Speech archive for DECEMBER 2005
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Pensions (15/12/05)
Treatment of Migrant Workers (15/12/05)
Care of the Elderly (14/12/05)
Translation of Official Documents (14/12/05)
Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005 (13/12/05)
Budget Statements (09/12/05)
WTO Negotiations (07/12/05)
Morning Star Mother and Baby Home (07/12/05)
Condoleezza Rice Comments (06/12/05)
"On-The-Runs" (01/12/05)
Pensions
15/12/05 - The Minister (for Social and Family Affairs, Mr. S. Brennan) called again, as he does every time he comes to this House, for a national debate on the future of our pensions system. On the last occasion we discussed this matter in the House, I told the Minister of my consistent support for his views on pensions for everyone. I argued that for every year worked, there should be a year’s pension contributions. Will the Minister include this issue in next week’s partnership discussions? Representatives of all sides will be as difficult as each other in this regard. Nobody will be jumping up and down but the Minister should challenge everybody on this issue. There is no ethical argument that can undermine the idea of a year’s pension contributions for a year’s pay.
A major complexity is engendered by moving in this direction, however. I have observed the Minister’s struggles to bring people along on this issue. After we last spoke on this, I considered whether there is an easy way of approaching it. I am not sure there is but I will offer a simplistic view. One of the great difficulties is in attaining some level of complementarity between different types of pensions, including considerations of whether particular types fit in snugly with others. In this context, I considered the situation that arose in Chile after the assassination of Salvador Allende. The entire pensions system effectively collapsed through the Pinochet years and there was no fund for state pensions. As a result, a private pension scheme was developed under the aegis of the state but administered by private pension funds. Under this system, workers’ contributions are deducted on a weekly or monthly basis and placed in their personal funds. This is a concept we understand.
The Chilean authorities have at least ensured that people contribute to their own pension funds under the aegis of the state. There is a certain level of regulation and people are given, on an annual basis, the opportunity to switch to a different fund manager.
How might such a system work here? If we were to start from scratch and have people make contributions on that basis, we would immediately encounter difficulties in regard to arrangements on maturity and how this scheme would relate to other pensions, PRSI and so on. The only way such a system could be implemented successfully is as some type of standalone operation with a significant disregard in the outcome of it. Workers would be attracted to such a scheme, which would grow during their years of work and in respect of which there would be a significant disregard of the earning, yield or capital arising from the pension fund.
It is a system worthy of consideration. Is it possible to devise a simple approach to this matter? It is a challenge he has thrown out on at least three occasions. I ask him to target the social partners one at a time in this regard. I presume he will have an opportunity to make his case when the partnership talks begin. He should put this proposal to all the parties. IBEC will have immediate objections and the ICTU, my own group, will not be far behind. I have fought within the unions to move this issue forward. Furthermore, the Government will be slow to support the Minister.
The Minister should, however, begin by at least lobbing in the ball. If other parties choose to ignore the penalty spot and do something mad with the ball, there is nothing more to do. However, people will at least be challenged to respond and organise their arguments. Even if they ultimately decide they cannot support such measures, the Minister will have started at the leading edge to wear away some of the opposition. All parties, including the Government, employers, farmers, business, trade unions and voluntary organisations, will be forced to listen to each other. This is one of the great values of social partnership. There will be many on all sides who oppose new developments in this area and the chances are they will be rejected. However, a debate will be facilitated that has not yet taken place. It is only happening within the groups; there is no engagement between them. The time is right for such an engagement. I ask him (the Minister) to put some energy into the pensions debate yet again.
Back to top of the page
Treatment of Migrant Workers
15/12/05 - In the past week we had another appalling situation where seven people from the Middle East, in particular, working in this country were paid a paltry €2 per hour by a company called A1 Plastering which was doing work for a huge construction company, JJ Rattigan. That has been reported. I want people to recognise again that we have a serious problem in convincing those in the business community who are exploiting migrant workers, those who come into the State, that this is utterly wrong.
This is particularly important if we are looking at a new social partnership. I ask Members when speaking with people who run medium-sized enterprises whose spokespersons shout off at the mouth on radio and television, week after week, to be aware that if we pay workers lower wages we collect lower taxes, if we collect lower taxes, we cannot put money into health and education. If we pay lower wages to people it means they have less marginal income and the first people to lose will be the business community. It is in their interests, if they want to be selfish about it, but if we do not collect tax from one place it has to come from another.
We are creating a wealthy society in order to ensure the standards of living of all people in society, whether one is running a business or working for a business person, or whether one is in the public or private sector. That is what we are trying to achieve and that is what we need to ensure we deliver. It is pure practical simple politics. If we do not pay people more we pay the price at the end.
Back to top of the page
Care of the Elderly
14/12/05 -It is important that we determine how we can make things work well and how we bring the situation forward. I wish to focus on a number of points, the first of which is the independent inspectorate. The reality is that someone will ask if the inspectorate was a mistake, if it was a waste of money.
I have a suggestion, though I know there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that it will be taken up — that is always the problem with sensible suggestions. Setting up a nursing home inspectorate is a very good idea but there are other areas that also need to be inspected. This inspectorate will be set up on an ad hoc basis and will only examine a certain area. We most certainly need an inspectorate but it should not be on an ad hoc basis, dealing only with the elderly. To create synergies I ask the Minister of State to inspect the various institutions in which citizens of this State of any age are being looked after. This will avoid setting up something and regretting it two years later as we argue about whether to extend its area of responsibility.
I welcome the constant theme of flexibility in the Minister of State’s proposals. He is correct about the number of people who would prefer to stay at home and the number of extended families and communities who favour that option. I would like to have heard what the Minister of State means by flexibility, not to hold him down to it because these proposals must go through a process. If an extended family has three elderly relatives being looked after in three different houses and all three decide to move into one of the elderly persons’ homes, it becomes easier for the extended family and economies of scale make it easier for everyone. As things stand two people in such a situation cannot get the same level of support, though I am open to correction on that. Extended families often have more than one person to deal with.
How will this work? Will the Minister of State recognise that we cannot do these things without a sense of care in the community? I am worried by the greed in Irish society at the moment. The more we can do for families who want to look after their elderly relatives themselves, with a little support from the State, the better.
I would like to see the formula showing how we can save money. I can see the figures the Minister of State has provided but what does it cost, per person, in a nursing home for a year and what is the subvention level available for each? What does it take to give such people a Rolls Royce level of support at home, involving somebody staying with them at night or visiting them for a few hours during the week? The State might have difficulty organising an hour here and an hour there. The home care service works very well but extended families can sometimes do it equally well. I have seen it happen in my own community.
The flexibility proposed by the Minister of State could give a better quality of service and also save money — it is a win win situation. We need to increase funding levels. The money will make a difference but we need to see it working and how flexibility will be built into it, because that is the most difficult task. Every home, community and family are different. Some live close to each other but others live far away. A family member may be based in Dublin but a relative might live 150 miles away and it is costly to visit them every weekend. If somebody put that to the Minister of State would he take it on board?
Back to top of page
Translation of Official Documents
14/12/05 - I and my colleague, Senator Coghlan, recently raised the various problems arising from the Official Languages Act agus go háirithe “Dingle”, “Daingean Uí Chúis”, “An Daingean” agus na deacrachtaí a bhain leis sin. In the meantime places in Connemara and Donegal are expressing similar problems with the application of the Act. I ask whether we need to review the Act because in addition to the point raised by Senator Coghan and I, last week in the other House the Taoiseach raised the extraordinary costs and wastefulness of the production of certain end-of-year reports completely as an Ghaoluinn when there is no need for them. There is an in-between position which can be looked at.
The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission has also been dumped with another requirement of the Act to take on a huge additional burden of translation with no money being made available. Three issues arise. First, there is the question of placenames. Second, there are the annual reports that have to be produced as an Ghaoluinn, the translation of which can be done without publication. The only good aspect of the Act is that it has created translation jobs. My proposal is to retain these jobs by ensuring the documents are translated but it should not be necessary for all of them to be published in hard copy. Third, an additional burden of translation has been demanded by the Minister for which there is no financial support or resources.
It is time we had the Act reviewed and made more amenable to demands and needs and what is best for An Ghaoluinn. We can put money where it is badly needed in the Gaeltacht and with Gaeltacht people, not in half the nonsense the Minister is going on with.
Back to top of the page
Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005
13/12/05 - The removal of the groceries order is a bottle of smoke. The matter has been discussed ad nauseam but it will make no difference whatsoever down the line, none whatever. I was born and raised in my mother’s grocery shop and remember when Mr. Lemass’s Government introduced the dreaded turnover tax in the early 1960s. RGDATA hired out the local loudspeaker and carried it about the town, telling us that town centre life would never be the same again, that every small town would be closed and could not thrive anymore. It argued that life as we knew it would end. That is the current and abiding position of RGDATA. On the other hand, we have the view from the Competition Authority that in some way we can trust the likes of Tesco, Lidl, Aldi, Dunnes Stores and others to give us back the extra profits they are making so that we will all be better off. That is nonsense. There is not the remotest chance of that happening. This is populist politics and will not make the slightest bit of difference.
The removal of the order is not the panacea people suppose. It will not introduce greater competition or lower prices. How do I know that? Let us take one company, Tesco, and compare its prices in its stores in Newry and Dundalk, which I have done. It is cheaper to import products from the United Kingdom into the Republic than into the North. Despite that, Tesco’s goods are more expensive on the shelves in the South than in the North. Why? It is a simple matter of profit. What the market will bear, retailers will charge. It is a simple rule of economics.
I have no trust in the larger players. Even though I have no problem with the legislation and believe the order had to be removed, I hope nobody believes that we will get money back from the big operators. The large multiples are closing down bookshops by making the best-sellers available at lower prices on their shelves. They are closing down music shops by stocking CDs on their shelves. Senator Coghlan is correct to say they are ruthless. I rarely disagree with him but I disagree with the argument that keeping the groceries order would stop that happening. I agree with the Minister that it would not. Businesses must find different ways to prosper, perhaps by cultivating customer loyalty by providing enhanced levels of service.
How might we have made it work? If I read details of Tesco’s annual accounts in the business pages I cannot, no matter how hard I try, find out how much of its profits were generated in the Republic of Ireland. They will not tell me. Does the Minister know how much it is? No. Despite all the consultations and the information his Department has, it does not know the profits made by Tesco or any other major supermarket in Ireland. The people who argue the groceries order should be abolished because it will be good for competition refuse to tell us what their profit levels are. It is wrong. I would like the legislation to contain a provision whereby they would have to produce separate accounts for their Irish operation. It will go to the head office in London but not to our people.
This policy is a bottle of smoke. The Minister is right to abolish the groceries order but there will be no difference for consumers.
Back to top of the page
Budget Statements
09/12/05 - In the main, I welcome this budget as a progressive measure containing some important steps forward that we had sought. I raised specific requirements on the issue of child care in the House recently. I stated that at the end of the day I was looking for five things. The first two things I sought were an increase in maternity leave to 26 weeks and an increase in unpaid paternity leave to 26 weeks also. I am delighted that a commitment has been given to do that over two years, and that half of it will occur this year. That step is progressive, important and welcome. Many people will certainly look forward to it.
I also think the €10,000 relief is welcome. However, I would bet my house that they have underestimated it. Nobody knows the way that Irish people can flexibly use that kind of an arrangement and it may well be for use in their own houses. It is good, however, because it legitimises something that people have been forcing themselves to do.
The Minister did not mention any proper accreditation system for the child care package. This is very important because once we start creating choice for parents, we must ensure that some checks and balances are included. I note from the Budget Statement that people availing of the €10,000 break on taxation must register with the county committee on child care, or whatever its official title is. That is a welcome step. The Minister also said that the county committee on child care would be in a position to give information, support and small grants in order to make it happen, but we need to hear more about that. I am glad there is a registration process, but I would look for an awful lot more.
More than anything else, I regret that there is no clear commitment or objective to introduce some process for a formal, structured pre-school arrangement. The Department of Education and Science is mentioned, but such a process is missing and should be included. While I welcome some aspects of the budget, I feel that other matters are lacking.
I note that the proposal to create 50,000 child care places is scheduled to occur over the next four years up to 2010, but I do not know how that will work and I certainly want to hear more about it. It seems to be a tax break of some form or another, but I am not a bit convinced by it.
Over the past two years, I have asked that the minimum wage should be taken out of the tax net. I deplored the fact that this was not done. I note that those on the minimum wage are out of the tax net this year. While I welcome that step, I think it is too late. One may say that I am being curmudgeonly about this, but nonetheless, this measure will give confidence to lower paid workers. I wish that the provision had come in last year’s budget but, late as it is, I do welcome it as a positive step to which people will look forward.
In as much as I welcome the minimum wage being taken out of the tax net, I have also criticised the Government for the fact that the super rich could get themselves into a situation of paying no tax at all. I welcome the fact that that loophole is now being closed off, although I am not sure how. As I recall it, the Minister referred in his budget speech to complex legislation that would be necessary to achieve this, but I am convinced that he will do it. The matter needs to be examined.
I do not have the option to deal with many other issues. I am not quite clear, for example, how proposals for the elderly will work out in operation. Overall, however, I must say that there is far more to welcome than to criticise in the budget. It is a progressive budget which takes the direction I have been advocating for the past year. I am supportive of it, although there are some issues about which I am unclear and others about which I am unhappy.
Back to top of page
WTO Negotiations
07/12/05 - We sat here for ten years listening to a raging war about beef prices when anyone with two eyes and ears and half a brain knew that we would be dealing with world beef prices before the 1990s were out. While we all knew it we were still trying to convince or mislead farmers into thinking that we could stop it happening. The story is similar with beet, which has been debated for 32 years. Beet was never a long-term European crop. It was put together mainly to protect farmers in the north of France and Belgium, together with the UK to some extent, and we got in on the back. It was never going to happen.
Those things have an impact. Heads must be knocked together. I want people to engage on the issues rather than the personalities. I want them to ask what they will do now that there is no beet industry.
Globalisation, like Irish unity, means different things to different people. For me, globalisation is the extension of the Treaty of Rome to the globe. It is the free movement of labour and capital, among other things. ….I believe that it could be done if we examined how globalisation might be extended in a way reflecting the needs of the Irish agriculture community, which needs our support at this stage.
We can do several things, including requiring standards to be met abroad and changing things at home. Let us take the beet issue. Globalisation should be tied very closely to the Kyoto commitments. The Minister and I both know that if matters continue as at present, Brazil will soon supply sugar cane to the entire world. Let us remember, however, that Brazil is clearing trees from an area equivalent to the acreage of Ireland every year. It is doing so against all that we believe in regarding Kyoto. To deal with that, we should not do business with the Brazilians or allow into Europe products coming from such a regime.…….Why should we allow into our country beet from a country that does not apply the same standards to its producers? We should all say that we are not willing to do that, since Europe cannot allow it. We are strict enough on our own farmers.
I have a single priority for Irish beef farmers with which the Minister could deal in the Houses in two weeks. Will she revise and reform the Abattoirs Act 1988? It was the biggest mistake ever made in Irish agriculture in the last 20 years. We no longer know where our beef comes from. Twenty years ago we knew when we walked into a local butcher’s shop in any part of Ireland that it was more than likely that the butcher had bought it locally. The Abattoirs Act 1988 has put great costs on outlets such as those of Senator Quinn, since they must try to prove where meat comes from. We did not have that problem until the Act was passed.
The Minister can do two things, the first being to examine the success of farmers’ markets and how we can sell locally. They have seen great growth around Europe. Regulations concerning them are interpreted differently in different parts of Europe. Second, she should take a holiday to Provence and visit the local vegetable market. She should take half her officials with her and a digital camera. She should photograph what is on sale there - the beautiful, shiny, healthy, perfect vegetables. Then she should go to her local supermarket, photographing the extraordinarily good vegetables on display there.
She should note the difference. Vegetables are dumped in north Dublin because they will not pass through the sorters for the Dublin market, while in Provence they would be on display. People will go in and buy a beef tomato with four sides or a hugely distorted pepper. If it looks healthy, clean and luscious, they will buy it. Why does that happen there but not here? That and the Abattoirs Act 1988 must be addressed.
I agree with the point that it is immoral and unethical that the workers in Mallow and farmers supplying them will not get a shilling’s compensation for the closure of the beet factory and that €140 million will go to Greencore, which is no longer even an Irish company. Neither is it a beet company, meaning that there are two good reasons not to proceed on that basis. Irish farmers and agriculture need our support. We should plan together to make this work and improve the situation on the ground.
Back to top of the page
Morning Star Mother and Baby Home
07/12/05 - On a more negative note regarding the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, there is a woman from the Morning Star Mother and Baby Home who has been outside the gates for the past number of weeks. That woman has suffered. I am one of those who have written to the Minister. There seems to be some difficulty in dealing with the issue. A woman has suffered, yet it cannot be dealt with because of the legislation or regulations. We should ask the Minister why she cannot amend the legislation or regulations to allow the case to be dealt with. Coming up to Christmas, it is something we might think about doing. I recognise that there are legal and regulatory difficulties, but there are none that we could not address.
Back to top of page
Condoleezza Rice Comments
06/12/05 -I know that my colleague, Senator Norris, will say something about aeroplane landings but Dr. Condoleezza Rice reportedly said in Germany this morning that European Governments using intelligence obtained by the CIA or other American authorities should not question how it was obtained. This is an appalling reflection on the West. Is it any wonder that we are in trouble with the rest of the world?
We must get an answer from the American authoritiesat some stage about what Dr. Rice’s statement means. Is it that the ends justify the means, matters that many people have questioned over the past one or two years? People diligently stood up on principle and were for or against the war or American involvement. They spoke honestly, openly and articulately. They must feel they are being let down time and time again. That Dr. Rice could state this brings a new end to the issue. It is a philosophy without ethics and is impossible for us to be a part of. If western civilisation does not distance itself from it, we will all pay a serious price in the short term.
Back to top of the page.
"On-The-Runs"
01/12/05 - I have grave reservations about the proposals to deal with individuals on-the-run who are wanted on criminal charges. I instinctively dislike the notion that individuals wanted on criminal charges might not be brought to justice in a democracy. How we deal with them afterwards is another issue but I find it impossible to cope with it in terms of how we structure our democracy and the need to have a judicial system in place.
I also recognise we have had to accept much in the cause of peace. Last weekend I met Michael Finucane whose father was assassinated by loyalists, perhaps in collusion with the authorities. I asked him how he felt about this. It was the most humbling experience to hear his reply. He said it was terrible but if that was the price we had to pay to get the prize of peace, he and his family were prepared to accept it. At that stage I felt whatever reservations I had should be buried immediately. We must take this step to move the process forward and I will support the proposal when it comes before the House.
However, it would make a bad situation worse if ..it turns out afterwards that we have done something which is unconstitutional. I do not understand how we can do this constitutionally. The method being used in the UK might be more interesting and easier for parliamentarians to deal with. I do not understand the technicalities but we must move on this issue. This must be an all-party issue. These issues have never divided us on a party political basis. I would like to be reassured, as I am sure we all would, that whatever way it is done is workable.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas Website
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Pensions (15/12/05)
Treatment of Migrant Workers (15/12/05)
Care of the Elderly (14/12/05)
Translation of Official Documents (14/12/05)
Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005 (13/12/05)
Budget Statements (09/12/05)
WTO Negotiations (07/12/05)
Morning Star Mother and Baby Home (07/12/05)
Condoleezza Rice Comments (06/12/05)
"On-The-Runs" (01/12/05)
Pensions
15/12/05 - The Minister (for Social and Family Affairs, Mr. S. Brennan) called again, as he does every time he comes to this House, for a national debate on the future of our pensions system. On the last occasion we discussed this matter in the House, I told the Minister of my consistent support for his views on pensions for everyone. I argued that for every year worked, there should be a year’s pension contributions. Will the Minister include this issue in next week’s partnership discussions? Representatives of all sides will be as difficult as each other in this regard. Nobody will be jumping up and down but the Minister should challenge everybody on this issue. There is no ethical argument that can undermine the idea of a year’s pension contributions for a year’s pay.
A major complexity is engendered by moving in this direction, however. I have observed the Minister’s struggles to bring people along on this issue. After we last spoke on this, I considered whether there is an easy way of approaching it. I am not sure there is but I will offer a simplistic view. One of the great difficulties is in attaining some level of complementarity between different types of pensions, including considerations of whether particular types fit in snugly with others. In this context, I considered the situation that arose in Chile after the assassination of Salvador Allende. The entire pensions system effectively collapsed through the Pinochet years and there was no fund for state pensions. As a result, a private pension scheme was developed under the aegis of the state but administered by private pension funds. Under this system, workers’ contributions are deducted on a weekly or monthly basis and placed in their personal funds. This is a concept we understand.
The Chilean authorities have at least ensured that people contribute to their own pension funds under the aegis of the state. There is a certain level of regulation and people are given, on an annual basis, the opportunity to switch to a different fund manager.
How might such a system work here? If we were to start from scratch and have people make contributions on that basis, we would immediately encounter difficulties in regard to arrangements on maturity and how this scheme would relate to other pensions, PRSI and so on. The only way such a system could be implemented successfully is as some type of standalone operation with a significant disregard in the outcome of it. Workers would be attracted to such a scheme, which would grow during their years of work and in respect of which there would be a significant disregard of the earning, yield or capital arising from the pension fund.
It is a system worthy of consideration. Is it possible to devise a simple approach to this matter? It is a challenge he has thrown out on at least three occasions. I ask him to target the social partners one at a time in this regard. I presume he will have an opportunity to make his case when the partnership talks begin. He should put this proposal to all the parties. IBEC will have immediate objections and the ICTU, my own group, will not be far behind. I have fought within the unions to move this issue forward. Furthermore, the Government will be slow to support the Minister.
The Minister should, however, begin by at least lobbing in the ball. If other parties choose to ignore the penalty spot and do something mad with the ball, there is nothing more to do. However, people will at least be challenged to respond and organise their arguments. Even if they ultimately decide they cannot support such measures, the Minister will have started at the leading edge to wear away some of the opposition. All parties, including the Government, employers, farmers, business, trade unions and voluntary organisations, will be forced to listen to each other. This is one of the great values of social partnership. There will be many on all sides who oppose new developments in this area and the chances are they will be rejected. However, a debate will be facilitated that has not yet taken place. It is only happening within the groups; there is no engagement between them. The time is right for such an engagement. I ask him (the Minister) to put some energy into the pensions debate yet again.
Back to top of the page
Treatment of Migrant Workers
15/12/05 - In the past week we had another appalling situation where seven people from the Middle East, in particular, working in this country were paid a paltry €2 per hour by a company called A1 Plastering which was doing work for a huge construction company, JJ Rattigan. That has been reported. I want people to recognise again that we have a serious problem in convincing those in the business community who are exploiting migrant workers, those who come into the State, that this is utterly wrong.
This is particularly important if we are looking at a new social partnership. I ask Members when speaking with people who run medium-sized enterprises whose spokespersons shout off at the mouth on radio and television, week after week, to be aware that if we pay workers lower wages we collect lower taxes, if we collect lower taxes, we cannot put money into health and education. If we pay lower wages to people it means they have less marginal income and the first people to lose will be the business community. It is in their interests, if they want to be selfish about it, but if we do not collect tax from one place it has to come from another.
We are creating a wealthy society in order to ensure the standards of living of all people in society, whether one is running a business or working for a business person, or whether one is in the public or private sector. That is what we are trying to achieve and that is what we need to ensure we deliver. It is pure practical simple politics. If we do not pay people more we pay the price at the end.
Back to top of the page
Care of the Elderly
14/12/05 -It is important that we determine how we can make things work well and how we bring the situation forward. I wish to focus on a number of points, the first of which is the independent inspectorate. The reality is that someone will ask if the inspectorate was a mistake, if it was a waste of money.
I have a suggestion, though I know there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that it will be taken up — that is always the problem with sensible suggestions. Setting up a nursing home inspectorate is a very good idea but there are other areas that also need to be inspected. This inspectorate will be set up on an ad hoc basis and will only examine a certain area. We most certainly need an inspectorate but it should not be on an ad hoc basis, dealing only with the elderly. To create synergies I ask the Minister of State to inspect the various institutions in which citizens of this State of any age are being looked after. This will avoid setting up something and regretting it two years later as we argue about whether to extend its area of responsibility.
I welcome the constant theme of flexibility in the Minister of State’s proposals. He is correct about the number of people who would prefer to stay at home and the number of extended families and communities who favour that option. I would like to have heard what the Minister of State means by flexibility, not to hold him down to it because these proposals must go through a process. If an extended family has three elderly relatives being looked after in three different houses and all three decide to move into one of the elderly persons’ homes, it becomes easier for the extended family and economies of scale make it easier for everyone. As things stand two people in such a situation cannot get the same level of support, though I am open to correction on that. Extended families often have more than one person to deal with.
How will this work? Will the Minister of State recognise that we cannot do these things without a sense of care in the community? I am worried by the greed in Irish society at the moment. The more we can do for families who want to look after their elderly relatives themselves, with a little support from the State, the better.
I would like to see the formula showing how we can save money. I can see the figures the Minister of State has provided but what does it cost, per person, in a nursing home for a year and what is the subvention level available for each? What does it take to give such people a Rolls Royce level of support at home, involving somebody staying with them at night or visiting them for a few hours during the week? The State might have difficulty organising an hour here and an hour there. The home care service works very well but extended families can sometimes do it equally well. I have seen it happen in my own community.
The flexibility proposed by the Minister of State could give a better quality of service and also save money — it is a win win situation. We need to increase funding levels. The money will make a difference but we need to see it working and how flexibility will be built into it, because that is the most difficult task. Every home, community and family are different. Some live close to each other but others live far away. A family member may be based in Dublin but a relative might live 150 miles away and it is costly to visit them every weekend. If somebody put that to the Minister of State would he take it on board?
Back to top of page
Translation of Official Documents
14/12/05 - I and my colleague, Senator Coghlan, recently raised the various problems arising from the Official Languages Act agus go háirithe “Dingle”, “Daingean Uí Chúis”, “An Daingean” agus na deacrachtaí a bhain leis sin. In the meantime places in Connemara and Donegal are expressing similar problems with the application of the Act. I ask whether we need to review the Act because in addition to the point raised by Senator Coghan and I, last week in the other House the Taoiseach raised the extraordinary costs and wastefulness of the production of certain end-of-year reports completely as an Ghaoluinn when there is no need for them. There is an in-between position which can be looked at.
The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission has also been dumped with another requirement of the Act to take on a huge additional burden of translation with no money being made available. Three issues arise. First, there is the question of placenames. Second, there are the annual reports that have to be produced as an Ghaoluinn, the translation of which can be done without publication. The only good aspect of the Act is that it has created translation jobs. My proposal is to retain these jobs by ensuring the documents are translated but it should not be necessary for all of them to be published in hard copy. Third, an additional burden of translation has been demanded by the Minister for which there is no financial support or resources.
It is time we had the Act reviewed and made more amenable to demands and needs and what is best for An Ghaoluinn. We can put money where it is badly needed in the Gaeltacht and with Gaeltacht people, not in half the nonsense the Minister is going on with.
Back to top of the page
Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005
13/12/05 - The removal of the groceries order is a bottle of smoke. The matter has been discussed ad nauseam but it will make no difference whatsoever down the line, none whatever. I was born and raised in my mother’s grocery shop and remember when Mr. Lemass’s Government introduced the dreaded turnover tax in the early 1960s. RGDATA hired out the local loudspeaker and carried it about the town, telling us that town centre life would never be the same again, that every small town would be closed and could not thrive anymore. It argued that life as we knew it would end. That is the current and abiding position of RGDATA. On the other hand, we have the view from the Competition Authority that in some way we can trust the likes of Tesco, Lidl, Aldi, Dunnes Stores and others to give us back the extra profits they are making so that we will all be better off. That is nonsense. There is not the remotest chance of that happening. This is populist politics and will not make the slightest bit of difference.
The removal of the order is not the panacea people suppose. It will not introduce greater competition or lower prices. How do I know that? Let us take one company, Tesco, and compare its prices in its stores in Newry and Dundalk, which I have done. It is cheaper to import products from the United Kingdom into the Republic than into the North. Despite that, Tesco’s goods are more expensive on the shelves in the South than in the North. Why? It is a simple matter of profit. What the market will bear, retailers will charge. It is a simple rule of economics.
I have no trust in the larger players. Even though I have no problem with the legislation and believe the order had to be removed, I hope nobody believes that we will get money back from the big operators. The large multiples are closing down bookshops by making the best-sellers available at lower prices on their shelves. They are closing down music shops by stocking CDs on their shelves. Senator Coghlan is correct to say they are ruthless. I rarely disagree with him but I disagree with the argument that keeping the groceries order would stop that happening. I agree with the Minister that it would not. Businesses must find different ways to prosper, perhaps by cultivating customer loyalty by providing enhanced levels of service.
How might we have made it work? If I read details of Tesco’s annual accounts in the business pages I cannot, no matter how hard I try, find out how much of its profits were generated in the Republic of Ireland. They will not tell me. Does the Minister know how much it is? No. Despite all the consultations and the information his Department has, it does not know the profits made by Tesco or any other major supermarket in Ireland. The people who argue the groceries order should be abolished because it will be good for competition refuse to tell us what their profit levels are. It is wrong. I would like the legislation to contain a provision whereby they would have to produce separate accounts for their Irish operation. It will go to the head office in London but not to our people.
This policy is a bottle of smoke. The Minister is right to abolish the groceries order but there will be no difference for consumers.
Back to top of the page
Budget Statements
09/12/05 - In the main, I welcome this budget as a progressive measure containing some important steps forward that we had sought. I raised specific requirements on the issue of child care in the House recently. I stated that at the end of the day I was looking for five things. The first two things I sought were an increase in maternity leave to 26 weeks and an increase in unpaid paternity leave to 26 weeks also. I am delighted that a commitment has been given to do that over two years, and that half of it will occur this year. That step is progressive, important and welcome. Many people will certainly look forward to it.
I also think the €10,000 relief is welcome. However, I would bet my house that they have underestimated it. Nobody knows the way that Irish people can flexibly use that kind of an arrangement and it may well be for use in their own houses. It is good, however, because it legitimises something that people have been forcing themselves to do.
The Minister did not mention any proper accreditation system for the child care package. This is very important because once we start creating choice for parents, we must ensure that some checks and balances are included. I note from the Budget Statement that people availing of the €10,000 break on taxation must register with the county committee on child care, or whatever its official title is. That is a welcome step. The Minister also said that the county committee on child care would be in a position to give information, support and small grants in order to make it happen, but we need to hear more about that. I am glad there is a registration process, but I would look for an awful lot more.
More than anything else, I regret that there is no clear commitment or objective to introduce some process for a formal, structured pre-school arrangement. The Department of Education and Science is mentioned, but such a process is missing and should be included. While I welcome some aspects of the budget, I feel that other matters are lacking.
I note that the proposal to create 50,000 child care places is scheduled to occur over the next four years up to 2010, but I do not know how that will work and I certainly want to hear more about it. It seems to be a tax break of some form or another, but I am not a bit convinced by it.
Over the past two years, I have asked that the minimum wage should be taken out of the tax net. I deplored the fact that this was not done. I note that those on the minimum wage are out of the tax net this year. While I welcome that step, I think it is too late. One may say that I am being curmudgeonly about this, but nonetheless, this measure will give confidence to lower paid workers. I wish that the provision had come in last year’s budget but, late as it is, I do welcome it as a positive step to which people will look forward.
In as much as I welcome the minimum wage being taken out of the tax net, I have also criticised the Government for the fact that the super rich could get themselves into a situation of paying no tax at all. I welcome the fact that that loophole is now being closed off, although I am not sure how. As I recall it, the Minister referred in his budget speech to complex legislation that would be necessary to achieve this, but I am convinced that he will do it. The matter needs to be examined.
I do not have the option to deal with many other issues. I am not quite clear, for example, how proposals for the elderly will work out in operation. Overall, however, I must say that there is far more to welcome than to criticise in the budget. It is a progressive budget which takes the direction I have been advocating for the past year. I am supportive of it, although there are some issues about which I am unclear and others about which I am unhappy.
Back to top of page
WTO Negotiations
07/12/05 - We sat here for ten years listening to a raging war about beef prices when anyone with two eyes and ears and half a brain knew that we would be dealing with world beef prices before the 1990s were out. While we all knew it we were still trying to convince or mislead farmers into thinking that we could stop it happening. The story is similar with beet, which has been debated for 32 years. Beet was never a long-term European crop. It was put together mainly to protect farmers in the north of France and Belgium, together with the UK to some extent, and we got in on the back. It was never going to happen.
Those things have an impact. Heads must be knocked together. I want people to engage on the issues rather than the personalities. I want them to ask what they will do now that there is no beet industry.
Globalisation, like Irish unity, means different things to different people. For me, globalisation is the extension of the Treaty of Rome to the globe. It is the free movement of labour and capital, among other things. ….I believe that it could be done if we examined how globalisation might be extended in a way reflecting the needs of the Irish agriculture community, which needs our support at this stage.
We can do several things, including requiring standards to be met abroad and changing things at home. Let us take the beet issue. Globalisation should be tied very closely to the Kyoto commitments. The Minister and I both know that if matters continue as at present, Brazil will soon supply sugar cane to the entire world. Let us remember, however, that Brazil is clearing trees from an area equivalent to the acreage of Ireland every year. It is doing so against all that we believe in regarding Kyoto. To deal with that, we should not do business with the Brazilians or allow into Europe products coming from such a regime.…….Why should we allow into our country beet from a country that does not apply the same standards to its producers? We should all say that we are not willing to do that, since Europe cannot allow it. We are strict enough on our own farmers.
I have a single priority for Irish beef farmers with which the Minister could deal in the Houses in two weeks. Will she revise and reform the Abattoirs Act 1988? It was the biggest mistake ever made in Irish agriculture in the last 20 years. We no longer know where our beef comes from. Twenty years ago we knew when we walked into a local butcher’s shop in any part of Ireland that it was more than likely that the butcher had bought it locally. The Abattoirs Act 1988 has put great costs on outlets such as those of Senator Quinn, since they must try to prove where meat comes from. We did not have that problem until the Act was passed.
The Minister can do two things, the first being to examine the success of farmers’ markets and how we can sell locally. They have seen great growth around Europe. Regulations concerning them are interpreted differently in different parts of Europe. Second, she should take a holiday to Provence and visit the local vegetable market. She should take half her officials with her and a digital camera. She should photograph what is on sale there - the beautiful, shiny, healthy, perfect vegetables. Then she should go to her local supermarket, photographing the extraordinarily good vegetables on display there.
She should note the difference. Vegetables are dumped in north Dublin because they will not pass through the sorters for the Dublin market, while in Provence they would be on display. People will go in and buy a beef tomato with four sides or a hugely distorted pepper. If it looks healthy, clean and luscious, they will buy it. Why does that happen there but not here? That and the Abattoirs Act 1988 must be addressed.
I agree with the point that it is immoral and unethical that the workers in Mallow and farmers supplying them will not get a shilling’s compensation for the closure of the beet factory and that €140 million will go to Greencore, which is no longer even an Irish company. Neither is it a beet company, meaning that there are two good reasons not to proceed on that basis. Irish farmers and agriculture need our support. We should plan together to make this work and improve the situation on the ground.
Back to top of the page
Morning Star Mother and Baby Home
07/12/05 - On a more negative note regarding the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, there is a woman from the Morning Star Mother and Baby Home who has been outside the gates for the past number of weeks. That woman has suffered. I am one of those who have written to the Minister. There seems to be some difficulty in dealing with the issue. A woman has suffered, yet it cannot be dealt with because of the legislation or regulations. We should ask the Minister why she cannot amend the legislation or regulations to allow the case to be dealt with. Coming up to Christmas, it is something we might think about doing. I recognise that there are legal and regulatory difficulties, but there are none that we could not address.
Back to top of page
Condoleezza Rice Comments
06/12/05 -I know that my colleague, Senator Norris, will say something about aeroplane landings but Dr. Condoleezza Rice reportedly said in Germany this morning that European Governments using intelligence obtained by the CIA or other American authorities should not question how it was obtained. This is an appalling reflection on the West. Is it any wonder that we are in trouble with the rest of the world?
We must get an answer from the American authoritiesat some stage about what Dr. Rice’s statement means. Is it that the ends justify the means, matters that many people have questioned over the past one or two years? People diligently stood up on principle and were for or against the war or American involvement. They spoke honestly, openly and articulately. They must feel they are being let down time and time again. That Dr. Rice could state this brings a new end to the issue. It is a philosophy without ethics and is impossible for us to be a part of. If western civilisation does not distance itself from it, we will all pay a serious price in the short term.
Back to top of the page.
"On-The-Runs"
01/12/05 - I have grave reservations about the proposals to deal with individuals on-the-run who are wanted on criminal charges. I instinctively dislike the notion that individuals wanted on criminal charges might not be brought to justice in a democracy. How we deal with them afterwards is another issue but I find it impossible to cope with it in terms of how we structure our democracy and the need to have a judicial system in place.
I also recognise we have had to accept much in the cause of peace. Last weekend I met Michael Finucane whose father was assassinated by loyalists, perhaps in collusion with the authorities. I asked him how he felt about this. It was the most humbling experience to hear his reply. He said it was terrible but if that was the price we had to pay to get the prize of peace, he and his family were prepared to accept it. At that stage I felt whatever reservations I had should be buried immediately. We must take this step to move the process forward and I will support the proposal when it comes before the House.
However, it would make a bad situation worse if ..it turns out afterwards that we have done something which is unconstitutional. I do not understand how we can do this constitutionally. The method being used in the UK might be more interesting and easier for parliamentarians to deal with. I do not understand the technicalities but we must move on this issue. This must be an all-party issue. These issues have never divided us on a party political basis. I would like to be reassured, as I am sure we all would, that whatever way it is done is workable.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas Website