|
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 Kathryn Reilly that, on the motion for the Commencement of the House today, she proposes to raise the following matter: The need for the Minister for Finance to discuss the flexibility arrangements that will be put in place by the Revenue Commissioners for the application of section 82 of the Finance Act.
I have also received notice from Senator Lorraine Higgins of the following matter: The need for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to state if he will introduce funding for incomplete estates which do not satisfy the unfinished estates criteria laid down by county or city councils.
I have also received notice from Senator Ivana Bacik of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Justice and Equality to inform the House when Committee Stage of the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill will resume in the Dáil and the likely timeframe for passage of this important legislation.
I regard the matters raised by Senators Kathryn Reilly and Lorraine Higgins as suitable for discussion and they will be taken now. I regret that I have had to rule out of order the issue raised by Senator Ivana Bacik as the Minister has no official responsibility in the matter.
Commencement Matters
Tax Relief Application
Senator Kathryn Reilly: I welcome the Minister of State. I raised this issue during the course of the debate on the Finance Bill 2014 and want to delve into it a little further with the Minister of State. When I raised it initially with him in the context of recommendations tabled on Committee Stage, he said the relief was designed to encourage active farmers to productively use lands inherited and that, as such, the Revenue Commissioners would apply the legislation flexibly to ensure genuine cases could qualify for the relief in circumstances in which they might not satisfy the strict letter of the law. He said, "flexibility is there."
The purpose of the recommendation we tabled at the time was to deal with concerns that an individual who inherited agricultural property while living abroad but who wanted to actively farm the property would not qualify for the capital acquisitions tax agricultural relief because he or she might not be able to return home for some time in order to do so. At the time the Minister of State advised that the Department could not legislate for the multiplicity of situations that might arise and that that was where flexibility on the part of the Revenue Commissioners would come into play. I am using the opportunity provided by this Commencement debate to try to determine how the legislation will be applied flexibly and how the Revenue Commissioners will determine genuine and bona fide cases in applying the relief. What criteria and processes will be involved in ensuring enforced delay will not prohibit the making of an application for relief?
We support the principle of encouraging active farmers and active farming. However, the provisions of the section could mean that we might see situations where, on the demise of parents and where the farm holding was gifted, the inheritor would have to be in a position to continue actively farming the holding for a period of six years or to lease it for a period of not less than six years. As I mentioned during the aforementioned debate, this could have a very negative effect on members of the diaspora. This issue has come up in my constituency on numerous occasions because it is made up of small to medium-sized holdings. It is a real concern for intended inheritors who plan to take over a farming enterprise at some stage but who are, often because of economic circumstances, currently living in the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. Many of them had to emigrate because of a lack of employment at home.
The requirement is that 50% of a farmer's time should be spent in actively working on the farm, but the option of seeking off-farm work to meet the other 50% is not available because the people concerned are living abroad and not able to engage in active farming immediately. In many cases, it has always been their intention to return to Ireland after a number of years, but there is no interchangeability between the leasing requirement and the requirement to actively participate in farming. These individuals are part of the diaspora because of economic difficulties in Ireland and some believe they have not been given due consideration in the legislation.
Essentially, as I understand it, the Minister of State and I are on the same page. The Department is intent on ensuring agricultural and productive land is in the hands of young, active farmers and I would not deny the importance of this. However, we must take into account those with smaller holdings in rural Ireland where family members have been displaced through emigration because there are no other employment opportunities available to them. I previously recommended that a grace period be allowed for persons in the circumstances I have described, but I am happy to work with the Minister of State on this issue. I ask him to clarify how the concept of flexibility will be applied. It is one thing to say there is flexibility but ensuring it is applied in practice is another entirely. I know of a lot of people who are worried.
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Simon Harris): I thank the Senator for raising this matter. I apologise on behalf of the Minister for Finance who regrets that he is unable to be present owing to other business.
The matter raised relates to recent changes made to capital acquisitions tax, CAT, agricultural relief which applies to gifts or inheritances of agricultural property. In his 2014 Budget Statement the Minister announced that an agri-taxation review would be undertaken. The review was carried out last year and the report on the review was published in October in the context of budget preparations. A key objective of the review was to encourage improved productivity in farming. In this context, concerns arose that the definition of "farmer" for the purposes of CAT agricultural relief was not sufficiently robust to ensure the relief was only being availed of by active, productive farmers. There were also suggestions it was being used as a tax efficient inter-generational wealth transfer mechanism for non-family farms. To address these concerns and encourage improved productivity in farming, changes to CAT agricultural relief were provided for in the Finance Bill 2014, as published. However, issues were raised with the Minister by various interests about the changes to the definition of "farmer" contained in the Bill which were intended to target the relief at active farmers. Amendments were made to the definition on Committee Stage of the Bill with a view to addressing these concerns.
Following the passing of Finance Act 2014, in addition to the existing conditions, including the requirement that a farmer's agricultural property must comprise 80% by value of his or her total property at the valuation date, the following conditions also apply to gifts or inheritances of agricultural property taken on or after 1 January 2015 where the valuation date also falls on or after 1 January 2015.
The beneficiary must farm the agricultural property for a period of not less than six years commencing on the valuation date or lease the agricultural property for a period of not less than six years commencing on the valuation date. In addition, the beneficiary, or the lessee where relevant, must have an agricultural qualification, that is, a qualification of the kind listed in Schedule 2, 2A or 2B of the Stamp Duties Consolidation Act 1999, or achieve an agricultural qualification, as I have defined above, within a period of four years commencing on the date of the gift or inheritance, or farm the agricultural property for not less than 50% of his or her normal working time. The agricultural property must also be farmed on a commercial basis and with a view to the realisation of profits - thus confining the relief to genuine farmers.
Given the varied nature of farming and the multiplicity of circumstances, as discussed during the debate on the Finance Bill, that can arise, the Revenue Commissioners have published a comprehensive Guide to Farm Tax Measures in Finance Act 2014 which addresses the practical application of all of the farm tax measures introduced in this year's budget and Finance Act 2014. The Revenue guide is available on the Revenue Commissioners' website.
One particular issue of concern regarding the revised requirements for CAT agricultural relief relates to the requirement on farmers without farming qualifications to farm agricultural property for not less than 50% of their normal working time. In accordance with the guide, the Revenue Commissioners will accept for the purposes of this relief that "normal working time" approximates to 40 hours per week. This will enable farmers with off-farm employment to qualify for the relief provided they spend a minimum of 20 hours working per week, averaged over a year, on the farm. If a farmer can show that his or her "normal working time" is somewhat less than 40 hours a week, the 50% requirement will be applied to the actual hours worked - subject to being able to show that the farm is farmed on a commercial basis and with a view to the realisation of profits.
The issue raised by the Senator in regard to the diaspora and how Revenue will treat the case of an individual living and working abroad who has been left a farm and wants to farm it but cannot return immediately to do so is an important one. I am informed that this scenario is dealt with in the guide issued by the Revenue Commissioners in section 3.7, which states, "where a beneficiary inherits agricultural property and intends to farm it but is genuinely unable to do so immediately from the valuation date of the inheritance because of work or other personal circumstances the relief will not be refused where the beneficiary otherwise fulfils the requirements of relief on taking up the farming". I hope that is the flexibility for which the Senator is looking and which we discussed during the debate on the Finance Bill in this House.
The Minister for Finance indicated in the course of the various Stages of Finance Bill 2014 through the Oireachtas that the Revenue Commissioners would apply the legislation around CAT agricultural relief in a flexible manner. The guide published by Revenue, to which I have referred, has been widely welcomed by interested parties in the farming sector and represents a sensible, practical and flexible approach to the changes made to CAT agricultural relief in Finance Act 2014.
Senator Kathryn Reilly: I thank the Minister of State for his response. He has cleared up much of the confusion and it will be heartily welcomed by my constituents.
Unfinished Housing Developments
An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan.
Senator Lorraine Higgins: I also welcome the Minister of State. I raise a matter that is affecting a large number of residents in housing estates in my constituency of Galway East and which is replicated across the country.
It relates to people being left to wait in perpetuity for their housing estates to be taken in charge by local councils. The estates face a plethora of issues ranging from building companies being in receivership to financial institutions holding bonds that receivers cannot access because of the preferential creditors rules. For example, Abbey Trinity in Tuam, County Galway, has been waiting 40 years to be taken in charge and Elm Court in Tuam is facing into its 22nd year of waiting. These are only two of seven estates in the Tuam area that are in the same situation.
Such delays are staggering, as is the fact that the duty to take estates in charge has not been fulfilled. It does not augur well for estates like Dunard in Craughwell, County Galway, which was built at the start of the boom and whose bond is with IBRC. Galway County Council has no funds from that bond to complete the estate, which is in a bad condition. The council's hands are tied. Without further funds, it is in a cul-de-sac.
Many of the estates in question are falling into disrepair, posing health and safety threats. Home owners across the county who bought their properties in good faith are caught in a quagmire, finding that they have no security. Nor do they have clarity on the question of who will mend their footpaths, maintain their street lighting, take care of the general upkeep of their estates and ensure full snag lists have been completed. It is unfair that home owners, through no fault of their own, have been left in limbo. Home owners across Ireland are struggling with this situation, as it can compromise basic services and standards and raise concerns about health and safety. I saw where raw sewage was being pumped into an estate's common area before flowing into some residents' properties. Not only does this affect them, but also the well-being of communities in the estate.
I hope the Minister of State can provide some relief for those who have been affected, some of whom have been waiting in excess of 40 years for help.
Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Jimmy Deenihan): I have been asked by my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, to speak on this matter which concerns almost every Member. I am glad to respond to it.
On behalf of the Government and my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Paudie Coffey, who has special responsibility in this area, the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, is pleased to report that the number of unfinished housing developments nationally has decreased by approximately two thirds since 2010 from nearly 3,000 in 2010 to 992 in 2014. Since 2010, an annual national housing survey of unfinished housing developments has been conducted to monitor and focus progress. The national co-ordination committee on unfinished housing developments, which the Minister of State chairs, drives the implementation of the recommendations of Resolving Ireland's Unfinished Housing Developments - Report of the Advisory Group on Unfinished Housing Developments, which was published in May 2011.
A key contributor to the significant improvement in the situation has been the development of site resolution plans, SRPs. These plans are agreed between residents, developers, funders and local authority personnel for the finalisation of works on site to render estates as habitable as possible. According to the 2014 national housing survey, 587 estates are going through the SRP process.
Budget 2014 contained a special provision in the form of a targeted €10 million special resolution fund, SRF, to assist further in addressing the legacy of unfinished housing developments. The SRF does not replace the predominantly developer-funder-receiver-driven resolution process for unfinished developments, but can complement it. On 2 May, allocations of the €10 million SRF were announced in respect of 86 housing developments. This public investment is expected to leverage an additional investment of €12 million from third parties.
Recognising the urgency of dealing with public safety issues on unfinished developments, the Government also created a €5 million public safety initiative, PSI, in March 2011. A total of 144 estates qualified for and received funding amounting to €3.628 million under this scheme by the end of 2014.
The general scheme of the Planning and Development (No. 2) Bill which was recently published and is expected to be enacted by the end of the year proposes to improve and streamline the taking-in-charge process. As part of a wider overhaul of the arrangements in this area, my Department is seeking to determine the number of residential developments with developer-provided stand-alone water treatment systems and-or wastewater treatment plants that are not connected to public water or wastewater networks. A pilot project focusing on the situation in a number of local authority areas is under way and will assist in identifying problems and costing possible solutions.
Notwithstanding all of the initiatives that I have mentioned, it must be accepted that ultimate responsibility for the resolution of unfinished housing developments rests with the owners, developers and receivers. It is a matter for local authorities, using development bonds and other securities and working with the stakeholders, to identify funding and agree works to bring developments to a standard ready for taking in charge. The Government will support their efforts in this regard and the national co-ordination committee will drive collaborative solutions.
Senator Lorraine Higgins: It is welcome that the Government will support local authorities in taking estates in charge. I hope this includes financial support. Leaving the responsibility to owners, developers and receivers when there are no funds in any of their accounts is not good enough. It is also welcome that a Bill to streamline the taking-in-charge process will be before the Houses. However, I will caution the Minister of State, in that this is not a matter of unfinished housing estates, but of incomplete ones. Different criteria apply. I hope major efforts will be made to sort out the estates, particularly those in Galway because it is the area that I know best. I will write to the Department to ensure this happens.
Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: I thank the Senator for raising this matter which is one that touches every Member. In my constituency there are a number of incomplete housing estates. Action must be taken, which people expect the Government and local authorities to drive. I am pleased that the Senator raised this matter and sure her points will be taken on board by the Minister and the Minister of State.
Sitting suspended at 11 a.m. and resumed at noon.
 12 o’clock
Order of Business
Senator Maurice Cummins: The Order of Business is No. 1, Garda Síochána (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2014 - Committee and Remaining Stages, to be taken at 1.15 p.m.
Senator Mark Daly: The Taoiseach says he is worth €3,500 per week.
Senator Paul Coghlan: It is not enough.
Senator Michael Mullins: It is 40% less than Brian Cowen got.
Senator John Whelan: And what about Bertie Ahern's pension?
Senator Mark Daly: I am sure it sounds incredible to someone on the minimum wage of €8.65 per hour, or on social welfare or struggling to make ends meet in the middle classes. He was stealing a line from Jennifer Aniston who, when advertising a shampoo, said she was "worth it". No doubt she earns considerably more than the Taoiseach but a person on the minimum wage earns one tenth of what the Taoiseach earns. Is the Senator defending the €3,500 per week earned by the Taoiseach?
Senator Paul Coghlan: No, and the Members on the other side of the House should examine their consciences.
Senator Mark Daly: I am glad to hear that the Senator is not defending the Taoiseach's €3,500 per week or saying that he is worth that. Is that right?
Senator Paul Coghlan: The Senator is choosing to misinterpret, as ever.
Senator Mark Daly: The record will show it that the Senator said it. The Taoiseach says he is worth €3,500 per week but he was put into office because he promised to end cronyism and fix the health system. He said he would end the disgrace of waiting lists and the accident and emergency crisis. He made all those promises but did not deliver on them, yet he says he is worth it. I am not too sure anyone on social welfare will agree with him and I am glad that Senator Paul Coghlan does not agree with him either.
Senator Paul Coghlan: That is the Senator's view.
Senator Mark Daly: I am sure the elderly and other vulnerable people would not agree he is worth it either.
I ask the Leader whether we should have a living wage as opposed to a minimum wage. I also wish to ask a question about Irish Water. It is clear that Irish Water is insolvent. Normally the economists of Ireland cannot agree on anything and if one were to put them end to end they would not come to a conclusion. However, if one in three people is not going to pay his or her water bill, the economists will surely agree that Irish Water is insolvent. I asked the Minister, in this House, whether the Government had actually carried out an impact assessment on the changes they had made to Irish Water and I put it to him that it would be insolvent. He did not have an answer. I ask the Leader to ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he agrees that Irish Water is now insolvent because one in three will not pay his or her water bills.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the establishment of the Low Pay Commission which will have its first meeting today. I am sure everyone will wish to join me in wishing chairperson Dr. Donal de Buitléir and the eight commissioners the very best of luck in the hugely important work they will be doing. The Tánaiste spoke about the 95,000 new jobs created since the depths of the crisis and said that 3,300 jobs were being created every month, a record of job creation that is well ahead of target. Many others, including me, have already spoken on that subject this week in the light of the good news we have heard and positive developments in the shape of rapid falls in unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.
Senator Mark Daly spoke about the minimum wage. The Tánaiste reminded us that the work of the Low Pay Commission could, in time, form the basis for a living wage for Ireland. In the meantime, it will ensure that the minimum wage is an issue which independent experts, employers and workers' representatives look at together. The commission will adopt an evidence-based approach and will operate on a rolling basis in order that its recommendations can be adapted as economic circumstances change. That is hugely important. This commission will ensure that low pay will stay front and centre in the public debate and that there is a greater emphasis on ensuring the jobs we create are well paid and decent. I remind colleagues across the floor that the Government restored the level of the minimum wage. It was a Labour Party commitment, one of the first commitments of the Government. The minimum wage had been lowered by the other side.
Senator Terry Leyden: The Senator sounds like the Greeks.
Senator Ivana Bacik: Let us not forget who has the commitment to ensuring that low pay is tackled in an evidence-based and effective manner. I welcome the immense personal commitment of the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Gerald Nash, to the Low Pay Commission. We should all wish it well on its first meeting today.
Senator Terry Leyden: It is another quango.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I also welcome the announcement that the Department of Health is bringing forward legislation on assisted human reproduction and surrogacy.
Undoubtedly, it has been some time in development. Last year the justice committee held pre-legislative hearings on a different version of the Children and Family Relationships Bill that also encapsulated provisions on surrogacy. The latter will be included in a new Bill on assisted human reproduction more generally, which is welcome. I look forward to the debate in the House on it.
Will the Leader arrange for a debate on diversity in school enrolment and admission policies in the light of the Supreme Court's decision this week in the Stokes case and the interesting commentary by my academic colleague, Dr. Darius Whelan, in today's edition of The Irish Timesin which he pointed out some of the issues that the Supreme Court did not consider, notably the European Convention on Human Rights? It would be good for the House to debate the promotion of diversity. I am conscious that legislation forthcoming from the Minister may deal with the outcome of the decision.
Senator David Norris: I will dissociate myself from Senator Mark Daly's remarks. I deprecate-----
Senator Mark Daly: I did not associate the Senator with them.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator David Norris to continue, without interruption, please.
Senator Mark Daly: I do not know why the Senator is dissociating himself from comments with which I did not associate him.
Senator David Norris: That is such a fatuous piece of rubbish. The Senator is just squawking away like an old hen.
Senator Mark Daly: If that is not the kettle calling the pot black.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator David Norris to continue, without interruption.
Senator David Norris: I will just ignore Senator Mark Daly.
Senator Paul Coghlan: The Senator knew what to expect from him.
Senator David Norris: I am dissociating myself from the remarks.
Senator Mark Daly: I think you-----
An Cathaoirleach: Senator David Norris to continue, without interruption, please.
Senator Mark Daly: He is repeating what he just said.
Senator David Norris: That kind of cheap populism is worthy of the worst of the red top newspapers. The Taoiseach is worth every single penny and this kind of attack by politicians on one another brings the entire profession into disrepute. What does he get? Some €12,000 per month, €144,000 or €150,000 per year. He is running the country, making decisions that affect it and the well-being of every citizen and dealing with middle-range business people who have considerably more than him. There are people employed by the Government who earn considerably more than him. It is a nonsense to start carping at the amount of money the Taoiseach earns. Of course, one can say someone on the minimum wage would take the figures badly and so forth, but that has always been the situation. There are gradations. By establishing the Low Pay Commission, the Government is doing something to address the situation over which previous Governments sat and did nothing. I applaud this.
I do not agree with the Government's financial policies but to paraphrase Shakespeare, we are so far gone in gore or whatever it is that returning "were as tedious as go o'er". We are on a course. It appears that it will be successful within its own limits. Let us stick with it. Do not change horses mid-stream and do not have politicians endlessly attacking one another. The popular media will do that for us. They will go for wages, income and all the rest of it. I deprecate this. I work hard. Everyone in this Chamber does. We earn the money that the citizens have decided is appropriate for us. The Taoiseach has taken a cut of 40%. What more does Senator Mark Daly want from him or us? It is ridiculous for politicians to attack one another when there are serious problems confronting the country and when, in the scale of business, the Taoiseach is getting a reasonable income for a very onerous job, for all the worry and for confronting all of the problems that he and the Government inherited. I do not agree with him, but I commend him.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has gone way over time.
Senator David Norris: He is an excellent man and has a firm hand on the tiller. That is what we want in this country.
Senator Hildegarde Naughton: I concur with Senator David Norris. It is important that we acknowledge the work that our elected representatives do nationally and locally.
I wish to raise the issue of capital investment by the HSE. The HSE has submitted a request to the national capital steering group for funds to build a replacement accident and emergency department at University Hospital Galway, UHG. The department handles more than 67,000 patients annually but was only built for half that number. Of those admitted, only approximately 25% require admission. By and large, they end up on trolleys. Similar situations obtain in other areas of the country. Notwithstanding the bed blocker issue that delays the discharge of payments, it is clear that UHG's accident and emergency department is not large enough to cope with the demands placed on it. I welcome the HSE's submission.
Senator Michael Mullins: I support Senator Hildegarde Naughton's call for investment in UHG's accident and emergency department. Its facilities are not fit for purpose. The sooner the investment is provided, the sooner those who need the services that we would all like to see for Galway and its surrounding counties will get them.
I welcome IDA Ireland's recent announcement of a five-year Ireland strategy, which aims to attract 80,000 foreign direct investment jobs and a 40% increase in investments. These ambitious targets will bring total direct employment by overseas companies to 209,000 people by 2019, its highest level ever. The strategy will deliver a wide range of economic benefits to the people of Ireland. IDA Ireland aims to win 900 additional projects in the next five years. This will be based on an ability to respond to clients' needs efficiently, effectively and ahead of the competition. We in this Chamber must applaud IDA Ireland for its work and commend the work being done by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and our embassies which are playing a key role in getting the success story of Ireland's recovery out to the international community. During St. Patrick's week there will be a significant opportunity for Ministers and our ambassadors to sell the country further. I hope to see more benefits being reaped during the remainder of 2015 and coming years.
Senator Paschal Mooney: This week the Irish Hotels Federation held its annual conference in Ballyconnell, County Cavan. A great deal of positive news on the tourism front came out of that meeting. There are indications of a strong resurgence in the hotel sector around the country, as suggested by the number of hotels that have been bought in the past 12 months.
There was also a great deal of praise for the continuation of the reduced VAT rate of 9%, rightly so. We on this side of the House have supported it. According to the economist, Professor Alan Ahearne, I understand that the reduced rate has generated more than 30,000 jobs in the tourism sector. As such, we should be steady as we go. I hope the Government maintains the 9% rate. In this regard I seek a review of the hotel sector outside of Dublin and the main areas. Hotel numbers are buoyant and occupancy rates have increased considerably in Dublin, perhaps more than in any other part of the country. In the regions, however, and particularly mine in the north west, there has traditionally been a lower number of visitors. While I am not necessarily asking the Government to intervene, there should be incentives to encourage people to disperse around the country, for example, free vouchers or another type of link-up with hotels.
I endorse Fáilte Ireland's comments at the conference. Despite the fact that there is buoyancy in the hotel sector in Dublin particularly, there have been some price increases. There was no indication at the meeting that the sector would go in a different direction, but I hope it is not tempted by the increased buoyancy in the tourism market to increase prices beyond what is acceptable, thereby destroying an internationally fragile commodity, namely, tourism.
People switch and change their minds on a regular basis. I understand city hotel prices here are the third lowest in Europe and I hope that will continue. I compliment the Government on the initiative it took and urge it to maintain the 9% VAT rate because tourism in Ireland generally but in the west, in particular, is a bedrock of the economy. If tourist numbers drop, people in my region suffer the most economically. I am glad to say, however, that the trend seems to be turning in our favour.
Senator Paul Coghlan: As ever, Senator Mark Daly earns top marks for hypocrisy.
Senator Mark Daly: I am not earning €3,500 per week, but I am glad that the Senator agrees with me.
Senator Paul Coghlan: The Senator makes great play of agreements, but he should not draw attention to the disagreement on his party's Front Bench. I ask how much agreement he finds within his own party.
Senator Mark Daly: Is the Senator still talking about the Taoiseach's salary?
An Cathaoirleach: Please allow Senator Paul Coghlan to continue, without interruption.
Senator Paul Coghlan: Senator David Norris summed it up so well.
Senator Mark Daly: Macbeth did it better.
Senator Paul Coghlan: The Government is doing good work on the issue of the minimum wage with the low pay commission and so forth, as outlined by Senator Ivana Bacik. We are making an honest, determined and right effort to set the standard. Furthermore, up to 95,000 new jobs have been created by the Government. We are doing everything possible to strengthen and nurture the recovery which is still a fragile flower. That is the only way forward and the only way we will be able to provide stability. If we do not have political stability, we will not have economic stability. As Senator David Norris said, let us not change course; we are moving in the right direction, slowly but surely.
Senator Cáit Keane: I congratulate Senator David Norris. If we had more people like him in politics, there would be less aggro. It is good when politicians recognise and acknowledge the reality, whether they are in opposition or in government. The Senator is showing the way in that regard and others could learn a good lesson from what he said. Cheap populism lets everybody down, as he said.
The Taoiseach is the only one in the past 20 years who has taken a pay cut. His salary has been reduced considerably. I am not sure of the exact percentage - it could be 30% - but I will check and revert to Senator Mark Daly on the issue. Every civil servant has taken a pay cut. Every Minister and Deputy took a pay cut of 10%, for example.
I congratulate the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Gerald Nash, on the launch of the low pay commission today. As Senator Ivana Bacik pointed out, one of the first things the Government did on taking office was raise the minimum wage. I have asked the Minister of State to include child care workers within the remit of the commission. Funding for child care services has increased massively in recent years, but this is not reflected in the pay of workers in the sector.
I call for a debate on telemedicine. Doctors have urged the Government to intervene and discourage health insurance companies from offering telemedicine, or online GP consultations, to their customers. We all know how effective modern communication technologies such as Skype are, but I do not know enough about telemedicine to determine whether the Government should intervene. The new service being offered is being provided by GPs registered in Ireland. However, just because they are registered in Ireland does not mean that they are based here. I would like to have a thorough debate on telemedicine, including a discussion of the potential benefits and pitfalls from the perspective of GPs and the insurance companies. Looking at it from the perspective of it being a one-off or first-stop option, it looks to be a great idea. It is a new service being offered by VHI and Aviva. The idea that one can consult a GP from the comfort of one's home is welcome, as long as it is safe. Is there anything to be feared from this service? That is the question GPs are asking. I, therefore, seek a debate on the matter.
Senator Mary M. White: While I acknowledge that the unemployment rate is declining, I point out to Senator Cáit Keane and others that 1,600 people are emigrating from this country every week. We cannot just accept the public relations spin and gloss over such statistics. Of the 1,600 emigrating every week, 800 are Irish, while the other 800 are from abroad.
Senator Cáit Keane: Did I say anything about emigration?
Senator Mary M. White: According to the CSO figures for last year, 1,600 people were emigrating from Ireland every week, which is a frightening statistic. We need to talk urgently about why so many Irish people are leaving the country, many of whom actually have jobs. Why are they leaving? I would like to have that issue discussed. The culture of austerity and negativity is driving people away. We need people like the Greek Prime Minister and Minister for Finance. They are being ridiculed in the British and Irish media, but they will fight their cause at the highest level. We need leaders like them who have the fire and the passion to lift the spirits of the people. That is why 1,600 people are leaving our little country every week and most of them are not coming back. Last autumn the ESRI published a report which found that many of the mothers of the young people who had emigrated were suffering from depression.
Senator John Gilroy: I question the figures given by Senator Mary White. The level of emigration was down by 20% last year. To say 1,600 people are leaving the country weekly gives the very wrong impression. At least half of that figure is accounted for by the normal population flows one would expect in a given year. The number of Irish people leaving the country, while appallingly high, is not 89,000 but approximately 40,000. The figures given by Senator Mary White give a very misleading impression.
An Cathaoirleach: I call the Leader.
Senator Mary M. White: If I may-----
An Cathaoirleach: Please allow the Leader to respond.
Senator Mary M. White: The unemployment figures are coming down because people are emigrating.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Mark Daly has a habit of putting his foot in it and he has certainly done so today in talking about the Taoiseach's salary which is 40% lower than that of the last two Fianna Fáil Taoisigh. The Taoiseach is earning €100,000 less than the last two Taoisigh from the Senator's party. Instead of criticising the salary of the Taoiseach, the Senator should have chosen a different subject.
Senator John Gilroy: Senator Mark Daly was just looking for a cheap headline.
Senator Mark Daly: The Low Pay Commission was the issue I raised.
Senator Mary M. White: The Senator was talking about austerity.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator David Norris was 100% right. Senator Mark Daly was just looking for red top tabloid headlines from the tripe we had to listen to from him about salaries.
Senator Mark Daly: For those on the minimum wage, the Taoiseach is earning ten times the salary-----
(Interruptions).
Senator Mark Daly: If somebody on the minimum wage was listening to somebody on ten times his or her salary, he or she would not think the Taoiseach was worth it, not when he was cutting social welfare payments and the fuel allowance.
An Cathaoirleach: Please allow the Leader to continue, without interruption. The Senator should allow him to reply to the issues raised on the floor of the House.
Senator Maurice Cummins: The other subject Senator Mark Daly had the gall to raise was the minimum wage. Fianna Fáil told the Government when it took office that it could not do anything about the minimum wage or change anything the troika had done. The first thing the Government did was increase the minimum wage. The Senator ought to start picking his subjects with a little more care. It is just as well that he is not in that seat very often and that he has only been given the opportunity to occupy it a couple of times. He is making a mockery of Fianna Fáil with his comments.
Senator Mark Daly: The cuts made in the last budget affected those on the minimum wage far more than the top earners. That is a fact.
An Cathaoirleach: The Leader to continue, without interruption, please.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Mark Daly is making a mockery of his party with the issues he has raised on the Order of Business today.
Senator Ivana Bacik made reference to the Low Pay Commission, which starts its work today.
We all welcome the fact that the commission is up and running. Senator Cáit Keane asked that it examine the child care sector. I am sure that is one of the sectors that will be included in its deliberations.
Senator Ivana Bacik welcomed the surrogacy proposals made by the Department of Health. I am sure we will discuss the heads of the Bill, if not the legislation, in the autumn session.
The Senator also sought a debate on schools admission policies. As she rightly stated, the Minister for Education and Skills has indicated that legislation will be forthcoming on this matter. Therefore, we will have ample time to discuss it.
Senator David Norris looked at the political reality and stated we needed a firm hand on the tiller. He mentioned this yesterday also. Although he has difficulties with many Government policies, he believes it should be returned on the basis of the work it has done in the past four years to put the country on the road to recovery and secure that recovery.
Senators Hildegarde Naughton and Michael Mullins outlined the difficulties being experienced in the accident and emergency department of University Hospital Galway and welcomed a new submission from the HSE on investment in a new department because the current unit is not fit for purpose, given the increased numbers attending. I am sure the submission will be received favourably by the Government.
Senator Michael Mullins also welcomed IDA Ireland's new strategy. Its forecasts for the next few years are encouraging. The Senator lauded the work our embassies and ambassadors were doing to promote trade. Recently the Irish ambassador to the United Kingdom stated the work of ambassadors had changed so much over in recent years. Previously, they would have dealt with foreign matters but now they are much more involved in the trade sector and promoting Ireland as a good place in which to do business. That is paying dividends for the economy.
Senator Paschal Mooney referred to the need to remain competitive in the hotel sector. He is correct in that regard. He lauded the Government for retaining the 9% VAT rate, which has proved to be beneficial for hotels and the tourism and hospitality sectors. According to CSO data published today, the number of persons employed in the accommodation and food services sector stands at 138,400, which represents an increase of 1.2% or 1,600 in the seasonally adjusted figures compared to the corresponding period in 2013. The tourism sector is a good news story and we can do even better in the coming years, but I take on board the Senator's comments that we need to be ever mindful of competition and that prices need to be pitched at an appropriate level.
Senator Paul Coghlan responded to Senator Mark Daly and outlined that the Government was doing everything to secure our recovery. He noted that, as any economist would say, political instability would bring economic instability. Political stability brings economic stability, as has been the case in the past few years.
Senator Mary White mentioned the high percentage of people emigrating who, as she rightly pointed out, had jobs. They are leaving because the taxation system is killing them. Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin voted against the increase in the standard tax rate band from €32,800 to €33,800 in this year's budget in both Houses.
Senator Mary M. White: Why are all the doctors and nurses emigrating?
Senator Maurice Cummins: The Senator cannot have it both ways. Fianna Fáil is a high tax party. The Government is trying to bring taxes down to keep young graduates at home and ensure they will not be subject to the marginal tax rate, which is €32,800 or €33,800 this year. I hope, following the next budget, the threshold will be increased again. That is the way to retain graduates. Taxation is the reason many of them emigrate.
Senator John Gilroy rightly pointed out that emigration figures were way down on previous years and long may that continue. Emigrants are returning from Australia and now companies are travelling there on recruitment drives to bring Irish people back.
Senator Mary M. White: The statistics show that they are not coming back.
An Cathaoirleach: The Leader to continue, without interruption.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Many of them will come back because of the stability we now enjoy. The country is in recovery; please God, it will continue to recover in order that we can get these people back. Fianna Fáil drove them out of the country, but we will bring them back.
Senator Mark Daly: The Leader did not answer the question about Irish Water and I demand an answer. He did not answer the question about the Taoiseach and his wage of €3,500 a week, while those on the minimum wage get nothing.
Order of Business agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 12.40 p.m. and resumed at 1.15 p.m.
Garda Síochána (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2014: Committee and Remaining Stages
Section 1 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Senator David Cullinane: I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:“Amendment of section 65(1) of Principal Act
2. Section 65(1) of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of “1 member, who is” for “3 members, all of whom are”.”.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh had to leave for an engagement so I am dealing with this Bill. The first amendment calls for a single ombudsman. The rationale behind the amendment of section 65(1) of the 2005 Act is to change the structure of the commission. Instead of three people, there is a single Garda Síochána ombudsman. This was debated on Committee Stage in the Dáil and the Seanad but a single ombudsman would ensure a greater degree of accountability and ensure there is no possibility of dissenting opinions or divergence in the ombudsman's findings.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the Minister of State. During the debate on Second Stage, I spoke on the tripartite ombudsman and referred to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, which was that consideration be given to changing the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, from a three-person institution to a single Garda Síochána ombudsman. The committee unanimously recommended it because it would ensure greater accountability and no possibility of dissenting opinion or divergence. We were persuaded by experience elsewhere.
On Second Stage, I mentioned that the Bill dealt with specific changes to the powers of GSOC. These are welcome and endorse and support the proposals made by the report of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. During the debate on Second Stage, we were told there would be legislation with further reforms to GSOC and other aspects of the report of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. Can consideration be given in the future to changing the ombudsman model to the single person model spoken about by the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality?
Senator Martin Conway: I welcome the Minister of State and I am forming the view that he spends more time here than some Senators.
The point made by Senator David Cullinane in support of his amendment is compelling. One individual should make a decision based on the best possible advice, as opposed to a commission of three, which leads to a majority decision. Senator Ivana Bacik said it was a unanimous recommendation of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, of which I am a member.
I find it bizarre that the Government has not accepted such a sensible recommendation. Best practice, certainly with our counterparts in Northern Ireland, is at the top of the chain with best possible advice but somebody, ultimately, must make a decision. I cannot see why it is necessary to have a three-person commission or ombudsmen to make a decision. A single individual should make the decisions. I am at a loss to know why it is necessary to have three persons. I would like welcome the Minister of State's thoughts on the matter.
Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin): I thank Senator David Cullinane for tabling the amendment which engages the House in a discussion of the matter.
The Minister appreciates that this is one of a set of changes to the 2005 Garda Act that has been recommended by the Oireachtas joint committee. It was the view of the joint committee that having a single person commission could provide for greater accountability and strengthen its overall position.
The Minister has considered the amendment carefully and, as she indicated during the Dáil debate on a similar amendment, there is more involved than merely a change to the number of the commissioners. In particular, she is conscious of the fact that there are certain practical advantages that flow from having a three-person body and she believes these must also be fully taken into account. In that context, she would recall for Senators that the underlying rationale for the establishment of the three-person model was that it would facilitate the bringing of expertise and experience across a range of different sectors to the work of the commission. In addition, it was also considered to be of practical advantage that at least one commissioner would always be available to guide and direct operations. At operational level, GSOC considers this to be a significant advantage in a working environment as unpredictable as that faced by the commission. Some of its most serious and sensitive cases have occurred at weekends or during holiday periods.
Moreover, it is necessary to take account of the fact that a three-person commission, with its legally required gender balance and its range of experience and expertise, conveys a strong public assurance that fairness and sensitivity are at the core of GSOC's approach at the highest level. It also helps that potential differences between an individual commissioner and key interlocutors do not impinge on the smooth and effective running of the organisation.
The Minister accepts that, up to recently, the interaction between the Garda Ombudsman Commission and An Garda Síochána has not been functioning as effectively as it should. This is an area in which substantial work is currently being undertaken by both organisations. Furthermore, and this is the primary purpose of the Bill we are debating, additional powers are in the process of being conferred on GSOC.
In the circumstances, the Minister would be reluctant to alter the current GSOC structure unless it could be shown that a significant advantage would accrue from doing so. Having considered the overall position, including the fact that specific arrangements have been made for the commission, through a nominated member, to account to Oireachtas committees, the Minister would not currently favour moving to a one person commission. However, very conscious of the position of the joint committee on this matter, her view is that this is an aspect that needs to be kept under review going forward. The Senators will appreciate the consideration that has been given to the amendment and in the circumstances the Minister hopes they can withdraw it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): Amendment No. 2 is in the names of Senators David Cullinane, Trevor Ó Clochartaigh and Kathryn Reilly. As amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, are related, they may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Senator David Cullinane: I move amendment No. 2: In page 3, in between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:“Amendment of section 82(1) of Principal Act
4. Section 82(1) is amended by the insertion of the following definition:“ “Independent Adjudicator” means a member of the judiciary chosen to adjudicate on disputes between the Ombudsman Commission and the Garda Inspectorate.”.”.
I have no problem with the grouping of the amendments because they all relate to the need for, in our view, an independent adjudicator in regard to this section of the Bill.
Historically, GSOC would be stopped in its tracks with an investigation by being told certain information was not available to it or would be delayed on the basis that it was a national security issue. We need to ensure the provision is supervised in order to ensure that it is not used as a mechanism to hamper GSOC investigations.
The amendment seeks the introduction of an independent adjudicator who could decide whether such information should be given out on these grounds. Clearly, the amendment is designed to have the highest level of independent oversight which, we believe, is necessary and important if we are to have full confidence in the system. The amendment is constructive and seeks to improve the Bill and ensure a greater level of independent oversight in this area.
Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: I thank the Senator for his contribution. The effect of the proposed amendments would be, in particular, to remove from the Minister for Justice and Equality the function, under section 96 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, of determining whether certain information or material could be made available to GSOC where matters of national security are involved. The Minister has considered the amendments carefully and she is of the clear view that, given that the security of the State is a priority function of the Government, the task of deciding whether information or material can be withheld on security grounds should remain with the Minister for Justice and Equality, in his or her capacity as a member of the Government.
In regard to the Senators' amendments, the Minister emphasises the fact that it is incumbent on the Minister for Justice and Equality to ensure that the relevant functions, under section 96, are discharged properly and impartially. As Senators will be aware, this is one of a number of areas where important security-related matters are dealt with by the Minister, including authorising the interception of communications.
One of the features of the Senators' amendments is that they involve a specific role for a member of the Judiciary. In that regard, the Minister has asked me to draw the attention of Senators to section 100 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. It provides for the appointment of a designated High Court judge to keep under review the operation of certain provisions of the Act, including section 96, that relate to the security of the State.
The Minister believes these arrangements are prudent and provide a suitable level of judicial oversight. Accordingly, she does not believe that it would be appropriate to adopt the changes proposed by the Senators. In the circumstances, the Minister is not in a position to accept the amendments and ask the Senators not to press them.
Senator David Cullinane: I thank the Minister of State for his advice, but I shall press the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question, "That section 4 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
NEW SECTIONS
Senator David Cullinane: I move amendment No. 3: In page 3, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:“Amendment of section 96(4) of Principal Act
5. Section 96(4) of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution “and where a dispute occurs the matter shall be referred to the Independent Adjudicator” for “except in accordance with a direction of a Minister”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Senator David Cullinane: I move amendment No. 4: In page 3, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:“Amendment of section 96(5) of Principal Act
5. Section 96(5) of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of “Independent Adjudicator” for “Minister”.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Senator David Cullinane: I move amendment No. 5: In page 3, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:“Amendment of section 96(6) of Principal Act
5. Section 96(6) of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of “Independent Adjudicator” for “Minister” in each place where it occurs.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question, "That section 5 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7
Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): Amendment No. 6 is in the names of Senators David Cullinane, Trevor Ó Clochartaigh and Kathryn Reilly. As amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related, they may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Senator David Cullinane: I move amendment No. 6: In page 4, line 18, to delete “subject to the consent of the Minister given”.
I will be brief because the amendment is somewhat related to the previous amendments. Given the Minister of State's previous contribution, I can hazard a guess that he will not accept the two amendments. The amendment is about the removal of the Minister having the power in order to allow GSOC retain its independence. I wish to make the point that we believe GSOC must be as independent of the Minister and the Department of Justice and Equality as is possible, which is what is sought by these two amendments. I am reiterating that argument.
Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: Section 7 inserts a new section 102B into the 2005 Act, which brings the Garda Commissioner within the scope of Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, investigations for the first time. This is a significant development and one to which the Government attaches a high degree of importance. That being said, it also must be borne in mind fully that in addition to carrying out her general policing functions, the Garda Commissioner is the head of the national security service. In the latter role, the Commissioner fulfils a vital function which is closely linked to the obligations of the Government to preserve the security of the State.
Senators will be aware that the Minister, in response to the Dáil Committee Stage debate, had strengthened the provision of section 102B to provide a specific role for the Government, rather than just for the Minister, with regard to important decisions to be made under section 102B. To that end, the Dáil accepted the Minister's amendment, under which Government approval would be required before the Minister can consent to a GSOC investigation into the conduct of a Garda Commissioner, request GSOC to commence such an investigation or refuse to consent to a proposed GSOC investigation. In addition, the original text was strengthened further to ensure that in a situation in which a request from GSOC to undertake an investigation into the conduct of the Commissioner is being refused, this can only be done for stated reasons. The practical reality is that it would only be in exceptional cases that consent to a proposed investigation would not be given and in these circumstances, specific reasons would be provided.
Furthermore, as the Minister stated, it is almost impossible to envisage any circumstances under which, on foot of a demonstrable concern that the Garda Commissioner may have committed an offence or behaved in a manner that would constitute serious misconduct, consent would be withheld. As I have indicated, the requirement for Government approval of a ministerial decision under section 102B meets concerns expressed during the Dáil debates that there simply would be a ministerial veto on a GSOC investigation into the Garda Commissioner. Overall, because of the pivotal national security functions undertaken by the Commissioner, the Minister does not consider it to be appropriate to amend the Bill further in respect of ministerial consent. In the circumstances, the Minister asks the Senator not to press the amendments.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand," put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Senator David Cullinane: I move amendment No. 7: In page 4, to delete lines 29 to 31.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand," put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Senator David Cullinane: I move amendment No. 8: In page 5, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:“(2) The Ombudsman Commission may, if the investigation so requires, access the PULSE system.”.
This issue has been discussed on Second and Committee Stages and the amendment recommends that access to the PULSE system by GSOC is given on a statutory footing and not by way of protocols. If I may quote from one of the joint committee's recommendations: The access to Garda systems is of integral importance to the operation of effective oversight of An Garda Síochána. While in practice, this process is already in operation between An Garda Síochána, GSO[C] and the Garda Inspectorate, it is only by means of protocols which have been put in place. The Committee submits that this needs to be placed on a statutory footing in order to ensure that no party can opt out of a protocol.
Again, I argue this strengthens the Bill and seeks to achieve greater oversight and accountability in respect of the PULSE system.
Senator Ivana Bacik: Again, this was an issue I raised on Second Stage and, as the Senator noted, it also was recommended by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality that permission to access the PULSE system by GSOC be placed on a statutory footing. The joint committee considered that access to PULSE would be of integral importance to the operation of effective oversight of An Garda Síochána by the ombudsman commission and again, I stated on Second Stage that this was an issue I hoped the Minister would revisit, even if it cannot be done in this Bill. I acknowledged, as should all Members, that the Bill does indeed implement some important recommendations of the justice committee. In particular, this section, namely, section 7, enables the Garda Commissioner to come within the remit of GSOC for the first time, which was recommended strongly by the joint committee. Consequently, I welcome the positive changes and strengthening of GSOC powers but I hope the Minister will revisit this issue.
Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: On amendment No. 8, the Minister agrees fully that GSOC should have access to PULSE for the purposes of its investigations. However, I can assure Senators that at this stage, it is an aspect of co-operation that is being fully catered for operationally. While the Minister is aware that this is an area that has given rise to difficulties for GSOC in the past, the commission has confirmed to the Department of Justice and Equality that it is satisfied with the level of access to PULSE that is now being provided. As part of the processes involved, Garda training has been provided for GSOC personal. For the Minister's part, she believes it is appropriate that GSOC's access to the PULSE system should be provided within the general framework of the co-operation that takes place between An Garda Síochána and GSOC. This is specifically provided for in the 2005 Act and the Minister does not consider that there would be any particular advantage in making separate provision for one particular area where information is to be exchanged.
In addition, legislating for access to a named information system as proposed has the potential to give rise to practical difficulties such as when that system is changed, integrated with other systems or decommissioned. In that regard, Members may be aware that the Garda Inspectorate has made significant recommendations with regard to the PULSE system. It is also important to stress that section 9 of the Bill contains a provision that will underpin any requirement on the Garda Commissioner to provide information for GSOC. That section inserts a new section 103A into the Garda Síochána Act 2005 and places a statutory obligation on the Commissioner to provide GSOC, as soon as practicable, with information that GSOC requires for the purposes of carrying out its functions. This observation applies fully to the PULSE system and has the advantage that it is equally applicable to any alterations that might be made to that system. In the circumstances, the Minister does not consider that a new legislative provision along the lines proposed is necessary and asks the Senator to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question, "That section 7 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9
Senator David Cullinane: I move amendment No. 9: In page 5, line 37, to delete “as soon as practicable” and substitute “within 30 days”.
I will be brief. Sinn Féin has concerns that the Garda sometimes can cause undue delays in the granting of information or data to GSOC investigators. The amendment proposes to replace the words "as soon as practicable" with "within 30 days". Its purpose is to place a limit on the length of time the Garda can withhold information or not give information to investigators.
Senator Martin Conway: This is a reasonable amendment. The provision "as soon as practicable" is open to what is the definition of practicable and who defines it. Consideration perhaps should be given to a 60-day period because that definitely would be practical under any circumstances. It is not just a question of GSOC getting information from the Garda, as victims of crime often have serious difficulties in getting access to an updated status on a crime. In the United Kingdom, a system has been put in place on the Internet called TrackMyCrime whereby a victim can track the progress of the investigation into a crime online. I believe the information technology infrastructure in Garda headquarters in general and in Garda stations nationwide probably is an issue that must be addressed. It is welcome that in consultation with the Garda Commissioner and the Minister, an information technology committee has been set up to upgrade this infrastructure because it is quite frightening to think one cannot even e-mail one's local Garda station. That simply is unthinkable in a modern age in a modern country and should not be acceptable.
Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: The new section 103A being inserted into the 2005 Act by section 9 of the Bill places a statutory obligation on the Garda Commissioner to provide to GSOC any information that the commission needs for the purposes of the investigation of a complaint or any matters comprehended by sections 102 and 102B.
The requirement is that the information will be provided to GSOC as soon as is practicable, that is, as soon as it is feasible to do so. This approach has been taken because it must be recognised that, inevitably, there will be situations where it will not be possible to adhere to specific deadlines. Such a case could occur where a key witness is not available or where a very large body of work must be undertaken.
The Minister is aware that there have been situations where the amount of time taken to supply information or material to GSOC has been unacceptable. In that context, she is satisfied that the new provision is sufficient to ensure that GSOC will be able to obtain any necessary information within a period that is appropriate to the complexity of the information being sought. The Minister understands that there has been a significant improvement in the timeframe within which An Garda Síochána provides information for GSOC. Senators will appreciate that the new section 103A will further strengthen the current arrangements. The Minister is very much aware of the requirement for the speedy provision of information by An Garda Síochána to GSOC. In that regard, she is satisfied that section 103A will contribute positively to this requirement and, given the complexities involved, she will be keeping the position under review. In the circumstances the Minister asks the Senators not to press the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 9 agreed to.
Sections 10 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Section 14 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 33; Níl, 2.
| Tá |
Níl |
| Bacik, Ivana. |
Cullinane, David. |
| Brennan, Terry. |
Reilly, Kathryn. |
| Burke, Colm. |
|
| Byrne, Thomas. |
|
| Coghlan, Eamonn. |
|
| Coghlan, Paul. |
|
| Comiskey, Michael. |
|
| Conway, Martin. |
|
| Craughwell, Gerard P. |
|
| Crown, John. |
|
| Cummins, Maurice. |
|
| Daly, Mark. |
|
| Gilroy, John. |
|
| Hayden, Aideen. |
|
| Heffernan, James. |
|
| Keane, Cáit. |
|
| Kelly, John. |
|
| Landy, Denis. |
|
| Leyden, Terry. |
|
| Mooney, Paschal. |
|
| Moran, Mary. |
|
| Mulcahy, Tony. |
|
| Mullins, Michael. |
|
| Naughton, Hildegarde. |
|
| Noone, Catherine. |
|
| Norris, David. |
|
| Ó Domhnaill, Brian. |
|
| O'Donnell, Marie-Louise. |
|
| O'Neill, Pat. |
|
| Quinn, Feargal. |
|
| Sheahan, Tom. |
|
| van Turnhout, Jillian. |
|
| Zappone, Katherine. |
|
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators David Cullinane and Kathryn Reilly.
Question declared carried.
An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?
Senator Maurice Cummins: At 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday next.
The Seanad adjourned at 1.55 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 3 March 2015.
|
Page
of 2
