|
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 Denis Landy that, on the motion for the Commencement of the House today, he proposes to raise the following matter: The need for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to provide a detailed report, on a county by county basis, on the number of derelict sites in the records of each local authority, the number of these sites on which an annual levy is being charged, how much money is being collected on a county by county basis and the number of derelict sites in the ownership of local authorities and how these sites are treated under the Derelict Sites Act.
I have also received notice from Senator Darragh O'Brien of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Health to make a statement on the proposed reassignment from surgical duties of the Hardwicke ward in Beaumont Hospital.
I have also received notice from Senator Colm Burke of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Justice and Equality to introduce a scheme of reimbursement for travel expenses and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred by persons who are called for jury service and subsequently serve on juries.
I have also received notice from Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh of the following matter: An gá atá ann go dtabharfaidh an tAire Oideachais agus Scileanna soiléiriú ar cén uair atá a Roinn chun an maoiniú is gá a chur ar fáil chun na háiseanna agus na seomraí breise atá ag teastáil a chur ar fáil ag an scoil ag Tí Nan Dooley ar an gCeathrú Rua, i gContae na Gaillimhe, chun gur féidir leo an curaclam iomlán a chur ar fáil do na daltaí ansin.
I regard the matters raised by the Senators as suitable for discussion and they will be taken now.
Commencement Matters
Derelict Sites
Acting Chairman (Senator Michael Mullins): I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Paudie Coffey.
Senator Denis Landy: I also welcome the Minister of State and commend him for his work, particularly in recent weeks, in the brief relating to housing and the new legislation on urban regeneration. He came in with a swagger of a Munster champion and I hope we can sort that out in the next couple of weeks.
Deputy Paudie Coffey: I wish.
Senator Denis Landy: This is a very serious issue. I attended a forum on rural development with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, last week and this was one of the biggest issues that arose. It concerns the blight of derelict sites on rural towns. Right across the country, we can see that businesses have closed and people have left houses for one reason or another. In many cases, these buildings have been left to go to rack and ruin. There is legislation in place, as the Derelict Sites Act has been there for a long number of years. The theory is that owners are contacted if property is not in good stead and may be required to pay a 3% levy of the value of the property on an annual basis. As I understand it, that money is supposed to go towards putting the property into a safe and aesthetically favourable state.
This is one of the biggest bugbears for community groups involved with the Tidy Towns competition and which show pride in their own areas. These derelict sites continue to be relevant as places will lose points in the SuperValu Tidy Towns competition on an annual basis. These problems are highlighted almost on an annual basis in some towns but nothing seems to be done. In my own town, I am sad to say, there are a number of such sites, and some locations are very badly affecting the town aesthetic. The local community development group in Carrick-on-Suir has taken it upon itself to put a face on some sites by painting them to take the bad look away. The Minister of State is probably familiar with this as he is only down the road. The work has been fantastic.
There is legislation but it does not appear to be used by local authorities. When we ask about these sites, we get a story about the issue being with the legal department but, frankly, that is not good enough. We need to start representing rural towns for business and tourists, particularly in areas where we are not strong from a tourism perspective. We must make it attractive for people to come here. In areas with a strong tourism industry such as Killarney there are very few derelict sites. Those local authorities seem to know the value of tourism and are active in ensuring that these problems are dealt with.
It was brought to my attention that among the biggest offenders in this respect were local authorities, which may own many properties because they have bought them over the years. They are allowed to do this under the legislation. Who polices the local authority? The private citizen would pay the 3% levy to the local authority, which is meant to use it wisely to deal with this issue. If the local authority owns the property, who is looking after the authority? Will the Minister of State consider this as the urban regeneration legislation, taking in vacant sites, goes through the Houses of the Oireachtas? It has started in the Dáil already and the Minister of State might accept an amendment in this House on the matter. It is a very serious issue and there is no ombudsman to which the local authority must answer. I look forward to the Minister of State's reply.
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Paudie Coffey): I thank the Senator for raising this matter, in which I have a deep interest. The Senator is quite correct to bring a focus on derelict sites to the Seanad, as they are a blight on our towns and villages. Local authorities have a statutory responsibility to deal with them. From my own knowledge, having been a member of a local authority for several years, there is nothing worse or more frustrating for community groups, such as the Carrick-on-Suir community group the Senator mentioned, which are working hard to improve their towns and the appearance of their community, than to have a derelict site right in the middle of their town or village. It is unacceptable and local authorities have a statutory role to deal with such sites.
Section 9 of the Derelict Sites Act 1990 provides that it shall be the duty of every owner and occupier of land, including a statutory body and a State authority, to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the land in question does not become, or does not continue to be, a derelict site. In this connection, the term "statutory body" includes local authorities, harbour authorities, vocational education committees, as well as State boards and bodies established under any statute. Section 10 of the Act further places a specific obligation on local authorities to take all reasonable steps to ensure any land within their functional area does not become, or continue to be, a derelict site.
For the purposes of the Act, a derelict site is defined as: any land which detracts, or is likely to detract, to a material degree from the amenity, character or appearance of land in the neighbourhood of the land in question because of the existence on the land in question of structures which are in a ruinous, derelict or dangerous condition, or the neglected, unsightly or objectionable condition of the land or any structures on the land in question, or the presence, deposit or collection on the land in question of any litter, rubbish, debris or waste, except where the presence, deposit or collection of such litter, rubbish, debris or waste results from the exercise of a right conferred by statute or by common law.
Local authorities have substantial powers under the Act, including powers to establish a register of derelict sites in their functional areas; requiring owners or occupiers of sites to take specific measures which the authority considers necessary to address the dereliction within specified time-frames; to acquire a site by agreement or compulsorily in certain circumstances; and to impose an annual derelict sites levy at a rate of 3% of the market value of a site on registered sites in urban areas or other areas prescribed by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to be an urban area for the purposes of the Act.
As required under section 8(6) of the Derelict Sites Act 1990, my Department requests each local authority to submit, on an annual basis, its derelict sites register in respect of the previous calendar year. The most recent information held by my Department in this regard covers the year 2013.
Under section 8(5) of the Derelict Sites Act, a copy of the derelict sites register for any local authority can be inspected at the offices of that authority during office hours. I encourage members of the public to look for this register and create awareness in communities, which would put the pressure on local authorities to ensure they are pursuing these derelict sites.
For the information of the Senator, my Department has compiled a report which I will provide to him, summarising the information returned from local authorities in respect of 2013. This report addresses, on a county by county basis, the number of derelict sites on the records of each local authority; and the amount of levy collected on an individual local authority basis. By way of summary, the report indicates that nationally there were 1,755 derelict sites on the local authority registers on 1 January 2013; 143 new sites were added to the local authority registers during that year; and 187 sites were removed from the local authority registers during 2013, which left a total number of 1,711 sites nationally on the local authority derelict sites register.
Information is not held in my Department on the number of sites on the respective local authority registers, which are in the ownership of local authorities, or how these sites are treated under the Derelict Sites Act. The administration and implementation of the Act at a local level is a matter for the respective local authorities and I have no function in this regard.
The Senator has made a very pertinent point regarding local authority-owned lands and I share some of his concerns. Elected members have a mandate to represent communities and I urge local councillors to ensure that those lands owned by their authorities are put to beneficial use if at all possible. This is something I feel strongly about in terms of urban regeneration. The Senator has mentioned that the Bill will be coming before the Seanad shortly, at which time there will be further opportunity to debate these issues.
Senator Denis Landy: I thank the Minister of State for his very strong and forthright response. He served as a member of the local authority in Waterford for many years and I served with him on a regional authority. We are very familiar with this type of situation. The Minister of State is not just knowledgeable in theory but also in practice.
I am dismayed to find out that in 2013, only 44 derelict sites were dealt with - in other words, removed - in the entire country. I was surprised to discover that some local authorities had zero derelict sites on their books, while others had up to 250 or more, of which they are removing something in the order of four or five per year. That is not good enough and I ask the Minister of State that this week, he would, through his office, make as much known to the responsible officials in the local authorities.
Volunteers in every community up and down the country, particularly at this time of year, spend hours and weeks of their own time getting ready for the Tidy Towns competition. The same thing knocks them every year and we can do something about it. I will deal with the Minister of State when the legislation is introduced in the House. We will see if we can put something stronger in it then.
Deputy Paudie Coffey: It is quite evident from the register that some local authorities are far more proactive in pursuing derelict sites than others. I share the Senator's concerns in this regard and will undertake to write to local authorities to bring a new focus on pursuing derelict sites within their areas.
Local authorities need to be ambitious for their areas. Voluntary community groups are already ambitious, but they need the support of the local authorities, which have the statutory power to deliver what needs to be done to deal with derelict sites. I urge local authorities and elected members to ensure that it happens.
With the economic recovery now taking place, proper planning and sustainable development require us to ensure we have regeneration in town centres and villages, rather than looking again for the easy option of urban sprawl and the greenfield site. These are serviced sites with public services already paid for by the taxpayer. Somebody has to grasp the nettle to regenerate them.
In terms of the social housing strategy, I urge local authorities to come forward with proposals for social housing solutions that will integrate into the villages and towns we are speaking about and can utilise derelict and vacant sites. We can do a lot if we are proactive in that regard.
Hospital Accommodation Provision
Acting Chairman (Senator Michael Mullins): I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Simon Harris.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: I, too, welcome the Minister of State. I am slightly bemused that he is answering on this matter which concerns Beaumont Hospital. I have a lot of regard for the Minister of State as we have debated a number of things and taken Bills together. Nonetheless I am extremely disappointed that neither the Minister for Health, Deputy Leo Varadkar, nor the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, is here to discuss one of the busiest hospitals in the country, which is effectively at crisis point. I feel like withdrawing the matter, but in deference to the Minister of State who has given of his time, I will not do so, although I will write to the Minister for Health.
Beaumont Hospital has effectively decided to shut down 33 acute surgical beds and reallocate them for elderly care. These surgical beds are for patients undergoing colorectal, heart, orthopaedic and gynaecological surgery, many of whom are acute and cancer patients. The decision was taken by management without any consultation with staff at the hospital.
It is absolutely nuts. I have read Beaumont Hospital's statement which states its key priority is to utilise the capacity and resources available to all patients, both medical and surgical. No one will disagree with this. However, what we are doing here is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Of course, elderly care is very important, but it is not being funded properly. This flows from the disaster a number of months ago with the fair deal scheme, elderly care and a lack of places. The Minister decided to do something about it instead of being merely a commentator, which he is on most health issues. What is happening now, however, is that the hospitals are being told to come up with the extra beds. Taking them away from acute surgical care is insane. The Government will come back and say this is not a big deal and that the number of beds has not been reduced. I am not a fool and I know the same number of beds are there, but some have been taken away from acute medical care. The fact that surgical beds are gone will result in the immediate loss of ten high observation beds that the Hardwicke ward provides as well as five single rooms that are used to nurse surgical patients who may require isolation for specific surgical reasons. That is what is being lost here and it is genuinely shocking. As a Dubliner and Dublin's spokesperson for my party, it is my local hospital. The staff cannot understand this. At least 30 consultants signed a letter which was sent to management and the Minister to say that this was a really bad idea. The nursing staff only found out informally the night before that this would happen. There was no consultation with them. The INMO sat down with representatives of nursing staff and senior management and was told it would be given a detailed report setting out the rationale for these changes. That was on 5 June. This is 18 June but nothing has been received.
The Minister of State is always very welcome to the House. I have outlined the case so far and am interested to get the answer. I am incredibly disappointed that the Minister for Health and the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, do not see this issue as important enough to actually come to the House and answer questions on. I will reconfigure this Commencement matter and table it again next week, or until such time as the Minister who is responsible for this comes to the House to reply. Nevertheless, I am interested to hear what the Minister of State will say on behalf of the Department of Health as an office holder in the Department of Finance.
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Simon Harris): I thank the Senator for welcoming me to the Seanad. I take the point he makes. I am taking the matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy Leo Varadkar, who regrets he cannot be here today as he is on Government business. He has, therefore, asked me to deliver his response to the Senator's Commencement matter. He thanks the Senator for raising the issue.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: I am sure he does.
Deputy Simon Harris: The Minister has asked me to reassure the House that there has been no reduction in the number of patient beds in Beaumont Hospital, a point the Senator made himself. While 140 beds spread across four surgical wards had historically been intended for surgical patients, in reality a significant number of these beds have been consistently occupied by medical patients, many of whom are frail and elderly. In line with national programmes for treating frail and elderly patients and for surgical procedures, a decision has been made to reorganise a number of wards at Beaumont Hospital to provide a more comfortable experience for all patients. One of these four wards has now been allocated for frail and elderly patients who require medical attention only while the remaining three have been ring-fenced for surgical patients. This reorganisation will provide a more comfortable setting for elderly patients while also providing greater certainty on bed availability for surgical procedures. It will also contribute to an improvement in waiting lists.
Delayed discharges at Beaumont Hospital are, of course, a factor in the availability of bed capacity and have no doubt led to a strain on resources. However, on foot of the ED task force which the Minister convened in December last year, additional funding of €74 million was provided in 2015 to help ease these types of pressures in acute hospitals. The funding will increase the number of long-term nursing home care places and reduce waiting times for the funding of such places. It will also increase the number of transitional care beds and home care packages to provide viable supports for those no longer needing acute hospital care. Significant progress has been made to date on the overall plan and I am pleased to inform the House that delayed discharges are reducing steadily, with a 23% reduction since November 2014.
In addition to measures already taken, the HSE has also been working with social care and has developed a frail-elderly project team. The team is led by a community geriatrician with a focus on the provision of care in day hospitals and nursing homes rather than in hospital emergency departments. As the Senator said, Beaumont Hospital has one of the busiest emergency departments in Ireland, providing services for over 50,000 patients every year. Since January there has been an increase in the number of older patients requiring emergency admission. In addition to working closely with the community, the hospital has undertaken a number of initiatives internally within various teams and departments and externally with the HSE to improve the patient pathway both through the emergency department and the hospital. Beaumont Hospital's key priority is to utilise the capacity and resources available to provide the best possible treatment for all patients, both medical and surgical.
I will ensure the transcript of this debate and the comments of the Senator are brought to the attention of the Minister.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: I thank the Minister of State for outlining the reply. It is most interesting that what the Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, gave the Minister of State to read to the House is an identical copy of the statement issued by Beaumont Hospital yesterday. Is the Minister for Health simply a nodding dog? He has not even bothered to produce any new information. It is an identical copy of what Beaumont Hospital issued yesterday. I would expect more from the Minister.
I thank the Minister of State for attending. He is doing his job. However, the response from the Government is wholly inadequate and does nothing to allay my fears or, more importantly, the fears of the nursing staff, consultants and doctors within Beaumont Hospital who have a duty of care to patients. The problem here is that 33 acute surgical beds are being removed in the hospital with Ireland's second longest inpatient waiting lists. Whatever way one looks at it, that is a reduction. It is most unfortunate. I will be raising the matter again. While I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to give that answer, it is, unfortunately, word for word the answer Beaumont Hospital issued yesterday.
Jury Service
Senator Colm Burke: I have been asked to raise this matter by a prosecuting counsel who works for the State in criminal cases. It relates to jury service and the difficulties in some areas where the required number of jurors is not available. What has caused concern are two recent cases which took a great deal of time to run; the Ian Bailey and Graham Dwyer cases. In one case, the jurors sat for more than 60 full days.
Someone from as far away as Castletownbere could be summoned to serve on a jury in Cork city, but while the Courts Service ensures those who serve on juries receive meals while they are hearing a case, there is no provision for simple things like travel expenses, car parking or overnight accommodation. We need to look at that. Another area in which there is no provision relates to the self-employed. While employers are obliged to pay an employee who is called to serve on a jury, there is no provision for the self-employed. How can they run their businesses if they are required to spend two weeks in court in the absence of any provision? It is something we need to look at when cases are getting more complicated. As we saw recently, they run for longer now. We must provide for some out-of-pocket expenses for those who make themselves available to serve on juries when called. It is a matter than needs to be reviewed.
Deputy Simon Harris: On behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, I thank the Senator for raising this matter. The Minister regrets she is unable to be present for this discussion.
Jurors are an essential part of the administration of justice in the country. As provided for in the Constitution, a key principle of a fair judicial system is the right to trial by jury.
The Juries Act 1976, as amended, sets out the current law on jury selection and jury service, including issues such as eligibility and the selection and service of jurors.
As the Senator is aware and has outlined, there is no provision in the Juries Act 1976 for the payment of expenses to jurors or their employers from State funds. When policy underlying the Act was being formulated consideration was given to the matter of expenses, but it was decided at that time that expenses should not be paid as performance of jury service was considered to be a basic civic duty which arose relatively infrequently as far as the individual is concerned. That policy has been retained by successive Governments. Section 29 of the 1976 Act, however, makes provision for employees to be paid by their employers, as the Senator pointed out, while on jury service. Under section 9 of the 1976 Act, a county registrar may excuse any person whom he or she has summoned as a juror from attendance during the whole, or any part, of the sittings in question if that person shows to the county registrar's satisfaction that there is good reason he or she should be so excused - for example, if a person is self-employed and works alone and where his or her attendance at jury service may mean he or she cannot earn a living, he or she may qualify for excusal from jury service. This is entirely a matter for the county registrar concerned and the Minister for Justice and Equality has no function in this regard.
Under current legislative provisions, jurors are not reimbursed for their time or travel expenses and employers are obliged to continue to pay employees while they serve on a jury. The Courts Service, however, provide meals and other refreshments to jurors when serving on a jury.
The Law Reform Commission report on jury service which was published in April 2013 contains 56 recommendations covering a broad range of issues relating to jury service. On the issue we are debating today, chapter 9 of the report covers recommendations on jury compensation and expenses, including an introduction of a modest flat-rate daily payment to cover the cost of transport and other incidentals involved in jury service, and these issues are being fully considered by the Department. Some of the recommendations in the Law Reform Commission's report have cost implications and these recommendations require careful evaluation in the current economic climate. They are being considered in the context of a juries Bill which is included in the Government's legislation programme and will be brought forward in due course.
The Government has already taken steps in regard to the recommendation concerning additional jurors for lengthy criminal trials. Part 5 of the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 provides for the appointment of up to three additional jurors to deal with lengthy criminal trials. The issue of jury selection is a matter for the Courts Service. The Courts Service has informed the Minister that it is engaged in a process of making the administration of jury service summonses and notices more streamlined and centralised.
The Department and the Government are currently giving consideration to the Law Reform Commission report on jury service. Chapter 9 relates to the issues which have been raised by the Senator. They will be considered by the Government and considered one way or the other in the context of a juries Bill.
Senator Colm Burke: I thank the Minister of State. He might clarify whether there is any timeframe for the juries Bill. Will we see it before the end of the Government's term or will it be published in the next Government's term?
Deputy Simon Harris: I will have to ask the Minister for Justice and Equality to revert to the Senator, but I am happy to do so. The Bill is listed in the Government's current legislative programme and will be brought forward in due course. I reassure the Senator and the Seanad that the issues he has raised are being fully considered in the context of the development of the Bill.
Oibreacha Feabhsúcháin do Scoileanna
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Cuirim céad fáilte roimh an Aire. Tá mé thar a bheith sásta gurb í féin atá anseo, mar Aire sinsearach sa Roinn Oideachais agus Scileanna, leis an gceist seo a ghlacadh. Tá scoil an-speisialta againn ar an gCeathrú Rua, Tigh Nan Dooley, atá ag déanamh obair den scoth agus táim ag ardú ceiste ar a son ar maidin.
I am very happy that the Minister has been able to take the time to come to the House to take this Commencement matter. Tigh Nan Dooley is a special school located in Carraroe, County Galway. It provides an education to pupils with special educational needs, including moderate, severe and profound general learning difficulties and autistic spectrum disorder. It is under the patronage of Ability West. The school received permanent recognition from the Department of Education and Skills in 2010, operates through the medium of Irish and is the only school of its type in the country. It covers the area from Barna to Inisboffin in County Galway. We are very proud of the school and it is a very important resource in the area.
I note the whole school evaluation that was done in the school recently gave it a glowing report. It said the main strengths of the work of the school are that the school staff works in a very effective and unified manner to meet the needs of each pupil, it has a highly effective principal who works diligently to provide a holistic and relevant education for the pupils, exemplary links have been established with local national schools to promote the ongoing and progressive inclusion of pupils, where relevant, the quality of pupil management is excellent, the quality of teaching and learning in all subject areas is of a very high standard, the curriculum is differentiated effectively to address pupils' learning needs and it has a very open ethos and friendly atmosphere.
The daily whole school assemblies greatly enhance staff collegiality and the very strong relationships between teachers and pupils promote a sense of community. The report makes one recommendation on the ongoing investment in curriculum-related materials and resources being used to maximise the engagement of individual pupils. A refurbishment was done a number of years ago which was not fully completed. I understand there are currently no family or assessment rooms in the building. There is space for two classrooms in the upstairs of the building. The area has been plumbed, windows are in place and electrical work has been completed, and it has been passed for special needs assessment needs. There is an issue with a lift in terms of making the space accessible to the pupils.
It is very difficult for the staff, who are exemplary, to be able to deliver the necessary curriculum properly until the space is accessible and made available to them. When will the Department see fit to upgrade the available space and ensure the staff can give these very special children all of the attention they need and as good a chance as possible to further their education in this very special setting?
Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Jan O'Sullivan): I wish to clarify the current position on the school in Carraroe, County Galway. The Senator will be aware of the demographic challenge facing the education system in the coming years. Primary enrolments, which have already risen substantially in recent years, are projected to rise by over 36,000 pupils by 2016 and are set to continue to rise, with a likely peak at around 574,000 pupils to be catered for in 2018. This compares with 526,422 pupils enrolled in primary schools for the 2012-13 school year. It is vital that there is sufficient school accommodation to cope with these pupil enrolments.
In order to meet the needs of the growing population of school going children, my Department's priority is to establish new schools as well as extending or replacing a number of existing schools in areas where demographic growth has been identified. The delivery of these new schools, together with extension projects to meet future demand, will continue to be the main focus for investment by my Department in the coming years. However, regarding the school at Tigh Nan Dooley in Carraroe, County Galway, what will be of more interest to the Senator is that this school was transferred to my Department from the Health Service Executive in 2007. It has eight pupils enrolled in the 2014-15 academic year and has a staffing of a principal and one special class teacher. I understand that the school is accommodated in a purpose built development centre owned by the school's patron, Ability West. The school applied for permanent recognition, which was granted by my Department in 2010. I can confirm that the school submitted an application for funding in 2012. The project was not progressed at that time due to the need to prioritise essential mainstream accommodation to meet demographic needs and the school was advised of the outcome. However, my Department would be prepared to consider an application for funding to meet an immediate accommodation requirement, including works to address accessibility issues in respect of the school in question. Officials from my Department will be in contact with the school authorities to discuss the accommodation issues at the school in the coming days.
I again thank the Senator for giving me the opportunity to outline the position on Tigh Nan Dooley, Carraroe, County Galway.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: It is very good news that the Minister is willing to accept the application and I thank her very much. On the timelines and possible capital funding being available for the upgrade, would this come from the existing capital funding allocation or would there be quite a long time between the application being made and being realised, when the full facilities would be made available to the students in the school?
Deputy Jan O'Sullivan: The coming days are relatively soon and if there is any delay I am sure the Senator or the school will contact me and let me know.
With regard to funding, I imagine it will not have to wait for the next five year capital funding programme, which will be from the beginning of 2016. Issues such as this, with regard to needed accommodation, can be considered in the meantime; therefore, it would not necessarily have to wait for the new capital funding.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: That is great news. I thank the Minister.
Sitting suspended at 11.10 a.m. and resumed at 11.30 a.m.
Order of Business
Senator Maurice Cummins: It is proposed to take No. 1, motion re arrangements for the address to Seanad Éireann on 23 June 2015 by Mr. Phil Hogan, European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, to be taken without debate at the conclusion of the Order of Business; and No. 1a on the Supplementary Order Paper, Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety (Amendment) Bill 2015 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, to be taken at 12.45 p.m. and adjourned not later than 3 p.m., if not previously concluded, with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed five minutes.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: To deal first with the immediate matter of the Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety (Amendment) Bill, there is no way we will accept the taking of this Bill on Second Stage today. The Bill has only just been published this morning. That is not acceptable, nor is it any way to do our business. I ask the Leader to withdraw the Bill. I do not understand the hurry with it. I ask that it be kicked back into next week because we will not accept it. On that basis we will not agree to the Order of Business. This is not the way to do our business. I am not saying we are necessarily opposed to the Bill itself, but we should not be doing our business that way.
I have a question for the Cathaoirleach about the procedure for Commencement matters. I lodged a Commencement matter on Tuesday which was taken this morning, for which I am grateful. When a Commencement matter is tabled, when is the Department concerned advised of the matter?
An Cathaoirleach: As soon as we receive it.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: That is exactly as I thought. This morning I tabled a very important matter on the removal and reconfiguration of 33 acute surgical beds from Beaumont Hospital. The Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, is a decent guy and I have a lot of regard for him. He is a very good attender at this House. He is the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with responsibility for the Office of Public Works who comes in and reads a statement on behalf of the Minister for Health, Deputy Leo Varadkar, on the second busiest hospital in the country, a hospital in crisis, where 33 acute surgical beds for cancer patients have been removed. The Minister could not even be bothered to come to the House to take the debate. It is not just he who could not be bothered; the Minister of State at the Department of Health could not be bothered either. Instead, they have sent in the Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW who read a stock reply from the Minister. I do not know if it is something in the Fine Gael Party this week that its members are not able to write their own scripts. What the Minister of State read this morning was an exact copy of the statement from the management of Beaumont Hospital yesterday. The Minister of State reads a statement on behalf of the Minister for Health which is an exact copy of the statement issued by Beaumont Hospital management.
I received the response to my matter - a response I am not happy with - but to add insult to injury, the Minister tweeted: "Was in Seanad for two hours yesterday and no one mentioned this."
He is saying he did not know about the Commencement debate. He is using the excuse, which effectively is a lie, that he did not know about this.
An Cathaoirleach: I can confirm to the Senator that as soon as we receive the matters to be raised, they go to the Department.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: I am certain of that from responses received from staff in the Seanad office, but why then is the Minister saying he did not know about this debate this morning and he expected to be told about it when he was in the House here yesterday? He has said he sat here for two hours and no one mentioned it to him. How long has he been here? The Minister has been a passenger in his Department or independent commentator who feels everyone else's pain and says, "God, is that not terrible?" Deputy Leo Varadkar is the Minister.
An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
Senator Darragh O'Brien: I am telling the Cathaoirleach that I am not accepting this from the Minister. I want him to come to the House today to debate the issue of 33 acute surgical-----
An Cathaoirleach: Is the Senator proposing an amendment to the Order of Business?
Senator Darragh O'Brien: I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that the Minister for Health come to the House today to address the issue of 33 acute surgical beds in Beaumont Hospital which are being withdrawn without consultation with the staff. I also want the Minister to confirm when his Department was told about the Commencement debate because what he made public today is not true. He is hiding behind a lie on a serious issue. He is saying he was not aware of this debate and that is why he was not here today. It is nonsense. I am formally tabling an amendment to the Order of Business that the Minister come to the House today to clear up this matter immediately and withdraws the statement that he issued.
Senator Ivana Bacik: The Leader will respond to the Senator on the timing of the petroleum Bill, but we all agree with the Senator that it is not good legislative practice to have Second Stage scheduled immediately or soon after the publication of a Bill. That comment has been made often on both sides of the House previously.
Senator Mark Daly: It is an EU directive and the Government is running out of time to implement it.
Senator Maurice Cummins: We will hear from the Senator in one minute. He will have his chance.
Senator Mark Daly: No problem.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Ivana Bacik to continue, without interruption.
Senator Ivana Bacik: On the issue of the Berkeley tragedy, I support the idea of having some form of ecumenical memorial service for the students that would involve both Deputies and Senators in some fashion. I note there is work being done on that issue.
I renew the call to the Leader for a debate on victims' rights which I made yesterday in the light of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre statistics released yesterday. The figures from Women's Aid released today in its 2014 impact report also emphasise the need to have a debate on this issue. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, will be introducing legislation dealing with sexual offences and offences of domestic violence later this year, but the Women's Aid figures make for chilling reading. It discloses that 13,655 contacts were made during 2014 with Women's Aid direct services and reminds us also in the report that since 1996, some 207 women have been murdered in Ireland, 54% of those by a partner or ex-partner. This is a serious matter. Women's Aid state, of the contacts made with it, that 16,464 disclosures of domestic violence against women were made last year and they conclude that one in five women experience domestic violence in Ireland. This is a serious and pressing issue, and we need to look again at it. The Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality has considered this matter but, as legislators, we need to look again at how best to address this serious problem.
On a lighter note, I want to let colleagues know that this afternoon there will be an unveiling of a bust in honour of the late Václav Havel, former President of Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic, at 5 p.m. in Leinster House. This is an important event. Václav Havel, of course, was a real figurehead for democracy and democratic values across central Europe, but also internationally. It is fitting that we are unveiling this memorial. I have been involved somewhat in the plans to unveil it and as somebody with Czech-Irish heritage, I am glad that we will have this bust in place in Leinster House from this afternoon.
Senator Mark Daly: I support my colleague, Senator Darragh O'Brien, and second his amendment to the Order of Business to bring the Minister for Health, Deputy Leo Varadkar, who one would swear was not the Minister for Health and merely worked as a commentator condemning actions in his own Department, allowing his response to be dictated by Beaumont Hospital and then wondering why the issue was not brought up yesterday. If it had been brought up yesterday, it would have been ruled out of order because it was not related to the Bill under discussion. Not only does the Minister not know what is going on in his own Department, but Leo, the commentator, does not know how the Seanad works.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should call him "Minister".
Senator Mark Daly: I am sorry - the Minister does not know how the Seanad works.
I welcome the announcement by the Pope in the past half an hour on climate change and ask for a debate on it. Climate change is the most serious issue facing mankind. It is the most serious threat facing the world at this time. When one considers that half of the creatures of the Earth have disappeared since 1990, in China life expectancy has reduced by five years because of air pollution and the US army has stated that it is a more serious threat than terrorism, that is the level of threat the planet faces at this time. I ask that we have this debate. It is not about being optimistic or pessimistic, but about being determined. There is a UN conference coming up in Paris in the near future and many of the experts in the field of climate change have stated that those who will decide the outcome in Paris will decide who lives and who dies. That is how serious climate change is for the planet. It is an issue that does not affect Europe as much as it affects those in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world, but it affects them to a degree that is life-threatening. I ask the Leader to organise a debate in that regard.
Senator Michael Mullins: I very much welcome the figures for tourism and travel published last week by the CSO which show that spending in the first quarter of 2015 by overseas visitors rose by 10.5% in comparison with the same period last year. The data also show that the number of trips to Ireland by holidaymakers rose by 13.3%, while spending by holidaymakers was up by 12.9% in quarter one when compared with the same period in 2014. The figures show the significant contribution that tourism and visitors to the country are making to the economic recovery. The revenue associated with visitors from Great Britain grew by 5.8%, and from North America by 16.8%. If one walks around the streets of Dublin, the number of American visitors in the capital city is obvious and that is very much to be welcomed. I ask for a debate with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Paschal Donohue, on the progress we are making in the area of tourism to ensure that we keep our eye on the ball and that all stakeholders and players in this business are doing everything possible to maximise the benefits from tourism for hotels, guest houses and restaurants and that we are not doing anything that will damage the sector and enterprise in the future.
I also ask for a debate on how we can ensure the benefits that are obvious in Dublin city, Killarney, Galway city and Connemara spread out into the more peripheral regions of the country. We need a debate on how we might make these places more attractive by possibly looking at transport subsidies to bring the visitors to the less travelled parts of the country. I refer to places such as east Galway that has much to offer. We are not getting the same benefit and Fáilte Ireland needs to up its game to ensure the benefits of the increased visitor numbers spread into the regions.
Senator Feargal Quinn: A few months ago I tabled a Bill which received some attention but which was not accepted. It had to do with essential services and to ban the willingness of workers to have a strike that would affect essential services. There was a good debate on the Bill and a good discussion about the various aspects of it, but it seems to be something on which the Government should keep its eye. It should be aware that this can be a significant threat.
We have a ban on striking in the Garda and the Army. It appears it is possible to consider a ban on that basis also. I am reminded of it because yesterday five of the larger airlines in Europe united to ensure air traffic controllers could not close down the airlines. It is not the airlines that were going on strike but the air traffic controllers. Michael O'Leary instanced the fact that there were 3,000 flight cancellations this year which affected 600,000 passengers. It is something we should consider. In the case of essential services we should be able to ensure certain strikes do not happen.
A point of interest is that Prime Minister Tsipras of Greece told us today that his wife threatened to leave him if he gave way on the economic front. It seems this is a powerful method. He said he was not going to give way solely because his wife would leave him. Perhaps it is something we should take into account.
Senator Paul Coghlan: He wants the drachma back.
Senator Feargal Quinn: We should discuss quite soon the challenge to us if Britain leaves the European Union. That will not happen until next year if it has a referendum, but it could happen. We should take contingency measures and watch what we should do to ensure the economy is protected if that happens.
Senator Aideen Hayden: I congratulate former President, Mrs. Mary McAleese, on her robust defence of Irish J1 visa students in the face of the scurrilous and deeply upsetting article in The New York Times. I draw a comparison with the Hillsborough disaster when The Sun newspaper represented the Liverpool fans as having been drunk and unruly and, in some way, responsible for the appalling disaster that befell them. I remind The New York Times that what followed was a 23 year ban and boycott of The Sun newspaper in Liverpool. Irish people, particularly Irish Americans, should consider their attitude towards The New York Times.
The second point relates to a PRTB rent index published today that again showed rents continue to rise, not just in the capital but all over the country. As I have said on previous occasions, a whole generation of Irish people are unlikely to own their own homes and will live in private rented accommodation for many decades, partly because they will be unable to access a bank loan to enable them to purchase and, partly, because it will take a considerable time to have the social housing necessary for people who will not be able to afford their own homes. The reality is that the private rented sector is not fit for purpose. There are spiralling rents, a chronic shortage of supply, a lack of real security for tenants and substandard accommodation. Yesterday I commended the remarks of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, who said at a Threshold conference earlier in the week that he would bring rent certainty measures to the Cabinet. I call on him, in the light of the best information we currently have which is being published today, to bring it to his Cabinet colleagues next week. This cannot wait. People are losing their homes and becoming homeless because they cannot afford to pay rent increases. I ask for an urgent debate on the issue.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Ba mhaith liom leasú ar Riar na hOibre a mholadh ar maidin. I call for an amendment to the Order of Business as I am extremely unhappy at the way in which the Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety (Amendment) Bill 2015 is being handled in this House. It was added to the agenda on Tuesday and was not signalled to us last week. The Bill was not available until 10 a.m. I acknowledge that we got a note or a memorandum from officials, but that is not sufficient for us to scrutinise legislation properly. The directive is a 40 page document, published on 12 June 2013. The sudden rush to push the legislation through is unacceptable. We do our best and we are not perfect, but to ask us to scrutinise the legislation, to match it against the directive and debate it today on Second Stage is unacceptable and makes a mockery of the House. I call on the Leader to amend the Order of Business in order that at the very least we have the weekend to study it. While the Bill may well be benign and may be badly needed, as legislators we cannot stand over it and we should not be asked to do so. I propose it be deferred at least until next week in order that we can give it proper and due consideration and do our job properly. There are people who would be concerned. We have had issues around the petroleum industry and the way Governments have handled petroleum legislation in the past. There are people who may think there is a sleight of hand here, that an attempt is being made to have legislation rushed through the Houses. I certainly would not want the Leader to be called on to do that or to be accused of taking part in that type of process because that is not his style. I am aware that in previous times he has deferred legislation such as this. I call for an amendment to the Order of Business that we do not debate the Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety (Amendment) Bill today, that it be deferred to at least next week.
An Cathaoirleach: Will the Senator, please, clarify whether he is proposing an amendment to the Order of Business? Is he asking the Leader to oppose bringing in the legislation or what exactly is he proposing?
Senator Darragh O'Brien: No. 1a
Senator Maurice Cummins: To defer No. 1a.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Yes.
An Cathaoirleach: Is the Senator asking the Leader to amend the Order of Business?
Senator Maurice Cummins: Yes, to defer No. 1a.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh is proposing that No. 1a be deferred.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: I am proposing that No. 1a be deferred.
Senator Marie Moloney: I second Senator Aideen Hayden's call for a debate on the issue of rental accommodation. The issue is demand driven and the greater the demand, the higher the rents. Landlords are aware that people are seeking accommodation and that they will pay whatever they can to get it because of the scarcity. I reiterate a call for a debate on rent caps for rent supplement which are inadequate. Accommodation cannot be found under the cap provided for. I ask the Leader to invite the Minister for Social Protection to come in for a debate on rent caps which are far too low in particular areas. Around the country it is very difficult to find accommodation under the rent cap. People are paying cash under the counter to landlords to bring down the cap. They will bring down the cap and get the balance in cash. I call for a debate on that issue.
Senator David Norris: I second Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh's amendment to the Order of Business. It seems extraordinary that things should be done in such a rush. I do not blame the Leader. This has come about because we were late in transposing an EU directive and that it was stuck in at the last minute. This shows very bad administration on the part of the Government. The Government should be strongly criticised for this and also the civil servants for not alerting the establishment. The Bill, so far as it goes, and in as far as I can understand it, is welcome. I have here the Order Paper for the day and there is no mention of it, not a whisper.
An Cathaoirleach: There is a Supplementary Order Paper.
Senator David Norris: I am well aware of that.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: It is totally unacceptable.
Senator David Norris: This is the printed Order Paper for the day. There is not a whisper of it. It only came through at 10 a.m. The Bill is welcome. This is a response to the Deepwater Horizon environmental tragedy that took place in the Gulf of Mexico. When dealing with people such as Shell Oil one certainly needs to be up to date in terms of safety provisions as it will skimp on every single thing. It has been involved in accidents of various kinds all over the world so we need to monitor it. The Irish Government should be doing so and not at the behest of the European Commission. As we should be monitoring the operation of this company, I am very happy to second Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh's amendment.
Senator Terry Leyden: I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to request the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, to come to the House to outline the position on the sale of valuable paintings, including a Rubens, at Christie's of London on 9 July.
Under section 49 of the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997, the Minister has to give permission. Why was this power delegated to the National Gallery of Ireland, the director of which is Mr. Sean Rainbird and who is also a trustee of the Sir Alfred Beit-Russborough House collection? I commend An Taisce and Mr. Ian Lumley for taking the matter to the High Court, represented by Tim Smith of law firm, Phelim O'Neill. They were granted permission in the High Court by Mr. Justice Nicholas Kearns to challenge the granting of an export licence for the artworks. The case will come before the High Court on 3 July when the sale is proposed for 9 July. The interesting point is An Taisce also has a representative on the Beit Foundation, namely, Consuelo O’Connor. This is intriguing. I believe the Minister is negligent in her responsibilities in this regard. Under section 49, the licence granted by the governors and guardian of the National Gallery of Ireland was, therefore, granted without any statutory authority and the purported sale of delegation by the Minister is ultra vires. The issue is extremely grave. We can see the cranes outside over the National Gallery of Ireland. To think it would approve the sale of these invaluable and priceless works of art in Britain and elsewhere and to deprive this country of the wishes of Sir Alfred Beit who provided those paintings for the State under trusteeship is absolutely disgraceful. Will the Leader request the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, come to the House to explain why she, like Pontius Pilate, is washing her hands of this particular matter, even though she has the full legal responsibility under the Act?
Senator Maurice Cummins: That is not true.
Senator Terry Leyden: Those are the facts. She has no authority to delegate these powers to anybody else. It shows a complete lack of responsibility. How could she call herself the Minister for the bloody arts?
Senator David Norris: There is no Minister for the bloody arts.
Senator Paul Coghlan: I do not think the arts are bloody, in fairness.
(Interruptions).
Senator Terry Leyden: Could any other arts Minister in any other country stand over the sale of a Rubens?
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator can make these points during the debate later.
Senator Terry Leyden: I hope we get a debate and the Cathaoirleach uses his influence to bring that woman into this House.
An Cathaoirleach: I have no role in that matter.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I second Senator Terry Leyden’s amendment to the Order of Business. It is simply unbelievable that we would start to sell off the assets of the State and the people.
I compliment the former president, Mary McAleese, on her robust attack on The New York Times. How dare they use a tragedy to sell their newspaper by twisting the story on J1 visas?
Following on from our debate yesterday on councillors, ten minutes ago I received a most distressing telephone call from a councillor, a woman in her 40s who has just been diagnosed with breast cancer. She is a single parent and about to lose €86 a week because of legislation brought in here regarding single parents. She told me she has been in contact with her council and the Department of Social Protection but to no avail. She is absolutely distressed beyond belief. She has no idea of how her income is going to be sorted out as she goes through her cancer treatment. She told me the answer she has been given by some is that she is not an employee. I have legal advice, as I said yesterday, and know the employment status of a councillor. We will have to examine introducing sick pay and a point of reference for those we elect to the lowest level of political life where they can go to a one-stop shop to get all the information they need regarding their entitlements. We are paying the people concerned less than the minimum wage. It is outrageous to think the woman in question, with two children, will lose €86 a week and has no idea whether she will be entitled to anything from the council after several months out sick. I have had a daughter who has had cancer and know the trauma that caused us. I cannot imagine what the woman who was on to me is feeling today. It behoves all of us in this Chamber to do everything we can before we rise next month. I do not want to make this a cheap shot, but it was distressing to receive a call like that.
Senator Paul Coghlan: I welcome today’s bilateral meeting between the Taoiseach and the UK Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron. This is their third annual summit to review progress since their joint statement of March 2012. As we know, they have many important matters, economic and otherwise, to discuss such as the proposed British referendum on membership of the European Union and the situation in Northern Ireland, including a number of important legacy issues, not least of which is the question of collusion. We look forward to this meeting and we wish the Taoiseach well.
We all have sympathy with the points made by Senator Gerard P. Craughwell. As regards the wider issues, we all are waiting, in a united fashion, for the outcome of the meetings between the representative associations, namely, LAMA, the Local Authorities Members Association, and AILG, the Association of Irish Local Government, with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Governmen t, Deputy Alan Kelly. It behoves us all to hold our whist while these meetings take place. Councillors know that we are backing them and will be ready when they call on us for a meeting or whatever further support will be necessary.
Senator Tom Sheahan: Will the Leader organise a debate on the National Ambulance Service? There are different issues regarding the ambulance service across the country. I was recently contacted regarding a bedbound 87-year old lady who was being cared for at home by her daughter. However, her daughter is due to go into hospital for surgery. She looked for an ambulance to bring her mother to the community hospital for a week’s respite care but none was available. We listen every day here to Opposition Members and the public about this, that and the other. How we treat people is how we judge our society. If we cannot provide an ambulance for an 87-year old lady in such a case, then it is not a good reflection of our society. I would like a full, frank and open debate on the National Ambulance Service. Some of the information that came from the ambulance services in Cork and Dublin stated that the intermediate care service ambulance is not guaranteed for such patients in the community and is the responsibility of local services. Local services might be different in Dublin. In County Kerry, however, they are not available. The ambulance service stated this was new policy. I would like to know what this policy involves. Will the Leader organise a debate on the National Ambulance Service?
Senator Maurice Cummins: The Cathaoirleach clarified the question raised by Senator Darragh O’Brien on Commencement matters. I will bring the reply received to the attention of the Minister for Health and his office. I cannot do anything further.
At a meeting of the Government on 16 June it was agreed that a petroleum (exploration and extraction) safety (amendment) Bill would be published. This technical Bill will transpose EU Directive 2013/30/EU, also known as the offshore safety directive. The deadline for its transposition is 19 July. The Government is anxious for this deadline to be met. I understand fully the points made by Members on the other side of the House about this legislation. I do not think it is acceptable to expect the House to deal with a Bill that is only being published today. In view of the strong representations made by Members, I am proposing to defer our consideration of the Bill until an opportune time next week.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: I thank the Leader.
Senator Maurice Cummins: I know that departmental officials made themselves available for oral briefings on the Bill yesterday. Nevertheless, I think Members of the House have been given insufficient time to deal with this technical legislation.
Senator Terry Leyden: Well done.
Senator Maurice Cummins: We will deal with it next week. Unfortunately, that leaves us with just one motion to deal with today.
Senator Terry Leyden: Perhaps the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, might come to the House.
Senator Maurice Cummins: The Senator might let me reply. He has had his say. I will come to what he said.
Senator Ivana Bacik raised a number of items, including the unveiling of a bust of Václav Havel in Leinster House this afternoon.
Senator Mark Daly spoke about the papal encyclical on climate change and the Pope's comments on the matter this morning. I prefer not to reply to points made by Senators on the Order of Business if they are not present when I am responding because they have not stayed in the Chamber. I will, however, disregard that policy on this occasion to remind Senator Mark Daly that the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill 2015 has reached Committee Stage in the other House. As soon as the Bill completes its passage through that House, we will have a comprehensive debate on it here. Many Members, including the Deputy Leader, have sought such a debate on several occasions in order that we can deal with the issue of climate change.
The tourism and travel statistics referred to by Senator Michael Mullins certainly make for positive reading. The sector is a vital cog in the wheel of economic recovery. The Senator called for a further debate on tourism with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Paschal Donohoe. We will try to facilitate it.
I note Senator Feargal Quinn's points about air traffic controllers. For whatever reason, we hear about strikes practically every summer. It is an inconvenience to the airlines and passengers. As the Senator pointed out, the airlines are not responsible.
I also note the Senator's points about the proposed referendum in Britain on leaving the European Union. I am sure that issue will be a subject of conversation at the meeting taking place today between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister.
I do not know what I can say in response to the Senator's assertion that the Greek Prime Minister's wife intends to leave him if the Greek Government accepts certain terms. I think that is a matter for the Prime Minister, but I am sure we all hope a solution can be found.
Senators Aideen Hayden and Gerard P. Craughwell, among others, commended the former President, Mrs. Mary McAleese, for her letter in response to a deeply upsetting article in The New York Times about students with J1 visas. I agree that Irish-Americans should reconsider their attitude towards The New York Times as a result of this scurrilous article which has rightly been condemned by the Government and the former President.
Senators Aideen Hayden and Marie Moloney spoke about the private rented sector, in particular rent caps. They called on the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to take action immediately to provide certainty for tenants. The Minister had indicated that he would be bringing the matter to the attention of the Cabinet. I am sure that will happen soon. As soon as that is done, I hope he will come to this House to explain the position in that regard.
Senator Terry Leyden spoke about Russborough House, an issue which was raised yesterday by a number of Senators. I gave a reply on that occasion which I will give again today. It is worth noting that the foundation did not consult the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in advance of deciding to sell nine paintings from the Beit collection. The Minister was informed after the decision had been taken and an export licence had been granted by the National Gallery of Ireland. It is a devolved function of the gallery.
Senator Terry Leyden: Not legally.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Therefore, the sale of the paintings was presented to the Minister as a fait accompli. The Senator is right in his assertion that a member of the National Gallery of Ireland and a member of An Taisce were on the board that made the decision.
Senator Terry Leyden: Correct.
Senator Maurice Cummins: I am puzzled by it. It is incredible that the board made such a decision without informing the Minister. It is absolutely disgraceful. The Minister was told that as a contract had been entered into with Christie's, it was a fait accompli. The trustees have said they could have been caught for £1.4 million if they had opted out.
Senator Terry Leyden: It would be unenforceable.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: The Minister should bang the table and say she is not happy with this.
Senator Maurice Cummins: She has met the chairman. As I mentioned, this is what she was told.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: She should sack the board.
Senator Maurice Cummins: That might happen. One never knows what might happen. I am not the Minister, but it is ludicrous-----
Senator Terry Leyden: The same happened to Mr. McNulty in County Donegal.
Senator Maurice Cummins: The Senator has had his say and made his point. There is no point in chirping in like a peacock at every opportunity.
Senator Terry Leyden: I like to respond to points made by the Leader.
Senator Maurice Cummins: I have replied to the best of my ability with a factual reply which I hope the Senator will take on board.
Senator Terry Leyden: May I reply to the Leader?
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator can speak during the debate on the issue.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Gerard P. Craughwell spoke about the employment status of councillors and mentioned a specific case. There is no doubt that the employment status of councillors needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. They are told that they are paid an allowance, rather than a salary, and that they have to pay tax, PRSI and USC on that allowance. Senator Paul Coghlan has mentioned that the Local Authority Members Association and the Association of Irish Local Government will meet the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government in early course to address a number of items of concern to them. It is right that the representative associations should meet the Minister to make their case. I assure them that the vast majority of Members of this House support them in their efforts to secure proper employment conditions for councillors. Such conditions are not currently available to them.
Senator Tom Sheahan spoke about ambulance services and called for a debate with the Ministrer for Health on the National Ambulance Service. I will try to facilitate that debate.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Darragh O'Brien has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: "That a debate with the Minister for Health on his management of a response to a Commencement matter concerning Beaumont Hospital be taken today." Is the amendment being pressed?
Senator Darragh O'Brien: Absolutely.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 19.
| Tá |
Níl |
| Byrne, Thomas. |
Bacik, Ivana. |
| Craughwell, Gerard P. |
Burke, Colm. |
| Crown, John. |
Coghlan, Paul. |
| Daly, Mark. |
Conway, Martin. |
| Heffernan, James. |
Cummins, Maurice. |
| Leyden, Terry. |
Higgins, Lorraine. |
| Norris, David. |
Keane, Cáit. |
| Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. |
Kelly, John. |
| O'Brien, Darragh. |
Landy, Denis. |
| Power, Averil. |
Moloney, Marie. |
| Quinn, Feargal. |
Mulcahy, Tony. |
| White, Mary M. |
Mullins, Michael. |
| Wilson, Diarmuid. |
Naughton, Hildegarde. |
| |
O'Donnell, Marie-Louise. |
| |
O'Neill, Pat. |
| |
Sheahan, Tom. |
| |
van Turnhout, Jillian. |
| |
Whelan, John. |
| |
Zappone, Katherine. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Terry Leyden and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Ivana Bacik and Paul Coghlan.
Amendment declared lost.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: "That No. 1a, Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety (Amendment) Bill 2015 - Order for Second Stage, not be taken today." Is the amendment agreed to? Agreed.
Senator Terry Leyden has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: "That a debate with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht on the imminent sale of paintings from the Beit collection be taken today." Is the amendment being pressed?
Senator Terry Leyden: May I elaborate on it?
An Cathaoirleach: No.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided by electronic means.
Senator Diarmuid Wilson: As a teller, I request that the division be taken again other than by electronic means.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator's request is granted.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 18.
| Tá |
Níl |
| Byrne, Thomas. |
Bacik, Ivana. |
| Craughwell, Gerard P. |
Burke, Colm. |
| Crown, John. |
Burke, Paddy. |
| Daly, Mark. |
Coghlan, Paul. |
| Heffernan, James. |
Conway, Martin. |
| Leyden, Terry. |
Cummins, Maurice. |
| Norris, David. |
Hayden, Aideen. |
| Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. |
Higgins, Lorraine. |
| O'Brien, Darragh. |
Keane, Cáit. |
| O'Donnell, Marie-Louise. |
Kelly, John. |
| Power, Averil. |
Landy, Denis. |
| Quinn, Feargal. |
Moloney, Marie. |
| Reilly, Kathryn. |
Mulcahy, Tony. |
| van Turnhout, Jillian. |
Mullins, Michael. |
| White, Mary M. |
Naughton, Hildegarde. |
| Wilson, Diarmuid. |
O'Neill, Pat. |
| Zappone, Katherine. |
Sheahan, Tom. |
| |
Whelan, John. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Terry Leyden and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.
Amendment declared lost.
An Cathaoirleach: The result of the vote was tied. Where there is an equality of votes, pursuant to Article 15.11.2° of the Constitution, I must exercise my casting vote. In this case, I voted against the question. Is the Order of Business, as amended, agreed to?
Senator Terry Leyden: No.
Question put: "That the Order of Business be agreed to."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 18.
| Tá |
Níl |
| Bacik, Ivana. |
Byrne, Thomas. |
| Burke, Colm. |
Craughwell, Gerard P. |
| Coghlan, Paul. |
Crown, John. |
| Conway, Martin. |
Cullinane, David. |
| Cummins, Maurice. |
Daly, Mark. |
| Hayden, Aideen. |
Heffernan, James. |
| Higgins, Lorraine. |
Leyden, Terry. |
| Keane, Cáit. |
Norris, David. |
| Kelly, John. |
Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. |
| Landy, Denis. |
O'Brien, Mary Ann. |
| Moloney, Marie. |
O'Donnell, Marie-Louise. |
| Mulcahy, Tony. |
Power, Averil. |
| Mullins, Michael. |
Quinn, Feargal. |
| Naughton, Hildegarde. |
Reilly, Kathryn. |
| O'Neill, Pat. |
van Turnhout, Jillian. |
| Sheahan, Tom. |
White, Mary M. |
| Whelan, John. |
Wilson, Diarmuid. |
| |
Zappone, Katherine. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Terry Leyden and Diarmuid Wilson.
Question declared lost.
Senator Maurice Cummins: I propose a suspension of the sitting for approximately 15 minutes. The decision not to adopt the Order of Business, as amended, has a bearing on the business to be conducted next Tuesday when No. 1 on the agenda was to be the address to the House by the European Commissioner. Perhaps I might return in 15 minutes with a suggestion to deal with the matter.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: I propose an amendment to the Leader's proposal to the effect that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, be called to the House to-----
Senator Maurice Cummins: The proposal is not about the Minister but about the ordering of business.
Senator David Norris: It is about-----
An Cathaoirleach: We are only dealing with a suspension of the sitting.
(Interruptions).
Senator Darragh O'Brien: I want to clarify the procedure.
An Cathaoirleach: The proposal is that there be a suspension of the sitting for 15 minutes.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: A full suspension of the sitting for the day is not being proposed.
Senator Maurice Cummins: No.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: I can revert to this issue.
An Cathaoirleach: It is just about a suspension of the sitting for 15 minutes.
(Interruptions).
An Cathaoirleach: The House will resume in 15 minutes.
Senator Thomas Byrne: May I have a moment to speak to my colleague, please?
A Senator: This is not a council meeting.
Senator Mark Daly: We are seeking legal advice.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Darragh O'Brien to continue, without interruption.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: We need to be clear on the procedure. The Leader's proposal does not involve the formal suspension of the sitting for the day.
An Cathaoirleach: No.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: I have no difficulty with a 15-minute suspension of the sitting. I am certain everyone wants the European Commissioner to attend the House next week. No one wants to block that happening. However, we will propose an amendment, on foot of a further proposal from the Leader, to the effect that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht attend the House after the suspension for a one-hour debate-----
An Cathaoirleach: I can only deal with the proposal that there be a suspension of the sitting for 15 minutes.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: -----on the serious issues raised by a number of colleagues.
Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell: A number of colleagues across the House.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: Yes, that is what I said.
An Cathaoirleach: The Leader's proposal is that the sitting be suspended for 15 minutes until 1.30 p.m.
Senator Thomas Byrne: Will the Leader amend that proposal?
An Cathaoirleach: Is the proposal agreed to?
Senator Thomas Byrne: No, it is not agreed to.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: No.
Senator Denis Landy: Get your ducks in a row, Darragh.
An Cathaoirleach: Please, Senators.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: I do not see why something cannot be agreed to dealing with next Tuesday's invitation. The Leader might make such a proposal immediately by way of an amendment to the Order of Business. It could read: "We agree to have Commissioner Hogan here next week."
Senator Maurice Cummins: We can certainly do that.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: That would deal with the Leader's issue.
Senator Maurice Cummins: That is the amendment I will return with at 1.30 p.m.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: That is settled. We will all agree to it.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Also, my office is trying to ascertain whether the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, will be available today. I cannot propose an amendment until we receive that information from her office. That is what I will be doing during the next 15 minutes.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell wants to speak.
Senator Maurice Cummins: I am proposing to suspend the sitting of the House.
An Cathaoirleach: The Leader has proposed that it be suspended until 1.30 p.m.
Senator Thomas Byrne: I propose an amendment to the Leader's proposal to the effect that the sitting be suspended until 1.30 p.m. and that the Minister be requested to attend the House afterwards.
An Cathaoirleach: The proposal only concerns a suspension of the sitting.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: That is okay. It is to be suspended for 15 minutes. That is agreed to.
An Cathaoirleach: Is it agreed that the sitting be suspended until 1.30 p.m.? Agreed.
Sitting suspended at 1.15 p.m. and resumed at 1.30 p.m.
Senator Maurice Cummins: It is proposed that No. 1, motion re arrangements for the address to Seanad Éireann on 23 June by Mr. Phil Hogan, European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, be taken now without debate; and that No. 1b on the Supplementary Order Paper, statements on the Beit collection, as requested, be taken at 4.30 p.m. and conclude not later than 5.30 p.m., with the contributions of all Senators not to exceed five minutes and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht to be called on to reply to the debate not later than 5.20 p.m. Owing to the Minister's schedule today, this is the earliest time at which she can attend.
Senator Darragh O'Brien: I thank the Leader. I know that much of this had to be arranged at short notice. On behalf of my group, I am agreeable to the Leader's proposal for the amended Order of Business for today.
An Cathaoirleach: Is the proposal agreed to? Agreed.
Address by Commissioner Phil Hogan: Motion
Senator Maurice Cummins: I move: That Seanad Éireann agrees with the recommendation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that, in accordance with the provisions for the address to Seanad Éireann by Distinguished Persons, Mr. Phil Hogan, European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, be invited to address Seanad Éireann and that the following arrangements shall apply:(i) the Seanad shall meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, 23rd June 2015;
(ii) notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Order of Business shall be proposed at 1.30 p.m.;
(iii) at the conclusion of the Order of Business, the Seanad shall stand suspended until 3.30 p.m.;
(iv) the proceedings at the address shall commence at 3.30 p.m. and shall consist of a speech by the Cathaoirleach welcoming Commissioner Hogan; the address by the Commissioner, at the conclusion of which he will reply to questions from group spokespersons who shall not exceed five minutes each and one Sinn Féin Senator who shall not exceed two minutes; and a speech of thanks by the Leas-Chathaoirleach for the address; and
(v) the proceedings shall conclude not later than 4.45 p.m., whereupon the Seanad shall stand suspended until 5 p.m. and the ordinary routine of business shall ensue thereafter.
Question put and agreed to.
Senator Maurice Cummins: I propose the suspension of the sitting until 4.30 p.m.
An Cathaoirleach: Is that agreed to? Agreed.
Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 4.30 p.m.
Beit Collection: Statements
An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys.
Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Deputy Heather Humphreys): I thank the Cathaoirleach for giving me the opportunity to address the House. Concern has been growing in recent weeks about the decision of the Alfred Beit Foundation to sell paintings at Russborough House, of which I have been acutely aware. There has also been a lot of misinformation circulating in the public domain. I welcome the opportunity to address this matter in the Seanad today and to discuss the challenges facing historic houses generally.
It is important to make clear to the House that the Alfred Beit Foundation is an independent trust and I cannot instruct it on how to conduct its business.
Senator David Norris: I am loath to interrupt the Minister, but I am wondering if copies of her speech will be made available to us.
Deputy Heather Humphreys: Copies will be available shortly.
However, on Tuesday evening last I met the chairperson and other members of the foundation to discuss the sale of several paintings. I had a very frank conversation with them and made it clear that it would have been preferable if the trustees had come to me before making their decision to sell the paintings. The fact that the paintings are now in an auction house in London makes the situation very difficult to unravel. At the meeting I asked the chair of the trust if it would be possible to delay the sale of the paintings or to consider withdrawing the paintings from auction to provide some time to explore all possible options involving my Department and the Office of Public Works. The trustees declined to either delay or cancel the sale, citing the fact that they would incur a fee of £1.4 million sterling for breaking an agreement with the auction house handling the sale, with which the foundation entered into a contract several months ago. The trustees also made it clear that they believed they were taking the right action to create an endowment fund for the house which will provide an ongoing income for the years ahead. Furthermore, they made the point that the paintings that are to be sold have been in storage and not on public view for almost 20 years. The memorandum and articles of association of the Alfred Beit Foundation make it clear that the trust is perfectly entitled to sell the assets of the foundation. I was informed of the decision last month, several months after the foundation had entered into an agreement with Christie's to have the paintings sold. The fact remains that my Department does not have the discretionary funds necessary, believed to be in the order of €12 million, to buy the paintings. I will continue to try to determine whether any other possible options can be explored, but this will be difficult, given the fact that the sale is to proceed next month.
The foundation made it perfectly clear in a statement released yesterday that it was the owner of the relevant paintings and that these paintings were not left to the State by the Beits. In fact, the foundation clarified that 17 masterpieces were donated by Sir Alfred and Lady Beit to the National Gallery of Ireland in 1985 and these paintings are the property of the people. The foundation is a company limited by guarantee with charitable status and was established in 1976. Its primary objective, as set out in its memorandum and articles of association, is to promote and further the advancement of education in the fine arts in Ireland. The foundation is governed by a board of trustees which includes representatives of the National Gallery of Ireland, An Taisce, UCD and Trinity College Dublin. It operates independently, and according to its memorandum and articles of association, it may sell, lease or otherwise deal with or dispose of the whole or part of the property or assets of the foundation.
The Beit Foundation has stated it informed the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht of the financial challenges facing it. I understand the trustees met my predecessor in April 2013 and were very clear on the challenges facing the foundation. I also understand that this meeting involved a general discussion of all options to maximise support, including possible philanthropic support. However, I am not aware that the specifics of this particular sale were discussed and I was only informed of the decision last month, several months after the foundation entered into the agreement to have the paintings sold.
The Beit Foundation faces the same challenges that many historic homes in Ireland face. The Heritage Council budget dropped dramatically over a short period of time from €13.4 million in 2008 to €7.4 million in 2011, a reduction of 44%. The heritage capital budget allocation to my Department was also slashed during this period, from €26 million in 2008 to €1.9 million in the 2011 Estimates agreed by the last Government. This is a 92% cut, and it is the baseline from which my Department has had to operate. These cutbacks severely constrained both my Department and the Heritage Council, which my Department funds, in continuing to provide support for investment in our built heritage. Previously, the Heritage Council had provided just over €2.1 million for works to Russborough House since 2002. In 2005 the Heritage Council published the conservation plan for Russborough House as a first step in providing a framework and a vision for the estate into the future. My Department, through the local authority conservation grants scheme, also funded conservation works at Russborough House to the tune of €8,000 in 2010.
Earlier this year I established a steering group on historic houses, co-chaired by my Department and the Irish Historic Houses Association. As we all know, it takes tireless effort and commitment to maintain an historic house, for which I am sure there is very little financial reward. I am well aware that the upkeep and maintenance of an historic house is a labour of love.
I have asked the steering group to present me with an action plan to safeguard the future of historic houses which I look forward to considering. I hope this plan will help to establish a template for how the State can support these houses into the future.
There has been much talk about restoring the heritage fund. That fund, established by the Heritage Fund Act 2001, allowed the national cultural institutions to purchase rare and outstanding heritage items such as manuscripts, books and works of art. The Act provided for a total fund of €12.697 million over a five year period. No money has been added to the fund since 2005. Of course, I would love to top up this fund but I am balancing competing demands with a reduced budget due to the current financial reality. I also understand that new primary legislation will be necessary to enable a new heritage fund to be established.
I am grateful for the opportunity to address this important matter in the Seanad. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of the trustees of the Alfred Beit Foundation. During our meeting, the trustees outlined the substantial work they have done in drawing up a master plan for the house to secure its future. It is clear that the trustees are very sincere and committed in their personal efforts to secure the future of Russborough House and to live up to the wishes of Sir Alfred and Lady Beit. It is important to point out that the trustees do all of this work on a voluntary basis.
Senator Terry Leyden: I thank the Leader for arranging for the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, to come before the House to report on the position on the proposed sale of seven invaluable works of art at Christie's in London on Thursday, 9 July. The lot includes a painting entitled Venus and Jupiter by Flemish artist, Peter Paul Rubens and two views of Venice by the eighteenth century artist, Francesco Guardi. It is estimated that the sale will raise €11 million or more. Will the Minister explain why section 49 of the National Cultural Institutions Act of 1997 was not implemented and why no commencement order for other parts of the Act was made in 2005? The Act was brought by the then Minister and now President Michael D. Higgins through both Houses of the Oireachtas. Why was this power delegated to the National Gallery of Ireland and its director, Mr. Sean Rainbird, who is also a trustee of the Alfred Beit Foundation at Russborough House? Surely this represents a clear conflict of interest. How could the director of the National Gallery of Ireland have agreed to the sale of these paintings? He is in charge of the priceless collection at the National Gallery of Ireland. Where next will he go to raise funds to pay for the cranes that are now swaying over the gallery? Will he sell some of the marvellous paintings-----
An Cathaoirleach: I must ask the Senator to be careful in referring to people who are not in a position to defend themselves or who can be easily identified-----
Senator Terry Leyden: He has been clearly identified.
I understand the Minister was a party to a High Court action taken this week by An Taisce, represented by Tim Smyth of Phelim O'Neill Solicitors and heard by Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns. An Taisce sought to challenge the granting of export licences for the art works. The case will come before the courts again on 3 July. An Taisce called for a high level of political intervention and branded the sale an" international scandal", with a secret sale also having taken place already, according to an article in the Irish Daily Mail on 17 June. An Taisce is also represented on the Beit Foundation by its vice chairperson, Consuelo O'Connor.
I understand the Minister was informed two days in advance of the public announcement by Christie's on 28 April but she took no action to prevent the sale of these priceless works of art. She does not deserve to be called the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. How can she allow this to take place on her watch? How can she stand idly by while the Beit Foundation sells priceless works of art on the markets of London? The Phoenix magazine will publish an article tomorrow about the Minister's activities. It claims that a freedom of information request to the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht returned just one record related to the issue, an e-mail dated 30 April from Ian Lumley of An Taisce to the Minister requesting her intervention to avert the sale and seeking an urgent meeting to discuss a proposal that might keep the paintings in Ireland. It has taken the Minister almost six weeks to express her concern and it was only this week that she got around to meeting the chairperson of the Alfred Beit Foundation, Ms Judith Woodworth. It is a little late in the day to be starting to give a damn.
In 1985 this issue came up in these Houses. The legislation on the export of art works was to be reviewed and a high level committee was set up under Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton. The Minister at the time was Deputy Ted Nealon but no action was taken. Furthermore, on 9 May 1923 in this House, William Butler Yeats referred to the Hugh Lane paintings which were donated to the country and expressed concern at the lack of Government action in that regard at the time.
I note that the Minister met the chairperson and two other trustees of the Alfred Beit Foundation last Tuesday on the instructions of the Taoiseach. I do not think she had any interest in meeting them but was directed to do so by the Taoiseach.
Deputy Heather Humphreys: That is nonsense.
Senator Terry Leyden: She met them reluctantly and signed the order-----
Senator Cáit Keane: That is not right.
(Interruptions).
An Cathaoirleach: Please allow Senator Terry Leyden to continue, without interruption.
Senator Terry Leyden: Will the Minister sign an order preventing further exports of works of art? She has the power to sign the order.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is over time.
Senator Terry Leyden: There can be no more excuses from the Minister. She cannot allow the Alfred Beit Foundation to sell any more paintings, nor can she allow the National Gallery of Ireland to sell any works of art. This is in the Minister's hands and she must take action.
Senator Maurice Cummins: I welcome the Minister. We have had a display of the usual bluff, bluster and playing to the gallery by Senator Terry Leyden.
Senator Terry Leyden: That is true. I presume the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, is speaking about the Minister.
Senator Maurice Cummins: The Minister has clarified in her statement the whole sequence of events. The fact that the paintings are now in an auction house in London obviously makes it difficult for her to take any action. The board of the Alfred Beit Foundation was complimented by the Minister on its work on the restoration and upkeep of Russborough House, but I am very surprised that a board with members of such stature would make such a decision without notifying the Minister. I am even more surprised that members of An Taisce and the National Gallery of Ireland could sit on that board and make that decision without informing the Minister. That is absolutely deplorable and those involved should examine and consider their position on the board. It was news to many people when the foundation clarified that while 17 masterpieces were donated by Sir Alfred and Lady Beit to the National Gallery of Ireland in 1985, the foundation is the owner of the paintings that have been offered for sale. These paintings were not left to the State by the Beits, which was news to quite a lot of people.
Senator David Norris: They are held in trust.
Senator Maurice Cummins: The fact that these paintings have not been seen by the public and have been held in storage for almost 20 years is a damning indictment of the foundation.
If they are such wonderful paintings, which they are, by Rubens and others, surely a home could be found for them, if Russborough could not do it, in the National Gallery of Ireland.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: There are loads of paintings in storage in the National Gallery of Ireland.
Senator Maurice Cummins: The Senator will have enough time to speak.
An Cathaoirleach: The Leader to continue, without interruption, please.
Senator Maurice Cummins: Why interrupt me every time I try to speak? Everybody will have a chance to speak. There is no monopoly of time.
I compliment the Minister on coming to the House. Is there any action she can take? I am aware she has met the chairperson of the foundation. Is there action she can take, under law or whatever way, to prevent these paintings leaving the country? I know people have entered into a contract for £1.4 million and say they are the owners of the paintings. Is there anything that can be done at this late stage? I appreciate that the Minister has outlined the difficulties involved and the cuts made to her Department. Obviously many people are concerned about these paintings leaving our shores. I understand totally the position the Minister has been put in. That was an absolutely scurrilous remark by Senator Terry Leyden that she had been instructed by the Taoiseach to take such action. He should withdraw that remark. He flies his kites quite high at times, but he did so again in this regard and he should have the decency to withdraw what is an untrue remark.
Senator Terry Leyden: I read it in the media.
Senator David Norris: Read it in the media - ha-ha.
Senator Maurice Cummins: I will leave it at that. He read it in the Phoenix.
Senator Terry Leyden: No. I heard it-----
Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell: I thank the Minister for coming. There were 35 Senators here this morning calling for her to come in and she kindly came at 4.30 p.m., but I do not see 35 Senators here now. If we ask Ministers to come to the House, we should be here to question them and listen to what they have to say. That applies across all political divides.
Senator Catherine Noone: Well said.
Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell: I am quite disappointed. I also think this is a national issue. The Seanad is about national issues. This is a national, cultural, artistic issue and it is as important as any other financial and banking or social protection issue that we debate or legislate for here. We all know that Alfred and Lady Beit left Russborough House and the valuables and their paintings to the State in 1976 in trust. I take the argument that we do not necessarily own all of them.
Senator David Norris: Yes.
Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell: That is a moot legal point that we could all argue. One has also to remember that the State has put millions of euro into the renovation, preservation and upkeep of Russborough House. Therefore, it has a right to question what happens to the valuables and the paintings. It does not matter where they have been hanging for the past 20 years, that is irrelevant, but we have a right to be around the table and a right to be part of the discussion in respect of what should happen. It is like the Irish College in Paris. We do not necessarily own it, but we have a huge integrative power within it because we have kept it alive through the arts and our culture down through the centuries.
There are two main problems I would like addressed. First, Russborough House is costing €400,000 per year to run. Why is it costing that amount? What are the trustees doing? The Minister is going to take action now. What have they been doing? How is it being run that it is costing that amount? Could it be better run in such a way that it would not cost that amount? If the problem was the upkeep of Russborough House, surely selling the paintings is their problem in their kitchen. It is not for them to go into the store and take out the great jewels and have them travel to make up for a certain incompetence about running it. That is their own problem, to find imaginative ways to run it, as many great places have done in Ireland, which stayed alive by being imaginative and creative in how they presented themselves to the public. They need to look at their own books and their inability or ability to run it and not see off the paintings to do it.
Second, since I have come to the Seanad, this has possibly been the greatest example of the absolute and complete art of secrecy. Nobody knew it was happening, nobody knew what was going on, nobody was told, nobody was asked, nobody was informed, nobody was allowed, including the Minister, into the discussion or the argument bar according to what we read, which was trickled down in The Irish Times. I take it the Minister did not know and if she did not know, it is outrageous. Why did not the Minister know? She is a person who believes in preservation and has a background in many areas of preservation in Monaghan. How dare they operate under such secret vales because what they have done is eroded the trust of the public and caused us to be here today. I would like the sale halted and I am not alone in that. There are many people who would like the sale halted from An Taisce, UCD school of art, history and culture, the Irish Georgian Society and the Seanad. I am part of the Seanad that would like the sale halted. I want the paintings back. The board of the National Gallery has exceeded its power. Nobody should be allowed to operate an export licence in Irish art, bar the Minister. I would trust the Minister to do it well or to, at least, speak to people about it. Nobody is allowed to sign off on that. I agree with the Leader that the board of the National Gallery of Ireland should be sacked and its staff sent to England to take back the paintings - the money could be taken out of its grant for next year. If this cannot be done, will the Minister explain why and the reason she was not made aware of this sooner? How dare those involved not make the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht aware of it sooner.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the Minister and the opportunity to seek clarification on some of the vital questions this issue has thrown up. I echo the words of Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell and others that there is a glaring lack of transparency in the way in which this matter has proceeded. There is a vital question as to whether the sale of the paintings can be prevented. I thank the Minister for offering some more clarity on that issue. There are still a number of questions that remain to be answered. Why, as Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell and others have said, did the trustees not approach the Minister prior to entering into the contract with Christie's? I understand from what the Minister has said that she only knew of the sale last month, several months after the foundation had entered the agreement with Christie's to sell the paintings. It is clear it did go to the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, in 2013, but it is not clear at that point if the prospect of the sale was raised; in other words, if it was ever said to any Minister that if nothing was done these paintings would be sold.
I note the members of the board, as the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, has pointed out, included representatives from the National Gallery of Ireland and An Taisce. There are questions as to why the board made this decision. That is to acknowledge also the very difficult task the board and the trustees had. Senator Marie-Louse O'Donnell raised a question about the cost of running Russborough House. I am very grateful to the Heritage Council, with whom I was in contact before the debate, which provided some very interesting figures on the huge amount of money it alone provided to Russborough House over a number of years to preserve and maintain the building. For example, in 2007 it provided €450,000 for roof repairs to two wings. Clearly the costs are immense. The key question is whether the sale can be prevented at this stage. I would love to get a clear answer on that issue.
There is one further question I wish to ask. What can be done to prevent any future such sale, not just of this bequest but of other treasures left to the public and to secure the future of Russborough House and other historic houses? The Heritage Council pointed out the need for the development of a sustainable maintenance programme for historic houses. The letter from Michael Starrett of the Heritage Council in The Irish Times today sets out a number of issues in that regard.
We can also look at what has been done in the past on similar issues. I have spoken to the Minister about what a previous Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Michael D. Higgins, did 22 years ago. A few minutes ago I looked at his speech in the Dáil in 1993 when he spoke of negotiating with the trustees of the Chester Beatty Library, a similar trust, albeit that some terms would have been different, to amend the terms of that bequest to transfer that collection of treasures, also left to the public in trust, to Dublin Castle. He referred to the really tricky complexities of amending the terms of the bequest but also to the specific need to ensure these treasures would be accessible to the public. In all of this sad affair, perhaps the greatest shame is that for 20 years none of us has been able to view these pictures. Many of us did not know these paintings were there until the projected sale came to light. I think there is a bigger question for all of us as to how to secure and retain ownership for the public and access of the public to treasures such as these. These paintings should have been on display in the National Gallery of Ireland. I understand Russborough House could not get the insurance to display the paintings, given the sad history of robberies there. There is a huge issue around public access to treasures such as these that are left to the public.
That is the big question that remains, even if the urgent question of the prevention of the sale can be answered.
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister. This is an interesting day for the Seanad. It is democracy in action. We have forced this debate by our action in defeating the Order of Business today, but the Leader has dealt with it in his usual courteous way. It is an interesting exercise in democracy. It also shows the relevance of the Seanad. This is why the people kept Seanad Éireann. It is most important.
It is also very amusing and refreshing to hear Fianna Fáil praising An Taisce, which I very much welcome.
Senator Diarmuid Wilson: That was Senator Terry Leyden. It was not Fianna Fáil.
Senator David Norris: The position is that the paintings have not been displayed for 20 years and the foundation has made that point, but it is the responsibility of the foundation to display them. It is not up to us; we did not even know the bloody things were there.
Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell: We did not know they were there.
Senator David Norris: Representatives of the foundation have clarified that 17 masterpiece paintings were donated by the Beits. Of course, they were. We know this because our friends in the Provisional IRA raided the place. We have them to thank - I thank those in Sinn Féin very much - for a series of appalling and violent raids on the house.
Senator Maurice Cummins: There was the General also.
Senator David Norris: The terms of the foundation are to promote and further the advancement of education in fine arts in Ireland. How is it doing this by selling off the paintings?
Senator Terry Leyden: By selling the paintings.
Senator David Norris: It makes a mockery of the whole ethos of the thing. I am not surprised at the figure of €400,000 given the number of gardeners, cleaners and so on. I am not surprised that it would cost that much. Why on earth do they not have an aggressive marketing campaign? They have the Blessington Lakes, the Sally Gap, the Dublin Mountains and Russborough House.
Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell: What about Glasnevin?
Senator David Norris: Yes, but I am talking about in that area.
Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell: Yes.
Senator David Norris: We could really bring in people. They only had 25,000 visitors.
Senator Terry Leyden: They could get a bar licence.
Senator David Norris: That is more or less negligible. Then there is the question of the conflict of interest. It seems to be a very clear conflict of interest. Mr. Rainbird has not clarified whether he took part in these decisions. I am glad to say the Trinity College Dublin representative was the only voice, as far as I know, who actively opposed the sale. I believe the foundation should be dissolved and replaced. There is no point in casting obloquy on these people or blaming the Minister.
Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell: I did not.
Senator David Norris: I am not saying the Senator did. However, we should move forward and look at what can be done. We should look at the Castletown House experience. That was saved by Desmond and Mariga Guinness. It was handed over then to the Office of Public Works to administer, a very happy conjunction. I believe this is what should happen again.
Reference has been made to the figure of £1.4 million. I do not believe for one minute that Christie's will exercise the clause in the contract. Christie's would disgrace itself on the international market and everyone would be saying it was a stinker. I do not believe it would happen. The Minister met it and offered to discuss the matter with the trustees if they could defer it. I very much welcome this.
Senator Terry Leyden referred to the Hugh Lane row. What a position this puts Ireland in with regard to the Lane pictures. It is absolutely daft to be demanding them back from England, on the one hand, while, on the other, we are selling masterpieces in London. These are important pictures. They are the kernel of the catalogue. There is talk about the superb provenance and the great international significance of these paintings.
A letter was published in The Irish Times by Patrick Guinness. It was a very thoughtful and carefully balanced letter. He said it was sad the foundation did not engage fully with the wider community and so on, and that they should undertake a travelling exhibition of these paintings. He makes the point that the Iveagh Bequest or Kenwood House in London did this and raised substantial amounts of money. He suggested we could do this in 2018 or 2019, giving us three or four years of a lead-in time. That would really help in dealing with the situation.. One understands the position of the Alfred Beit Foundation and the fact that it cannot trade recklessly; it is bound not to in a certain financial situation. However, why, in the name of God, did those involved not bring this to the Minister's attention or that of the public? I remember when important classical paintings were being sold by one of the great houses in England, a public subscription was raised to buy them. I know these are difficult times, but there could have been fund-raising events and so on and certain amounts of money could be raised to keep things going for the time being.
I hope the Minister has the powers Senator Terry Leyden says she has, and, if she has them, I hope she exercises them. I hope this never happens again. I wish to dissociate myself from remarks demeaning the National Gallery of Ireland or, in a partisan sense, attacking the Minister. The situation is too serious. We need to go forward. We need to try to ensure these things are kept for the people and displayed.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is way over time.
Senator David Norris: There is no point in having them if we do not display them.
Senator Cáit Keane: I welcome the Minister and thank her for coming. Often we have calls from the Opposition for Ministers to come, but we cannot get Ministers in. It shows the seriousness with which this Minister views the issue. We are all on the same side, those on this side of the House and those on that side, in that everyone, including the Minister, wants the paintings to stay in Ireland. We need to ensure we all work together to see what can be done, when it can be done and if it can be done. That is the most important thing. The court case is coming up and perhaps the Minister will be precluded from making any comment. If there are judicial proceedings, she may not be able to comment on it.
One of the paintings has been sold already. This means we have little time. After the board decision we had An Taisce jumping up and down. As the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, said, a member of An Taisce was on the board and that decision was made. Did they not discuss the matter before that? Did they not see it as proper to inform the Minister at the time? It is very late in the day to try to get the Minister to close the gate when the horse has bolted.
We need to examine how trusts are set up. We are all for the devolution of functions, including to local authorities and to the local possible denominator in the community, etc., but there is a problem if they have the power to sell one of our finest art collections at the drop of a hat to save a roof. We could get plenty of volunteer carpenters in to fix a hole in a roof, but who are we going to get in to do a painting by Rubens? No one because it is irreplaceable. That is what we have to consider. Are there other means by which we can help the foundation to repair the house without selling the paintings? We should put that to the foundation. I am sure there are options - there must be - and we should all put our heads together.
Why was the perilous financial situation of the house not made known to the Minister? She is powerless because the licence was granted by the National Gallery of Ireland. I realise that a court case is under way to determine whether the licence was granted properly. Was the power given to the National Gallery of Ireland? That is a question I would be looking at if I were the Minister. That is the matter of the court case. I hope a flaw is found in the argument and those involved will not be able to operate on the basis of the export licence. Many speakers have spoken about this issue.
Dr. Loughman from UCD criticised this also. He raised the question of why more time and notice was not given to the Minister to look at this and to consider the options. Patrick Guinness from the Georgian Society, who is a godson of Lady Beit and a direct descendant of Arthur Guinness, said funds should be raised by amalgamating the Russborough collection - Senator David Norris said it also - with the national collection and putting it all on a world tour. That is what he said. In the meantime, perhaps the Government could step in and fund it. Give the Government one of the paintings in Russborough House in lieu of taking a step in that direction and look at it that way. As Patrick Guinness said, it might not be an elegant solution but it could save us our art history.
All over the world people are talking about us letting it slip through our fingers. That is not directed at the Minister. If the Minister had known, she would have been in there. I gather Dr. Loughman said the paintings were on a tour around America before the Irish people were told about it. That shows the respect that we have been given. Lady Beit said the paintings were in trust to the people for the pleasure of the people and not to be sold. That is on the Russborough House website. That is one thing we have to look at.
We cannot expect the Minister to do the impossible if her hands are tied behind her back. The court will look at that issue also. The paintings were given in 1976 “for the future enjoyment of the Irish people”. That is on the website of the house. Rosita Boland writing in TheIrish Timesrevealed that the Beits wished to have the collection remain intact in Russborough House. The Russborough House Trust has a lot to answer for in that it is not carrying out the wishes of Lord and Lady Beit. What is it there for? It cannot make its decisions. The house was given in trust. If it cannot keep the paintings it should put up its hands and say it cannot do its job any longer and the Minister could tell it to get out of the way, stand down and say she would do the job for the board, and do it better. The power should be given back to the Minister. It is too serious to leave it. I thank the Minister for her intervention. She should have been informed way in advance.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Cuirim céad fáilte roimh an Aire. Is lá an-tábhachtach é seo agus is díospóireacht an-tábhachtach atá ar siúl againn maidir leis na pictiúir seo. Ardaíonn an díospóireacht seo na rudaí gur chóir dúinn a bheith ag díriú orthu - ceisteanna polasaithe.
We are here in an effort to protect our history, heritage, culture and art. The sale of the Beit paintings is without doubt another example of carelessness, lack of Government policy, political direction and legislative framework. It is imperative that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht do more to prevent further sales of any of these paintings, which were bequeathed to the people of Ireland. They are not a cash cow to be sold off for the upkeep of a deteriorating old stately home. In a letter to my colleague, Deputy Sandra McLellan, the writer states the paintings alone are worth more to this country than any money they provide for the bottomless pit that is a piece by piece repair of the house. We will never be in a position to purchase the likes of these paintings again. What sort of message does this episode send out to future artists? What sort of message does it send out to potential benefactors who might wish to bequeath their collections to the nation? The writer continues that if these paintings continue to be sold no future benefactor will bequeath their collection of art to the people of Ireland ever again. There are many out there who say this is a trivial matter but it is not. It is far from that. This is about our history and heritage. It is about a collection of paintings, which were entrusted to the Alfred Beit Foundation by Alfred and Lady Beit for the future enjoyment of the Irish people. The first two paintings from the collection at Russborough House were sold at auction in London yesterday. Was this for the enjoyment of the people? What is happening now is an insult to citizens and what is more it is an insult to future generations. Here the Government stands complicit in the selling off of history. This art collection is a treasured wealth. It is our inheritance and so it should be our children’s inheritance. A concerted effort should be made by this Government to keep these paintings in Ireland to preserve our history. The trust that runs Russborough House said it approached the Government twice in 2013 seeking support. It also specifically highlighted the need to sell some Beit collection paintings if assistance was not provided. There is no doubt that the State has had a massive part to play in the situation which is currently unfolding. The statutory Heritage Council has had its funding cut from €22 million annually to €7 million. What message does this send to future artists?
Fintan O’Toole has probably put the argument most succinctly in an article: This is not a story about individual villains, but about public policy. It is easy to have sympathy with Judith Woodward and her board at Russborough, who have been left in charge of a great house and a major art collection with no plan for their maintenance and development.
Woodworth herself pointed to this unsustainability in The Irish Times (June 1st). The dilemma she articulated is real. But funding Russborough by selling off its treasures is not sustainable, either. It’s the kind of short-term panic measure that comes to seem acceptable only in a vacuum of public policy.
He goes on to outline three vacuums in policy which we think are worthy of debate: There’s an absence of official thought on the future of places such as Russborough. . . . The legislative framework is a mess . . .[That has been alluded to.] The Dáil actually passed legislation as far back as 1997 to provide criteria under which export licences for artworks could be refused. . . . Thirdly, of course, there is a vacuum of political direction from the Department of Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht, an arm of government that has more or less gone to seed under the present Government.
Tuigeann muid go bhfuil deacrachtaí faoi leith maidir leis an díolachán seo agus is mór an trua go bhfuil sé ag dul ar aghaidh. Ag an am céanna, tá sé fíor-thábhachtach go bhfaigheadh muid soiléiriú ón Rialtas céard atá i gceist aige a dhéanamh faoi seo sa todhchaí agus céard tá i gceist le cinntiú nach dtarlóidh a leithéid arís.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: What is notable about this issue is the outcry from every member of the arts and heritage community in Ireland and the general public. I could list the various organisations but my colleague, Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell, has already done this. This is an irredeemable loss of Ireland’s culture and a betrayal of the legacy of Sir Alfred and Lady Beit. An Taisce and others are meeting in Tailor’s Hall to discuss alternative ways to fund Russborough House. There are several issues to be discussed. The more immediate and pressing one is how to stop or suspend the sale of the paintings on 9 July. On Tuesday An Taisce applied to the High Court and was granted leave to take judicial review of the granting of the export licence to the Beit paintings. An Taisce’s case is that the export licence was granted for these paintings by the National Gallery of Ireland rather than by the Minister, who is in charge of granting licences for the export of paintings under the Documents and Pictures (Regulation of Export) Act 1945. I have been informed by An Taisce that despite repeated correspondence with the Department, the National Gallery of Ireland, and the Alfred Beit Foundation and Christie's of London, it has not to date received any indication that the powers to grant export licences have lawfully been delegated to the National Gallery of Ireland.
Why has the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht failed to engage with An Taisce on this issue? Given that the 1945 Act contains no power of delegation, which would allow the Minister to delegate the power to a third party, why was the National Gallery of Ireland granted an export licence to send these paintings abroad? On the face of it any unauthorised act of delegation is ultra vires in terms of the 1945 Act, an expressed legislative intent of the Oireachtas. I concur with An Taisce that the export licences issued by the National Gallery of Ireland are not lawful and should be quashed. I call on the Minister to brief lawyers in the United Kingdom today to seek an injunction to stop the sale of these paintings on 9 July.
While the immediate issue is to stop the sale of the paintings, a broader but equally significant issue is the circumstances that have led to the trustees of the Alfred Beit Foundation offering for sale the very artefacts they were entrusted to protect. The trustees of the foundation should be asked to account for themselves and ensure that a more strategic approach be taken in the future, which does not involve the sale of precious assets. The sale of assets in the proposed way is very much a smash and grab approach and even if it does go ahead it does not offer a sustainable solution to the long-term maintenance of the Beits’ Russborough legacy. If allowed to continue it will lead to the diminishment of the collection which, apart from the huge loss to the culture and heritage of Ireland, would surely discourage any future philanthropist from leaving collections in trust to the people of Ireland. I fully concur with the excellent suggestion made by An Taisce and others that new and more imaginative, workable partnership models be established for the appropriate long-term maintenance and management of Russborough House. Given that the proposed sale has highlighted the inadequacy of the current regulatory and legislative framework governing the sale overseas of Ireland’s culture, an urgent updating of Irish export law on cultural heritage to the best European standards is required. An Taisce reminds us that there are existing unused provisions of the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 with regard to scheduling items in collections for export control which could be implemented. I ask the Minister to consider this in her review of the current position.
In 1976 when Sir Alfred Beit transferred the entire Russborough estate to the Alfred Beit Foundation as a charitable and educational trust it was for the sole purpose of keeping the house and art collection intact, making it a centre for the arts and open to the public. That this extraordinarily generous outstanding bequest to the people from one who owed absolutely nothing to this country is now under threat is a travesty. As a nation we have failed to live up to the Beits’ expectation.
Not only has Russborough House not become the centre for the arts, as the Beits envisaged, but now we are failing Alfred Beit's one request which was to keep the collection intact. It is only ten years since the passing of Lady Beit and many have commented that she and her husband must be turning in their graves over this.
While the position is extremely serious, we are also provided with an exceptional opportunity to put things right.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is out of time.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I am almost finished. There is an abundance of goodwill and expertise available in the arts community. All is not yet lost. The issue can be turned around.
An Cathaoirleach: I must call the Minister at 5.20 p.m. I have no choice but to do so.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: That is fine.
Senator Terry Leyden: Did the Senator not thank the Minister for putting him here?
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I did.
Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Deputy Heather Humphreys): I wish to state very clearly that, as set out in the memorandum and articles of association signed by Sir Alfred Beit and Lady Beit when they set up the foundation, the object for which the foundation was established "is to promote and further the advancement of education in the fine arts in Ireland". To that end, among a number of things they wished to do was to establish and carry on schools and other places of education in the fine arts in Ireland. A later section of that text clearly states that they are allowed "to sell, lease or otherwise deal with or dispose of the whole or part of the property or assets of the foundation".
(Interruptions).
Deputy Heather Humphreys: That is very clear. That is the trust that was set up and signed, and that is a legal document.
I want to deal with a few issues that were raised. I thank Senators for the matters they raised with me.
In regard to the export licensing system, it should be noted that this function was delegated to the director of the National Gallery of Irealnd in 1985 and it has operated under this system since. An Taisce has asked for a judicial review and I point out that the judicial review does not seek to stop the sale but to challenge the legality of the delegation of the Minister's function to the director of the National Gallery of Ireland. The Department will be further consulting the Office of the Attorney General for advice on this matter and the matter is being examined.
My Department last year began to examine the issue of the commencement of the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 and it will report to me on that shortly. It is important to note that this Act does not allow me or the director of the National Gallery of Ireland to prevent the export of these paintings. It is not accurate to suggest that simply commencing certain provisions of the 1997 legislation would allow the Minister to refuse an export licence. These issues were examined in the 1980s and the 1990s and the view has always been that there are other issues around property rights. It is not quite as simple as some might suggest.
I would like to clarify something for Senator Terry Leyden. I called the chairperson of the Beit foundation on Thursday morning, 11 June, and I spoke to her that morning. I asked her if she could meet me. The first available date that suited either of us was Tuesday evening. In regard to the Taoiseach, he did not tell me to meet Judith Woodworth; that was my own idea. I want to be very clear on this. I did discuss it with the Taoiseach on Tuesday.
Senator Terry Leyden: The Minister did.
Deputy Heather Humphreys: The first contact I had with Judith Woodworth was the previous Thursday. By the way, the cranes at the National Gallery of Ireland are being paid for under a €30 million capital investment programme provided by the Government for the renovation of the Milltown and Dargan wings. I want to be clear on that point, too. I met the foundation and the paintings belong to the trust. It has entered into a contract with Christie's and the trust has advised me that breaking that contract would cost £1.4 million. That would be the cost of it.
Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell: To get out of it.
Deputy Heather Humphreys: The cost of running the estate is a matter for the Beit foundation. As I said, it is all set out in the memorandum and articles of association. Also, the trustees made it clear that they genuinely believed and they still believe - I have to respect this; we have to respect that this trust has been set up for 40 years - that they are taking the right course of action to create an endowment fund for the house, which will provide an ongoing income for the years ahead.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: They made some mess of it.
Deputy Heather Humphreys: The Alfred Beit Foundation is an independent trust and I cannot instruct it on how to do its business. As I said, the memorandum and articles of association make it clear that the trust is perfectly entitled to sell the assets of the foundation. I am disappointed that the sale cannot be, at the very least, delayed or deferred but, unfortunately, I cannot stop the sale. I have spoken to it.
Senator Terry Leyden: On a point of order-----
Deputy Heather Humphreys: I cannot stop the sale.
Senator Terry Leyden: The Minister is misleading the House-----
An Cathaoirleach: What is the Senator's point of order?
Senator Terry Leyden: The point of order is that the Minister is misleading this House. She has given inaccurate information to this House and its Members. I regard what she is doing as very serious. She did not read the 1997 Act to which I referred. Section 49 of it states, "The Minister may by order declare any document, which is in his or her opinion of national, historical, genealogical or literary interest ..." and in that respect a licence would have to be sought from the Minister if she brought this provision into operation. She has said she does not have power to do so. She has the power, but she is not implementing the power she has under the 1997 Act.
An Cathaoirleach: Please allow the Minister to continue.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: On a point of order-----
An Cathaoirleach: What is the point of order?
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: The Minister has said-----
An Cathaoirleach: What is the point of order?
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: If the Cathaoirleach would allow me speak-----
Deputy Heather Humphreys: I cannot stop it.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: -----the Minister has said she cannot stop the sale. There is a judicial-----
An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order. Does the Senator have a point of order?
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: If the Cathaoirleach would let me finish-----
An Cathaoirleach: Yes, but what is the point of order?
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: There is a judicial review going on and if the sale takes place before the outcome of that, the Minister must get an injunction to stop the sale until we know if the export was legal.
An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order. Please allow the Minister to conclude.
Deputy Heather Humphreys: There is a legal action pending and I cannot get into the details of it.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: Why can the Minister not take action in the United Kingdom?
An Cathaoirleach: Please allow the Minister to continue, without interruption.
Deputy Heather Humphreys: Regarding what Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell said, I have expressed my disappointment that I was only informed of the sale when contracts had been long signed.
(Interruptions).
Deputy Heather Humphreys: The contracts were signed a number of months ago. In fairness to the owners of all historic houses, whether operated by the State, private trust or private people, these houses are very costly to run. I pressed the foundation on this particular issue and they informed me that they had sought expert advice in regard to all aspects of their operations and that they have taken many steps to increase income for the foundation. The level of income gap is not unusual for this type of property. An Taisce, the Irish Georgian Society, UCD and Trinity College Dublin all have representatives on the board. I clarify again that there is no legal power available to me to prevent the sale.
Senator Terry Leyden: There is under the 1997 Act.
An Cathaoirleach: Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
Deputy Heather Humphreys: No. I agree with Senator David Norris that there are opportunities to increase the attractiveness of these houses. Russborough House is on a major tourism route, with Castletown House and Powerscourt House, among others. I have offered in my meetings with the foundation to work across government with the OPW and tourism interests to improve the position of the house and this offer still stands regardless of the issue of the sale. I am happy to work with the Beit foundation in order to ensure the sustainability of the house into the future because it is a jewel in the crown and it is important that it be maintained and supported. I am happy to look at the different options available in consideration of the future of the house and if any Senator has some constructive suggestions or ideas on the sustainability of our historic houses, I will be very happy to hear them.
Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell: On a point of order, the cost of running the trust is not just a matter for the Beit foundation if the Government has put €2 million into it. We have some say in it.
An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order. The statements have concluded. When is it proposed to sit again?
Senator Maurice Cummins: At 12.30 p.m next Tuesday.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 12.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 23 June 2015.
|
Page
of 2
