20 April Natural Resources
Click on image to hear Maureen speak
Nuair a smaonaím ar cheist na Coiribe ceapaim go bhfuil sé do-chreidthe
gur theip orainn ár n-acmhainní nadúrtha a choimead ar son muintir na
hÉireann. The previous Government took a number of decisions in regard
to Corrib gas that have been proven to be, according to one journalist,
“at best incompetent and at worst downright reckless”. The rot began
when that Government neglected to pay proper attention to regulating the
exploration industry in the best interest of the country. Now the
exploration companies can join the bankers and developers who
contributed to the current state of the country.
Everything seems to have been done by previous Ministers to ease Shell’s passage through Erris, with compulsory purchase of farmland and the ignoring of communities and areas of conservation and the fact that the gas pipeline was close to a village. All this went to a multinational company with massive profits and a poor record in human rights and looking after the environment.
Governments throughout the world will ensure that any deals negotiated with gas and oil companies will bring a fair share of the revenue to their countries. At this point, however, instead of bringing revenue to our country it is costing us money, with an enormous bill for Garda overtime. It must also be asked if burning yet more fossil fuels is justified when we consider global warming and global justice and the effects on the fishing and tourism industries in the area.
Another natural resource is forests. It seems Coillte may also join that elite group which have mismanaged millions of euro in grants and payments and are now in debt.
There is merit in both the original motion and the amendment, which takes on issues in the motion. This issue is not about the upcoming vote but about maintaining our natural resources, both those current and those to date untapped, for our country rather than to swell the profits of multinational companies. Let us be guided by principles of justice and ethics when we look at the resources in oil, gas and minerals and in consequence do what is in the best interest of this country.
Everything seems to have been done by previous Ministers to ease Shell’s passage through Erris, with compulsory purchase of farmland and the ignoring of communities and areas of conservation and the fact that the gas pipeline was close to a village. All this went to a multinational company with massive profits and a poor record in human rights and looking after the environment.
Governments throughout the world will ensure that any deals negotiated with gas and oil companies will bring a fair share of the revenue to their countries. At this point, however, instead of bringing revenue to our country it is costing us money, with an enormous bill for Garda overtime. It must also be asked if burning yet more fossil fuels is justified when we consider global warming and global justice and the effects on the fishing and tourism industries in the area.
Another natural resource is forests. It seems Coillte may also join that elite group which have mismanaged millions of euro in grants and payments and are now in debt.
There is merit in both the original motion and the amendment, which takes on issues in the motion. This issue is not about the upcoming vote but about maintaining our natural resources, both those current and those to date untapped, for our country rather than to swell the profits of multinational companies. Let us be guided by principles of justice and ethics when we look at the resources in oil, gas and minerals and in consequence do what is in the best interest of this country.
07 April Suicide Prevention
Click on image to hear Maureen speak
Dublin’s north inner city has been devastated by the drugs industry and
allied to that was and is the number of suicides. It is very significant
that some of those are in families who suffered institutional abuse.
I want focus on a particular project and model from the north inner city, the Oasis Deora Counselling Centre in North Wall, which has been to the fore in providing counselling and services for those facing loss through suicide. One of the ways it does this is by providing the ASIST - Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training - programme, to which the Minister of State referred. This is suicide first aid. What is most significant about this centre and the training it provides is that the training is being given to those working directly in projects with people at risk of suicide.
The emphasis in ASIST training is on helping a person at risk stay safe and seek further help. Those who have done this training learn how to recognise the signs for seeking help and identify people who have thoughts of suicide. They can reach out and offer support, apply a suicide intervention model and then link the person with community resources and other supports. This ASIST training has been evaluated and the evaluations have shown that the workshop increases the caregiver’s knowledge and confidence to respond to a person at risk of suicide. The intervention skills are retained over time and put to use to save lives. In one year this project in six training sessions trained 150 people in the two-day workshop and it also provided a tune-up refresher. In that one year alone it managed 47 clients who were suicidal.
When I chaired the North Inner City Drugs Task Force I had the opportunity of doing the two-day ASIST training course, therefore, I know its value. I also attended the refresher half-day course, which was also attended by youth workers, community project workers and staff from hostels for the homeless. The first question we were asked was how many of us had used the training since we had received it. I was very struck by those workers all saying that they had used on many occasions, thus saving lives.
We have the National Office for Suicide Prevention but I believe the model I have discussed from Oasis Deora has been invaluable because the training is going to those directly involved with vulnerable people at the risk of suicide. They do the training voluntarily. It is not seen as part of their job and they use the training.
I also acknowledge the support from the previous Minister of State, the former Deputy John Moloney, for this project to rollout further training. Some of that training will involve mindfulness-based training, which is a proven technique in managing stress, depression, anxiety, loss and also for relapse prevention for those in recovery from addiction to help in managing cravings. It is training that should be introduced in our prisons.
In terms of the cost of what I have discussed from that one project, the amount of €10,000 annually with Deora enabled ASIST training for 140 to 150 people, including follow-up time and crisis intervention. The amount of €15,000 annually provided training in mindfulness for 150 people who could go on to train others. The amount of €25,000 annually could make such a difference in preventing suicide and we know that suicide is preventable. I stress the value of that project because the training it provides is going to those who are directly working on a daily basis to those who are at risk of suicide.
One in four people in this country experiences a mental health issue but mental health does not get a proportionate amount of the health budget that would acknowledge that. A person can present at an accident and emergency department with a particular physical ailment and he or she might be on a chair or a trolley for a number of days but that person will be seen and will get treatment. However, if a person presents with a self-harm issue, an eating disorder, an overdose or depression, the scenario is very different.
I want focus on a particular project and model from the north inner city, the Oasis Deora Counselling Centre in North Wall, which has been to the fore in providing counselling and services for those facing loss through suicide. One of the ways it does this is by providing the ASIST - Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training - programme, to which the Minister of State referred. This is suicide first aid. What is most significant about this centre and the training it provides is that the training is being given to those working directly in projects with people at risk of suicide.
The emphasis in ASIST training is on helping a person at risk stay safe and seek further help. Those who have done this training learn how to recognise the signs for seeking help and identify people who have thoughts of suicide. They can reach out and offer support, apply a suicide intervention model and then link the person with community resources and other supports. This ASIST training has been evaluated and the evaluations have shown that the workshop increases the caregiver’s knowledge and confidence to respond to a person at risk of suicide. The intervention skills are retained over time and put to use to save lives. In one year this project in six training sessions trained 150 people in the two-day workshop and it also provided a tune-up refresher. In that one year alone it managed 47 clients who were suicidal.
When I chaired the North Inner City Drugs Task Force I had the opportunity of doing the two-day ASIST training course, therefore, I know its value. I also attended the refresher half-day course, which was also attended by youth workers, community project workers and staff from hostels for the homeless. The first question we were asked was how many of us had used the training since we had received it. I was very struck by those workers all saying that they had used on many occasions, thus saving lives.
We have the National Office for Suicide Prevention but I believe the model I have discussed from Oasis Deora has been invaluable because the training is going to those directly involved with vulnerable people at the risk of suicide. They do the training voluntarily. It is not seen as part of their job and they use the training.
I also acknowledge the support from the previous Minister of State, the former Deputy John Moloney, for this project to rollout further training. Some of that training will involve mindfulness-based training, which is a proven technique in managing stress, depression, anxiety, loss and also for relapse prevention for those in recovery from addiction to help in managing cravings. It is training that should be introduced in our prisons.
In terms of the cost of what I have discussed from that one project, the amount of €10,000 annually with Deora enabled ASIST training for 140 to 150 people, including follow-up time and crisis intervention. The amount of €15,000 annually provided training in mindfulness for 150 people who could go on to train others. The amount of €25,000 annually could make such a difference in preventing suicide and we know that suicide is preventable. I stress the value of that project because the training it provides is going to those who are directly working on a daily basis to those who are at risk of suicide.
One in four people in this country experiences a mental health issue but mental health does not get a proportionate amount of the health budget that would acknowledge that. A person can present at an accident and emergency department with a particular physical ailment and he or she might be on a chair or a trolley for a number of days but that person will be seen and will get treatment. However, if a person presents with a self-harm issue, an eating disorder, an overdose or depression, the scenario is very different.
07 April Criminal Justice (Community Service)
Click on image to hear Maureen speak
With the permission of the House, I will share time with Deputies Seamus Healy, Thomas Pringle, Mattie McGrath and Clare Daly.
I acknowledge the work of the Oireachtas Library and Research Service in compiling a digest and information on the Bill. In that digest, I read that it is estimated that a community service order costs just over €4,000 per offender, while an alternative prison sentence costs approximately €27,000. Statistics from abroad seem to confirm this. In the United Kingdom it has been established that a community service order costs 5% of the total cost of keeping someone in prison for one year. The figure for New Zealand is also 5%. Even allowing for some adjustment in these figures, there is a very strong economic argument in favour of supporting community service instead of a custodial sentence of 12 months or less. A further point from the research is that short prison sentences are not a deterrent and do not contribute to rehabilitating the offender. This is due to the limited length of stay in prison because the prisoner does not have sufficient access to the services that could have an effect on rehabilitation. However, that presupposes that there are adequate services available in prison to play a role in rehabilitating prisoners and preventing recidivism. Where savings are made with the Bill, I hope they will go towards enhancing services and resources for prisoners in order that those serving longer sentences will have a real chance to turn their lives around. A considerable proportion of those in Mountjoy Prison come from certain parts of the constituency of Dublin Central which I represent. We know very well what contributes to these men and women being there. No sooner are they out than they are back again. That revolving door must be stopped, even if only for economic reasons.
I like the fact that the Bill compels judges to consider community service as a sentence in cases in which a sentence of 12 months or less is an option. Where this is being considered, notice must be given to the Probation Service which will create an assessment report for the court. This report is to be quite detailed and include information on the family and lifestyle of the offender, if there are addiction issues, the attitude of the offender and whether there is an acknowledgement of what he or she has done. The report must be created within 28 days, although this period can be extended. I acknowledge the work of probation officers. However, they are part of the public service and subject to redundancy plans. We cannot reduce their number if this work is to be done properly.
It is also significant that the Irish Penal Reform Trust welcomes this move, while making the point that community service orders are only used where an individual would otherwise receive a custodial sentence. The trust has been consistently calling for greater use of community sanctions when dealing with less serious offences. A community sanction means an offender will continue to work or stay in education and still be with his or her family or community. However, through community service offenders are being given an opportunity to make reparation and perform a service for the community, which is a much more positive step than languishing in an overcrowded prison. More important, community sanctions are demonstrably more effective, with lower levels of reoffending. There is evidence that sentences of less than one year do not work and I know there is a call from the Prison Governors Association in the United Kingdom that they be abolished.
Is community service intended to punish or to rehabilitate? In some countries, the focus of community service has been on educating offenders about the impact of his or her crime on the victim, on the community and on the offender. Some focus has been on the training of offenders in useful skills but central to community service is giving the offender the space to see the harm caused and an opportunity to repair that harm. Community service cannot be a futile, meaningless task; it has to be meaningful, of real value and it must contribute to bringing about a change in behaviour.
I am disappointed to note the only review of community service in this country was carried out in 1999 and it was somewhat negative in saying it was not any more successful than prison in discouraging offenders from committing further crimes. However, more recent evidence from other countries is more positive. Community service seems most effective when the service enables the offender to gain new skills, where the work is of benefit and where there is significant contact between the offender and the community. It will be a challenge to find those services which will be most productive.
I regard community service as part of the system of restorative justice, something I would like to see being considered more. Restorative justice is a powerful tool when used to its optimum as it gives an opportunity for the victim, the offender and the community to meet, to discuss what has happened and the offender is expected to take steps to repair the harm. It is a positive development that the previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, approved both the expansion of the Tallaght-based restorative justice service to the Criminal Court and the expansion of the Nenagh community reparation project. Community service is also part of the system of case management used by the Garda Síochána, the diversionary projects and in community sanctions.
I welcome this Bill but if it is to work in bringing about a change in behaviour it has to allow for well organised and meaningful work. I note the examples given by the Minister in his contribution. The bigger picture of prison reform was addressed by Deputy Ó Cuív. Too many people from the same backgrounds and addresses make up the prison population and this is at significant financial cost to the State and also at a significant personal cost to prisoners and their families.
I acknowledge the work of the Oireachtas Library and Research Service in compiling a digest and information on the Bill. In that digest, I read that it is estimated that a community service order costs just over €4,000 per offender, while an alternative prison sentence costs approximately €27,000. Statistics from abroad seem to confirm this. In the United Kingdom it has been established that a community service order costs 5% of the total cost of keeping someone in prison for one year. The figure for New Zealand is also 5%. Even allowing for some adjustment in these figures, there is a very strong economic argument in favour of supporting community service instead of a custodial sentence of 12 months or less. A further point from the research is that short prison sentences are not a deterrent and do not contribute to rehabilitating the offender. This is due to the limited length of stay in prison because the prisoner does not have sufficient access to the services that could have an effect on rehabilitation. However, that presupposes that there are adequate services available in prison to play a role in rehabilitating prisoners and preventing recidivism. Where savings are made with the Bill, I hope they will go towards enhancing services and resources for prisoners in order that those serving longer sentences will have a real chance to turn their lives around. A considerable proportion of those in Mountjoy Prison come from certain parts of the constituency of Dublin Central which I represent. We know very well what contributes to these men and women being there. No sooner are they out than they are back again. That revolving door must be stopped, even if only for economic reasons.
I like the fact that the Bill compels judges to consider community service as a sentence in cases in which a sentence of 12 months or less is an option. Where this is being considered, notice must be given to the Probation Service which will create an assessment report for the court. This report is to be quite detailed and include information on the family and lifestyle of the offender, if there are addiction issues, the attitude of the offender and whether there is an acknowledgement of what he or she has done. The report must be created within 28 days, although this period can be extended. I acknowledge the work of probation officers. However, they are part of the public service and subject to redundancy plans. We cannot reduce their number if this work is to be done properly.
It is also significant that the Irish Penal Reform Trust welcomes this move, while making the point that community service orders are only used where an individual would otherwise receive a custodial sentence. The trust has been consistently calling for greater use of community sanctions when dealing with less serious offences. A community sanction means an offender will continue to work or stay in education and still be with his or her family or community. However, through community service offenders are being given an opportunity to make reparation and perform a service for the community, which is a much more positive step than languishing in an overcrowded prison. More important, community sanctions are demonstrably more effective, with lower levels of reoffending. There is evidence that sentences of less than one year do not work and I know there is a call from the Prison Governors Association in the United Kingdom that they be abolished.
Is community service intended to punish or to rehabilitate? In some countries, the focus of community service has been on educating offenders about the impact of his or her crime on the victim, on the community and on the offender. Some focus has been on the training of offenders in useful skills but central to community service is giving the offender the space to see the harm caused and an opportunity to repair that harm. Community service cannot be a futile, meaningless task; it has to be meaningful, of real value and it must contribute to bringing about a change in behaviour.
I am disappointed to note the only review of community service in this country was carried out in 1999 and it was somewhat negative in saying it was not any more successful than prison in discouraging offenders from committing further crimes. However, more recent evidence from other countries is more positive. Community service seems most effective when the service enables the offender to gain new skills, where the work is of benefit and where there is significant contact between the offender and the community. It will be a challenge to find those services which will be most productive.
I regard community service as part of the system of restorative justice, something I would like to see being considered more. Restorative justice is a powerful tool when used to its optimum as it gives an opportunity for the victim, the offender and the community to meet, to discuss what has happened and the offender is expected to take steps to repair the harm. It is a positive development that the previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, approved both the expansion of the Tallaght-based restorative justice service to the Criminal Court and the expansion of the Nenagh community reparation project. Community service is also part of the system of case management used by the Garda Síochána, the diversionary projects and in community sanctions.
I welcome this Bill but if it is to work in bringing about a change in behaviour it has to allow for well organised and meaningful work. I note the examples given by the Minister in his contribution. The bigger picture of prison reform was addressed by Deputy Ó Cuív. Too many people from the same backgrounds and addresses make up the prison population and this is at significant financial cost to the State and also at a significant personal cost to prisoners and their families.
05 April Bank Bailout and EU-IMF
Click on image to hear Maureen speak
If our circumstances were not so serious, I would be tempted to cite the
line frequently used in Laurel and Hardy films on this being another
fine mess.
The motion before us is about democracy and allowing citizens to decide what they will pay for the foreseeable future. The country faces a massive debt. Notwithstanding the Government’s argument that the recent general election was a referendum, the goalposts have been moved because it has made a number of U-turns on the election commitments for which people voted. For this reason, it is vital that a referendum is held on the bailout.
Under Article 27 of the Constitution, taking the referendum route to have legislation overturned is onerous. It is a comment on how we value democracy that the system in place for this option is so complicated, involving as it does a majority of the Seanad and not less than one third of the Dáil petitioning the President if it is considered by them that a Bill contains “a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained”. The bailout is an issue of extreme national importance. The figures suggested by various economists on the cost of the bailout for each citizen are staggering.
It is difficult to consider this motion separately from the stress tests for banks and bank restructuring plans announced last week. While newspaper headlines tend to be sensational by nature, some of those that I have read contain an element of truth. They include such headlines as “Only a miracle can save the financial system from complete meltdown”, “Disastrous world of Irish banking”, “Ireland has lost the capacity to borrow”, “Frankfurt’s way prevails as harsh economic reality confronts Noonan”, and “Bondholders escape as €24 billion put into the banks”.
I accept that we need money to pay our bills, including salaries, wages and social welfare. However, given the nature of the terms and conditions of the bank bailout and EU-IMF package, the nation must have a say. While every citizen will pay, some will pay more than others. Those who will pay most are the people on lower and middle incomes. The bailout will not make an appreciable, proportionate difference to the wealthy who live abroad for certain times of the year to avoid paying taxes, disposed of shares just in time or transferred property into the names of family members or out of the country. The vulnerable and disabled, on the other hand, will pay heavily.
Senior bankers who held positions of responsibility during the banking bubble and who are now on bank boards remain in situ. The Financial Regulator announced that he intended to conduct a fitness and probity assessment of all members of bank boards but not until the beginning of next year. In the meantime, the bankers in question may decide to resign to avoid undergoing such an assessment and will, without doubt, receive extremely lucrative pensions and severance packages should they do so.
During Leaders’ Questions Deputy Ross asked the Taoiseach a significant question, namely, why private debt has become public debt. Why has a protective curtain, almost like an iron curtain, come down around the senior bondholders? The nature of their investment implies risk. When they made profit on their investments were they pouring money into the State or rewarding it in any way? When they lost money did they take the loss? They did not do so because the people of Ireland, who are not being given a say in the matter, did so on their behalf.
I have read the Government amendment and I accept a radical restructuring of the banking system is necessary to ensure they become viable. The IMF-EU bailout is not the way forward, however, as it is too harsh. Ireland will not survive by continuing to take emergency loans from the IMF and EU. In the previous Dáil, I spoke about how IMF actions contributed to the destruction of economies in Africa, Asia and South America. The measures applied included the imposition of strong limits on public expenditure and the pursuit of excessively strict monetary policies.
I welcome the section of the amendment regarding the Government’s commitment to protect ordinary depositors. Its final point on a jobs fund to support employment growth and sustainable enterprise appears paradoxical, however, given that it is juxtapositioned with a reference to the EU-IMF programme.
On the most recent capitalisation, I note the statement by the Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Patrick Honohan, that it does not score well on fairness. Fairness would be served if citizens had an opportunity to express a view in a referendum and have their say on whether the EU-IMF agreement will lead the economy on a sustainable path. When a referendum was put to people in Iceland, it resulted in change.
The €70 billion price tag of the current crisis makes it one of the costliest crises in history. Ireland is used to making history for positive reasons, whether through our achievements in sport, the arts or humanitarian work. I support the motion because it proposes to give people a say in their destiny.
The motion before us is about democracy and allowing citizens to decide what they will pay for the foreseeable future. The country faces a massive debt. Notwithstanding the Government’s argument that the recent general election was a referendum, the goalposts have been moved because it has made a number of U-turns on the election commitments for which people voted. For this reason, it is vital that a referendum is held on the bailout.
Under Article 27 of the Constitution, taking the referendum route to have legislation overturned is onerous. It is a comment on how we value democracy that the system in place for this option is so complicated, involving as it does a majority of the Seanad and not less than one third of the Dáil petitioning the President if it is considered by them that a Bill contains “a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained”. The bailout is an issue of extreme national importance. The figures suggested by various economists on the cost of the bailout for each citizen are staggering.
It is difficult to consider this motion separately from the stress tests for banks and bank restructuring plans announced last week. While newspaper headlines tend to be sensational by nature, some of those that I have read contain an element of truth. They include such headlines as “Only a miracle can save the financial system from complete meltdown”, “Disastrous world of Irish banking”, “Ireland has lost the capacity to borrow”, “Frankfurt’s way prevails as harsh economic reality confronts Noonan”, and “Bondholders escape as €24 billion put into the banks”.
I accept that we need money to pay our bills, including salaries, wages and social welfare. However, given the nature of the terms and conditions of the bank bailout and EU-IMF package, the nation must have a say. While every citizen will pay, some will pay more than others. Those who will pay most are the people on lower and middle incomes. The bailout will not make an appreciable, proportionate difference to the wealthy who live abroad for certain times of the year to avoid paying taxes, disposed of shares just in time or transferred property into the names of family members or out of the country. The vulnerable and disabled, on the other hand, will pay heavily.
Senior bankers who held positions of responsibility during the banking bubble and who are now on bank boards remain in situ. The Financial Regulator announced that he intended to conduct a fitness and probity assessment of all members of bank boards but not until the beginning of next year. In the meantime, the bankers in question may decide to resign to avoid undergoing such an assessment and will, without doubt, receive extremely lucrative pensions and severance packages should they do so.
During Leaders’ Questions Deputy Ross asked the Taoiseach a significant question, namely, why private debt has become public debt. Why has a protective curtain, almost like an iron curtain, come down around the senior bondholders? The nature of their investment implies risk. When they made profit on their investments were they pouring money into the State or rewarding it in any way? When they lost money did they take the loss? They did not do so because the people of Ireland, who are not being given a say in the matter, did so on their behalf.
I have read the Government amendment and I accept a radical restructuring of the banking system is necessary to ensure they become viable. The IMF-EU bailout is not the way forward, however, as it is too harsh. Ireland will not survive by continuing to take emergency loans from the IMF and EU. In the previous Dáil, I spoke about how IMF actions contributed to the destruction of economies in Africa, Asia and South America. The measures applied included the imposition of strong limits on public expenditure and the pursuit of excessively strict monetary policies.
I welcome the section of the amendment regarding the Government’s commitment to protect ordinary depositors. Its final point on a jobs fund to support employment growth and sustainable enterprise appears paradoxical, however, given that it is juxtapositioned with a reference to the EU-IMF programme.
On the most recent capitalisation, I note the statement by the Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Patrick Honohan, that it does not score well on fairness. Fairness would be served if citizens had an opportunity to express a view in a referendum and have their say on whether the EU-IMF agreement will lead the economy on a sustainable path. When a referendum was put to people in Iceland, it resulted in change.
The €70 billion price tag of the current crisis makes it one of the costliest crises in history. Ireland is used to making history for positive reasons, whether through our achievements in sport, the arts or humanitarian work. I support the motion because it proposes to give people a say in their destiny.