find the information and to work as best as anybody can. I do not think I would go forward if I knew that all I would be doing is lodging my name. I would encourage people to go forward, but I am trying to explain from where people are coming.
We can go back and forth on the constitutional argument. It is absolutely clear that we do not agree. The judgment in I.O'T. v. B. pointed out that the right to privacy does not automatically trump the right to identity. We are trying to balance that. The Supreme Court decided that the two rights must be balanced against each other. For example, the Supreme Court decisions in Tuohy v. Courtney said that the precise balance to be struck is a matter for the Oireachtas to determine. We believe this Bill achieves this balance in a way that is sensitive to the needs of all parties. We are trying to strike the balance that has been mooted by the Supreme Court and longed for by so many adopted people, their families and their friends. That is what we are trying to do.
Senator Averil Power mentioned that many records were available. Genealogy and family history are hobbies of mine. I have worked with friends and others who have found their mothers were adopted.
If a person has an unusual surname, it is likely that he or she can trace the information after becoming adept at using the records. If the person has a name that is not as unusual as van Turnhout - it might be slightly unusual whereas Power is not as much - it makes tracing more difficult. It is fundamentally wrong that one's surname gives one the right to one's identity. This is an issue for me. We must balance rights and I am a strong believer in the right to identity. We will discuss the Children and Family Relationships Bill 2015. It is a matter of a child's best interests and voice. The child's right to an identity is at the core. I will defend and champion that right. We are trying to remedy the situation via the Bill in order that those 50,000 to 60,000 people see that there is some hope if they wish to choose to get their right to an identity. The deep yearning that I see in people is not something that can be made to wait. People are getting older. In the case of Philomena Lee it was slightly unusual, in that it was her son who died, but both had been seeking each other. They were denied that information. We are trying to provide such information through this amendment. I appreciate that the Minister and I can go back and forth, but it strikes the balance being sought by the courts.
Senator Averil Power: I will be brief, as we want to get through all of the amendments today. I will pick up the Minister's point on the I. O'T v. B case. According to him, the court had acknowledged that the current legislative position as opposed to constitutional position was that, on the making of an adoption order, the link between the birth mother and child was severed. While that is true, that is the legislative position under the Adoption Act. When I. O'T v. B case was decided, there was no legislation on the adoptee's right to an identity as we are proposing now. Any future Supreme Court decision will be made in light of this Bill once passed. The situation that the Minister mentioned was established by legislation, not the Constitution, and can therefore be changed by legislation like that we are proposing.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I will address the judgment briefly. The Minister stated all duties of the natural parents were ended on the adoption placement. I remember the day of the adoption order in my first child's case. It was explained to us as a couple. I thought to myself that I would be naive in the extreme if I believed that a child's basic need to know his or her backstory - as Senator Jillian van Turnhout mentioned, it becomes a deep yearning as the child gets older - ended on that day. It is not like that. Just because a child is placed with a fine family does not mean he or she will not wonder why he or she was placed for adoption or given up. These questions must be answered directly at some stage.
We have been careful in the balancing of rights in this amendment. The courts have stated clearly that this is a matter for the Oireachtas to determine. Why do we not do it together? The process is carefully managed, that being, the right to basic information as on the birth certificate followed by managed contact, if that is the wish of the birth mother, and some counselling. This would be so much better than, for example, Senator Jillian van Turnhout or myself finding out only because we have unusual names. That would be far from a managed process. Indeed, it would be very dangerous and could hurt many people. That the Adoption Authority of Ireland would take over the process and assist people on their journeys would give a sense of relief to the adopted person or the natural mother. People deserve this.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Approximately 30 minutes ago, the Minister agreed not to oppose this amendment. I understand it is an important issue.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: It is substantive.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I appreciate that.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 9 and 18 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I move amendment No. 9: In page 8, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:"(c) a body of persons or society that was, at any time, an "accredited body" as defined by section 10 of the Act of 2010 or that was, at any time, a body of persons or society registered in the Adoption Societies Register maintained under section 35 of the Adoption Act 1952;".
This amendment is to clarify that formerly accredited bodies and adoption societies can be also required to give information under section 4. Admittedly, this may not be of much use if the body has closed down or been destroyed or has destroyed or transferred its records, but it may be worth including in case such bodies still exist but are not currently accredited or they know where records have been stored. Did we not see this in the Philomena Lee case with Sean Ross Abbey? The records were there but their existence was denied. This is a critical matter. We are discussing very old people. The records are sacrosanct - they are those people's birth stories. We will do the State an incredible service by collecting them, storing them in one place and pursuing every society or registered body that had the right to carry out adoptions at any time in our history.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Senator Averil Power: I move amendment No. 10: In page 9, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:"Duty to notify the Adoption Authority of certain matters5. (1) In this section--
"a person to whom this section applies” means any natural person who has information, whether in writing, stored electronically or otherwise (including information known to the person but not recorded in any durable medium) relating to the birth, placement for adoption, procurement of an adoption, or adoption of one or more adopted persons and includes, but is not limited to, any person who was employed by, was an agent of or worked for or on behalf of the Child and Family Agency, the Health Service Executive, or for or on behalf of any body or person that is or was an accredited body as defined by section 3 of the Act of 2010 or a body registered in the Adoption Societies Register maintained under section 35 of the Adoption Act 1952. This section shall not apply to information held by an adopted person or by the natural parent of an adopted person insofar as that information relates specifically to that adopted person;
"the Authority" means the Adoption Authority.
(2) Where a person to whom this section applies--(a) has information that he or she knows or believes might be of material assistance to the Adoption Authority, an adopted person or natural parent in determining the identity and whereabouts of an adopted person, natural parent, or both, or
(b) knows or believes that any personal data relating to an adopted person, a natural parent, or both, and held by a body or person to which section 4(1) applies, is not a correct or true record of the circumstances or facts therein recorded, it shall be the positive duty of such person to notify the Authority of the true facts and circumstances known to that person and to give to the Authority such information as is available to or known to that person.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2), where a person to whom this section applies knows or believes that the age, date of birth or address of a natural parent, adopted person or adoptive parent has been recorded incorrectly, whether deliberately, negligently or inadvertently, in any records held by any body or person to which section 4(1) applies, the person shall notify the Authority of the true facts and circumstances known to that person and shall give to the Authority such information as is available to or known to that person.
(4) Where a person to whom this section applies provides information to the Authority under this section, the Authority shall--(a) produce a memorandum setting out the information provided to it,
(b) include the memorandum in any file held by the Authority relating to the adopted person to whom the information relates and in any file held by the Authority relating to the natural parent or parents and adoptive parent or parents of that adopted person, and
(c) require that any body or person to whom section 4(1) applies shall include a copy of the memorandum in any file held by that body or person relating to the adopted person to whom the information relates and in any file held by that body or person relating to the natural parent or parents and adoptive parent or parents of that adopted person. (5) Where a natural parent of an adopted person knows or believes that any personal data relating to an adopted person, a natural parent, or both, and held by a body or person to which section 4(1) applies, is not a correct or true record of the circumstances or facts therein recorded, the natural parent may notify the Authority of the true facts and circumstances known to him or her and give to the Authority such information as is available to or known to him or her.
(6) For the purpose of subsection (5), a natural parent shall be entitled to consult such information as is held by a body or person to which section 4(1) applies as relates to the adoption of the natural parent’s adopted child, provided that the contact details of the adopted person and personal data that identifies the adopted person shall not be made available to the natural parent otherwise than in compliance with Part 3 of this Act.".
This amendment is designed to address the concern that some information on files held by various agencies and the Adoption Authority of Ireland may be incorrect or contain false information. This concern has been raised with me by adoptees and natural mothers who, having gained access to their files, have discovered that some of the information is inaccurate, for example, the age, date of birth or address of the natural parent at the time of the adoption. Some people have found that, after pointing out such inaccuracies to the bodies concerned, the information was not corrected. This point has been also made to me by the Adoption Rights Alliance and Adoption Loss.
Under the amendment, once an inaccuracy has been brought to the attention of the adoption agency, the Adoption Authority of Ireland or another relevant body, it will be required to add a memorandum to the relevant records. The amendment also places a positive duty on those who know or believe information to be incorrect, including staff members of adoption agencies, to inform the Adoption Authority of Ireland in order that it can add a memorandum to the relevant records. It does not place a positive duty on an adoptee or natural mother. However, it allows a natural mother who has concerns about the accuracy of information on her file to inspect the file and, upon finding an inaccuracy, insist that a memorandum be added to it.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 5
Senator David Cullinane: I move amendment No. 11: In page 9, line 32, after "relations" to insert the following:"and protect, as a right, access for adopted persons to their birth family’s relevant medical history".
This is my first contribution on the Bill, as Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh took the earlier Stages, but I wanted to commend the Senators who have introduced it. I will speak to the amendment. The Bill's authors have discussed it with me. I will listen to the Minister's response. We may withdraw the amendment and resubmit it on Report Stage if he is not of a mind to accept it now.
Knowing one's medical history is an important factor in making many life decisions.
It can have an effect when someone is deciding whether to have children or whether to undergo an operation, and in general behaviour relating to diet and exercise. Knowing one has an inherited genetic condition might affect one's decision on whether to have a child, or whether to have one with someone who is a genetic carrier for certain conditions. Certain genetic conditions might affect how someone leads his or her life. There is increased clustering of many diseases in families, which might lead to additional screening and even surgery if an adoptee is made aware of this. Adoptees may not be aware of increased risks due to a family history of cardiovascular disease. It is important that they are aware so that they can decide to change their behaviour. This information is relevant to that. "Relevant" is included as it would mean that any history relevant to the adoptee would be given. I appreciate that all of these issues are complex, but it is a serious matter that we need to give consideration to. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I will listen intently to the Minister's response.
Senator Averil Power: I thank Senator David Cullinane for moving this amendment and welcome the motivation behind it. The amendment proposes that the Adoption Authority of Ireland would be obliged to take reasonable steps to "protect, as a right, access for adopted persons to their birth family’s relevant medical history". It is not clear from the amendment whether the Senator intends simply to place responsibility on the authority to reveal to the adoptee any information on the adoptee's medical history it already has on file. Certainly, if that is all that is intended, I absolutely agree with that. We would hope that this is already covered by the Bill but we would be very happy to make it explicit because it is extremely important. However, the amendment as currently drafted could also require the authority to actively seek information in addition to information it has on file. The Bill already proposes that family members would be encouraged to share such information but it does not require the authority to actively take steps to acquire information that is not volunteered by a natural parent. To do so would be problematic. As I understand it, no person has a right to access the medical history of another, including an adult family member, without their consent. Non-adoptees have no right to seek their mother's medical history or records without her permission. In fact, the Medical Council guidelines state: While the concern of the patient's relatives and close friends is understandable, you must not disclose information to anyone without the patient’s consent. If the patient does not consent to disclosure, you should respect this except where failure to disclose would put others at risk of serious harm.
I understand the motivation behind the amendment and also appreciate the importance of adoptees having access to as much information as possible on their medical history. It was something I found particularly difficult. Every time you go to a doctor and are asked if there a history of serious illness in the family, you have to say you do not know. Every time you say that, you get anxious and upset because you know that there could be something. From a woman's point of view, perhaps your mother passed away very early from breast cancer. Perhaps some other genetic illness runs in the family but you simply do not know this. Not having that information is at best distressing but at worst, if there is a very serious genetic illness, people's lives are being put at risk because they do not have the information they need to take steps against it and to seek treatment at an early stage. This is a crucial area and we would like to ensure that we can secure within the Bill as much information as legally possible.
Our legal adviser has expressed concerns about the precise wording of this amendment. Therefore, we propose that Senators Jillian van Turnhout and Fidelma Healy Eames and I meet Senator David Cullinane and his team before Report Stage to discuss this issue. We would be happy to ask our legal advisor to take on board the spirit of where Senator David Cullinane is coming from and ensure we provide for the strongest possible right to medical information that we can and agree a wording before the Bill comes back on Report Stage. Senator David Cullinane has flagged a very important issue, which I welcome.
Senator Terry Brennan: I congratulate Senators Averil Power, Jillian van Turnhout and Fidelma Healy Eames on progressing this very important Bill to where it is today. Many of my colleagues have mentioned genetic issues, how important our medical history is and the right to know it. I appreciate and recognise the difficulties for some mothers. Some might want their right to privacy and to remain anonymous and this has been the practice in some instances in the past. However, I believe every household in the country has a great interest in this Bill. The right to know who you are is a basic human right. This has been said by some of my colleagues and I believe it is a human right. Everybody has a heritage and a family tree. Everybody is entitled to go back and trace their family tree. There might be some adoptees who do not wish to trace their family roots for whatever reason. That is their right.
It is time to change the law, which was changed in other countries such as Great Britain 40 or 50 years ago. I read recently about a 71 year old man meeting his 79 year old sister for the first time. What a wonderful achievement and how must they have felt after such a long period living in different parts of the world. It is necessary to bring in the legislation, which is long overdue and is the way forward in 2015. I welcome this legislation and congratulate my colleagues whom I have already named.
Senator Marie Moloney: I again thank the Senators for bringing forward this Bill, which is long overdue. I hope it will not be too long before it is introduced properly. The amendment proposes to insert "and protect, as a right, access for adopted persons to their birth family’s relevant medical history" after "relations" on page 9, line 32. Much of the time, medical history does not even arise until well after the child has been adopted. If a biological parent has a heart condition, it may not show up for many years. As medical history will not show up on a birth certificate, it is about revealing the identity of the biological parent so that the adopted person can have the relevant conversations and find out the medical history. If we put this in, I do not know how it would work and how it would be monitored. Where does one get the medical history from at the time of adoption? Do we say "Have your parents a medical history?" Are we looking for the grandparents? I know how Senator Power feels because my father was adopted and our medical history on our father's side was never available to us because we never knew about it. To be honest, he was one of the people who did not even want to speak about it. He would never talk to us about being adopted or about his background. He knew his mother but he did not know his biological father. I would be interested in hearing what the Minister has to say about this. Being a GP, I am sure he will have a lot to say about medical history.
Senator Paschal Mooney: I already contributed on Second Stage.
I caused a bit of a flurry when I raised questions about information being imparted to children at a particular age. I have moved beyond that and overwhelmingly support all aspects of this Bill with regard to the right of adopted persons to know as early as possible their origins and their identity.
On this amendment, I have read the original proposal in section 5(3)(e) to which Senator Cullinane is adding his proposed amendment, which would strengthen the Bill. As the Senator Marie Moloney said, the Minister, being a general practitioner, will have a view on this but, to me, it seems fundamental. Having regard to there being some 60,000 adoptees in this country, we may be talking about a long lead-in period in this respect. A significant number of that 60,000 are of a particular age and perhaps of an age where their medical history would be essential and such information very helpful because of declining health. I know my family background and it seems horrendous that an adopted person who would go to their general practitioner for an initial diagnosis would not have that basic building block in place in order that their general practitioner could make an honest and accurate assessment of the medical condition of their patient. I am sure the Minister will have a view on that matter but I suggest this would be an essential building block in terms of his legislative proposals. It does not bear thinking about that an adopted person as they get older - they could require this information at any time and I am not referring to any age limit - would not have that vital information about their family history. It becomes more relevant the older the adopted person gets and the more likely they would have to visit a GP or access hospital for health reasons. As a medical doctor, the Minister will be able to clarify this but, as a non-medical person, my understanding is that there are genetic dimensions to certain diseases and certain health conditions such as heart disease and cancer which seem to move on in particular families where there is a history of it. I will rest the case there. I support the overall thrust of what is being attempted to be achieved here and I particularly support the amendment.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I thought it was implicit in the Bill that the birth family's relevant medical history would be passed on. Senator David Cullinane might clarify if, in his amendment, he means information over and above what is provided at the time of placement.
As Senator Marie Moloney said, by and large, most birth mothers would be quite healthy because they are young. The medical history one gets at that point is more like the grandparents' medical history, which is fine. The people concerned are probably in their 40s or 50s. I know about this because I have been a receiver of such information. There can be quite a pattern of heart disease coming down through the genes, as Senator Pashcal Mooney said, which is something to watch out for, or there can be respiratory problems, alerting one to be mindful not to smoke. It is very good. I wonder if what is being sought in this amendment is over and above that information because the making available of that information is good practice. The passing on of that information has been the practice here for more than 20 years.
Senator Terry Brennan: More than 20 years.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: My experience is that since the mid-1990s, and probably since the early 1990s, this type of information has been sought from the birth mother when the child is being placed for adoption. However, the birth father's medical history would not necessarily be on record, but half a loaf is better than no bread.
Deputy James Reilly: In regard to medical records, they are the property of the individual and not open in terms of their being taken forcefully, as Senator Averil Power said, but if they are volunteered, that is what is intended.
An Cathaoirleach: Is Senator's David Cullinane pressing his amendment?
Senator David Cullinane: I will withdraw the amendment and may bring it forward on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 12 and 19 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Senator Averil Power: I move amendment No. 12: In page 11, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:“(11) Where an adopted person wishes to communicate in writing with his or her natural parent or where a natural parent wishes to communicate in writing with the adopted person, the Authority shall make arrangements for the exchange of such communications, provided that in making such arrangements for the specific purpose of this subsection, the Authority shall not release to either the adopted person or the natural parent any information other than that which the writer of the communication has included in the communication.
(12) For the purpose of subsection (11), a communication may include medical information or a request for medical information relating to the adopted person, natural parent or relatives of the natural parent.”.
These amendments are designed to allow letters to be exchanged between the natural parent and the adopted person and to allow medical information to be shared. This would fit into the process where the adoptee on making the initial application for their birth certificate may also provide the Adoption Authority with a letter that they would like to have passed on to their natural mother. The same would also be the case where a natural parent is seeking the adoption certificate of their adopted son or daughter and they may also include a letter at that point, if they wish, and the natural parent may also decide to give over medical information. The purpose of this proposal is that from the natural mother's perspective, if they receive a request for the birth certificate or are told that the birth certificate has been requested by their adopted son or daughter, they might take some comfort in also receiving a letter from their son or daughter indicating their wishes or just setting out why they are looking for this information and having the opportunity to reach out and for the adopted son or daughter to explain where they are coming from. The may write a letter along the following lines: I appreciate that I was adopted at a time when most children were, that this was probably a difficult time for you. I do not wish to impose myself on your life or to create any further complications but I am looking for this information because my identify is important to me, but I also want to progress the matter in a way that is sensitive to your needs as well.
From my experience of being an adoptee, I was very anxious to say this to my mother to reassure her that I would never want to do anything that would upset her and that I appreciated that even talking about adoption or even considering the circumstances of my birth could be difficult for her. From talking to other adoptees, many of them share the same anxiety and want to reassure their mother that they are looking for this information because it is important to them, but they also want to reassure them that they are not seeking to make their life difficult. They appreciate that there is a possibility that their mother may not have told her spouse yet or that she may have other children she has not told and they only want to progress the issue in a way that is sensitive and would give their mother space to deal with it as well. The opportunity to provide a letter would be helpful in that respect.
Thee amendments also provide that where the mother has decided that she would prefer not to have contact and not to have her contact details released, she may opt to provide up-to-date medical information and, therefore, provide additional information on top of what the Adoption Authority of Ireland has provided. It is implicitly stated that this would be an option and that the Adoption Authority of Ireland, in communicating with the mother, would advise her that she has the option of contact or no contact, in which case it would not pass on her contact details, but that she also has the option to give it medical information that it can pass on to her son or daughter. These proposals seek to make the process as sensitive and supportive as possible for both parties. It moves forward in the spirit of the Bill, which is to enable people to move forward in a way that suits their own individual needs and sensitives and it facilitates this.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: This is a very positive amendment. It proposes a very healthy approach. It provides for a gentle lead-in to a potential meeting in time. It is unintrusive. It is an opportunity for the young adopted person to say to the birth parent that they respect their privacy. Equally it is an opportunity for the birth parent, who may be reaching out to the adopted young person, to say the same to them. The main thing is that it is providing for the respecting of each other's space without being in each other's face.
It is a process of reaching out, providing information and, maybe, asking for help. Health boards have been doing this for some time now on behalf of birth parents and adoptive families. In our case, we passed on progress reports and photographs for many years. The health boards facilitated this. We are now seeking that it be a function of the Adoption Authority of Ireland. As I said, there is nothing unusual about this.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6
An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, and 24 are related and will be taken together.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 13: In page 12, line 7, after "address" to insert "(other than an address listed for a natural parent in the relevant entry in the register of births)".
The purpose of these amendments is to bring clarity to the Bill. Amendment No. 15 seeks to ensure access to information on a birth certificate. The amendments are technical in nature but would, we believe, add clarity to the Bill. I understand the Minister is not opposing these amendments. Perhaps he might indicate at some stage if he proposes to engage further with us between now and Report Stage. I understand it is proposed to take Report Stage today if the Bill progresses unopposed. It would be useful for us to know whether there will be further engagement with us on the Bill.
Senator Averil Power: If the Minister intends to bring forward Report Stage amendments and would like the time to do so, we would be supportive of Report Stage being scheduled for another day. There are no Government amendments tabled today and if the Minister does not propose to bring forward any on Report Stage, then we should take it today. The issue raised by Sinn Féin in respect of medical information could be addressed by the Dáil. I will speak to the Fianna Fáil spokesperson to ensure that is the case.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 14: In page 12, line 8, to delete "or a" and substitute "and a".
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 15: In page 12, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:"(5) For the avoidance of any doubt, nothing in this section shall prevent the release to a person under section 4 of any particulars contained in an entry in respect of that person in the register of births.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7
An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are related and will be discussed together.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 16: In page 12, lines 19 and 20, to delete "adoptive parents" and substitute "adoptive family".
We have engaged with a number of people on the Bill. The reality is that many of the adopted children about whom we are speaking are now adults. Therefore, we believe a reference to "adoptive family" rather than "adoptive parents" is more appropriate.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 17: In page 12, line 26, to delete "adoptive parents" and substitute "adoptive family".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 18: In page 13, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:"(d) a body of persons or society that was, at any time, an "accredited body" as defined by section 10 of the Act of 2010 or that was, at any time, a body of persons or society registered in the Adoption Societies Register maintained under section 35 of the Adoption Act 1952,".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 19: In page 16, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:"(9) Where an adopted person wishes to communicate in writing with his or her natural parent or where a natural parent wishes to communicate in writing with the adopted person, the Authority shall make arrangements for the exchange of such communications, provided that in making such arrangements for the specific purpose of this subsection, the Authority shall not release to either the adopted person or the natural parent any information other than that which the writer of the communication has included in the communication.
(10) For the purpose of subsection (9), a communication may include medical information or a request for medical information relating to the adopted person, natural parent or relatives of the natural parent.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10
Senator Averil Power: I move amendment No. 20: In page 16, line 24, to delete "data" and substitute "data held in respect of the adopted person".
The purpose of this amendment is to correct a typographical error.
Amendment agreed to.
An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 21: In page 16, line 33, to delete "adopted person" and substitute "natural parent".
The purpose of this amendment is to correct a typographical error on our part.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 22: In page 16, line 35, to delete "adopted person" and substitute "natural parent".
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 23: In page 16, line 36, to delete "adopted person" and substitute "natural parent".
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I move amendment No. 24: In page 17, line 4, to delete "or a" and substitute "and a".
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Averil Power: I move amendment No. 25: In page 17, line 5, to delete "identity." and substitute the following:"identity, but otherwise shall not include personal data that would allow the natural parent to identify the adopted person without making contact with him or her unless the adopted person has indicated in accordance with this Act that he or she does not wish to be identified to the natural parent.".
The Bill provides the adoptee with a choice between release of his or her adoption certificate and the provision of his or her contact details to the natural parent where the natural parent is seeking the information. We believe the adoptee should have a third choice, namely, whether the full adoption certificate, including the names and addresses at the time of the adoption of their adoptive parents, are to be given.
The adoptee should have a choice regarding release of his or her current contact details and whether this information should be redacted on the adoption certificate. As I explained on Second Stage, this approach is different from that taken in respect of the birth certificate as provided for in the Bill in that an adoptee would be able to access their birth certificate, including the address of the natural parents at the time of the adoption. The reason for this is that the adoptee has a clear right to his or her identity, which right can be then balanced against the privacy right of the natural parent. When it comes to natural parents seeking information about their adopted son or daughter natural parents do not have an identity right per se that entitles them to have information about their son or daughter, whereas on the other hand the adoptee does have a right to privacy. The balance is different. It is for this reason the Bill provides, on the basis of legal advice we have received, that the adoptee may decide that he or she is not happy, not only to have his or her contact details released but to not have the adoption certificate in its entirety released. Acceptance of this amendment would ensure the adoptee has a choice in regard to what best suits his or her individual needs and sensitivities.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Averil Power: I move amendment No. 26: In page 17, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:"(5) In this section "contact details" do not include any such particulars as are contained in an entry in the register of adoptions in respect of an adopted person, unless the adopted person has indicated in accordance with this Act that he or she does not wish to be identified to the natural parent, in which case subsection (2) applies.".
This amendment also deals with the adoption certificate and the adoptee's ability to have some of the information on it redacted.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Senator Averil Power: Unless the Minister proposes to bring forward amendments on Report Stage, we should take it now as scheduled.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Senator Averil Power: I thank Senators on all sides of the House who have worked with us on bringing this legislation forward. I sincerely appreciate it, both politically and personally. It is an issue that matters immensely to me. I am an adoptee and have been fortunate enough to find my natural mother, half siblings and family. The Bill will not make any difference to me for that reason but it is such a privilege to be in a position to help other adoptees who have not been as fortunate and also the many natural mothers and some fathers who have been in contact with me urging us to bring forward this legislation. This Bill has the potential to make a massive difference to people's lives at no cost to the State and finally to give people some closure, some peace in their hearts and, for those who wish to do so, the ability to reconnect. I refer to people who were forced apart through forced adoptions in this country, where women had no choice whatsoever. They have been plagued by the hurt and pain of this for far too long.
We have done something fantastic today. From the bottom of my heart I thank the Members on all sides of the House who have contributed to this debate. I thank the many people who sent us correspondence. Senator David Norris pointed out the pile of e-mails and letters we have all received on this matter, even in the past few days. This is an issue that really does touch every family in the country in one way or another. It is an issue of profound importance and I thank everybody who has worked with us on this.
I urge the Minister to progress the Bill through the Dáil. All Stages have been passed in the Seanad. The Minister is still talking about the heads of another Bill but now has one that has the assent of this House and cross-party support. Nobody, at any stage of this debate, has spoken against it, which is quite remarkable. I am not sure I have attended any other Seanad debate in the past four years in which there has not been a single voice against the legislation under discussion.
The Minister now has the opportunity to proceed with this Bill in the Dáil and he will have control over it. He may table amendments in the other House to address any concerns he has. I will certainly be asking spokespersons about this. We will be looking to other groups also, not just the Fianna Fáil group. We will be asking all parties and Independents in the Dáil to work with the Minister on the legislation so it can proceed through that House in the same cross-party spirit in which it has been passed in this House. The Bill is now with the Minister and I ask him to please listen to the voices of adopted people, natural mothers and natural fathers who are looking to him to address this issue and finally be the Minister who will bring this through and give them some peace. He should please listen to them and go as far as he can with this Bill. It has just been passed in the Seanad and now only needs to be got through the Dáil. The Minister should please show the leadership and courage required to bring it through.
Senator Martin Conway: I, too, welcome the Minister to the House. This is a very good day for politics in the country and certainly a very good day for the Seanad. I have always believed that when legislation that makes sense is proposed by anybody in the House, is the right thing to do and makes a difference to the citizens we represent, we all have a responsibility to engage with it in a mature fashion. Those who have listened to Senator Averil Power's personal testimony about the journey she has travelled could not be but moved by it, and also by the passion, belief and integrity with which she has articulated her story. During a local radio interview, I was asked recently to identify somebody on the Opposition benches that I most admired. Without hesitation, I said Senator Averil Power because she is what I would describe as a total breath of fresh air in politics. I join her in asking the Minister to progress this legislation through the Dáil. The only House we can answer for, however, is the Seanad. We can only hope the Dáil will do the right thing. The Seanad has done so today.
I wish the legislation well in Dáil Éireann. I sincerely hope it receives the same enthusiastic response there that it has received here. I commend Senator Averil Power for bringing the legislation forward. Doing so is what we are here for. We are here to do the right thing for the people. The legislation will assist the thousands of people who do not know who their natural parents are. That is what we are here for and that is what we have done.
Senator Marie Moloney: I congratulate the three Senators on the work they have put into this Bill. Even during Second and Committee Stages, considerable work was done to strengthen it and address any flaws. Well done to the Senators. I thank the Minister for accepting the Bill and I thank his officials for the time they have put into it. This is the second day in a row in which we have passed legislation in this House that will have a profound effect on people's lives. Sometimes the legislation affects only a minority but we are here to represent the minority as well as the majority. Again, I congratulate the Senators on their work.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I thank everybody in the House for their co-operation. With only 60 Senators in the House, I have been very surprised by the number of personal stories from Members based on direct or family experience. These stories show how much the subject ripples throughout society. This is a really proud day for me. I thank Senator Averil Power, in particular, for all her work on the Bill. I thank also Senator Fidelma Healy Eames, Dr. Fergus Ryan and all the individuals who have come forward to tell their stories and bear witness, including the NGOs that have been advocating. The 50,000 to 60,000 voices are now being heard, certainly by Seanad Éireann. For me, this is a really proud day. Very often we talk about our past here, and this legislation is a way for us to provide a remedy. It is really powerful when we can let the light in, and it is good day for Seanad Éireann.
For me, it is important that we pass this Bill on to the Dáil. I hope it deals with it as efficiently and effectively as we have. The real proud day for me will be when this Bill or a similar one — I hope it will be this one — will come into operation and people can really vindicate their right to their identity so the yearning within them can in some way be addressed. We must keep pushing this agenda so the voices of the affected may be heard.
Senator David Norris: The Oireachtas has been doing a lot of spring cleaning in the area of family law. This is very good. The role of this House, in particular, is significant and important in this regard because this is a reflective Chamber. I spoke only once on this occasion. I said what I had to say and I sat and listened. I was greatly informed by what was said. I decided not to speak further because I believed it was important to pass the Bill and not hold it up with interminable, long-winded speeches.
This is a very good day for the Seanad but the Bill is only half way there. I join others in urging the Minister to progress the legislation because it is really only in the abstract until it becomes law. There is a very substantial body of work. The Minister may feel it needs to be tweaked in certain ways but he has the opportunity in the Lower House to do so. I look forward confidently to this legislation passing into law. I congratulate the three Senators who proposed the Bill.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: This is a landmark day for the State; there is no doubt about it. As others have said, we are half way there. The Minister is the only person here today who belongs to the other House. We are now entrusting him with the Bill to take care of it in order that it will become law. Personally and politically, I am honoured to be a co-sponsor of the Bill. I thank Senators Averil Power and Jillian van Turnhout for this privilege. I am very grateful to all Members of this House for the sensitivity, care and attention they have demonstrated regarding this issue.
It is a landmark day for my family because I now have two young people who in a few years, once this Bill is enacted, will have the right to their birth information. At a personal level, I will be saying, "Get ready". Does the Minister understand what I am saying?
As there are approximately 50,000 adopted persons in communities, one could say approximately 250,000 people will be touched by this Bill. For many people adoption has made their families; therefore, we want it to be a healing process. We know that in the past, adoption was not always a healing process. There was a time when it was shrouded in shame. I am pleased to say that I do not believe that has been the case for the past 20 years. We have moved on immensely in that regard.
Many people are following this debate today, including on Twitter and Facebook, and are joining in this conversation with us. I ask the Minister to progress this Bill for what it is. I know he is planning another Bill and has heads in mind. There may be other aspects he will want to touch on in that Bill. We will look favourably on that, but do not halt this Bill.
I do not know if the Minister intends to sum up but I would be grateful if he could give us an indication of when this Bill might come before the Dáil and when it will be enacted into law. I thank the Minister for his time and sensitivity, and for accepting the Bill today.
Senator Terry Brennan: Ceapaim féin gur lá an-stairiúil é seo do Seanad Éireann. Tá an Teachta Séamus Ó Dálaigh sa Seomra. Tá áthas orm é a fheiceáil sa Teach seo.
I will tell colleagues my story. I was adopted also, and I will never forget who adopted me. The Senators who proposed the Bill should be very proud and I encourage the Minister to do what he can to ensure this Bill has a successful passage through the Dáil. As has been said, it has been endorsed on all sides of this House. Not one negative word was spoken about it, and it has come to a successful conclusion. I am proud to have been part of it. My greatest wish is to ensure that the law in this country is changed and implemented as soon as possible. Comhghairdeas daoibh go léir.
Senator Sean D. Barrett: I compliment Senators Averil Power, Jillian van Turnhout and Fidelma Healy Eames for all the work they put into this Bill. Like my learned colleague, Senator David Norris, I have listened to the debate and we have learned a great deal. For that we are very much indebted to the Senators.
I thank the Senators opposite, Senators Marie Moloney, Martin Conway and Terry Brennan, for their generosity of spirit. Sometimes those on the Opposition benches are meant to-----
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Kill each other.
Senator Martin Conway: We would never consider you opposition.
Senator Sean D. Barrett: -----make derogatory remarks and so on, but the friendships in this House surpass all of that. They have been so kind and generous in terms of the spirit of this legislation they deserve special thanks from everybody on this side.
I wish the Bill well and commend it to the Minister. It will make 50,000 or 60,000 people much happier, as we have heard. I compliment Dr. Fergus Ryan for the work he did. I knew him as a student and remember how kind he was in looking after old people on the campus of Trinity College Dublin.
The Bill is to be commended to a Minister who has gone out on a limb and faced very strong criticism from vested interests in his wish to protect children from the scourge of tobacco. He had the unanimous support of this House on that in terms of the plain packaging issue. We will support him because we are at one on that issue.
This is a suitable way to remember the historic events we will commemorate next year in that we are removing stigma from children and promoting the rights of natural mothers and fathers. We do cherish all the children of the national equally and protect their civil rights. If we have had advice which was very hard to bear from another troika, the Bill prepared by the troika here today is one we all support and wish well. I plead with the Minister to do the best he can to progress it through the Dáil because this is an important day, as Senators on his side of the House have said. I congratulate again the three promoting Senators and their advisers.
We replied from our office to vast amounts of e-mails and correspondence and all the people involved said they supported the Bill. This is a great day for this House.
Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (Deputy James Reilly): Go raibh maith agaibh go leir. I particularly thank Senators Averil Power, Jillian van Turnhout and Fidelma Healy Eames for the time and effort they have put into developing the Private Members' Bill, and Dr. Fergus Ryan, the legal expert who provided assistance in the process. While I do not oppose the Bill I must reiterate that I still foresee some constitutional difficulties with it, but it must be remembered that there are many positive outcomes to adoption.
I note that Senator Averil Power, Deputy Anne Ferris and the Tánaiste, while recently highlighting the historic information and tracing dilemmas that the secrecy of Irish adoption led to, emphasised that they were brought up in a loving and nurturing environment. Senator Terry Brennan also said that earlier. The lifelong support of their adoptive parents in their search for information about their identity was a positive force.
The evidence provided to me by the Adoption Authority of Ireland indicates that mothers whose children were adopted in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s have not come forward in the numbers we would like to see. I take the opportunity again to encourage them and make them aware of the register. I also encourage those mothers to consider making contact with the Child and Family Agency or the Adoption Authority of Ireland where they will be afforded confidentiality, care and empathy and where, I hope, they will feel able to assist their birth child in finding out where they came from. I again thank everybody involved.
Question put and agreed to.
An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?
Senator Martin Conway: Ar 10.30 maidin amárach.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.40 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19 February 2015.
|
Page
of 2
