27 June National Cultural Institutions: Motion
Click photo to hear Maureen speaking
We continue the debate we started on priority questions and I thank the Minister for the meeting I had with him. Any organisation or institution worthy of its name will regularly examine and analyse what is going well and the areas in need of reform. Our cultural and artistic institutions do this regularly. Their point is that they do not want change just for the sake of it. In general, the artistic and cultural organisations have been working well. If the car is going well, why tinker with the engine?
These proposals were first made in an interdepartmental report in 1974. The proposed amalgamations were rejected then on the grounds that there were distinct differences in the disciplines involved, there were serious problems with space for amalgamated entities, there was no indication of money savings and because the National Archives had statutory standing. Those reasons are still valid. All are agreed that a sound and thorough cost-benefit analysis is vital. Also vital is real and meaningful consultation with the bodies involved. The Minister said he has an open door for anyone who wants to come and speak to him on this issue. It is vital that all the boards are independent in order to ensure proper governance. They must also be expertise-led, and board members must have real experience in the arts and of maintaining budget discipline. The current boards have been doing well in this regard. I have an issue with regard to the payment of expenses for board members, but I am aware that many of the members of these boards have waived expenses. All the institutions agree with the shared services notion, but they want the principle of “arm’s length” kept intact. They have already been coping with cuts. Putting culture under one rule is dangerous, just as putting the media under one hand is dangerous.
Mention has been made of Canada. It is the only country where national archives and libraries have been amalgamated, but considerable funding was invested in that. The director of Library and Archives Canada who had pushed for the merger maintains now that he is unsure whether it is working. Proposed amalgamations in other countries have also been rejected. Archives are different to libraries. There have been successful partnerships between them but a library is primarily a library whereas the National Archives of Ireland has a statutory responsibility for records created by the State. Some 45 people work in the National Archives of Ireland compared with 160 people in the National Archives of Scotland and 180 people in the corresponding organisation in Denmark. These are countries with similar bases. Given the approach of the decades of commemoration there will be a vital role for these perfectly well functioning institutions.
These proposals were first made in an interdepartmental report in 1974. The proposed amalgamations were rejected then on the grounds that there were distinct differences in the disciplines involved, there were serious problems with space for amalgamated entities, there was no indication of money savings and because the National Archives had statutory standing. Those reasons are still valid. All are agreed that a sound and thorough cost-benefit analysis is vital. Also vital is real and meaningful consultation with the bodies involved. The Minister said he has an open door for anyone who wants to come and speak to him on this issue. It is vital that all the boards are independent in order to ensure proper governance. They must also be expertise-led, and board members must have real experience in the arts and of maintaining budget discipline. The current boards have been doing well in this regard. I have an issue with regard to the payment of expenses for board members, but I am aware that many of the members of these boards have waived expenses. All the institutions agree with the shared services notion, but they want the principle of “arm’s length” kept intact. They have already been coping with cuts. Putting culture under one rule is dangerous, just as putting the media under one hand is dangerous.
Mention has been made of Canada. It is the only country where national archives and libraries have been amalgamated, but considerable funding was invested in that. The director of Library and Archives Canada who had pushed for the merger maintains now that he is unsure whether it is working. Proposed amalgamations in other countries have also been rejected. Archives are different to libraries. There have been successful partnerships between them but a library is primarily a library whereas the National Archives of Ireland has a statutory responsibility for records created by the State. Some 45 people work in the National Archives of Ireland compared with 160 people in the National Archives of Scotland and 180 people in the corresponding organisation in Denmark. These are countries with similar bases. Given the approach of the decades of commemoration there will be a vital role for these perfectly well functioning institutions.
21 June Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Issues: Statements
Click to Maureen speaking
In February I chaired a meeting when Ms Maria Gomez, a human rights activist from Bolivia, was in the country. She campaigns with the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament which has a membership of more than 800 parliamentarians from 80 countries. This is an important movement for parliamentarians that provides information on nuclear disarmament issues and resolutions, motions and questions in parliaments around the globe. It is an important forum for developing strategies on this topic. It is good, therefore, that we are having this debate.
In 2011 there was a call for the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. There are examples of parliamentarians helping to establish nuclear weapon-free zones in Antarctica, Latin America, the Caribbean, the South Pacific and Africa. These zones were difficult to achieve, particularly where countries were involved in nuclear testing. The experience, however, is one of overcoming difficulties and the call is to develop security without nuclear weapons. The Zimbabwean Minister for Education, Culture, Sports and Arts praised this initiative and saw what was achieved in Africa as a building block towards common security and a nuclear weapons-free world. He made the point that the €100 billion spent annually on nuclear weapons should instead be dedicated to addressing economic and social needs, including education, health, housing, jobs, water, food, fair policies on the environment and poverty reduction.
There are other positive developments on this topic that give us an opportunity as legislators to be forceful. International humanitarian law covers weaponry and prohibits the use of weapons or methods of warfare that cause indiscriminate harm to civilians, unnecessary suffering to combatants or long-term and severe damage to the environment. We know this continues in spite of international humanitarian law; therefore, putting it on paper is one thing but implementing it is another. It requires basic respect for law.
Ireland played a significant role in the landmine and cluster munitions treaties. The blueprint is in place with these initiatives for the achievement of a global treaty banning nuclear weapons. Other positive moves in 2010 were the parties to the non-proliferation treaty coming to an agreement that all states must comply with applicable humanitarian law, including international law, and acknowledge that any use of nuclear weapons would cause catastrophic humanitarian consequences. The NPT consensus final document called on all nuclear weapon states to undertake concrete disarmament efforts - the key word being “concrete” - towards establishing the necessary framework to establish and maintain a world without nuclear weapons. The Vancouver Declaration, Law’s Imperative for the Urgent Achievement of a Nuclear Weapon-Free World, following a conference of international law experts, was issued in February 2011. In October 2011 leading NGOs launched a nuclear abolition forum to facilitate dialogue to bring this about. Also, the International Red Cross-Red Crescent adopted a resolution on the irreconcilability of nuclear weapons and humanitarian law. It is imperative that we continue to work towards an international agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons that will be legally binding.
It is also positive that more than three quarters of the world has voted in favour of the UN resolution calling for commencement of negotiations leading to the conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. This has support across a wide spectrum, including even from countries that possess such weapons. Perhaps they are paying lip service to the notion but they have signed it anyway. The international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons has noted that nations that support a ban comprise 21% of the world’s population. Why has there not been more progress on getting to a world free of such weapons? This leads one to ask why countries want nuclear weapons. Who would want an instrument that could blow the world to smithereens, including the country that possesses the weapon?
We constantly talk about living in challenging times though we are usually referring to economics, climate change or population growth but the threat of annihilation through nuclear war remains serious. One country claims that having a nuclear weapon is a deterrent from attack and seeks it as a safety net but that will not work because it incites other countries to acquire the same weapons, which means we will then find ourselves in the middle of an arms race. If one country has a weapon, it acts as an incentive and throws down the gauntlet to those that do not. The Middle East is fragile and volatile and, therefore, the last thing it needs is further escalation in nuclear weapons building. There are concerns about Iran’s uranium enrichment programme but a suggestion to use pre-emptive force against its facilities could be a trigger for a ferocious war. Even calling for strengthened sanctions against Iran is not conducive to maintaining peace. Diplomatic action, not military action, is needed.
The threat of force is also counterproductive because one cannot beat fire with fire. Another aspect of this, which is similar to the pot calling the kettle black or saying “Do as I say but not as I do” is the entire focus is on Iran while the nuclear weapon programmes of its neighbours are ignored, which is hypocritical. It would be better for all to support the UN process to establish a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, made a speech on this issue two years ago during which he stated: “The momentum is building towards a nuclear weapon free world”. That has gone off the boil but he mentioned another contradiction. Countries that have increased their military spending have, at the same time, introduced cuts to social security, health and environmental protection. Having a nuclear arms free world, far from adding to international peace and security, is putting them in jeopardy. He called on governments to reveal the extent of their nuclear arsenals.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, I attended a meeting on 1 March which was addressed by the former Canadian senator, Douglas Roche, the founding chairman of Middle Powers Initiative, a group of eight international NGOs. Their mission statement is dedicated to worldwide reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons in a series of well defined stages accompanied by increasing verification and control. He very much acknowledged Ireland’s role in the non-proliferation treaty and its commitment to nuclear disarmament. He sees the world moving to a new stage in efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons and he feels economic realities are making them unaffordable but that is not borne out by the $100 million being spent annually on these arms. In the same breath, he said the UN Secretary General and President Obama have tried to lead the way to a nuclear weapons free world but the US contributes $50 billion annually to such weapons. The issue of the use of drones by the US and Great Britain to fire indiscriminately at targets with the loss of civilian life in many cases must be tackled. Mr. Roche thinks the major states were less than lukewarm about taking this on. There is, therefore, a body of thought that looks on nuclear weapons as a deterrent to exerting power. They might go along with some reduction but elimination is either not on the agenda or not just yet. Mr. Roche mentioned the convoluted logic whereby countries see safety from nuclear weapons as depending on their deployment and feel deprived if they do not have these arsenals at their disposal. He also made a reference, which has not been addressed, to the theft of nuclear material, particularly from former Soviet Union countries.
We are aware of the damage and destruction nuclear weapons can do. I support the calls to ensure State funds are not invested in companies involved in the nuclear weapons industry, including in Ireland. We should continue to support the non-proliferation treaty and work towards the nuclear weapons convention. Perhaps there is a reason now to reopen our embassy in Teheran in order that we can continue to work with Iran.
In 2011 there was a call for the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. There are examples of parliamentarians helping to establish nuclear weapon-free zones in Antarctica, Latin America, the Caribbean, the South Pacific and Africa. These zones were difficult to achieve, particularly where countries were involved in nuclear testing. The experience, however, is one of overcoming difficulties and the call is to develop security without nuclear weapons. The Zimbabwean Minister for Education, Culture, Sports and Arts praised this initiative and saw what was achieved in Africa as a building block towards common security and a nuclear weapons-free world. He made the point that the €100 billion spent annually on nuclear weapons should instead be dedicated to addressing economic and social needs, including education, health, housing, jobs, water, food, fair policies on the environment and poverty reduction.
There are other positive developments on this topic that give us an opportunity as legislators to be forceful. International humanitarian law covers weaponry and prohibits the use of weapons or methods of warfare that cause indiscriminate harm to civilians, unnecessary suffering to combatants or long-term and severe damage to the environment. We know this continues in spite of international humanitarian law; therefore, putting it on paper is one thing but implementing it is another. It requires basic respect for law.
Ireland played a significant role in the landmine and cluster munitions treaties. The blueprint is in place with these initiatives for the achievement of a global treaty banning nuclear weapons. Other positive moves in 2010 were the parties to the non-proliferation treaty coming to an agreement that all states must comply with applicable humanitarian law, including international law, and acknowledge that any use of nuclear weapons would cause catastrophic humanitarian consequences. The NPT consensus final document called on all nuclear weapon states to undertake concrete disarmament efforts - the key word being “concrete” - towards establishing the necessary framework to establish and maintain a world without nuclear weapons. The Vancouver Declaration, Law’s Imperative for the Urgent Achievement of a Nuclear Weapon-Free World, following a conference of international law experts, was issued in February 2011. In October 2011 leading NGOs launched a nuclear abolition forum to facilitate dialogue to bring this about. Also, the International Red Cross-Red Crescent adopted a resolution on the irreconcilability of nuclear weapons and humanitarian law. It is imperative that we continue to work towards an international agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons that will be legally binding.
It is also positive that more than three quarters of the world has voted in favour of the UN resolution calling for commencement of negotiations leading to the conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. This has support across a wide spectrum, including even from countries that possess such weapons. Perhaps they are paying lip service to the notion but they have signed it anyway. The international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons has noted that nations that support a ban comprise 21% of the world’s population. Why has there not been more progress on getting to a world free of such weapons? This leads one to ask why countries want nuclear weapons. Who would want an instrument that could blow the world to smithereens, including the country that possesses the weapon?
We constantly talk about living in challenging times though we are usually referring to economics, climate change or population growth but the threat of annihilation through nuclear war remains serious. One country claims that having a nuclear weapon is a deterrent from attack and seeks it as a safety net but that will not work because it incites other countries to acquire the same weapons, which means we will then find ourselves in the middle of an arms race. If one country has a weapon, it acts as an incentive and throws down the gauntlet to those that do not. The Middle East is fragile and volatile and, therefore, the last thing it needs is further escalation in nuclear weapons building. There are concerns about Iran’s uranium enrichment programme but a suggestion to use pre-emptive force against its facilities could be a trigger for a ferocious war. Even calling for strengthened sanctions against Iran is not conducive to maintaining peace. Diplomatic action, not military action, is needed.
The threat of force is also counterproductive because one cannot beat fire with fire. Another aspect of this, which is similar to the pot calling the kettle black or saying “Do as I say but not as I do” is the entire focus is on Iran while the nuclear weapon programmes of its neighbours are ignored, which is hypocritical. It would be better for all to support the UN process to establish a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, made a speech on this issue two years ago during which he stated: “The momentum is building towards a nuclear weapon free world”. That has gone off the boil but he mentioned another contradiction. Countries that have increased their military spending have, at the same time, introduced cuts to social security, health and environmental protection. Having a nuclear arms free world, far from adding to international peace and security, is putting them in jeopardy. He called on governments to reveal the extent of their nuclear arsenals.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, I attended a meeting on 1 March which was addressed by the former Canadian senator, Douglas Roche, the founding chairman of Middle Powers Initiative, a group of eight international NGOs. Their mission statement is dedicated to worldwide reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons in a series of well defined stages accompanied by increasing verification and control. He very much acknowledged Ireland’s role in the non-proliferation treaty and its commitment to nuclear disarmament. He sees the world moving to a new stage in efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons and he feels economic realities are making them unaffordable but that is not borne out by the $100 million being spent annually on these arms. In the same breath, he said the UN Secretary General and President Obama have tried to lead the way to a nuclear weapons free world but the US contributes $50 billion annually to such weapons. The issue of the use of drones by the US and Great Britain to fire indiscriminately at targets with the loss of civilian life in many cases must be tackled. Mr. Roche thinks the major states were less than lukewarm about taking this on. There is, therefore, a body of thought that looks on nuclear weapons as a deterrent to exerting power. They might go along with some reduction but elimination is either not on the agenda or not just yet. Mr. Roche mentioned the convoluted logic whereby countries see safety from nuclear weapons as depending on their deployment and feel deprived if they do not have these arsenals at their disposal. He also made a reference, which has not been addressed, to the theft of nuclear material, particularly from former Soviet Union countries.
We are aware of the damage and destruction nuclear weapons can do. I support the calls to ensure State funds are not invested in companies involved in the nuclear weapons industry, including in Ireland. We should continue to support the non-proliferation treaty and work towards the nuclear weapons convention. Perhaps there is a reason now to reopen our embassy in Teheran in order that we can continue to work with Iran.
Dáil Contributions June 2012
19 June Electoral (Amendment)(Political Funding) Bill 2011 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed)
Click to hear Maureen's statement
Caithfidh mé a admháil go bhfuil saghas díomá orm nach bhfuil níos mó san mBille. Ní fheictear ann ach ar dhá rud. I am slightly disappointed. I would have preferred to look at the bigger picture of political reform rather than at the two areas the Bill encompasses. I know certain things move slowly and I accept the need for due process, consultation and ensuring all angles are covered. However, it has long been acknowledged that many aspects of political life are in need of reform. The Bill only covers the two aspects of funding and gender. In the course of the time allowed to me, I will look at other aspects relating to political reform.
The Government came to power with a considerable mandate and on a great wave of positivity and expectation that things would be different and that reform was coming sooner rather than later. I thought we would be moving at a different pace, grasping those nettles that have been stifling society.
The constitutional convention is a good idea, but I wonder about how it is to be set up and whether that will enable or inhibit what it is setting out to do. I know a constitutional convention cannot cover everything, but two aspects being covered, reducing the voting age and the length of the presidential term, are fairly straightforward. It only requires that they be put to a vote. Those two items could be covered in a referendum.
The Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, commented on the significance of making space in civil society for promoting and protecting human rights. I support the suggestion from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties that there be wider ranging participative consultation. Amnesty International has called for the constitutional convention to examine human rights law and how best to protect economic, social and cultural rights. It is vital the constitutional convention look at these issues. There was wide-ranging consultation on the White Paper on Irish aid. That set a very good example.
Figures on gender balance are startling. We are in an area of male domination, but only numerically. Intellectually, socially, work-wise, and in multi-tasking and juggling demands, women are the dominant force. A report published in May of this year shows Ireland well below the European average with regard to the proportion of female members of parliament. The European average of women members, in both lower and upper houses, is 24.68%. The highest is 44.99% and the lowest 8.7%. Ireland hovers around 15%. In the 27 EU Governments, the average number of women ministers is 25.71%. The highest, in Sweden, is 54.17% and the lowest, in Greece, is 5.56%. That might have been a contributing factor to Greece’s current woes. Ireland has 13.33% women ministers. We do better in the European Parliament, where the average is 34.26% and Ireland has 33.33%. The figures there range from 61% to 0%.
We know we are in a very male-dominated Dáil. Quotas are proposed. At the next general election, 30% of all candidates must be women, or political parties will face a cut in State funding. A side, but important, issue is whether political parties should receive State funding at all. The Bill does not take into account women who stand as independent candidates.
I am against quotas as a way to address the issue of more women in politics, even though I understand the arguments for them. Parliament is not representative of society in any event. If that is the principle on which this proposal is operating, it follows that there should be quotas for other groups in society who are not represented here, such as certain socioeconomic groups, age groups, minority groups, new communities, the unemployed and those with disabilities. We know that certain professions are over-represented in the House. Everyone who is elected has a duty to represent all their constituents. I do not see women Deputies as representatives of women and men Deputies as representatives of men.
The idea of quotas smacks of tokenism. Women, if they choose to stand, are very well capable of being elected on their own merits. We need only look at any community throughout Ireland to see examples of women who are taking dominant and strong roles and getting the work done. In Dublin Central, two of the four Deputies are female. We have a perfect gender balance. Of the two local authority areas in Dublin Central, the inner city ward had a 50:50 male:female ratio until a recent move by one of the councillors, and the Cabra-Glasnevin ward has three female councillors for every two males.
Why do more women not stand for election? I pay tribute to those who do stand, and I do not denigrate anyone in the House but I believe women have more sense than to stand for the Dáil. Women, in spite of our reputation for talking, are doers. We do not see enough doing in this House but we hear a great deal of talking.
Putting women candidates on the ballot paper is tokenistic. Apart from anything else, it does not guarantee that women will be elected. It pays lip service to the aim of getting more equal representation between men and women in the Dáil rather than actually achieving something.
The Bill lets the parties off the hook. They can point out that they have put women on the ballot paper and that it is not their fault if they are not elected. Political parties have much soul searching to do with regard to election strategy, and I acknowledge the Labour Party as different from the others in this regard. I am talking about decisions to stand one, two or three candidates, vote management, and so on. Women are sometimes put on a ballot paper, but in such a way as to make it difficult for them to be elected. I have heard women Deputies say this, in this Dáil and the previous one. Women have been on ballot papers and not been elected. This can depend on where the woman is put. At the last general election count in Dublin Central, I saw some ballot papers where only women candidates were voted for. I am not sure that is a good idea.
We know of some of the reasons for the under-representation of women in political life. We know of the barriers at the various stages from self-selection through party selection to the election itself. We know of the five Cs a woman needs to enter politics, including child care. I do not totally accept the argument about child care, because men have children too. I dislike the way child care is seen as the prerogative of the mother. It is an issue for fathers also. Why is child care not cited as a factor in male representation?
There is evidence from Ireland and other democracies that the sex of a candidate is of less importance than to a voter than the candidate’s party, the policy positions taken and whether a candidate is a member of a Government or Opposition party. I presume the same is true for non-party candidates.
Deputy Tuffy referred to quotas, the principle of democratic representation and voter choice. There is a valid argument that quotas could be seen to contravene the liberal democratic principle of merit and to violate the principles of fairness, competence and individualism. The point was made that gender quotas could, in some instances, skew the selection process in favour of less able candidates at the expense of other more able candidates, on the basis of their gender. Another female Deputy said, on that point, that she was relishing the prospect of voting for a mediocre, less able woman because she had been voting for mediocre, less able men for years. I believe there is no such thing as a mediocre or less able woman. The point is one of fairness. Political reform is needed to ensure women will want to stand as Deputies in the first place.
Some theorists propose that the more highly educated women are, the more likely they are to participate in politics. However, although there are greater numbers of women leaving third level institutions, they have not translated into more women entering politics. Much more is needed in the area of political reform to bring about change in that regard. I do not believe quotas are the way forward, but I accept that they have worked in other countries.
We know that for far too long there was an unhealthy relationship between certain political parties and business and we see the results around us in society. The unethical, immoral and illegal system of donations in return for favours must be eliminated. We must also eliminate the possibility of loopholes to get around the system. One can set the maximum amount that can be accepted as a donation, establish a register of corporate donors and a threshold above which donations must be declared by companies, trade unions and other bodies. It is all very well to set this down on paper, but the important thing is to implement it, in addition to ensuring there are no loopholes.
In June 2009 I stood in both a by-election and the local elections for the first time; therefore, I was somewhat paranoid about receipts and keeping within the limits. For the by-election I had to furnish the receipts, which I did, but it was not the same for the local elections. Those responsible took my word on the amount I said I had spent. I am in favour of supporting a Bill which seeks to address the problematic relationship between politics and business. The Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, argues that there is a strong case for adopting a new approach to the general funding of parties. I presume it would include Independents. Because of the need for increased transparency such funding must be scrutinised. Unfortunately, even in countries in which there are strict requirements for disclosure there is still a way to buy policies.
The Library and Research Service’s Bills Digest has an alarming statistic about parties spending more than €10 million in campaigns, yet only €1 million was disclosed in donations. In 2009 no donations were disclosed by parties, even though it was a year in which local and European elections took place. In 2010 more than €67,000 was disclosed in donations - the lowest figure since the introduction of the system in 1997. None of the three main political parties disclosed any donations, yet in the general election in February electoral expenses of more than €9 million were disclosed. Members of these parties must pay a massive membership fee to cover such expenses. There is a need for greater scrutiny, but it must be real and meaningful.
We talk about equality, parity and fairness. The allowance introduced for Independents was intended to address the imbalance between those involved in political parties and Independents. Funding had been going to political parties which meant Independent candidates were disadvantaged. There are considerable disparities in the allowances for Independents and what is received by political parties. I acknowledge and support what Deputy Stephen Donnelly has said on the matter. When we take everything into account, between Exchequer funding, leaders’ allowances and staff resources, we see clearly the extent of the imbalance and unfairness. The total annual amount of Exchequer funding for Fine Gael was more than €2.25 million; iapproximately €1.25 million for the Labour Party ; just under €1.25 million for Fianna Fáil and approximately €700,000 for Sinn Féin, while there was nothing for Independents. The amount received in leaders’ allowances was €2.5 million for Fine Gael; €1.75 million for the Labour Party; more than €1.5 million for Fianna Fáil; just over €1 million for Sinn Féin; €350,000 for the ULA and €950,000 for Independents.
If we look at total funding per group, there is more than €5.5 million for Fine Gael; approximately €3.5 million for the Labour Party; €3.75 million for Fianna Fáil; approximately €2.2 million for Sinn Féin and €950,000 for Independents. When one breaks down the figure among Deputies, it works out per Deputy at €67,000 for Fine Gael Members; €83,000 for Labour Party Members; €172,000 for Fianna Fáil Members; €147,000 for Sinn Féin Members, €86,000 for ULA Members and €41,000 for Independent Members. I have rounded up the figures. Allowances are also made for additional staff. We are aware of the amounts that can be involved in salaries for the various political parties. No allowances were made for staff for Independents. Provision is also made for facilities for extra staff such as computers and telephones.
As an Independent and following the work of the longest serving Independent Member in the Dáil, I believe in equality and having a level playing field. I am prepared to eliminate all allowances, but it should be done across the board in order that there is no unfairness, or else everybody should be brought down to the level of allowance received by Independent Members. That would ensure a much more level playing field.
I include referendums among the areas in which political reform is necessary. It is important and positive to give citizens a chance to have their say, apart from at election times. Citizens were deprived of a vital referendum on the bank guarantee. One measure of reform would be to reduce the length of time allowed for a referendum campaign. One month is too long and a shorter timeframe would be preferable. We have a discerning electorate, as we saw in the referendums on judges’ pay and the extension of powers for Oireachtas committees. One went through and the other did not.
There has been much talk about Seanad reform and the abolition of the Seanad is part of the programme for Government. A blanket abolition of the Seanad is not the essence of parliamentary reform. There should be a discussion on the issue and a rational debate on the pros and cons of the Seanad. There have been some excellent debates in the Seanad and its blanket abolition is not required. However, there is no doubt that election to it is elitist and undemocratic. There is a value to the Seanad such as the debates on various topics and legislation and we must examine how to make the most of it. However, appointment should not be at the behest of university graduates or Members, the convoluted system of panels or include nominees by the Taoiseach. That said, the Taoiseach made some inspired choices in the current Seanad. I look on it as a place in which to honour those who have made real contributions to society such as some of the current Members, but it must be done democratically rather than in the way it has been used and abused as a training ground for prospective Deputies and a retirement home for others.
On the number of Deputies, the way forward is to examine the work of a Deputy and to divide up the work and the number required to do it rather than saying we should get rid of a certain number of them without being sure of the effect on a Deputy’s work.
I was most surprised that so many committees were amalgamated. From my experience of voluntary work, the smaller a committee the more focused it is and the better the work that results. Large committees were set up. On the basis of allocating only two minutes of speaking time to each member, with a membership of at least 20, up to one hour would be spent on contributions rather than in discussing an issue. I welcome the rearrangement of committees and hope it will prove to be a forward step for them.
I am disappointed that we are not covering more issues. It would have been good to see a list of what would be addressed. My focus is on political funding, gender quotas and a few other aspects of the legislation.
The Government came to power with a considerable mandate and on a great wave of positivity and expectation that things would be different and that reform was coming sooner rather than later. I thought we would be moving at a different pace, grasping those nettles that have been stifling society.
The constitutional convention is a good idea, but I wonder about how it is to be set up and whether that will enable or inhibit what it is setting out to do. I know a constitutional convention cannot cover everything, but two aspects being covered, reducing the voting age and the length of the presidential term, are fairly straightforward. It only requires that they be put to a vote. Those two items could be covered in a referendum.
The Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, commented on the significance of making space in civil society for promoting and protecting human rights. I support the suggestion from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties that there be wider ranging participative consultation. Amnesty International has called for the constitutional convention to examine human rights law and how best to protect economic, social and cultural rights. It is vital the constitutional convention look at these issues. There was wide-ranging consultation on the White Paper on Irish aid. That set a very good example.
Figures on gender balance are startling. We are in an area of male domination, but only numerically. Intellectually, socially, work-wise, and in multi-tasking and juggling demands, women are the dominant force. A report published in May of this year shows Ireland well below the European average with regard to the proportion of female members of parliament. The European average of women members, in both lower and upper houses, is 24.68%. The highest is 44.99% and the lowest 8.7%. Ireland hovers around 15%. In the 27 EU Governments, the average number of women ministers is 25.71%. The highest, in Sweden, is 54.17% and the lowest, in Greece, is 5.56%. That might have been a contributing factor to Greece’s current woes. Ireland has 13.33% women ministers. We do better in the European Parliament, where the average is 34.26% and Ireland has 33.33%. The figures there range from 61% to 0%.
We know we are in a very male-dominated Dáil. Quotas are proposed. At the next general election, 30% of all candidates must be women, or political parties will face a cut in State funding. A side, but important, issue is whether political parties should receive State funding at all. The Bill does not take into account women who stand as independent candidates.
I am against quotas as a way to address the issue of more women in politics, even though I understand the arguments for them. Parliament is not representative of society in any event. If that is the principle on which this proposal is operating, it follows that there should be quotas for other groups in society who are not represented here, such as certain socioeconomic groups, age groups, minority groups, new communities, the unemployed and those with disabilities. We know that certain professions are over-represented in the House. Everyone who is elected has a duty to represent all their constituents. I do not see women Deputies as representatives of women and men Deputies as representatives of men.
The idea of quotas smacks of tokenism. Women, if they choose to stand, are very well capable of being elected on their own merits. We need only look at any community throughout Ireland to see examples of women who are taking dominant and strong roles and getting the work done. In Dublin Central, two of the four Deputies are female. We have a perfect gender balance. Of the two local authority areas in Dublin Central, the inner city ward had a 50:50 male:female ratio until a recent move by one of the councillors, and the Cabra-Glasnevin ward has three female councillors for every two males.
Why do more women not stand for election? I pay tribute to those who do stand, and I do not denigrate anyone in the House but I believe women have more sense than to stand for the Dáil. Women, in spite of our reputation for talking, are doers. We do not see enough doing in this House but we hear a great deal of talking.
Putting women candidates on the ballot paper is tokenistic. Apart from anything else, it does not guarantee that women will be elected. It pays lip service to the aim of getting more equal representation between men and women in the Dáil rather than actually achieving something.
The Bill lets the parties off the hook. They can point out that they have put women on the ballot paper and that it is not their fault if they are not elected. Political parties have much soul searching to do with regard to election strategy, and I acknowledge the Labour Party as different from the others in this regard. I am talking about decisions to stand one, two or three candidates, vote management, and so on. Women are sometimes put on a ballot paper, but in such a way as to make it difficult for them to be elected. I have heard women Deputies say this, in this Dáil and the previous one. Women have been on ballot papers and not been elected. This can depend on where the woman is put. At the last general election count in Dublin Central, I saw some ballot papers where only women candidates were voted for. I am not sure that is a good idea.
We know of some of the reasons for the under-representation of women in political life. We know of the barriers at the various stages from self-selection through party selection to the election itself. We know of the five Cs a woman needs to enter politics, including child care. I do not totally accept the argument about child care, because men have children too. I dislike the way child care is seen as the prerogative of the mother. It is an issue for fathers also. Why is child care not cited as a factor in male representation?
There is evidence from Ireland and other democracies that the sex of a candidate is of less importance than to a voter than the candidate’s party, the policy positions taken and whether a candidate is a member of a Government or Opposition party. I presume the same is true for non-party candidates.
Deputy Tuffy referred to quotas, the principle of democratic representation and voter choice. There is a valid argument that quotas could be seen to contravene the liberal democratic principle of merit and to violate the principles of fairness, competence and individualism. The point was made that gender quotas could, in some instances, skew the selection process in favour of less able candidates at the expense of other more able candidates, on the basis of their gender. Another female Deputy said, on that point, that she was relishing the prospect of voting for a mediocre, less able woman because she had been voting for mediocre, less able men for years. I believe there is no such thing as a mediocre or less able woman. The point is one of fairness. Political reform is needed to ensure women will want to stand as Deputies in the first place.
Some theorists propose that the more highly educated women are, the more likely they are to participate in politics. However, although there are greater numbers of women leaving third level institutions, they have not translated into more women entering politics. Much more is needed in the area of political reform to bring about change in that regard. I do not believe quotas are the way forward, but I accept that they have worked in other countries.
We know that for far too long there was an unhealthy relationship between certain political parties and business and we see the results around us in society. The unethical, immoral and illegal system of donations in return for favours must be eliminated. We must also eliminate the possibility of loopholes to get around the system. One can set the maximum amount that can be accepted as a donation, establish a register of corporate donors and a threshold above which donations must be declared by companies, trade unions and other bodies. It is all very well to set this down on paper, but the important thing is to implement it, in addition to ensuring there are no loopholes.
In June 2009 I stood in both a by-election and the local elections for the first time; therefore, I was somewhat paranoid about receipts and keeping within the limits. For the by-election I had to furnish the receipts, which I did, but it was not the same for the local elections. Those responsible took my word on the amount I said I had spent. I am in favour of supporting a Bill which seeks to address the problematic relationship between politics and business. The Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, argues that there is a strong case for adopting a new approach to the general funding of parties. I presume it would include Independents. Because of the need for increased transparency such funding must be scrutinised. Unfortunately, even in countries in which there are strict requirements for disclosure there is still a way to buy policies.
The Library and Research Service’s Bills Digest has an alarming statistic about parties spending more than €10 million in campaigns, yet only €1 million was disclosed in donations. In 2009 no donations were disclosed by parties, even though it was a year in which local and European elections took place. In 2010 more than €67,000 was disclosed in donations - the lowest figure since the introduction of the system in 1997. None of the three main political parties disclosed any donations, yet in the general election in February electoral expenses of more than €9 million were disclosed. Members of these parties must pay a massive membership fee to cover such expenses. There is a need for greater scrutiny, but it must be real and meaningful.
We talk about equality, parity and fairness. The allowance introduced for Independents was intended to address the imbalance between those involved in political parties and Independents. Funding had been going to political parties which meant Independent candidates were disadvantaged. There are considerable disparities in the allowances for Independents and what is received by political parties. I acknowledge and support what Deputy Stephen Donnelly has said on the matter. When we take everything into account, between Exchequer funding, leaders’ allowances and staff resources, we see clearly the extent of the imbalance and unfairness. The total annual amount of Exchequer funding for Fine Gael was more than €2.25 million; iapproximately €1.25 million for the Labour Party ; just under €1.25 million for Fianna Fáil and approximately €700,000 for Sinn Féin, while there was nothing for Independents. The amount received in leaders’ allowances was €2.5 million for Fine Gael; €1.75 million for the Labour Party; more than €1.5 million for Fianna Fáil; just over €1 million for Sinn Féin; €350,000 for the ULA and €950,000 for Independents.
If we look at total funding per group, there is more than €5.5 million for Fine Gael; approximately €3.5 million for the Labour Party; €3.75 million for Fianna Fáil; approximately €2.2 million for Sinn Féin and €950,000 for Independents. When one breaks down the figure among Deputies, it works out per Deputy at €67,000 for Fine Gael Members; €83,000 for Labour Party Members; €172,000 for Fianna Fáil Members; €147,000 for Sinn Féin Members, €86,000 for ULA Members and €41,000 for Independent Members. I have rounded up the figures. Allowances are also made for additional staff. We are aware of the amounts that can be involved in salaries for the various political parties. No allowances were made for staff for Independents. Provision is also made for facilities for extra staff such as computers and telephones.
As an Independent and following the work of the longest serving Independent Member in the Dáil, I believe in equality and having a level playing field. I am prepared to eliminate all allowances, but it should be done across the board in order that there is no unfairness, or else everybody should be brought down to the level of allowance received by Independent Members. That would ensure a much more level playing field.
I include referendums among the areas in which political reform is necessary. It is important and positive to give citizens a chance to have their say, apart from at election times. Citizens were deprived of a vital referendum on the bank guarantee. One measure of reform would be to reduce the length of time allowed for a referendum campaign. One month is too long and a shorter timeframe would be preferable. We have a discerning electorate, as we saw in the referendums on judges’ pay and the extension of powers for Oireachtas committees. One went through and the other did not.
There has been much talk about Seanad reform and the abolition of the Seanad is part of the programme for Government. A blanket abolition of the Seanad is not the essence of parliamentary reform. There should be a discussion on the issue and a rational debate on the pros and cons of the Seanad. There have been some excellent debates in the Seanad and its blanket abolition is not required. However, there is no doubt that election to it is elitist and undemocratic. There is a value to the Seanad such as the debates on various topics and legislation and we must examine how to make the most of it. However, appointment should not be at the behest of university graduates or Members, the convoluted system of panels or include nominees by the Taoiseach. That said, the Taoiseach made some inspired choices in the current Seanad. I look on it as a place in which to honour those who have made real contributions to society such as some of the current Members, but it must be done democratically rather than in the way it has been used and abused as a training ground for prospective Deputies and a retirement home for others.
On the number of Deputies, the way forward is to examine the work of a Deputy and to divide up the work and the number required to do it rather than saying we should get rid of a certain number of them without being sure of the effect on a Deputy’s work.
I was most surprised that so many committees were amalgamated. From my experience of voluntary work, the smaller a committee the more focused it is and the better the work that results. Large committees were set up. On the basis of allocating only two minutes of speaking time to each member, with a membership of at least 20, up to one hour would be spent on contributions rather than in discussing an issue. I welcome the rearrangement of committees and hope it will prove to be a forward step for them.
I am disappointed that we are not covering more issues. It would have been good to see a list of what would be addressed. My focus is on political funding, gender quotas and a few other aspects of the legislation.
14 June Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)
Click to hear Maureen speaking
I would like to acknowledge Deputy Neville’s moving speech. He showed great understanding of and compassion for people who have been abused. I am familiar with his work in the area of suicide prevention. I am glad to have been present to listen to his contribution to this debate. Following the publication of the Ryan report in May 2009, the congregations that managed the residential institutions were called on to make further substantial contributions by way of reparation. The word “reparation” can be associated with words like “repair” and “reparable” that involve setting things right, making amends, mending and compensating. When the Cloyne report was published, I had to read it in stages because I found it so grim and awful to read what was done and was allowed to be done by the church and the State.
Every country has had its dark moments. For the Jewish nation, it was the Holocaust. For the people of Cambodia, it was the Killing Fields. For the Balkan countries, it was the incidents in places like Srebrenica and Mostar. This country’s darkest moment was obviously the Famine, but I suggest that the systematic sexual, physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual abuse which was carried out by those in authority in the church, in the State and within families is in second place.
We should not forget that some of the deaths that took place in these institutions have not yet been explained. There is a sense in which those who are abused experience a form of death, in that part of a person dies when he or she is abused. Those in positions of trust who perpetrated this abuse were responsible for vulnerable young people. There are no words to describe that betrayal of trust.
We know what happened, or did not happen, when instances of abuse was reported or mentioned to another person. When action was taken, it was often inappropriate or wrong. It involved moving the perpetrator and failing to call on the authorities along the line to take further action. We know the authorities were sadly lacking at times. There are issues regarding the involvement of the Garda Síochána.
It seems that the welfare of the abuser was the paramount concern at times. I know of a victim who has suggested that there was more of a focus on damage limitation than a genuine wish to help unreservedly.
There is so much hurt, pain, damage and distress, not just for the immediate victim but also for their families and their relationships. I know that some of those abused, in that hurt, pain and despair, turned to alcohol and drugs. We know the additional difficulties and trauma that addiction brings. There are areas, some in my constituency in Dublin Central, where we can see death by suicide or through addiction of young people in recent years having a direct link to family members who had been abused in these institutions.
I have met people who have been abused. What is common is the pain and hurt but how people deal with it varies considerably. Some, as I mentioned, turned to alcohol and drugs. Some left the country and although there was a better life for some of those, many ended up homeless and destitute. Therefore, the services are also needed for those outside Ireland. Others tried to bury the hurt and to keep the lid on. This probably saved some because not everyone is comfortable with the process of opening up and talking about what happened. In that case, the time factor is crucial because the healing process does not have a time limit.
The abuse took place over many decades and the abused heal at different paces so we cannot say the compensation moneys or the services can only be available for a certain time. It is important that counselling and psychotherapy are available when the person who has been abused is ready to avail of them. There is no “one size fits all” solution for victims of abuse.
This was brought home to me very forcibly by a person I met who had been abused and whose reaction was very different. He said he was trying to get on with his life with his family. He was a man of very simple needs and his entertainment was television and radio but when the media coverage happened, his entertainment was lost as he did not want constant reminders of what had happened. He was deprived of being able to turn on the radio and television because, at the time the Cloyne report was published and at other times, it was always there in front of him. We could all say that person needs to be in therapy but forcing somebody into a counselling or psychotherapy situation is not the answer. That man needs to know what is available to him when he is ready and when he chooses.
We have had a public consultation process in which groups representing survivors, religious congregations and others were involved. I want to acknowledge the purpose of the Bill, which is to provide for the establishment of a body to support the needs of former residents and to provide for the making of contributions by certain persons. I also want to acknowledge the principles of equity, consistency and transparency, the provision of approved services and the requirement that those services will be evaluated, which is important.
Section 8 is very clear on the range of approved services, which are all needed. These range from mental health, health, social, education, hospital and housing services and it is stated they would be provided both within and outside the State and that there is provision for further services to be added. Another positive point is the effort to ensure there are standards for those approved services.
I want to consider the process of applying and the criteria around decisions on the applications. For that, the board will take account of the individual circumstances, including personal and financial circumstances. Everybody wants the money used in the best interests of those who were abused so I was disappointed not to see, within those principles, that there would be some emphasis on respecting the dignity of the person applying. I know the board has to be fair but it sounds a very rigorous and intrusive process for vulnerable people. A lot of information is required and I particularly wonder about this when practically all of that information is known already. That section deals with individual personal and financial circumstances, assessing the likely effect of a service on health and general well-being, personal and social development, educational development and living conditions. It then specifies the “supporting evidence that may be required” and, in a rather vague phrase, refers to taking into account any other matter that the board considers is a proper matter to be taken into account.
This set off a few alarm bells because I see this as an onerous process. I can see it being difficult for vulnerable people unless there is a clear commitment to respecting the dignity of the person and that the individual needs are not lost in the layers of bureaucracy. Form-filling is hard enough for people in the whole of their health. Some of these people are so badly hurt that I am afraid individual needs will be lost or that they will not be addressed adequately.
There are concerns from some of the survivors that the application process may be demeaning. Victims of residential abuse should not be made to feel they are coming, cap in hand, almost with a begging bowl, and also with no guarantee of getting the compensation or service they need. No amount of money will ever be adequate compensation for abuse and it can only go some way. While some amounts have been given already, many of the survivors are of an advanced age so it is vital their needs are addressed soon and this is not allowed to drag on. The same can be said in regard to their health and housing needs as it is now they need the services, not in years to come. We must also ask about the records of the victims who have not come forward. Is the Department confident it has records on all those who have been in the institutions?
While this fund is not about making finance available, there are survivors who feel this is wrong. Has the Minister taken into account those survivors, whose signatures he received, who are against the way in which this fund is being administered? They say the details are with the Department and they believe it is preferable that there would be a simple system of dividing money among the survivors. I personally believe a certain amount must be reserved for services. It is sad that it took ten years for the Government to allocate €12.7 million from the education fund under the 2002 indemnity agreements, and I go back to the point about the urgency of these matters.
The children and grandchildren of survivors have been removed from the new fund but they were included by the Education Finance Board. This is where a further set amount to each named person who has been in an institution would be helpful and would be a financial support for children or grandchildren of survivors, whom we know have been affected by what has happened the abused family member - the parent or the grandparents who had been in an institution.
The board has nine members, all appointed by the Minister, four of whom will have been resident in an institution specified in the Schedule. I am stating the obvious when I say these appointments are crucial to the process. Some concerns arise in regard to the board’s finances. It should not cost any member of the board money to serve on it but we have so many examples of the expenses culture in this country, and I hope that will not happen with this board. While there are allowances for expenses, they must be relatively modest. With regard to the chief executive’s salary, again, we have examples in this country of chief executives on absolutely obscene salaries.
The board will have a staff and certain sections of the Bill cover their remuneration and superannuation. The National Treasury Management Agency will establish an investment account into which the sums will be deposited. Another section states that the agency can advance to the board sums as requested for the purpose of defraying expenditure incurred by the board and advancing other sums to enable the Minister to make a payment to an appeals officer. There will also be liaison officers.
We know the constraints that local authorities are under at present and this will make for additional pressure. While it is necessary, some issues arise. There is a need for limits surrounding all of these aspects because, to me, the money is for those who were abused in the institutions, which is where it has to go. There should be a limit on what goes from the fund towards these salaries and expenses. There is also a committee of experts to be employed by the board and, again, there will be expenses for them.
It is very unfortunate and sad that some survivors see the Bill as a massive job creation scheme, although that should not happen. The survivors have been through a redress board and the Education Finance Board so life should be becoming easier for them, not more difficult. To me, the needs of the survivors are paramount. One survivor group said “We, as survivors, did not get a say as to what way this unwanted fund should be implemented”, that “The Government consulted the so-called representative groups, who do not have an authority to speak on our behalf” and that it continued to support them. This issue has to be addressed. Are the groups speaking for all of the survivors or some of the survivors? Are there survivors who are not within these groups or represented by them? Their voices have to be heard.
The apology and the memorial must be handled in a dignified and careful manner and the voices of the survivors must be heard in that regard.
With regard to the Justice for Magdalenes group, I wish to acknowledge their work and the way they went about it. I am aware that their work and that of Professor Smith, Claire McGettrick and Maeve O’Rourke showed a respect for the dignity of individuals who worked in the laundries and provided them with a space to tell their stories. I was very struck by what some of those ladies said, that they want to be believed and to have their voices heard. We must hear them and allow them their dignity. I acknowledge the work of those I have mentioned as an example of how we can do this right. The issue is that progress is very slow on this. Many of these ladies are of advanced age. The Minister may say he does not wish to rush on this and that he wants to do it right. However, the issue has been around a long time and time is very important.
Every country has had its dark moments. For the Jewish nation, it was the Holocaust. For the people of Cambodia, it was the Killing Fields. For the Balkan countries, it was the incidents in places like Srebrenica and Mostar. This country’s darkest moment was obviously the Famine, but I suggest that the systematic sexual, physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual abuse which was carried out by those in authority in the church, in the State and within families is in second place.
We should not forget that some of the deaths that took place in these institutions have not yet been explained. There is a sense in which those who are abused experience a form of death, in that part of a person dies when he or she is abused. Those in positions of trust who perpetrated this abuse were responsible for vulnerable young people. There are no words to describe that betrayal of trust.
We know what happened, or did not happen, when instances of abuse was reported or mentioned to another person. When action was taken, it was often inappropriate or wrong. It involved moving the perpetrator and failing to call on the authorities along the line to take further action. We know the authorities were sadly lacking at times. There are issues regarding the involvement of the Garda Síochána.
It seems that the welfare of the abuser was the paramount concern at times. I know of a victim who has suggested that there was more of a focus on damage limitation than a genuine wish to help unreservedly.
There is so much hurt, pain, damage and distress, not just for the immediate victim but also for their families and their relationships. I know that some of those abused, in that hurt, pain and despair, turned to alcohol and drugs. We know the additional difficulties and trauma that addiction brings. There are areas, some in my constituency in Dublin Central, where we can see death by suicide or through addiction of young people in recent years having a direct link to family members who had been abused in these institutions.
I have met people who have been abused. What is common is the pain and hurt but how people deal with it varies considerably. Some, as I mentioned, turned to alcohol and drugs. Some left the country and although there was a better life for some of those, many ended up homeless and destitute. Therefore, the services are also needed for those outside Ireland. Others tried to bury the hurt and to keep the lid on. This probably saved some because not everyone is comfortable with the process of opening up and talking about what happened. In that case, the time factor is crucial because the healing process does not have a time limit.
The abuse took place over many decades and the abused heal at different paces so we cannot say the compensation moneys or the services can only be available for a certain time. It is important that counselling and psychotherapy are available when the person who has been abused is ready to avail of them. There is no “one size fits all” solution for victims of abuse.
This was brought home to me very forcibly by a person I met who had been abused and whose reaction was very different. He said he was trying to get on with his life with his family. He was a man of very simple needs and his entertainment was television and radio but when the media coverage happened, his entertainment was lost as he did not want constant reminders of what had happened. He was deprived of being able to turn on the radio and television because, at the time the Cloyne report was published and at other times, it was always there in front of him. We could all say that person needs to be in therapy but forcing somebody into a counselling or psychotherapy situation is not the answer. That man needs to know what is available to him when he is ready and when he chooses.
We have had a public consultation process in which groups representing survivors, religious congregations and others were involved. I want to acknowledge the purpose of the Bill, which is to provide for the establishment of a body to support the needs of former residents and to provide for the making of contributions by certain persons. I also want to acknowledge the principles of equity, consistency and transparency, the provision of approved services and the requirement that those services will be evaluated, which is important.
Section 8 is very clear on the range of approved services, which are all needed. These range from mental health, health, social, education, hospital and housing services and it is stated they would be provided both within and outside the State and that there is provision for further services to be added. Another positive point is the effort to ensure there are standards for those approved services.
I want to consider the process of applying and the criteria around decisions on the applications. For that, the board will take account of the individual circumstances, including personal and financial circumstances. Everybody wants the money used in the best interests of those who were abused so I was disappointed not to see, within those principles, that there would be some emphasis on respecting the dignity of the person applying. I know the board has to be fair but it sounds a very rigorous and intrusive process for vulnerable people. A lot of information is required and I particularly wonder about this when practically all of that information is known already. That section deals with individual personal and financial circumstances, assessing the likely effect of a service on health and general well-being, personal and social development, educational development and living conditions. It then specifies the “supporting evidence that may be required” and, in a rather vague phrase, refers to taking into account any other matter that the board considers is a proper matter to be taken into account.
This set off a few alarm bells because I see this as an onerous process. I can see it being difficult for vulnerable people unless there is a clear commitment to respecting the dignity of the person and that the individual needs are not lost in the layers of bureaucracy. Form-filling is hard enough for people in the whole of their health. Some of these people are so badly hurt that I am afraid individual needs will be lost or that they will not be addressed adequately.
There are concerns from some of the survivors that the application process may be demeaning. Victims of residential abuse should not be made to feel they are coming, cap in hand, almost with a begging bowl, and also with no guarantee of getting the compensation or service they need. No amount of money will ever be adequate compensation for abuse and it can only go some way. While some amounts have been given already, many of the survivors are of an advanced age so it is vital their needs are addressed soon and this is not allowed to drag on. The same can be said in regard to their health and housing needs as it is now they need the services, not in years to come. We must also ask about the records of the victims who have not come forward. Is the Department confident it has records on all those who have been in the institutions?
While this fund is not about making finance available, there are survivors who feel this is wrong. Has the Minister taken into account those survivors, whose signatures he received, who are against the way in which this fund is being administered? They say the details are with the Department and they believe it is preferable that there would be a simple system of dividing money among the survivors. I personally believe a certain amount must be reserved for services. It is sad that it took ten years for the Government to allocate €12.7 million from the education fund under the 2002 indemnity agreements, and I go back to the point about the urgency of these matters.
The children and grandchildren of survivors have been removed from the new fund but they were included by the Education Finance Board. This is where a further set amount to each named person who has been in an institution would be helpful and would be a financial support for children or grandchildren of survivors, whom we know have been affected by what has happened the abused family member - the parent or the grandparents who had been in an institution.
The board has nine members, all appointed by the Minister, four of whom will have been resident in an institution specified in the Schedule. I am stating the obvious when I say these appointments are crucial to the process. Some concerns arise in regard to the board’s finances. It should not cost any member of the board money to serve on it but we have so many examples of the expenses culture in this country, and I hope that will not happen with this board. While there are allowances for expenses, they must be relatively modest. With regard to the chief executive’s salary, again, we have examples in this country of chief executives on absolutely obscene salaries.
The board will have a staff and certain sections of the Bill cover their remuneration and superannuation. The National Treasury Management Agency will establish an investment account into which the sums will be deposited. Another section states that the agency can advance to the board sums as requested for the purpose of defraying expenditure incurred by the board and advancing other sums to enable the Minister to make a payment to an appeals officer. There will also be liaison officers.
We know the constraints that local authorities are under at present and this will make for additional pressure. While it is necessary, some issues arise. There is a need for limits surrounding all of these aspects because, to me, the money is for those who were abused in the institutions, which is where it has to go. There should be a limit on what goes from the fund towards these salaries and expenses. There is also a committee of experts to be employed by the board and, again, there will be expenses for them.
It is very unfortunate and sad that some survivors see the Bill as a massive job creation scheme, although that should not happen. The survivors have been through a redress board and the Education Finance Board so life should be becoming easier for them, not more difficult. To me, the needs of the survivors are paramount. One survivor group said “We, as survivors, did not get a say as to what way this unwanted fund should be implemented”, that “The Government consulted the so-called representative groups, who do not have an authority to speak on our behalf” and that it continued to support them. This issue has to be addressed. Are the groups speaking for all of the survivors or some of the survivors? Are there survivors who are not within these groups or represented by them? Their voices have to be heard.
The apology and the memorial must be handled in a dignified and careful manner and the voices of the survivors must be heard in that regard.
With regard to the Justice for Magdalenes group, I wish to acknowledge their work and the way they went about it. I am aware that their work and that of Professor Smith, Claire McGettrick and Maeve O’Rourke showed a respect for the dignity of individuals who worked in the laundries and provided them with a space to tell their stories. I was very struck by what some of those ladies said, that they want to be believed and to have their voices heard. We must hear them and allow them their dignity. I acknowledge the work of those I have mentioned as an example of how we can do this right. The issue is that progress is very slow on this. Many of these ladies are of advanced age. The Minister may say he does not wish to rush on this and that he wants to do it right. However, the issue has been around a long time and time is very important.
12 June Independent Inquiries into Planning Irregularities
It is rather opportune that we are having this discussion. Last week I raised a topical issue, with Deputy Kevin Humphreys, regarding the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. The Minister was not present for that, and it would have been great if she had been. What happened in that development offers strong lessons about what went wrong in this country. One can see the disease in respect of land, whether it was buying it, speculating on it, planning it or building on it. It amounted to a serious abuse of the planning regulations.
I referred in that debate to a parliamentary question which the late Tony Gregory put to the then Minister, former Deputy Dick Roche, on 4 November 2004, in which he asked about the conflict of interest which would inhibit the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, from making balanced planning decisions in the docklands. The Minister’s answer was that the board members had a wide range of experience and that it was difficult, in a relatively small city, to select people with the talent and time and who were willing to give service to the public through these boards. We know the type of service those people gave. The recent report was damning about it. It outlined the various issues, including the shortcomings in financial management, planning functions and the management of board business, not to mention the Irish Glass Bottle site which was valued at €220 million but was sold for €431 million.
What emerged clearly in the reply to Tony Gregory’s question was that the board was effectively the planning authority. There were people sitting on the board who were seeking planning permission but they were also the people who were making the decisions on the planning applications. Some of those people were also members of the Anglo Irish Bank, which was funding the development. We use the phrase “something rotten in the state of Denmark” but there was certainly something very rotten at that time. There are other examples of it. The then Minister said that there was a relatively small pool of people from which to select people, but what happened was appalling.
I wish to emphasise the positive aspects of the docklands as well. The current chairperson of the authority is doing great work. However, it was battle after battle for the communities in the docklands areas for their survival. The developers were arriving with brown envelopes and other incentives to get people to move out of communities in which their families had lived for generations. There were many David and Goliath battles. The development plans are drawn up and it is a question of economics and drawings on paper, with no account taken of the impact and effect on people’s lives or of facilities, infrastructure, community life and green space. The Minister is winding down the DDDA but there are still two vacancies on it for community representatives. It is vital that they are appointed and that when the new authority goes to Dublin City Council, community is at the heart of any type of development there.
Another planning issue about which I feel strongly, and I have spoken about it previously, is the way in which planning has allowed some of our vital heritage and historical sites to be taken over by
developers. The prime example is the Moore Street area, a place associated with one of the most historic moments in our city. It has been given to a developer for a shopping mall. That is just one example. Other heritage sites are also at risk from extremely bad planning. So much of this could have been avoided. I gave the example from 2004. In 1974 the Kenny report was produced. If that had been implemented, much that was wrong with planning in this country might never have occurred.
With regard to the motion, it is a case of what the previous Minister, former Deputy John Gormley, did or did not do and what exactly happened. Recently, I read an article he wrote. In it he spoke about what he had left in the area of planning before this Government took over. He says he left an extensive dossier prepared by planning officials following the internal review, that he had reports from managers in which each of the local authorities responded to that request from him, that there were terms of reference for a panel of planning consultants to carry out an independent review in the six local authorities, there was a completed tender process to select the panel and that the letters of appointment issued. All the preparatory work had been done and it was ready to go. I note the Minister refers in the amendment to an internal review. I have just returned from my constituency so I did not hear all the Minister of State’s speech and what her plans are. However, the central issue is the independent planning regulator and I support the call from An Taisce in that regard.
I am from a docklands community. My family is from there and I live there. It is awful to see what went wrong. However, this is an opportunity for the Government and, being an optimist, I hope that we get it right eventually.
I referred in that debate to a parliamentary question which the late Tony Gregory put to the then Minister, former Deputy Dick Roche, on 4 November 2004, in which he asked about the conflict of interest which would inhibit the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, from making balanced planning decisions in the docklands. The Minister’s answer was that the board members had a wide range of experience and that it was difficult, in a relatively small city, to select people with the talent and time and who were willing to give service to the public through these boards. We know the type of service those people gave. The recent report was damning about it. It outlined the various issues, including the shortcomings in financial management, planning functions and the management of board business, not to mention the Irish Glass Bottle site which was valued at €220 million but was sold for €431 million.
What emerged clearly in the reply to Tony Gregory’s question was that the board was effectively the planning authority. There were people sitting on the board who were seeking planning permission but they were also the people who were making the decisions on the planning applications. Some of those people were also members of the Anglo Irish Bank, which was funding the development. We use the phrase “something rotten in the state of Denmark” but there was certainly something very rotten at that time. There are other examples of it. The then Minister said that there was a relatively small pool of people from which to select people, but what happened was appalling.
I wish to emphasise the positive aspects of the docklands as well. The current chairperson of the authority is doing great work. However, it was battle after battle for the communities in the docklands areas for their survival. The developers were arriving with brown envelopes and other incentives to get people to move out of communities in which their families had lived for generations. There were many David and Goliath battles. The development plans are drawn up and it is a question of economics and drawings on paper, with no account taken of the impact and effect on people’s lives or of facilities, infrastructure, community life and green space. The Minister is winding down the DDDA but there are still two vacancies on it for community representatives. It is vital that they are appointed and that when the new authority goes to Dublin City Council, community is at the heart of any type of development there.
Another planning issue about which I feel strongly, and I have spoken about it previously, is the way in which planning has allowed some of our vital heritage and historical sites to be taken over by
developers. The prime example is the Moore Street area, a place associated with one of the most historic moments in our city. It has been given to a developer for a shopping mall. That is just one example. Other heritage sites are also at risk from extremely bad planning. So much of this could have been avoided. I gave the example from 2004. In 1974 the Kenny report was produced. If that had been implemented, much that was wrong with planning in this country might never have occurred.
With regard to the motion, it is a case of what the previous Minister, former Deputy John Gormley, did or did not do and what exactly happened. Recently, I read an article he wrote. In it he spoke about what he had left in the area of planning before this Government took over. He says he left an extensive dossier prepared by planning officials following the internal review, that he had reports from managers in which each of the local authorities responded to that request from him, that there were terms of reference for a panel of planning consultants to carry out an independent review in the six local authorities, there was a completed tender process to select the panel and that the letters of appointment issued. All the preparatory work had been done and it was ready to go. I note the Minister refers in the amendment to an internal review. I have just returned from my constituency so I did not hear all the Minister of State’s speech and what her plans are. However, the central issue is the independent planning regulator and I support the call from An Taisce in that regard.
I am from a docklands community. My family is from there and I live there. It is awful to see what went wrong. However, this is an opportunity for the Government and, being an optimist, I hope that we get it right eventually.
07 June Topical Issues Planning Matters
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to discuss this matter. I have no wish to be disparaging towards the Minister of State but it is disappointing the Minister responsible is not present to address this matter. I was appalled to read the recent report from the Comptroller and Auditor General which identified the shortcomings of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, its financial management, its planning functions and the management of the business of the board. It was appalling to read of the lies those involved told the Department. The authority bought a site for €431 million in the knowledge that its value was €220 million and without any analysis of the benefits or costs of the site. There was no regard for other issues relating to certain planning decisions they made. Two members of the board of the DDDA were directors of Anglo Irish Bank and another was a director of the Bank of Ireland.
A parliamentary question asked of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, as he was known then, requesting his views on any conflict of interest which would inhibit the Dublin Docklands Development Authority from making balanced planning decisions in the docklands area. The question was put by Tony Gregory to the then Minister, Dick Roche, on 4 November 2004. What could have been avoided had the matter been dealt with then? Part of the answer stated: “It is difficult in a relatively small city to select people with the talent and the time and who are willing to give service to the public through these boards.” We know the type of service they have given to this city and country. That is not to take from the current chairperson and the work she has been doing.
The involvement of communities is important. I was born in and I continue to live in one of the docklands communities, like Deputy Kevin Humphreys, although we are on opposite sides of the Liffey. There have been problematic relations with the communities but there have been positive relations with the communities as well. I hope and call for the residents and the communities to be involved, consulted and included in any replacement structures. Will anything happen to the people who told such blatant lies? I hope the idea of winding down the DDDA will not allow them off the hook.
Deputy Kevin Humphreys: I thank the Minister of State. Like Deputy O’Sullivan, I am disappointed the Minister, Deputy Hogan, is not present. I hope the Minister of State will carry back the message loud and clear. I concur with what Deputy O’Sullivan has said but I will not concentrate on the negatives because too often we concentrate on the negatives. In its early years the Dublin Docklands Development Authority was an important structure and made considerable changes in the docklands communities on the north and south sides. Nevertheless, the authority has questions to answer. I call on the Minister of State to bring this to the Cabinet and to discuss the need for a full debate on the matter. A Topical Issue debate is too limited to cover what is an important issue for the city and the country. This is an area of strategic importance for job development.
I have serious concerns that we will miss out on many of the benefits. Let us recall the early years when the DDDA was set up. It had a social regeneration remit for the docklands area. Previously, some 35% of all docklanders left school at 11 years of age, a total of 55% left school at 15 years of age, only 10% sat the leaving certificate and only 1% went on to further education. Last year, some 60% of docklanders sat the leaving certificate examination. This is a tangible result. The docklands area is now close to the national average, only 2% below it, for attendance at third level education. This is a credit to the teachers and the principals in the community but it is also a credit to the social regeneration bodies and the community councils involved in education initiatives to bring up the standards and results to the national average. We must consider these and other positive aspects which have delivered during the existence of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. Unfortunately, it lost its way toward the end.
Some 300 high-end job placements at the IFSC came through a placement service. Along with the late Tony Gregory, I served on the community council responsible for this initiative. We worked with the business sector and the placements came through the authority. These people are now role models in their communities. They have shown the value of education and that there are real jobs at the end of an educational process, which jobs pay good salaries. I call on the Minister of State to take the message back to the Minister, Deputy Hogan, that he should not throw the baby out with the bath water. This area can create jobs and it can be an engine for growth. We must consider a mechanism for getting the docklands area in Dublin moving again. There must be full community involvement and there must be real and tangible community gains.
Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I regret that the Minister is not present and I must stand in the bearna baol. I will ensure the Deputies’ views will be clearly and absolutely brought to the attention of the Minister and his Department.
When Deputy Ross was a Senator, he and I sat on the Joint Committee on Transport, as it was known. We called in representatives from CIE every month for several months to discuss an issue arising from an audit. We found this to be a useful mechanism. I accept totally that this is a short debate and I will not take up too much time with it. We found that bringing in the relevant people before the committee and questioning the auditors was useful. Accountability to an Oireachtas committee can be useful. I am unsure whether that is a helpful suggestion but I will bring the request for a full debate to the attention of the Minister.
The Minister, Deputy Hogan, announced last Thursday that the Government has decided to wind up the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA. When making the announcement, the Minister emphasised the decision had been made following consideration of a special report prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the authority’s 2011 annual report and financial statements, both of which were also published last Thursday.
Elements of the special report make for grim reading, especially those relating to the authority’s assessment and decision-making processes leading to its decision in 2006 to become involved in the purchase of the former Irish Glass Bottle site, an episode which has cost the authority €52 million, aside from the associated reputational damage. While it is naturally welcome to note the annual report shows the authority having recorded a small surplus, its first in a number of years, the future financial outlook for the authority presents a very different picture.
The reality emerging from both the 2011 financial statements and the special report is that the authority’s financial position will inevitably remain very challenging in the short to medium term, given the economic downturn and stressed state of the property market from which the Dublin Docklands Development Authority has historically derived its main revenues.
Taking all of these factors into account, the inescapable conclusion is that a stand-alone authority is no longer viable, financially or otherwise. It is for these reasons that the Government decided that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority should be wound up at the end of a transitional period of up to 18 months. A new executive board, chaired by the Dublin city manager, Mr. John Tierney, has been appointed for this transitional period, during which the authority will finalise some important ongoing business which needs to be brought to completion. In parallel with this, the Government will finalise the appropriate arrangements for ensuring a continued, concerted focus on the Dublin docklands initiative.
It is crucial to note in terms of the concerns raised by the Deputies that while the Dublin Docklands Development Authority is to be wound up, the Government remains fully committed to the ambitious and visionary docklands regeneration concept where many opportunities for renewal remain, both on the north and south sides of the River Liffey. For this reason, the decision to wind up the authority should be seen not as an end of the regeneration story but the closing of one chapter which the Government is committed to ensuring will be followed by the opening of a new chapter in the rebirth of this core area of the capital city, as the Deputies correctly noted.
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: I acknowledge the positive aspects of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, including the educational scholarships and other supports provided for communities on the north and south sides of the River Liffey. While the East Wall district received funding for a community centre, people in the North Wall district, the parish of St. Laurence O’Toole, would respond differently because their district was left without the school it was promised by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. On the other hand, the south side of the River Liffey was not left with the monstrous memorial to the excesses of the Celtic tiger on the North Wall quay, namely, the building that was intended to house Anglo Irish Bank’s headquarters. The docklands community had to fight hard for everything it received.
I note the Minister of State did not once refer to the local communities which made up the docklands area, which took second place to speculators and developers at times. Although there are seven places for community representatives on the council, only five of them have been filled as two long-serving community members have not been reappointed. What is the position on these appointments? Representatives of the south side hold three of the five community places, while the north side has only two representatives. The decision to allocate only one place for a community representative on the board must be addressed. I ask the Minister of State to bring these issues to the attention of the Minister.
Deputy Kevin Humphreys: While I welcome the Minister of State’s statement that further regeneration will be considered, regeneration without social inclusion is meaningless for local communities. Our communities must be reinvigorated and job opportunities provided in local areas. Initiatives taken in the docklands area have been rolled out throughout the city. The senior citizens forum, for example, which started on the south and north sides of the River Liffey has expanded throughout Dublin and plays a positive role.
The docklands area is important not only to the capital but also the country. Growth will come to the area because new companies want to locate in it. We must ensure young people in the area are trained and educated to be able to avail of the opportunities that will arise in the area. This will only be made possible through community involvement which requires us to listen to and invest in the community. The best investment that can be made in the docklands area is in education. It is vital that we have strong community involvement and a focus on education and social regeneration. We must not lose this focus as a result of the abolition of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority.
Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: I thank the Deputies for the views they expressed, specifically on the importance of education. I note also the statistics provided in this regard. I assure Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan that her comments on the importance of community representation in filling the vacancies on the council will be brought to the attention of the Minister.
I fully understand the decision to wind up the Dublin Docklands Development Authority is a critical one and concur with the Deputies on the importance of placing community involvement and regeneration at the heart of this process. This will make the Dublin docklands a living community and ensure good interaction between those who live and work in the area.
Deputy Kevin Humphreys: Will the Minister of State revert to us on the possibility of arranging a full debate on the issue?
Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: While I presume that is a matter for the Whips, such a debate would make sense. Having matters discussed in committees can also be enlightening as it allows us to extract information from people who may not otherwise volunteer it.
A parliamentary question asked of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, as he was known then, requesting his views on any conflict of interest which would inhibit the Dublin Docklands Development Authority from making balanced planning decisions in the docklands area. The question was put by Tony Gregory to the then Minister, Dick Roche, on 4 November 2004. What could have been avoided had the matter been dealt with then? Part of the answer stated: “It is difficult in a relatively small city to select people with the talent and the time and who are willing to give service to the public through these boards.” We know the type of service they have given to this city and country. That is not to take from the current chairperson and the work she has been doing.
The involvement of communities is important. I was born in and I continue to live in one of the docklands communities, like Deputy Kevin Humphreys, although we are on opposite sides of the Liffey. There have been problematic relations with the communities but there have been positive relations with the communities as well. I hope and call for the residents and the communities to be involved, consulted and included in any replacement structures. Will anything happen to the people who told such blatant lies? I hope the idea of winding down the DDDA will not allow them off the hook.
Deputy Kevin Humphreys: I thank the Minister of State. Like Deputy O’Sullivan, I am disappointed the Minister, Deputy Hogan, is not present. I hope the Minister of State will carry back the message loud and clear. I concur with what Deputy O’Sullivan has said but I will not concentrate on the negatives because too often we concentrate on the negatives. In its early years the Dublin Docklands Development Authority was an important structure and made considerable changes in the docklands communities on the north and south sides. Nevertheless, the authority has questions to answer. I call on the Minister of State to bring this to the Cabinet and to discuss the need for a full debate on the matter. A Topical Issue debate is too limited to cover what is an important issue for the city and the country. This is an area of strategic importance for job development.
I have serious concerns that we will miss out on many of the benefits. Let us recall the early years when the DDDA was set up. It had a social regeneration remit for the docklands area. Previously, some 35% of all docklanders left school at 11 years of age, a total of 55% left school at 15 years of age, only 10% sat the leaving certificate and only 1% went on to further education. Last year, some 60% of docklanders sat the leaving certificate examination. This is a tangible result. The docklands area is now close to the national average, only 2% below it, for attendance at third level education. This is a credit to the teachers and the principals in the community but it is also a credit to the social regeneration bodies and the community councils involved in education initiatives to bring up the standards and results to the national average. We must consider these and other positive aspects which have delivered during the existence of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. Unfortunately, it lost its way toward the end.
Some 300 high-end job placements at the IFSC came through a placement service. Along with the late Tony Gregory, I served on the community council responsible for this initiative. We worked with the business sector and the placements came through the authority. These people are now role models in their communities. They have shown the value of education and that there are real jobs at the end of an educational process, which jobs pay good salaries. I call on the Minister of State to take the message back to the Minister, Deputy Hogan, that he should not throw the baby out with the bath water. This area can create jobs and it can be an engine for growth. We must consider a mechanism for getting the docklands area in Dublin moving again. There must be full community involvement and there must be real and tangible community gains.
Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I regret that the Minister is not present and I must stand in the bearna baol. I will ensure the Deputies’ views will be clearly and absolutely brought to the attention of the Minister and his Department.
When Deputy Ross was a Senator, he and I sat on the Joint Committee on Transport, as it was known. We called in representatives from CIE every month for several months to discuss an issue arising from an audit. We found this to be a useful mechanism. I accept totally that this is a short debate and I will not take up too much time with it. We found that bringing in the relevant people before the committee and questioning the auditors was useful. Accountability to an Oireachtas committee can be useful. I am unsure whether that is a helpful suggestion but I will bring the request for a full debate to the attention of the Minister.
The Minister, Deputy Hogan, announced last Thursday that the Government has decided to wind up the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA. When making the announcement, the Minister emphasised the decision had been made following consideration of a special report prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the authority’s 2011 annual report and financial statements, both of which were also published last Thursday.
Elements of the special report make for grim reading, especially those relating to the authority’s assessment and decision-making processes leading to its decision in 2006 to become involved in the purchase of the former Irish Glass Bottle site, an episode which has cost the authority €52 million, aside from the associated reputational damage. While it is naturally welcome to note the annual report shows the authority having recorded a small surplus, its first in a number of years, the future financial outlook for the authority presents a very different picture.
The reality emerging from both the 2011 financial statements and the special report is that the authority’s financial position will inevitably remain very challenging in the short to medium term, given the economic downturn and stressed state of the property market from which the Dublin Docklands Development Authority has historically derived its main revenues.
Taking all of these factors into account, the inescapable conclusion is that a stand-alone authority is no longer viable, financially or otherwise. It is for these reasons that the Government decided that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority should be wound up at the end of a transitional period of up to 18 months. A new executive board, chaired by the Dublin city manager, Mr. John Tierney, has been appointed for this transitional period, during which the authority will finalise some important ongoing business which needs to be brought to completion. In parallel with this, the Government will finalise the appropriate arrangements for ensuring a continued, concerted focus on the Dublin docklands initiative.
It is crucial to note in terms of the concerns raised by the Deputies that while the Dublin Docklands Development Authority is to be wound up, the Government remains fully committed to the ambitious and visionary docklands regeneration concept where many opportunities for renewal remain, both on the north and south sides of the River Liffey. For this reason, the decision to wind up the authority should be seen not as an end of the regeneration story but the closing of one chapter which the Government is committed to ensuring will be followed by the opening of a new chapter in the rebirth of this core area of the capital city, as the Deputies correctly noted.
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: I acknowledge the positive aspects of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, including the educational scholarships and other supports provided for communities on the north and south sides of the River Liffey. While the East Wall district received funding for a community centre, people in the North Wall district, the parish of St. Laurence O’Toole, would respond differently because their district was left without the school it was promised by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. On the other hand, the south side of the River Liffey was not left with the monstrous memorial to the excesses of the Celtic tiger on the North Wall quay, namely, the building that was intended to house Anglo Irish Bank’s headquarters. The docklands community had to fight hard for everything it received.
I note the Minister of State did not once refer to the local communities which made up the docklands area, which took second place to speculators and developers at times. Although there are seven places for community representatives on the council, only five of them have been filled as two long-serving community members have not been reappointed. What is the position on these appointments? Representatives of the south side hold three of the five community places, while the north side has only two representatives. The decision to allocate only one place for a community representative on the board must be addressed. I ask the Minister of State to bring these issues to the attention of the Minister.
Deputy Kevin Humphreys: While I welcome the Minister of State’s statement that further regeneration will be considered, regeneration without social inclusion is meaningless for local communities. Our communities must be reinvigorated and job opportunities provided in local areas. Initiatives taken in the docklands area have been rolled out throughout the city. The senior citizens forum, for example, which started on the south and north sides of the River Liffey has expanded throughout Dublin and plays a positive role.
The docklands area is important not only to the capital but also the country. Growth will come to the area because new companies want to locate in it. We must ensure young people in the area are trained and educated to be able to avail of the opportunities that will arise in the area. This will only be made possible through community involvement which requires us to listen to and invest in the community. The best investment that can be made in the docklands area is in education. It is vital that we have strong community involvement and a focus on education and social regeneration. We must not lose this focus as a result of the abolition of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority.
Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: I thank the Deputies for the views they expressed, specifically on the importance of education. I note also the statistics provided in this regard. I assure Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan that her comments on the importance of community representation in filling the vacancies on the council will be brought to the attention of the Minister.
I fully understand the decision to wind up the Dublin Docklands Development Authority is a critical one and concur with the Deputies on the importance of placing community involvement and regeneration at the heart of this process. This will make the Dublin docklands a living community and ensure good interaction between those who live and work in the area.
Deputy Kevin Humphreys: Will the Minister of State revert to us on the possibility of arranging a full debate on the issue?
Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: While I presume that is a matter for the Whips, such a debate would make sense. Having matters discussed in committees can also be enlightening as it allows us to extract information from people who may not otherwise volunteer it.
07 June Building Control Regulations: Motion
Like other Members, I received a magazine from the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, this week. I could not but be struck by its front page headline, “Building a Better Ireland”. I found this rather ironic when we consider what the CIF’s members have built which is central to this debate. We have homeowners in mortgage debt arrears, negative equity and living in ghost estates with no facilities and then the appalling conditions in certain homes with fire hazards and pyrite. This is all due to a lack of regulation, inspection and the elimination of the functions of the Clerk of Works.
Flicking through the CIF’s magazine, my attention was caught by another article entitled, “Safety First”. I support its call for ensuring the safety of workers on building sites, as we know there have been far too many fatalities. The CIF claimed in the article that it was playing its part to maintain high standards of on-site safety, which I support. However, where is it in maintaining high standards among builders and developers?
I have been involved with constituents in Ballybough dealing with pyrite problems in their homes. They were so thrilled to move into their new homes only to discover, gradually, the structural damage caused to their homes by pyrite. It included cracks in the brickwork, fractures in houses, tiles coming up, floors moving and doors starting to move out of alignment. Some of the builders involved are still working, some are not. I cannot understand why they are not pursued. Neither can I understand why pyrite was not covered by builders’ insurance. This problem is now with Dublin City Council and the residents are waiting for the promises made to be fulfilled. These include the undertaking of a comprehensive independent survey to ascertain the full extent of the problem. There is a specific role for Dublin City Council and other local authorities. However, there is also a role for the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government which must commit to funding to ensure these homes are restored to the standard the residents deserve.
It is scandalous to learn of a fire safety certificate being issued prior to building commencing with no follow-up during construction. I must acknowledge that my contact with fire officers in Dublin City Council has been positive. They acted quickly in a particular apartment block that had come to my attention. Self-regulation should not be on the agenda because inspection should be rigid, strict and independent of vested interests. The great line in Hamlet about something rotten in the state of Denmark applies to the construction industry, the planning sector and the development culture, with its unhealthy relationship between certain politicians, political parties and developers. Crony capitalism is really corruption and we saw what it led to.
All planning decisions should be made in a comprehensible and transparent way. That is the start of solving the problems in this sector. Central to these problems is land speculation. In 1974 the Kenny report called for an effective end to land speculation. If only this recommendation had been implemented, proper standards would have been set, starting with planning procedures and moving to actual building. Before he left office, the then environment Minister, Mr. John Gormley, had been working on a review of planning practices in several local authorities. He had received reports from county managers to start that process. I received a reply to a parliamentary question this week which stated the Minister was proceeding on the basis of the work already done in this area and would examine cases. I wonder about it being done internally.
I support An Taisce’s call for an independent planning regulator. The rottenness at the core of the sector must be rooted out because it is unfair to those builders who follow ethical standards and proper procedures.
Flicking through the CIF’s magazine, my attention was caught by another article entitled, “Safety First”. I support its call for ensuring the safety of workers on building sites, as we know there have been far too many fatalities. The CIF claimed in the article that it was playing its part to maintain high standards of on-site safety, which I support. However, where is it in maintaining high standards among builders and developers?
I have been involved with constituents in Ballybough dealing with pyrite problems in their homes. They were so thrilled to move into their new homes only to discover, gradually, the structural damage caused to their homes by pyrite. It included cracks in the brickwork, fractures in houses, tiles coming up, floors moving and doors starting to move out of alignment. Some of the builders involved are still working, some are not. I cannot understand why they are not pursued. Neither can I understand why pyrite was not covered by builders’ insurance. This problem is now with Dublin City Council and the residents are waiting for the promises made to be fulfilled. These include the undertaking of a comprehensive independent survey to ascertain the full extent of the problem. There is a specific role for Dublin City Council and other local authorities. However, there is also a role for the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government which must commit to funding to ensure these homes are restored to the standard the residents deserve.
It is scandalous to learn of a fire safety certificate being issued prior to building commencing with no follow-up during construction. I must acknowledge that my contact with fire officers in Dublin City Council has been positive. They acted quickly in a particular apartment block that had come to my attention. Self-regulation should not be on the agenda because inspection should be rigid, strict and independent of vested interests. The great line in Hamlet about something rotten in the state of Denmark applies to the construction industry, the planning sector and the development culture, with its unhealthy relationship between certain politicians, political parties and developers. Crony capitalism is really corruption and we saw what it led to.
All planning decisions should be made in a comprehensible and transparent way. That is the start of solving the problems in this sector. Central to these problems is land speculation. In 1974 the Kenny report called for an effective end to land speculation. If only this recommendation had been implemented, proper standards would have been set, starting with planning procedures and moving to actual building. Before he left office, the then environment Minister, Mr. John Gormley, had been working on a review of planning practices in several local authorities. He had received reports from county managers to start that process. I received a reply to a parliamentary question this week which stated the Minister was proceeding on the basis of the work already done in this area and would examine cases. I wonder about it being done internally.
I support An Taisce’s call for an independent planning regulator. The rottenness at the core of the sector must be rooted out because it is unfair to those builders who follow ethical standards and proper procedures.
06 June Priority Questions - National Cultural Institutions
Hear Maureen in debate on Priority Questions
Maureen asked the Minister for Arts; Heritage and the Gaeltacht Information on Jimmy Deenihan Zoom on Jimmy Deenihan if, in view of his commitment to commemorating significant events in Irish history, he will explain the rationale behind the proposal to merge National Library, National Archives and Manuscripts Commission; if he has considered that this proposal will seriously undermine, if not destroy, the cultural infrastructure here; and if he has taken into account the legislative implications surrounding this proposal.
Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Deputy Jimmy Deenihan)I propose to take Questions No. 1 and Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together.
As Deputies will be aware, the Government’s public service reform plan which was published by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, on 17 November contains a number of actions in respect of my Department’s remit. These include the amalgamation of the National Library, the National Archives and the Irish Manuscripts Commission; the combining of the National Gallery, the Irish Museum of Modern Art, IMMA, and the Crawford Gallery, while retaining separate identities; a critical review of Culture Ireland; a review of board structures at the National Library and the National Museum, and an examination of opportunities for shared services.
I underline the value I place on the role of the national cultural institutions which are the custodians of our arts and cultural heritage. They also have a key role in scholarship and national discourse. For this reason, €47.25 million was provided for our cultural institutions and bodies in the 2012 Estimates. The critical role the arts and culture play in attracting tourists to Ireland is also well recognised. Cultural tourism is a key element of Ireland’s tourism industry and the national cultural institutions play a significant role in this respect. The institutions funded by my Department attracted more than 3 million visitors in 2011.
In the overall context of the public service reform agenda, one of my key concerns is to ensure all options are examined in order that the most appropriate implementation approach can be adopted for each institution. The artistic and curatorial autonomy of the cultural institutions is a major consideration in this regard. However, all of our cultural institutions are facing difficult challenges in the times ahead, particularly in terms of resources and funding. Given the difficult economic circumstances, there has been a considerable reduction in Exchequer funding in recent years and this is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. In this context, it is important that the institutions operate in the most efficient and effective way possible and are seen to provide value for money. Opportunities for sourcing alternative funding through philanthropy, commercial partnerships and other channels will also need to be sought proactively.
I see the reform process as offering all concerned a chance to take stock, assess how our institutions are equipped to deal with the challenges facing them and identify the best options to ensure their successful operation in the future. My Department has been examining the complex issues involved in the various reform proposals. This process has involved consultations with each of the institutions concerned. In addition, I have met the chairs of the various institutions involved in the process to afford them an opportunity to express their views on the actions included in the Government’s public sector reform plan. My Department is also considering the various proposals made by the institutions. There can be little doubt, for example, that the sharing of services, in particular common back office services such as information technology, human resources, marketing and procurement, would lead to savings and efficiencies for the institutions. If managed properly by them, such a sharing of services could release resources to enhance front-line services to the public.
I cannot accept the proposition that examining reform possibilities amounts to an attack on the cultural infrastructure of the nation, as has been suggested by some. In fact, the idea that any organisation should be or consider itself to be above examination or review and possible reform is unhealthy and a recipe for a bad deal for the taxpayer who funds these institutions and the public whom they serve. Engagement between my Department and the cultural institutions on the spectrum of actions set out in the Government’s public service reform plan is ongoing and I anticipate that I will be in a position to revert to the Government on these matters shortly.
Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Many of the issues raised by the Deputy will be considered when we make our final decision. My officials are engaged in consultations and will submit proposals to me in approximately two weeks. When the Government made the announcement, the Department immediately set up a reform unit, as well as a reform committee to which the unit would answer. An extensive process is ongoing. For example, there was consultation this morning. The information is available to everyone to show the process has taken place. The fundamental questions raised by the Deputy are being considered. The process is taking place but I cannot say today to what I can commit. Artistic and curatorial autonomy is a major consideration for me. The arm’s length approach, evident in the Arts Council’s dealings with other bodies, will be taken into consideration.
The National Archives and Culture Ireland are within my Department. There was a proposal to make Culture Ireland an independent body but in 2008 it was decided not to do this, and it is still part of the Department. The contract of the previous chief executive officer, who did a very good job, has expired and the job is now advertised. There are people working in Culture Ireland who do a good job and are well qualified for that position.
I thank Deputy Troy for raising these issues and I will certainly consider them. The overriding factor is that our national institutions, which are important from a cultural and economic point of view, are the custodians of our national treasures and must be protected for the future. They are looking after our heritage and culture for all our people. It is important that whatever is done in the future is done for the benefit of these institutions, and whatever actions will be taken will make them more effective to face future challenges.
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: Part of me is incredulous that the Minister has come up with this idea, because I know his commitment to the decade of commemorations and his chairing of that committee. I know his support for our cultural institutions and commemorating our history and I find it difficult to believe this proposal is coming from him. These are perfectly functioning institutions and he is treating them as if they were broken when they are not. They have been doing fantastic work since they were set up.
There are two areas where Ireland’s reputation is superb, namely, our development aid budget and our arts and culture. Instead of this being a cultural discussion, it will be cultural domination. In 1974, there was an interdepartmental report on the idea of a merger and it came up again in 2008. The reasons given for not going ahead with it then are still valid today. The main reason was the disciplines involved are very distinct. The National Archives has a statutory function which means legislation will be required to deal with any possible merger. The Minister spoke about consultation but the impression I am getting from people in the arts is that there has been no meaningful consultation. Why consult if this is almost a done deal and ready to go to Cabinet?
Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan raised several pertinent issues which I will take on board. First, this was not my initiative as such. The Government’s public sector reform plan announced on 17 November goes across all Departments and not just the arts. Several State agencies are being reviewed and not just those under my Department.
The National Archives, in which the Deputy has a particular interest, is within my Department and is functioning well. If the amalgamation went ahead with the National Library, the National Archives would be taken out of the Department. As nothing has been decided yet, it is not a fait accompli. I will take a hard look at the proposals coming before me which will then have to go to Cabinet. Before any final decisions are made, their implications will be considered fully. I will have to accept them when they happen.
I am aware of the concerns about these agencies. I have a large number of friends working in these cultural institutions with whom I have worked for the past 30 years in various ways before the institutions got independent boards in 2005 and since then. I am aware of their needs and their future challenges, whether it is more space for archives, digitisation, the use of new technology, attracting funding from external sources or other issues. I would like if Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan discussed this matter with me further because she has a practical and balanced approach to issues.
Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: The Deputy has asked many questions and I will try to answer as many as I can. My officials would not agree there has been a lack of consultation or information on amalgamations. There have been ongoing discussions about amalgamations for several years. The 2009 budget contained a decision to examine this matter. As Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan found out, there were consultations. These have been ongoing over the years. Now, with the Government’s decision on public sector reform plan, there have been further consultations which are extensive and continuing. Any Deputy can put down a freedom of information request on these discussions.
As for the criteria, the Government directive was clear in this respect. It will be the best solution that will matter and the one which I will put to the Government.
Culture Ireland has been very effective since it was established in 2005. It was originally proposed that it would be a statutory agency but a decision was made against this in 2008. It has operated effectively within my Department. It is not an independent agency. It had a chief executive officer and an independent board, which was not statutory, which made decisions with the executive on grant applications. When I travelled to America with Culture Ireland, I witnessed its success in making significant connections. With the various artists who have been supported, there has been an attempt to repair the damaged image of Ireland in Manhattan and on Wall Street. It could be said the image of Ireland which Imagine Ireland has helped to create is very different from the example from four years ago. Culture Ireland, through Imagine Ireland, has helped in rehabilitating this image. I agree that Culture Ireland is very important and I am confident it will retain its dynamic nature and effectiveness. It will continue to support the arts community, as it has in the past eight years.
The head of Culture Ireland was very effective; he was an ambassador as much as he was chief executive officer and did a very fine job. Unfortunately, his contract came to an end and could not be renewed because of contractual arrangements established long before my time. The position of head of Culture Ireland has been advertised internally, not externally. I am convinced there are people with experience in the Culture Ireland executive who are adequately qualified to continue the work done by the previous chief executive officer.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Tom Hayes): We are over time, but I will allow those who have indicated to ask a supplementary question, with a single answer from the Minister.
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: It is important to consider international examples which indicate amalgamations do not work. The process seemed to work in Canada, but there was major investment there. I am delighted to hear the Minister is not driving this process personally, which suggests he is willing to listen and take on board other suggestions. With regard to the director of Culture Ireland, it is vital to have the right person in place, as it is an important role. I hope we will not dismantle the Cultural Institutions Act 1997 which was driven by our new President.
Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: The board of Culture Ireland is up for critical review, as are the other agencies. I agree with Deputy Robert Troy about the galleries’ submission; the three galleries came together in a positive way to present a good proposal which will be seriously considered and reviewed. I expect to receive the proposals in two weeks and will then go to the Cabinet. People will not be left to linger for a long time. I expect to have the decisions made as soon as possible. My officials considered the Canadian example, in which $16 million was required for an amalgamation. There are other examples also in which it was quite expensive. These are all considerations.
Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Deputy Jimmy Deenihan)I propose to take Questions No. 1 and Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together.
As Deputies will be aware, the Government’s public service reform plan which was published by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, on 17 November contains a number of actions in respect of my Department’s remit. These include the amalgamation of the National Library, the National Archives and the Irish Manuscripts Commission; the combining of the National Gallery, the Irish Museum of Modern Art, IMMA, and the Crawford Gallery, while retaining separate identities; a critical review of Culture Ireland; a review of board structures at the National Library and the National Museum, and an examination of opportunities for shared services.
I underline the value I place on the role of the national cultural institutions which are the custodians of our arts and cultural heritage. They also have a key role in scholarship and national discourse. For this reason, €47.25 million was provided for our cultural institutions and bodies in the 2012 Estimates. The critical role the arts and culture play in attracting tourists to Ireland is also well recognised. Cultural tourism is a key element of Ireland’s tourism industry and the national cultural institutions play a significant role in this respect. The institutions funded by my Department attracted more than 3 million visitors in 2011.
In the overall context of the public service reform agenda, one of my key concerns is to ensure all options are examined in order that the most appropriate implementation approach can be adopted for each institution. The artistic and curatorial autonomy of the cultural institutions is a major consideration in this regard. However, all of our cultural institutions are facing difficult challenges in the times ahead, particularly in terms of resources and funding. Given the difficult economic circumstances, there has been a considerable reduction in Exchequer funding in recent years and this is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. In this context, it is important that the institutions operate in the most efficient and effective way possible and are seen to provide value for money. Opportunities for sourcing alternative funding through philanthropy, commercial partnerships and other channels will also need to be sought proactively.
I see the reform process as offering all concerned a chance to take stock, assess how our institutions are equipped to deal with the challenges facing them and identify the best options to ensure their successful operation in the future. My Department has been examining the complex issues involved in the various reform proposals. This process has involved consultations with each of the institutions concerned. In addition, I have met the chairs of the various institutions involved in the process to afford them an opportunity to express their views on the actions included in the Government’s public sector reform plan. My Department is also considering the various proposals made by the institutions. There can be little doubt, for example, that the sharing of services, in particular common back office services such as information technology, human resources, marketing and procurement, would lead to savings and efficiencies for the institutions. If managed properly by them, such a sharing of services could release resources to enhance front-line services to the public.
I cannot accept the proposition that examining reform possibilities amounts to an attack on the cultural infrastructure of the nation, as has been suggested by some. In fact, the idea that any organisation should be or consider itself to be above examination or review and possible reform is unhealthy and a recipe for a bad deal for the taxpayer who funds these institutions and the public whom they serve. Engagement between my Department and the cultural institutions on the spectrum of actions set out in the Government’s public service reform plan is ongoing and I anticipate that I will be in a position to revert to the Government on these matters shortly.
Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Many of the issues raised by the Deputy will be considered when we make our final decision. My officials are engaged in consultations and will submit proposals to me in approximately two weeks. When the Government made the announcement, the Department immediately set up a reform unit, as well as a reform committee to which the unit would answer. An extensive process is ongoing. For example, there was consultation this morning. The information is available to everyone to show the process has taken place. The fundamental questions raised by the Deputy are being considered. The process is taking place but I cannot say today to what I can commit. Artistic and curatorial autonomy is a major consideration for me. The arm’s length approach, evident in the Arts Council’s dealings with other bodies, will be taken into consideration.
The National Archives and Culture Ireland are within my Department. There was a proposal to make Culture Ireland an independent body but in 2008 it was decided not to do this, and it is still part of the Department. The contract of the previous chief executive officer, who did a very good job, has expired and the job is now advertised. There are people working in Culture Ireland who do a good job and are well qualified for that position.
I thank Deputy Troy for raising these issues and I will certainly consider them. The overriding factor is that our national institutions, which are important from a cultural and economic point of view, are the custodians of our national treasures and must be protected for the future. They are looking after our heritage and culture for all our people. It is important that whatever is done in the future is done for the benefit of these institutions, and whatever actions will be taken will make them more effective to face future challenges.
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: Part of me is incredulous that the Minister has come up with this idea, because I know his commitment to the decade of commemorations and his chairing of that committee. I know his support for our cultural institutions and commemorating our history and I find it difficult to believe this proposal is coming from him. These are perfectly functioning institutions and he is treating them as if they were broken when they are not. They have been doing fantastic work since they were set up.
There are two areas where Ireland’s reputation is superb, namely, our development aid budget and our arts and culture. Instead of this being a cultural discussion, it will be cultural domination. In 1974, there was an interdepartmental report on the idea of a merger and it came up again in 2008. The reasons given for not going ahead with it then are still valid today. The main reason was the disciplines involved are very distinct. The National Archives has a statutory function which means legislation will be required to deal with any possible merger. The Minister spoke about consultation but the impression I am getting from people in the arts is that there has been no meaningful consultation. Why consult if this is almost a done deal and ready to go to Cabinet?
Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan raised several pertinent issues which I will take on board. First, this was not my initiative as such. The Government’s public sector reform plan announced on 17 November goes across all Departments and not just the arts. Several State agencies are being reviewed and not just those under my Department.
The National Archives, in which the Deputy has a particular interest, is within my Department and is functioning well. If the amalgamation went ahead with the National Library, the National Archives would be taken out of the Department. As nothing has been decided yet, it is not a fait accompli. I will take a hard look at the proposals coming before me which will then have to go to Cabinet. Before any final decisions are made, their implications will be considered fully. I will have to accept them when they happen.
I am aware of the concerns about these agencies. I have a large number of friends working in these cultural institutions with whom I have worked for the past 30 years in various ways before the institutions got independent boards in 2005 and since then. I am aware of their needs and their future challenges, whether it is more space for archives, digitisation, the use of new technology, attracting funding from external sources or other issues. I would like if Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan discussed this matter with me further because she has a practical and balanced approach to issues.
Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: The Deputy has asked many questions and I will try to answer as many as I can. My officials would not agree there has been a lack of consultation or information on amalgamations. There have been ongoing discussions about amalgamations for several years. The 2009 budget contained a decision to examine this matter. As Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan found out, there were consultations. These have been ongoing over the years. Now, with the Government’s decision on public sector reform plan, there have been further consultations which are extensive and continuing. Any Deputy can put down a freedom of information request on these discussions.
As for the criteria, the Government directive was clear in this respect. It will be the best solution that will matter and the one which I will put to the Government.
Culture Ireland has been very effective since it was established in 2005. It was originally proposed that it would be a statutory agency but a decision was made against this in 2008. It has operated effectively within my Department. It is not an independent agency. It had a chief executive officer and an independent board, which was not statutory, which made decisions with the executive on grant applications. When I travelled to America with Culture Ireland, I witnessed its success in making significant connections. With the various artists who have been supported, there has been an attempt to repair the damaged image of Ireland in Manhattan and on Wall Street. It could be said the image of Ireland which Imagine Ireland has helped to create is very different from the example from four years ago. Culture Ireland, through Imagine Ireland, has helped in rehabilitating this image. I agree that Culture Ireland is very important and I am confident it will retain its dynamic nature and effectiveness. It will continue to support the arts community, as it has in the past eight years.
The head of Culture Ireland was very effective; he was an ambassador as much as he was chief executive officer and did a very fine job. Unfortunately, his contract came to an end and could not be renewed because of contractual arrangements established long before my time. The position of head of Culture Ireland has been advertised internally, not externally. I am convinced there are people with experience in the Culture Ireland executive who are adequately qualified to continue the work done by the previous chief executive officer.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Tom Hayes): We are over time, but I will allow those who have indicated to ask a supplementary question, with a single answer from the Minister.
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: It is important to consider international examples which indicate amalgamations do not work. The process seemed to work in Canada, but there was major investment there. I am delighted to hear the Minister is not driving this process personally, which suggests he is willing to listen and take on board other suggestions. With regard to the director of Culture Ireland, it is vital to have the right person in place, as it is an important role. I hope we will not dismantle the Cultural Institutions Act 1997 which was driven by our new President.
Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: The board of Culture Ireland is up for critical review, as are the other agencies. I agree with Deputy Robert Troy about the galleries’ submission; the three galleries came together in a positive way to present a good proposal which will be seriously considered and reviewed. I expect to receive the proposals in two weeks and will then go to the Cabinet. People will not be left to linger for a long time. I expect to have the decisions made as soon as possible. My officials considered the Canadian example, in which $16 million was required for an amalgamation. There are other examples also in which it was quite expensive. These are all considerations.
