Dáil Contributions February 2014
Maureen spoke to - Post Offices Network; School Guidance Counsellors; Judicial Appoinments; Westbank Illegal Settlements; Embassy in Iran; Ports Policy; Recent Flooding; Sunbeds (Public Health); Childcare Motion; Down's Syndrome (Equality of Acess) Bill; Northern Ireland Statement
Click on images to hear Maureen speaking on items
and scroll down this page to see the full texts of those contributions Written Questions (Click image for answer)
Maureen spoke to - Post Offices Network; School Guidance Counsellors; Judicial Appoinments; Westbank Illegal Settlements; Embassy in Iran; Ports Policy; Recent Flooding; Sunbeds (Public Health); Childcare Motion; Down's Syndrome (Equality of Acess) Bill; Northern Ireland Statement
Click on images to hear Maureen speaking on items
and scroll down this page to see the full texts of those contributions Written Questions (Click image for answer)
 Listen to Maureen's speech
25 February Post Offices Network
We seem to have a tendency of failing to leave alone those organisations which work well. That goes to the heart of the matter under discussion. Our post offices work very well and the staff who work in them provide a range of services in a very friendly, helpful and courteous way. There is potential for even further services to be provided at our post offices but we are now finding they are under threat. The Irish Postmasters' Union's slogan to the effect that we should not let the heart of our communities die is very apt. Post offices are at the heart of communities and the offer a range of services to people of all ages. I acknowledge the work of the Irish Postmasters' Union in respect of this matter. All postmasters want is for the current Administration to honour the commitment it made in the programme for Government. That will mean developing a plan. Without a plan, difficulties will arise in the context of the very survival of the post office network. It is vital that the Government should honour its commitment and bring forward an action plan which contains timelines. Nobody wants to witness the demise of the post office network. People trust their local post offices. This is because they have built up relationships with the staff. Post offices are reliable, dependable and extremely receptive to those people who, for various reasons, do not want to conduct business online. The personal touch is in evidence to a much greater degree in post offices than in banks. On the occasions on which I have visited bank branches in recent times, I have continually been directed to machines. I do not want to do business with a machine, I want to do it with a real person. That is what happens when I visit my local post office. The range of services available at the post office includes social welfare payments, savings facilities, the passport service, bill-pay services, postal services and the purchase of stationery supplies. Post offices are also a centre of information in respect of the various services that are available within communities. They are, therefore, a real asset. There are serious implications to not having in place a plan to ensure their sustainability and viability. What will happen is that there will be a drop in the number of people in employment and up to 500 post offices will be closed before 2017. The Irish Postmasters' Union has commissioned two reports, the first of which includes a series of proposals on what could make post offices more sustainable. Each of these proposals included a cost-benefit outcome and the report estimates that if they were all implemented, more than €80 million in savings could be realised. Most of those savings would be to the benefit of the taxpayer. When the union requested a follow-up study, this concluded that the sustainability of post offices is at risk as a result of the Government's attitude towards contracts such as that relating to welfare payments. The system of making such payments through post offices works very well. This is because post office staff know the people who are in receipt of such payments. If somebody does not turn up to obtain his or her payment as a result of an accident or something worse, the staff will follow up on the matter. The Irish Postmasters' Union informs us that its staff act as a fraud deterrent element. As already stated, the staff know the people who present regularly to receive their payments and, as a result, the threat of impersonation is eliminated. It is also the case that if a person does not collection his or her payment within a certain period, it will be returned to the Exchequer. If payments are made electronically through the banks, there is no oversight whatsoever. Post offices play a really important role in the context of budgeting. This is because people can pay particular amounts off their bills on a regular basis. They can also buy special stamps to save for their television licences. I cannot see the banks providing a similar service. In addition, banks are not always so easily accessible. This is due to the number of closures and amalgamations that have taken place in recent years. Post offices are very accessible because many of them are located on streets on which small businesses are to be found. When they visit their post offices, people also frequent these businesses and shop locally. If post offices are closed, the businesses to which I refer will also close and more ghost villages will be created as a result. Post offices provide excellent service in the context of facilitating people's passport applications and giving them access to State savings and investment options. I am of the view that they could also play a role in the context of the new driving licence initiative. Great credit is due to the Deputy Healy for drafting this motion. When I first read the motion, I could not envisage how the Government could table an amendment to it. The Deputy is basically calling on the Government to develop a comprehensive action plan. The Government's amendment acknowledges that the network is a vital and unique asset and states that it is "essential to our local communities and the country as a whole". If we all agree that it is essential, then why has an amendment been tabled and why is Deputy Healy's motion, as drafted, not being accepted? I accept the use of e-mail has caused a decline but I do not think that decline is irreversible. I would hate to see us lose the art of letter-writing and I would hate to think of what could have been lost if e-mail had been invented years ago. The Government amendment acknowledges the suitability of the post office network for over-the-counter business and service. The Minister stated in his contribution that maintaining the post office network is at the heart of national and local community life. Competition law and procurement are all very well but they should not be favoured at the expense of a viable, thriving business that is providing essential services to the communities we all represent in both urban and rural areas.  Listen to Maureen's question
25 February Schools Guidance Counsellors
107. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Skills his views on the national audit of guidance and counselling practice in second level schools in Ireland 2011-2013; the implications of the national audit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8918/14] Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: My question relates to the national audit on guidance counselling which was carried out by the National Centre for Guidance in Education. While the question refers to the years 2011 to 2013, the centre has updated its review to 2014. Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I propose to take Questions Nos. 107 and 120 together. The survey cited by the Deputy is focused on guidance counsellors, in particular on the time spent by them in a one-to-one setting giving career guidance and student counselling. It is important to note that guidance is a whole-school activity and does not only involve the guidance counsellor. For this reason, the implications of the survey are somewhat limited. Wherever possible, group work and class-based activity should be used to maximise the amount of time available for those pupils who are in most need of one-to-one support. Section 9(c) of the Act requires schools to use their available resources to ensure students have access to appropriate guidance to assist them in their educational and career choices. Given that guidance is a whole-school activity and does not just involve the guidance counsellor, the type of data suggested by the Deputy would not give the complete picture on guidance provision. The returns my Department receives from schools is focused on pupil enrolments and this information is used to determine staffing and grant allocations. I do not intend to add to the administrative workload of schools by requiring them also to submit the type of information suggested by the Deputy. The Department does not hold any information on guidance counsellors, including their qualifications. Having teachers trained as guidance counsellors is of course valuable but given that it is a whole-school activity, we need to be careful that an emphasis on qualifications does not result in a restriction on who can best contribute to the needs and welfare of students. In regard to the number of hours guidance counsellors were given to do their work, it should be noted that schools have autonomy on managing guidance provision from within their standard staffing allocations. I do not intend to micro-manage schools in relation to guidance or indeed the subject choices they make. Furthermore, I am reluctant to add to their administrative workload by requiring them to make overly detailed returns to the Department. I am confident schools act in the best interests of students when determining how best to use the teaching resources available to them. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: The finding of the audit undertaken by the guidance counsellors was supported by the review of the National Centre for Guidance Excellence which recommended the restoration of the ex-quota allocations for guidance. I accept that guidance is a whole-school activity, as the Minister said, but there is a need within schools for somebody to drive that. As a result of cutbacks, the middle management layer in our schools, particularly voluntary secondary schools, has been eliminated, resulting in the onus being much more on principals. This means they have too much work to do to be the driver of this. What we have within the guidance counsellor is a person with a basic qualification. I know, as I am sure the Minister does, that many guidance counsellors have done considerable courses in counselling and psychotherapy in their own time and at their own expense. These people are not being fully utilised. I will not argue with the Minister in regard to the statistics and the manner in which they are collected, except to say that I am speaking about people already in the system and the impact of cuts in this area. At a time when there is great emphasis on mental health and the promotion of mental health, we are eliminating a group of people who are highly skilled and can be part of that process. We are missing out on those skills. Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I welcome the Deputy's comments and acknowledge her personal experience in this area. I do not intend to return to the ex-quota system. I would like to see additional resources become available in order that we could increase the staffing allocation generally, but it is for the school leadership and principals of schools to decide how best to deploy those resources, although I believe I am at variance with some of the people in the Institute of Guidance Counsellors here in this regard. The Deputy referred to teachers with a basic secondary qualification upskilling to become guidance counsellors. There is evidence - largely anecdotal but we will soon have statistics in this regard - of massive investment in CPD by teachers across a whole spectrum of areas, of which counselling and guidance is but one. I would like to see that recognised in the first instance. Hopefully the registrar of the Teaching Council will be able to do this so that we will not have to undertake the type of statistical exercise mentioned by the Deputy. It is important we ensure best use of that skill set in our schools. I accept that as a result of cuts introduced in various budgets dating back as far as 2009, middle management has been hollowed out and this needs to be restored as soon as possible. I intend to do that. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: One thing I acknowledge in the report is the statistic that 96% of guidance counsellors are released from their schools for supervision, and that is good. Another statistic indicates that fee-paying schools have lost less as a result of the impact of what has been happening with guidance counsellors. I acknowledge that for any ill that comes up in society the answer is that the schools will deal with it. We are losing the skill set of a group of people who could be leaders when it comes to addressing the ills that come up in society. |
20 February Tuberculosis Incidence Badger Culls
Maureen O'Sullivan 221. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will confirm when the results from several badger vaccination trials will be released; if he will cease badger culling in the meantime in view of the fact that €3.4 million was spent on culling 6,939 badgers in 2012 and only 55 less cattle were diagnosed with Bovine TB in comparison to 2011, and in view of the fact that the transmission route is still unknown between badger and cattle; if he will not cease culling, if he will provide a closed season between January and May when badgers cannot be culled as they are breeding and while a detailed survey has not been carried out to clarify present badger populations which may be significantly affected due to years of culling practices; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8873/14] 
19 February Human Rights Issues
Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will commit to including human rights issues in his discussions when visiting foreign countries; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8050/14] 
18 February National Monuments
182. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 48 of 6 February 2014, the person who will receive the public money now being set aside for the restoration of the national monument at Moore Street.. [7773/14] 
06 February National Monuments
48. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Finance the reason the National Asset Management Agency continues to pay a €200,000 salary to a developer while its companies experience huge debts; the reason funding cannot then be made available to construct a national monument with a commemorative centre for Moore Street to honour the 1916 Easter Rising leaders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6046/14] 
06 February Magazine Fort OPW Properties
74. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans for the historic Magazine Fort in the Phoenix Park. [5753/14] 
04 February Flood Insurance Coverage
173. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to a possible arrangement between the Government and flood insurance companies which offers fairer solutions that balance out the flood cost between stakeholders, while making flood cover affordable to residents; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5226/14] 
04 February Child Care Costs
601. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs if as part of her intention to review all the childcare support programmes and other proposals she will consider a proposal to have child care costs taken from gross rather than net pay of a parent or parents in an effort to provide the maximum benefit to parents while maintaining availability of high-quality child care supports; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5396/14] 
04 Feb Human Rights Issues Serious Violence against Rohingya Muslims
147. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has made representations to Myanmar officials urging them to investigate reports of more than 40 persons having been killed in attacks on Rohingya Muslims as called for by the UN human rights chief, Navi Pillay; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4861/14] |
Listen to Maureen speaking
21 February Judicial Appointments Bill
(34th Amendment to Constitution)
We all accept that transparency and accountability are very fine principles but we hear the words so much - there is possibly over-use – that there is a danger of them becoming clichés and therefore meaningless. We cannot allow that to happen because transparency and accountability are very much part of democracy and the democratic process. The Bill also contributes to transparency and accountability.
Ba mhaith liom aitheantas a thabhairt don obair a dhein an Teachta Dála Shane Ross i gcomhair an Bhille seo.
I was also struck by one aspect of Article 35, namely, that judges shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial functions. It makes sense that the process of appointing judges is also an independent process and that it is visibly independent. Various comments have been made about decisions made by judges within the system. Like any system - human nature being what it is - decisions made by judges have been criticised by civil society groups, organisations and individuals where they were most unhappy with the decisions. Taking judicial appointments out of the political arena could only enhance democracy.
Individual members of the Judiciary have expressed their concerns about the system. For example, the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary issued the Dublin declaration on standards for recruiting and appointing judges. Chief Justice Denham saw it as a possible new standard for appointing judges. The Minister welcomed the declaration. He said a better architecture could be put in place than exists at present. The Bill could be part of that architecture.
There were a number of themes in the public consultation the Minister initiated. Again, Chief Justice Denham raised one that he had omitted, namely, the need to recruit persons of highest quality and ability to the Judiciary. Judges themselves in each of the courts are supportive of the call for a different process of judicial appointments. We know that we are losing so much confidence in our systems and institutions, therefore it is vital that we start the process of restoring confidence. Taking the appointment of judges out of the hands of the governing political parties is a step in the right direction.
I was struck by a quote from a judge. The point that was made is that it is increasingly clear that the relative success of the administration of justice in Ireland has been achieved in spite of rather than because of the appointment system. The other telling words in the quote are “relative success”. Judges perceive there to be difficulties within the system. The current system is a flawed process. In addition, it was said that the process of judicial appointment should first and foremost enhance the principle of judicial independence upon which the rule of law in our democracy is built. That is what Deputy Ross’s Bill is doing.
I found one part of the submission by judges disquieting and disturbing. It is where they make the point that high quality experienced candidates will not be attracted to the Bench because of recent changes to their pensions. Judges are very well paid and they can look after their own pensions from the remuneration they receive.
I support the idea of the broad spectrum of society but I have reservations about the process involving an Oireachtas committee. I would prefer to see the entire system taken out of the hands of those in political life.
(34th Amendment to Constitution)
We all accept that transparency and accountability are very fine principles but we hear the words so much - there is possibly over-use – that there is a danger of them becoming clichés and therefore meaningless. We cannot allow that to happen because transparency and accountability are very much part of democracy and the democratic process. The Bill also contributes to transparency and accountability.
Ba mhaith liom aitheantas a thabhairt don obair a dhein an Teachta Dála Shane Ross i gcomhair an Bhille seo.
I was also struck by one aspect of Article 35, namely, that judges shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial functions. It makes sense that the process of appointing judges is also an independent process and that it is visibly independent. Various comments have been made about decisions made by judges within the system. Like any system - human nature being what it is - decisions made by judges have been criticised by civil society groups, organisations and individuals where they were most unhappy with the decisions. Taking judicial appointments out of the political arena could only enhance democracy.
Individual members of the Judiciary have expressed their concerns about the system. For example, the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary issued the Dublin declaration on standards for recruiting and appointing judges. Chief Justice Denham saw it as a possible new standard for appointing judges. The Minister welcomed the declaration. He said a better architecture could be put in place than exists at present. The Bill could be part of that architecture.
There were a number of themes in the public consultation the Minister initiated. Again, Chief Justice Denham raised one that he had omitted, namely, the need to recruit persons of highest quality and ability to the Judiciary. Judges themselves in each of the courts are supportive of the call for a different process of judicial appointments. We know that we are losing so much confidence in our systems and institutions, therefore it is vital that we start the process of restoring confidence. Taking the appointment of judges out of the hands of the governing political parties is a step in the right direction.
I was struck by a quote from a judge. The point that was made is that it is increasingly clear that the relative success of the administration of justice in Ireland has been achieved in spite of rather than because of the appointment system. The other telling words in the quote are “relative success”. Judges perceive there to be difficulties within the system. The current system is a flawed process. In addition, it was said that the process of judicial appointment should first and foremost enhance the principle of judicial independence upon which the rule of law in our democracy is built. That is what Deputy Ross’s Bill is doing.
I found one part of the submission by judges disquieting and disturbing. It is where they make the point that high quality experienced candidates will not be attracted to the Bench because of recent changes to their pensions. Judges are very well paid and they can look after their own pensions from the remuneration they receive.
I support the idea of the broad spectrum of society but I have reservations about the process involving an Oireachtas committee. I would prefer to see the entire system taken out of the hands of those in political life.
Hear Maureen's Question
19 February Dáil Question Foreign Conflicts West Bank Palestine Illegal Settlements
7. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in view of the fact that the EU Foreign Ministers in May 2012 strongly criticised the marked acceleration of settlement construction and called for full application of existing EU legislation regarding products from settlements, the action he is prepared to take on these issues. [8049/14]
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: There is absolutely no doubt that the continued acceleration in settlement building is having a detrimental and negative effect on what is happening in the West Bank and is threatening all the talks about a two-state solution. It was criticised by the EU Foreign Ministers in May 2012 but it is still continuing. What are the direct negotiations or direct talks that are taking place with the Israeli authorities on the matter of the settlements and settlement goods?
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: The Foreign Affairs Council conclusions of May 2012, to which Ireland strongly contributed, were an important statement of EU policy on the Middle East conflict. They identified a range of critical and negative Israeli policies which needed to be changed. Many of these centred around the continuing expansion of settlements, which I have consistently identified as a central issue in the conflict.
The Council’s call for full application of existing EU legislation relating to products from settlements related primarily to the non-eligibility of settlement products for the lower tariffs applicable to goods from Israel. I would have been happy to see a stronger wording on this issue, and have worked since then to increase EU pressure on the issue of settlements.
Further discussion has centred on the issue of labelling of settlement goods, to prevent them being misleadingly labelled as coming from Israel. In February 2013 the EU High Representative committed to prepare EU guidelines on labelling of settlement products, an initiative which I had encouraged and strongly supported.
These guidelines are in preparation, involving both the External Action Service and the European Commission, but there is a tacit acceptance by the Council that it would not be opportune to move to finalise them at this moment, when direct negotiations between the parties are under way in the region. The objective of the negotiations is of course a comprehensive agreement which would resolve the issue of settlements, and of settlement products, in a much more definitive and satisfactory way. The EU also adopted guidelines in June 2013 making clear the non-eligibility of entities in settlements to benefit from EU research funding.
In my view the EU needs to be stronger in following up on the issues identified in the May 2012 Council Conclusions.
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: In the meantime the settlements continue to be built. Leaving the legal argument and the moral argument about settlements aside, there is also a massive environmental impact of all these settlements. It is only when one is there that one sees for oneself the extent of the land taken up and the open spaces that were left available, the massive pressure on water and the difficulties of Palestinian people moving from one area to another. There is also much disquiet and anger among ordinary Israeli people and Israeli NGOs about what is going on. They do want to see further settlement building. All the policy statements and all the calls are not having any effect. That is the whole crux of the matter. If it continues like this there will not be a state left for Palestine to be part of a two-state solution given the amount of encroachment.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: There is no doubt that the settlements should not be continuing. The Deputy is correct that if the settlements do continue they will make the development of the two-state solution physically impossible. They will effectively sever the northern-southern part of the West Bank. They are having a huge impact around Jerusalem and Israel should stop settlement expansion, particularly in the context of the talks that are now under way. It is welcome that discussions are under way. I compliment, in particular, Secretary of State, Mr. John Kerry, on the initiative he took in that regard. He discussed that issue with European Union Foreign Ministers and directly with me. We support the work that is being done on those talks. So far as the European Union position is concerned I am glad that in May 2012 a very strong position was adopted by the European Union, a stronger position than had been adopted previously. As the Deputy is aware it was very difficult to get agreement at European Union level on this issue. I would like to see it followed through more strongly and I am seeking to have that done at the European Union Foreign Affairs Council and we will continue to do that.
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: I wish to make to make two further points. While the Minister mentioned Jerusalem, the other area that needs to be mentioned is the Jordan Valley and what is happening there with particular ethnic groups and the way in which they are being physically removed from their land. When one is there and sees the particular areas, it is clear that Palestinian people are trying to hold on to a tiny piece of land while all this encroachment is taking place. It is very visible in Hebron. The issues occurring there mean that Palestinian people are prevented from earning a living because of the letting situation and because of where the borders are situated. Unfortunately, the policies are not working and are not having any effect.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: This has been a long-standing issue. There has been a stand-off for a very long period. I am glad that discussions are under way and I want to see those succeed. I think the European Union has a role in supporting the talks. It has a role into the future in its relationship with Israel and with the Palestinian state. It needs to pursue more strongly the conclusions reached in May 2012. Reaching those conclusions in May 2012 was significant because for a long period there had been divided opinion and divided loyalties within and among European Union member states on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Reaching an agreed position was significant but it needs to be followed through and the best way of doing that is in the context of the talks that are taking place.
7. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in view of the fact that the EU Foreign Ministers in May 2012 strongly criticised the marked acceleration of settlement construction and called for full application of existing EU legislation regarding products from settlements, the action he is prepared to take on these issues. [8049/14]
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: There is absolutely no doubt that the continued acceleration in settlement building is having a detrimental and negative effect on what is happening in the West Bank and is threatening all the talks about a two-state solution. It was criticised by the EU Foreign Ministers in May 2012 but it is still continuing. What are the direct negotiations or direct talks that are taking place with the Israeli authorities on the matter of the settlements and settlement goods?
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: The Foreign Affairs Council conclusions of May 2012, to which Ireland strongly contributed, were an important statement of EU policy on the Middle East conflict. They identified a range of critical and negative Israeli policies which needed to be changed. Many of these centred around the continuing expansion of settlements, which I have consistently identified as a central issue in the conflict.
The Council’s call for full application of existing EU legislation relating to products from settlements related primarily to the non-eligibility of settlement products for the lower tariffs applicable to goods from Israel. I would have been happy to see a stronger wording on this issue, and have worked since then to increase EU pressure on the issue of settlements.
Further discussion has centred on the issue of labelling of settlement goods, to prevent them being misleadingly labelled as coming from Israel. In February 2013 the EU High Representative committed to prepare EU guidelines on labelling of settlement products, an initiative which I had encouraged and strongly supported.
These guidelines are in preparation, involving both the External Action Service and the European Commission, but there is a tacit acceptance by the Council that it would not be opportune to move to finalise them at this moment, when direct negotiations between the parties are under way in the region. The objective of the negotiations is of course a comprehensive agreement which would resolve the issue of settlements, and of settlement products, in a much more definitive and satisfactory way. The EU also adopted guidelines in June 2013 making clear the non-eligibility of entities in settlements to benefit from EU research funding.
In my view the EU needs to be stronger in following up on the issues identified in the May 2012 Council Conclusions.
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: In the meantime the settlements continue to be built. Leaving the legal argument and the moral argument about settlements aside, there is also a massive environmental impact of all these settlements. It is only when one is there that one sees for oneself the extent of the land taken up and the open spaces that were left available, the massive pressure on water and the difficulties of Palestinian people moving from one area to another. There is also much disquiet and anger among ordinary Israeli people and Israeli NGOs about what is going on. They do want to see further settlement building. All the policy statements and all the calls are not having any effect. That is the whole crux of the matter. If it continues like this there will not be a state left for Palestine to be part of a two-state solution given the amount of encroachment.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: There is no doubt that the settlements should not be continuing. The Deputy is correct that if the settlements do continue they will make the development of the two-state solution physically impossible. They will effectively sever the northern-southern part of the West Bank. They are having a huge impact around Jerusalem and Israel should stop settlement expansion, particularly in the context of the talks that are now under way. It is welcome that discussions are under way. I compliment, in particular, Secretary of State, Mr. John Kerry, on the initiative he took in that regard. He discussed that issue with European Union Foreign Ministers and directly with me. We support the work that is being done on those talks. So far as the European Union position is concerned I am glad that in May 2012 a very strong position was adopted by the European Union, a stronger position than had been adopted previously. As the Deputy is aware it was very difficult to get agreement at European Union level on this issue. I would like to see it followed through more strongly and I am seeking to have that done at the European Union Foreign Affairs Council and we will continue to do that.
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: I wish to make to make two further points. While the Minister mentioned Jerusalem, the other area that needs to be mentioned is the Jordan Valley and what is happening there with particular ethnic groups and the way in which they are being physically removed from their land. When one is there and sees the particular areas, it is clear that Palestinian people are trying to hold on to a tiny piece of land while all this encroachment is taking place. It is very visible in Hebron. The issues occurring there mean that Palestinian people are prevented from earning a living because of the letting situation and because of where the borders are situated. Unfortunately, the policies are not working and are not having any effect.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: This has been a long-standing issue. There has been a stand-off for a very long period. I am glad that discussions are under way and I want to see those succeed. I think the European Union has a role in supporting the talks. It has a role into the future in its relationship with Israel and with the Palestinian state. It needs to pursue more strongly the conclusions reached in May 2012. Reaching those conclusions in May 2012 was significant because for a long period there had been divided opinion and divided loyalties within and among European Union member states on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Reaching an agreed position was significant but it needs to be followed through and the best way of doing that is in the context of the talks that are taking place.
Listen to exchange on Iran Embassy
19 February Dáil Priority Question Diplomatic Representation (Embassy in Iran)
3. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the reasons his Department did not consider reopening the embassy in Iran as part of the further openings announced; the criteria used to prioritise a country for a new embassy or reopening of an embassy previously closed; the costs, including expenses for having an honorary consul as opposed to a small embassy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8240/14]
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: My question relates to the criteria used for the reopening of embassies, the opening of new ones and the costs involved, with particular reference to an embassy in Iran.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Ireland’s diplomatic and consular network is at the forefront of efforts to promote our political and economic interests and values and in providing important services for the people and business community. Ireland’s diplomatic network comprises 56 embassies, seven multilateral missions and ten consulates general and other offices. This network will be further expanded as the new missions approved by the Government in January are set up this year. The configuration of the State’s diplomatic and consular network is kept under ongoing review by the Government. A range of factors are taken into account in considering our diplomatic representation overseas, including national political, economic and trade priorities, as well as the availability of resources. This question is also being considered in the context of the review of Ireland’s foreign policy and external relations being undertaken by my Department. I can confirm that consideration was given to reopening the embassy in Tehran as part of the current expansion of our mission network. However, as I noted during my recent appearance before the Oireachtas Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade to discuss my Department’s revised Estimates for 2014, the current resource constraints do not allow us to have resident representation in all of the locations that might objectively justify it having regard to political, economic and trade factors. The Government is conscious of the political, economic and trade factors that might warrant the opening of resident diplomatic missions in Iran and several other countries. We are conscious also that the change of government in Iran and the subsequent interim agreement on the nuclear issue hold out some promise for a general improvement in Iran’s international relations. The recent visit of a delegation to Tehran by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, in which the Deputy took part, was a recognition and encouragement of that trend. As the Deputy will probably be aware from her recent visit, my Department appointed an Honorary Consul of Ireland in Tehran in June 2012. Honorary consuls receive an honorarium of €1,125 per annum and are allowed to retain half of the consular fees they collect for the services they provide such as visa or passport applications and the authentication of documents. The costs of providing an honorary consular service are obviously considerably lower than operating a resident diplomatic mission. However, honorary consular representation is of a fundamentally different nature from diplomatic representation and I do not consider it to be a substitute for a resident diplomatic presence.
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: Would it not have been more logical to wait for the completion of the review of our foreign policy and then to decide which embassies would reopen and where new embassies would be established? I am delighted that the Vatican embassy will reopen, but the criterion in that regard was the fight against global hunger and poverty, which is wonderful. Is this part of the strategy for all embassies? As the Minister acknowledged, Deputies Seán Crowe, Eric Byrne and I visited Iran as part of a delegation recently. Many of us, in particular Government Deputies, were regretful about the closure of the embassy there. It was said that had been done for economic reasons and the impression was given that it would only be a matter of time before it was reopened. We were only back one week when the list of embassy openings and reopenings was announced, with no mention of Iran. The timing was bad in this regard.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: We have a small footprint compared to other countries in respect of our representation abroad. I have expressed the wish to have it expanded, but because we have a small footprint, we have to change it on a continuing basis, as our needs and demands change. The Deputy asked why we could not wait until after the review of foreign policy had been completed. A number of reviews are under way. For example, the review of trade, tourism and investment has been completed and makes it clear that we need to have a greater presence in South-East Asia where we are under represented, South America, Africa arising from our Africa strategy and the United States. With regard to the timing of the announcement, rotation of diplomatic missions occurs in the summer and, therefore, decisions must be made early in the year. If we did not do so this year, nothing would be implemented until the early part of 2015. For a variety of reasons, including the trade imperative in a number of countries and the review of the millennium development goals which the Deputy mentioned, it is necessary to move on changing the missions now.
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: There are concerns among NGOs about the balance between human rights issues and promoting our trade and economic interests. The Minister referred to diplomatic representation being about upholding our values. We went on a trade mission to Iran and there was no difficulty in discussing human rights issues, whether it was the death penalty or conditions in prisons and for prisoners. Human rights must be part of the brief of any delegation that travels abroad, although not in an intrusive, lecturing or hectoring way. However, these issues must be on the agenda in order that we continue to fulfil our commitments on human rights.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: This country has a strong record and reputation internationally for the promotion of human rights and we will maintain this. The promotion of human rights operates in tandem with our trade work. Trade agreements signed by the European Union have a human rights dimension; therefore, we give huge attention to the promotion of human rights in our work on the Human Rights Council. Iran, the subject of the Deputy's question, is very much on our radar. The location of missions will be kept under review. We considered Iran as part of the latest review and it will be considered in future reviews.
3. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the reasons his Department did not consider reopening the embassy in Iran as part of the further openings announced; the criteria used to prioritise a country for a new embassy or reopening of an embassy previously closed; the costs, including expenses for having an honorary consul as opposed to a small embassy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8240/14]
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: My question relates to the criteria used for the reopening of embassies, the opening of new ones and the costs involved, with particular reference to an embassy in Iran.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Ireland’s diplomatic and consular network is at the forefront of efforts to promote our political and economic interests and values and in providing important services for the people and business community. Ireland’s diplomatic network comprises 56 embassies, seven multilateral missions and ten consulates general and other offices. This network will be further expanded as the new missions approved by the Government in January are set up this year. The configuration of the State’s diplomatic and consular network is kept under ongoing review by the Government. A range of factors are taken into account in considering our diplomatic representation overseas, including national political, economic and trade priorities, as well as the availability of resources. This question is also being considered in the context of the review of Ireland’s foreign policy and external relations being undertaken by my Department. I can confirm that consideration was given to reopening the embassy in Tehran as part of the current expansion of our mission network. However, as I noted during my recent appearance before the Oireachtas Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade to discuss my Department’s revised Estimates for 2014, the current resource constraints do not allow us to have resident representation in all of the locations that might objectively justify it having regard to political, economic and trade factors. The Government is conscious of the political, economic and trade factors that might warrant the opening of resident diplomatic missions in Iran and several other countries. We are conscious also that the change of government in Iran and the subsequent interim agreement on the nuclear issue hold out some promise for a general improvement in Iran’s international relations. The recent visit of a delegation to Tehran by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, in which the Deputy took part, was a recognition and encouragement of that trend. As the Deputy will probably be aware from her recent visit, my Department appointed an Honorary Consul of Ireland in Tehran in June 2012. Honorary consuls receive an honorarium of €1,125 per annum and are allowed to retain half of the consular fees they collect for the services they provide such as visa or passport applications and the authentication of documents. The costs of providing an honorary consular service are obviously considerably lower than operating a resident diplomatic mission. However, honorary consular representation is of a fundamentally different nature from diplomatic representation and I do not consider it to be a substitute for a resident diplomatic presence.
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: Would it not have been more logical to wait for the completion of the review of our foreign policy and then to decide which embassies would reopen and where new embassies would be established? I am delighted that the Vatican embassy will reopen, but the criterion in that regard was the fight against global hunger and poverty, which is wonderful. Is this part of the strategy for all embassies? As the Minister acknowledged, Deputies Seán Crowe, Eric Byrne and I visited Iran as part of a delegation recently. Many of us, in particular Government Deputies, were regretful about the closure of the embassy there. It was said that had been done for economic reasons and the impression was given that it would only be a matter of time before it was reopened. We were only back one week when the list of embassy openings and reopenings was announced, with no mention of Iran. The timing was bad in this regard.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: We have a small footprint compared to other countries in respect of our representation abroad. I have expressed the wish to have it expanded, but because we have a small footprint, we have to change it on a continuing basis, as our needs and demands change. The Deputy asked why we could not wait until after the review of foreign policy had been completed. A number of reviews are under way. For example, the review of trade, tourism and investment has been completed and makes it clear that we need to have a greater presence in South-East Asia where we are under represented, South America, Africa arising from our Africa strategy and the United States. With regard to the timing of the announcement, rotation of diplomatic missions occurs in the summer and, therefore, decisions must be made early in the year. If we did not do so this year, nothing would be implemented until the early part of 2015. For a variety of reasons, including the trade imperative in a number of countries and the review of the millennium development goals which the Deputy mentioned, it is necessary to move on changing the missions now.
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: There are concerns among NGOs about the balance between human rights issues and promoting our trade and economic interests. The Minister referred to diplomatic representation being about upholding our values. We went on a trade mission to Iran and there was no difficulty in discussing human rights issues, whether it was the death penalty or conditions in prisons and for prisoners. Human rights must be part of the brief of any delegation that travels abroad, although not in an intrusive, lecturing or hectoring way. However, these issues must be on the agenda in order that we continue to fulfil our commitments on human rights.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: This country has a strong record and reputation internationally for the promotion of human rights and we will maintain this. The promotion of human rights operates in tandem with our trade work. Trade agreements signed by the European Union have a human rights dimension; therefore, we give huge attention to the promotion of human rights in our work on the Human Rights Council. Iran, the subject of the Deputy's question, is very much on our radar. The location of missions will be kept under review. We considered Iran as part of the latest review and it will be considered in future reviews.
Listen Debate on Dublin Port
18 February Dáil Priority Question Ports Policy
93. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on the key issues for Dublin Port; his further views on the ports package and the port services directive; if he will protect union involvement and support worker protection; and his views on the need for stability for those companies who have invested in the port. [7994/14]
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: My question concerns plans for the future of Dublin Port. I wish to ensure security and stability for those who are currently working there and the companies that have invested in it.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: As the Deputy is aware, Dublin Port Company is responsible for the State’s largest port and handles over 40% of the total tonnage in any given year at Irish ports. The company’s importance is recognised in the national ports policy, which designates the company as a tier 1 port of national significance and includes the continued commercial development of the company as a key strategic objective. The company has published a master plan, which is available on its website and outlines its view of the challenges and opportunities for the period 2012 to 2040.
As the Deputy states, there is a proposed regulation on port services and the financial transparency of ports, published by the European Commission in late May 2013 and currently under consideration by the European Parliament’s transport committee and also by member state officials at Council level. My Department published a regulatory impact analysis in August 2013 outlining the regulation’s proposals and circulated it among the relevant stakeholders, including the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. My Department's analysis, supported by submissions received during the consultation period, was that the proposed regulation would have little impact on how port services are provided in Irish ports. As part of my Department's consultations, no specific or general concerns were raised about the impact of this proposed directive on union involvement or worker participation in Irish ports; nor have any such concerns been raised in response to the national ports policy, published in 2013.
In late November 2013, the Competition Authority published its review of competition within the ports sector This report states that competition is working well in some areas, but the authority makes a number of recommendations for consideration that it believes will further improve competition in the sector. In regard to Dublin Port specifically, the Competition Authority has made two specific recommendations. As stated in National Ports Policy, I am committed to issuing a reasoned response to the Competition Authority’s recommendations within six months of the publication of the report.
The company recently published on its website a franchise review consultation document that outlines its views on the future management of port service operations within the port, which my officials are considering.
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: Those who favour competition will say it will lead to more jobs and growth, whereas those considering liberalisation will say it could result in job losses and a deterioration in working conditions. There is a fear that profitability margins dictating policy and procedure will have negative effects on those companies that have been working at the port over the years and which have invested heavily therein.
The issue of the workers also arises. I am from a dockland community and know the way in which workers' rights, conditions, health and safety and a proper working wage have been fought for and negotiated down through the years. I can remember a family who were involved in the button system and all the abuses that occurred at that stage. I acknowledge the work of some of the unions, particularly that of the Marine, Port and General Workers' Union under the late Jimmy Dunne. There are fears.
The Competition Authority is pushing for more licenses. This will bring in other companies that could bring in workers at the minimum wage or lower. How can the traditional companies and traditional dockland families who have been doing their jobs year after year and handing down the tradition compete with that? The wages and conditions of those in this group are seriously compromised, as could be health and safety.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: It is worth pointing out that Dublin Port is now a very lean operation; it has only approximately 100 staff. Effectively, the port is now a landlord and estate management company. The terminals are operated by three different private companies, all of which are competing with one another. I am satisfied with the level of internal competition in the port. I do not recognise any major need for increased competition at the port, although I acknowledge that the Competition Authority makes some valid points about the length of leases. In some cases, they are very long. The authority's view is that leases for as long as 90 years are inappropriate.
At the same time, we all know about property rights and I suspect it would be very hard to untangle those leases. Even when it comes to issuing more licences, and the port is open to doing that, one would have to ask where those additional people would base themselves on the port estate. I do not know how that will work out.
As regards the national ports policy, I refer to the view of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on our national ports policy, which is the Government's policy, not the Competition Authority's report, which is a different thing. It states that ICTU welcomes the broad thrust of the policy. With regard to the regulation to which the Deputy referred, ICTU says its understands that this regulation is now under active consideration. It says that it has studied the proposed regulation and at this point does not see any policy emerging that is likely to result in the requirement to fundamentally change the organisation of the ports in the Republic of Ireland. It has asked the European Transport Workers' Federation to keep it up to speed on any emerging developments so that it might offer a further view on this matter.
We remain engaged with ICTU on this issue. There is no agenda from the Government to drive down terms and conditions or wages at the port.
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: I wish to acknowledge the positive response from Dublin Port, the extent of the community engagement and the community liaison person who works directly with local communities, in addition to the way in which it is involved in middle management training with ports in certain African countries. The other aspect is its engagement with a dockers' museum, which I hope will be realised. It has been very supportive of it. However, is there a strong role for Dublin Port and for the Minister in the EU social dialogue committee, which was established last June?
Deputy Leo Varadkar: I am not aware of that committee nor am I a member of it, but I will be happy to reply by correspondence.
93. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on the key issues for Dublin Port; his further views on the ports package and the port services directive; if he will protect union involvement and support worker protection; and his views on the need for stability for those companies who have invested in the port. [7994/14]
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: My question concerns plans for the future of Dublin Port. I wish to ensure security and stability for those who are currently working there and the companies that have invested in it.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: As the Deputy is aware, Dublin Port Company is responsible for the State’s largest port and handles over 40% of the total tonnage in any given year at Irish ports. The company’s importance is recognised in the national ports policy, which designates the company as a tier 1 port of national significance and includes the continued commercial development of the company as a key strategic objective. The company has published a master plan, which is available on its website and outlines its view of the challenges and opportunities for the period 2012 to 2040.
As the Deputy states, there is a proposed regulation on port services and the financial transparency of ports, published by the European Commission in late May 2013 and currently under consideration by the European Parliament’s transport committee and also by member state officials at Council level. My Department published a regulatory impact analysis in August 2013 outlining the regulation’s proposals and circulated it among the relevant stakeholders, including the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. My Department's analysis, supported by submissions received during the consultation period, was that the proposed regulation would have little impact on how port services are provided in Irish ports. As part of my Department's consultations, no specific or general concerns were raised about the impact of this proposed directive on union involvement or worker participation in Irish ports; nor have any such concerns been raised in response to the national ports policy, published in 2013.
In late November 2013, the Competition Authority published its review of competition within the ports sector This report states that competition is working well in some areas, but the authority makes a number of recommendations for consideration that it believes will further improve competition in the sector. In regard to Dublin Port specifically, the Competition Authority has made two specific recommendations. As stated in National Ports Policy, I am committed to issuing a reasoned response to the Competition Authority’s recommendations within six months of the publication of the report.
The company recently published on its website a franchise review consultation document that outlines its views on the future management of port service operations within the port, which my officials are considering.
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: Those who favour competition will say it will lead to more jobs and growth, whereas those considering liberalisation will say it could result in job losses and a deterioration in working conditions. There is a fear that profitability margins dictating policy and procedure will have negative effects on those companies that have been working at the port over the years and which have invested heavily therein.
The issue of the workers also arises. I am from a dockland community and know the way in which workers' rights, conditions, health and safety and a proper working wage have been fought for and negotiated down through the years. I can remember a family who were involved in the button system and all the abuses that occurred at that stage. I acknowledge the work of some of the unions, particularly that of the Marine, Port and General Workers' Union under the late Jimmy Dunne. There are fears.
The Competition Authority is pushing for more licenses. This will bring in other companies that could bring in workers at the minimum wage or lower. How can the traditional companies and traditional dockland families who have been doing their jobs year after year and handing down the tradition compete with that? The wages and conditions of those in this group are seriously compromised, as could be health and safety.
Deputy Leo Varadkar: It is worth pointing out that Dublin Port is now a very lean operation; it has only approximately 100 staff. Effectively, the port is now a landlord and estate management company. The terminals are operated by three different private companies, all of which are competing with one another. I am satisfied with the level of internal competition in the port. I do not recognise any major need for increased competition at the port, although I acknowledge that the Competition Authority makes some valid points about the length of leases. In some cases, they are very long. The authority's view is that leases for as long as 90 years are inappropriate.
At the same time, we all know about property rights and I suspect it would be very hard to untangle those leases. Even when it comes to issuing more licences, and the port is open to doing that, one would have to ask where those additional people would base themselves on the port estate. I do not know how that will work out.
As regards the national ports policy, I refer to the view of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on our national ports policy, which is the Government's policy, not the Competition Authority's report, which is a different thing. It states that ICTU welcomes the broad thrust of the policy. With regard to the regulation to which the Deputy referred, ICTU says its understands that this regulation is now under active consideration. It says that it has studied the proposed regulation and at this point does not see any policy emerging that is likely to result in the requirement to fundamentally change the organisation of the ports in the Republic of Ireland. It has asked the European Transport Workers' Federation to keep it up to speed on any emerging developments so that it might offer a further view on this matter.
We remain engaged with ICTU on this issue. There is no agenda from the Government to drive down terms and conditions or wages at the port.
Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan: I wish to acknowledge the positive response from Dublin Port, the extent of the community engagement and the community liaison person who works directly with local communities, in addition to the way in which it is involved in middle management training with ports in certain African countries. The other aspect is its engagement with a dockers' museum, which I hope will be realised. It has been very supportive of it. However, is there a strong role for Dublin Port and for the Minister in the EU social dialogue committee, which was established last June?
Deputy Leo Varadkar: I am not aware of that committee nor am I a member of it, but I will be happy to reply by correspondence.
Hear Maureen speaking
12 February Recent Flooding
All the recent storm damage is reminding us of our own helplessness and vulnerability when it comes to the force of nature. Perhaps nature is trying to remind us about how much we have disregarded all the warnings about climate change. We are experiencing what has been experienced by countries in the developing world for many years. In many cases, warnings on climate change were not heeded. Another factor in what we are witnessing is bad planning and not giving enough consideration to the long-term effects of planning decisions. Going back several thousand years, there were various reasons town and villages were located where they are, including access to water, transport and security. However, urbanisation has taken place and our infrastructure cannot cope with the increasing demands on it.
In the past when flooding occurred, there was an immediate outcry and response and then it went off the agenda until the next storm happened. However, what we are experiencing now is unprecedented. As previous speakers said, nobody has witnessed this in their lifetime. It is very much time for action.
Dublin Central has experienced severe flooding in recent times. Fortunately, it has not happened this week and I am afraid I may be tempting fate given the weather outside. I live in East Wall and the last time the area was flooded, it was like living on a lake. People passed my house in canoes and small boats. We know what people in other parts of the country are experiencing at the moment.
The media coverage will mention the destruction in houses and people always talk about the smell that lingers. This has resulted in houses almost being rebuilt, which brings me to the issue of insurance. I have been in contact with various insurance companies, Insurance Ireland and the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, about this. In October 2012 I tabled a parliamentary question to him about his engagement with Insurance Ireland because no insurance was being provided for homes in which extensive flood repair work had been carried out or for homes that were not flooded but were located in areas that were flooded. His reply stated, "In areas where flood defence and alleviation works have been carried out, I cannot accept that any property protected by significant public capital investment would not be able to receive a quotation for insurance at a reasonable cost". That was positive and he also acknowledged that he had been involved in constructive engagement with the insurance industry about the scope and scale of works being carried out by the OPW or by local authorities with OPW funding. Much work was done on that.
I engaged in further correspondence with the Minister of State about insurance coverage last October and his reply was different. He said insurance companies make commercial decisions on the provision of insurance cover based on their assessment of the risks and they use their own flood risk survey and mapping information. He also said the OPW has no role or function in the oversight or regulation of the insurance industry or of insurance matters generally. I then received correspondence about what British insurance brokers were doing and about suggestions they had made to a parliamentary committee in England. I was in touch with the Minister for Finance and he replied: "The issue of provision of new flood cover or the renewal of existing flood cover is a commercial matter for insurance companies, which is based on a proper assessment of the risks that they are accepting".
Last Friday, the Dublin city manager met Deputies and Senators from the city. A series of works on rivers, boardwalks and canals was outlined, yet it does not seem to be getting through to insurance companies that these works have been done and they are not reacting at all. An incident room has also been set up in Dublin.
All the recent storm damage is reminding us of our own helplessness and vulnerability when it comes to the force of nature. Perhaps nature is trying to remind us about how much we have disregarded all the warnings about climate change. We are experiencing what has been experienced by countries in the developing world for many years. In many cases, warnings on climate change were not heeded. Another factor in what we are witnessing is bad planning and not giving enough consideration to the long-term effects of planning decisions. Going back several thousand years, there were various reasons town and villages were located where they are, including access to water, transport and security. However, urbanisation has taken place and our infrastructure cannot cope with the increasing demands on it.
In the past when flooding occurred, there was an immediate outcry and response and then it went off the agenda until the next storm happened. However, what we are experiencing now is unprecedented. As previous speakers said, nobody has witnessed this in their lifetime. It is very much time for action.
Dublin Central has experienced severe flooding in recent times. Fortunately, it has not happened this week and I am afraid I may be tempting fate given the weather outside. I live in East Wall and the last time the area was flooded, it was like living on a lake. People passed my house in canoes and small boats. We know what people in other parts of the country are experiencing at the moment.
The media coverage will mention the destruction in houses and people always talk about the smell that lingers. This has resulted in houses almost being rebuilt, which brings me to the issue of insurance. I have been in contact with various insurance companies, Insurance Ireland and the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, about this. In October 2012 I tabled a parliamentary question to him about his engagement with Insurance Ireland because no insurance was being provided for homes in which extensive flood repair work had been carried out or for homes that were not flooded but were located in areas that were flooded. His reply stated, "In areas where flood defence and alleviation works have been carried out, I cannot accept that any property protected by significant public capital investment would not be able to receive a quotation for insurance at a reasonable cost". That was positive and he also acknowledged that he had been involved in constructive engagement with the insurance industry about the scope and scale of works being carried out by the OPW or by local authorities with OPW funding. Much work was done on that.
I engaged in further correspondence with the Minister of State about insurance coverage last October and his reply was different. He said insurance companies make commercial decisions on the provision of insurance cover based on their assessment of the risks and they use their own flood risk survey and mapping information. He also said the OPW has no role or function in the oversight or regulation of the insurance industry or of insurance matters generally. I then received correspondence about what British insurance brokers were doing and about suggestions they had made to a parliamentary committee in England. I was in touch with the Minister for Finance and he replied: "The issue of provision of new flood cover or the renewal of existing flood cover is a commercial matter for insurance companies, which is based on a proper assessment of the risks that they are accepting".
Last Friday, the Dublin city manager met Deputies and Senators from the city. A series of works on rivers, boardwalks and canals was outlined, yet it does not seem to be getting through to insurance companies that these works have been done and they are not reacting at all. An incident room has also been set up in Dublin.
Listen to Maureen speak
12 Feb (Public Health) Sunbeds
It is something of a paradox that we are talking about sunbeds and the need to have a suntan given the weather we are having. In another way, however, that perhaps explains people's need to have a year-round tanned complexion or a tan for special occasions.
Tanning is a business, and a very lucrative one, whether it is in regard to the sunbeds we are discussing, the various lotions that have come on the market or the need to go on holidays in sunny climates for that special occasion. It is interesting that at different stages in our history, we would not be having this debate because there were times when having a chalky white complexion was the look to have, and a ruddy or tanned complexion was considered to be for the labouring classes only. Times have changed.
This Bill has been underway for some time now and it is a good preventative measure with regard to cancer. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo. Is mian liom tacaíocht a thabhairt don Bhille. I support what is in the Bill but I also want to acknowledge what the Irish Cancer Society has been saying, particularly its concerns that the Bill does not go far enough. At present, however, there is no regulation of sunbeds in Ireland, so the Bill is certainly progress on that front.
I want to acknowledge what the Bill will do. It ensures anyone under 18 cannot use a sunbed on official premises and prohibits the use of sunbeds on unsupervised premises. The sunbed operators will have to make users fully aware of the risks and warning signs must be in place in all sunbed operation establishments. Nonetheless, how the ban on the use of sunbeds on unsupervised premises will be enforced and monitored is highly problematic.
With regard to the risk warnings for those over 18 years of age, one of the points made by the Irish Cancer Society is that the Bill does not prohibit people with type 1 and type 2 skin, the fairer skin types, from using sunbeds, although such people cannot use them in Australia. As pointed out by the Irish Cancer Society, in Australia every client has to have a skin type assessment before using a solarium. Reference was made to the Fitzpatrick scale, which categorises the various skin types. It seems to be a straightforward skin type assessment, and I do not know where there could be a problem in applying it here.
With regard to warnings, we know that warning people of the risks associated with smoking is not having a major impact. Likewise, warning people of the risks associated with misuse and abuse of alcohol is not having a major impact. I sometimes wonder if it is making any impact when we see the amount of money that goes on the issues relating to the misuse of alcohol, whether that has to do with health or crime. We warn people about the dangers of getting involved with heroin, cocaine, snow blow and benzos, but they are still using them. We warn people about the sugar content in fizzy drinks but what we see are increasingly high levels of obesity. I hope putting warnings on sunbeds does not have a similar effect. It is a very problematic area, and, while we want it to have an effect, we have many examples where warnings are not working.
Skin cancer is the most common cancer in Ireland. There are deaths from skin cancer as well as increases in cases of melanoma. Some nine out of ten cases of skin cancer are caused by UV rays from the sun or from sunbeds, so reduced exposure to UV rays equals reducing the risk of developing skin cancer. The other fact I have alluded to is that people with fair skin or skin that burns easily - type 1 or type 2 skin - have an increased risk of developing cancer. Therefore, eliminating those people from being able to use these sunbeds would also be an improvement.
This does not mean we are living in a nanny state but that we are living in a caring state. In this context banning those under 18 years of age is also progress because those who start before the age of 30 have a 75% increased risk of malignant melanoma. Another alarming statistic from the Irish Cancer Society concerns the number of people under 25 who use sunbeds. What is really disturbing for me is the number of children, not just in Dublin but elsewhere too, whose parents seem to think using a sunbed before holy communion or confirmation is the way to go. I do not know what can be done to get the message home to such parents of the dangers involved.
Today, there are all sorts of tanning lotions, false tans and false sprays. Great improvements have been made from the days of the orange, "Oompa Loompa" look, so I cannot understand why there is not more of an emphasis on increasing the use of lotions and sprays instead of sunbeds. I would like to see sunbeds limited altogether, in the same way as with smoking. However, as with smoking, we just have to keep going.
It is something of a paradox that we are talking about sunbeds and the need to have a suntan given the weather we are having. In another way, however, that perhaps explains people's need to have a year-round tanned complexion or a tan for special occasions.
Tanning is a business, and a very lucrative one, whether it is in regard to the sunbeds we are discussing, the various lotions that have come on the market or the need to go on holidays in sunny climates for that special occasion. It is interesting that at different stages in our history, we would not be having this debate because there were times when having a chalky white complexion was the look to have, and a ruddy or tanned complexion was considered to be for the labouring classes only. Times have changed.
This Bill has been underway for some time now and it is a good preventative measure with regard to cancer. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo. Is mian liom tacaíocht a thabhairt don Bhille. I support what is in the Bill but I also want to acknowledge what the Irish Cancer Society has been saying, particularly its concerns that the Bill does not go far enough. At present, however, there is no regulation of sunbeds in Ireland, so the Bill is certainly progress on that front.
I want to acknowledge what the Bill will do. It ensures anyone under 18 cannot use a sunbed on official premises and prohibits the use of sunbeds on unsupervised premises. The sunbed operators will have to make users fully aware of the risks and warning signs must be in place in all sunbed operation establishments. Nonetheless, how the ban on the use of sunbeds on unsupervised premises will be enforced and monitored is highly problematic.
With regard to the risk warnings for those over 18 years of age, one of the points made by the Irish Cancer Society is that the Bill does not prohibit people with type 1 and type 2 skin, the fairer skin types, from using sunbeds, although such people cannot use them in Australia. As pointed out by the Irish Cancer Society, in Australia every client has to have a skin type assessment before using a solarium. Reference was made to the Fitzpatrick scale, which categorises the various skin types. It seems to be a straightforward skin type assessment, and I do not know where there could be a problem in applying it here.
With regard to warnings, we know that warning people of the risks associated with smoking is not having a major impact. Likewise, warning people of the risks associated with misuse and abuse of alcohol is not having a major impact. I sometimes wonder if it is making any impact when we see the amount of money that goes on the issues relating to the misuse of alcohol, whether that has to do with health or crime. We warn people about the dangers of getting involved with heroin, cocaine, snow blow and benzos, but they are still using them. We warn people about the sugar content in fizzy drinks but what we see are increasingly high levels of obesity. I hope putting warnings on sunbeds does not have a similar effect. It is a very problematic area, and, while we want it to have an effect, we have many examples where warnings are not working.
Skin cancer is the most common cancer in Ireland. There are deaths from skin cancer as well as increases in cases of melanoma. Some nine out of ten cases of skin cancer are caused by UV rays from the sun or from sunbeds, so reduced exposure to UV rays equals reducing the risk of developing skin cancer. The other fact I have alluded to is that people with fair skin or skin that burns easily - type 1 or type 2 skin - have an increased risk of developing cancer. Therefore, eliminating those people from being able to use these sunbeds would also be an improvement.
This does not mean we are living in a nanny state but that we are living in a caring state. In this context banning those under 18 years of age is also progress because those who start before the age of 30 have a 75% increased risk of malignant melanoma. Another alarming statistic from the Irish Cancer Society concerns the number of people under 25 who use sunbeds. What is really disturbing for me is the number of children, not just in Dublin but elsewhere too, whose parents seem to think using a sunbed before holy communion or confirmation is the way to go. I do not know what can be done to get the message home to such parents of the dangers involved.
Today, there are all sorts of tanning lotions, false tans and false sprays. Great improvements have been made from the days of the orange, "Oompa Loompa" look, so I cannot understand why there is not more of an emphasis on increasing the use of lotions and sprays instead of sunbeds. I would like to see sunbeds limited altogether, in the same way as with smoking. However, as with smoking, we just have to keep going.
Hear Maureen speaking
11 February Dáil Childcare Motion
At the heart of tonight's Private Members' business is the creation of a more level playing field for parents in respect of child care. I want to acknowledge the work of Deputy Troy and the manner in which the motion sets out the various services that are provided through the community and private and public sectors, the number of staff employed therein and the number of children in child care of one form or another. I also acknowledge the fine work being done by the community child care facilities and after school clubs in my constituency of Dublin Central.
I recently received a letter from a constituent which I believe is relevant to tonight's debate. The letter outlines the stress which the woman and her family are under as a result of the cost of child care. It states that 44% of the family's net income is spent on crèche costs for three children. Both parents work full-time, one in the public sector and the other in the private sector. The letter states that they have been sensible, pay their mortgage and live a quiet life because all of their money goes on crèche fees. The Minister has acknowledged the relatively high cost of child care and has stated that she is aware of the difficulties in this regard. The constituent asks in her letter that crèche fees be taken from their gross rather than net pay. The Minister said that this proposal was considered in the context of the targeted child care supports but that the issues do not favour child care tax relief because it would not support parents working in the home, it could be seen as discriminatory and that the reliefs would favour the better paid. The stay-at-home parent is not paid but he or she also does not have child care costs. The term "better paid" is relative because it is precluding people who are in genuine need of help with child care costs in order to remain in full-time employment. If they remain in employment, they pay their taxes to the State and are able to pay their property tax, etc. Coming out of employment would result in their becoming a burden on the State. I believe that the introduction of some tax credit is a better and more economic alternative than adding to the numbers of people already unemployed. Tax credits means more spending power for the family.
The Minister outlined the various programmes available. The woman concerned cannot access the CCS programme because she is not in receipt of social welfare; the CETS programme is for trainees and students and while she does avail of the ECCE programme she must pay for the first half hour and the final hour and a half of the child's stay at creche. The Minister stated that she is reviewing all child care supports and that her aim is affordable quality preschool care, which is everybody's concern. I hope recognition will be given to those parents who are in the middle group, want to and are working, and do not want to have to give up their employment.
At the heart of tonight's Private Members' business is the creation of a more level playing field for parents in respect of child care. I want to acknowledge the work of Deputy Troy and the manner in which the motion sets out the various services that are provided through the community and private and public sectors, the number of staff employed therein and the number of children in child care of one form or another. I also acknowledge the fine work being done by the community child care facilities and after school clubs in my constituency of Dublin Central.
I recently received a letter from a constituent which I believe is relevant to tonight's debate. The letter outlines the stress which the woman and her family are under as a result of the cost of child care. It states that 44% of the family's net income is spent on crèche costs for three children. Both parents work full-time, one in the public sector and the other in the private sector. The letter states that they have been sensible, pay their mortgage and live a quiet life because all of their money goes on crèche fees. The Minister has acknowledged the relatively high cost of child care and has stated that she is aware of the difficulties in this regard. The constituent asks in her letter that crèche fees be taken from their gross rather than net pay. The Minister said that this proposal was considered in the context of the targeted child care supports but that the issues do not favour child care tax relief because it would not support parents working in the home, it could be seen as discriminatory and that the reliefs would favour the better paid. The stay-at-home parent is not paid but he or she also does not have child care costs. The term "better paid" is relative because it is precluding people who are in genuine need of help with child care costs in order to remain in full-time employment. If they remain in employment, they pay their taxes to the State and are able to pay their property tax, etc. Coming out of employment would result in their becoming a burden on the State. I believe that the introduction of some tax credit is a better and more economic alternative than adding to the numbers of people already unemployed. Tax credits means more spending power for the family.
The Minister outlined the various programmes available. The woman concerned cannot access the CCS programme because she is not in receipt of social welfare; the CETS programme is for trainees and students and while she does avail of the ECCE programme she must pay for the first half hour and the final hour and a half of the child's stay at creche. The Minister stated that she is reviewing all child care supports and that her aim is affordable quality preschool care, which is everybody's concern. I hope recognition will be given to those parents who are in the middle group, want to and are working, and do not want to have to give up their employment.
Hear Maureen speaking
07 February Down's Syndrome (Equality of Acess) Bill
We have two very good documents in our State, one is the Proclamation of the Republic and the other is our Constitution. Both of them guarantee equality and we often refer to the principle of the Proclamation of "cherishing all the children of the nation equally". We seem to be committed to the principle of equality and treating people equally but the reality is that we are not equal. Children born with special needs are not equal with other children who do not have those special needs. Children with special needs have to be treated differently in order that they can reach some level of equality with children who do not have special needs. All their parents are saying is: "Give our children a level playing field". In order to ensure a level playing there must be active, positive discrimination in favour of children with special needs. Is cúis áthais dom é go bhfuil deis agam labhairt ar an mBille seo. Ceapaim go bhfuil sé soiléir nach mbeadh an reachtaíocht seo os comhair an Tí murach an obair a rinne an Teachta Finian McGrath. I want to acknowledge the work of Deputy Finian McGrath not only on this legislation on special needs but on his dedicated and his long campaign as a parent, teacher, principal and TD on the whole area of special needs education. He invited members of the Technical Group to join him on the plinth in the summer when he launched this Bill and the press were invited but none of its members turned up. That just shows the interest in the media in children with special needs.
The central point is that because Down's syndrome is not listed as a complex, low incidence disorder, some children with Down's syndrome are not entitled to resource hours. Because of that classification of Down's syndrome for some as a mild learning disability, some children are not getting the extra hours that they need. Added to that, the cuts have been harsh. At times of financial pressure and constraint why is it that the needy and the vulnerable have to suffer?
This Bill will give children with special needs the resources they need to get on the level playing field. I speak from having long experience of teaching in a school that had a very open admissions policy and was very inclusive of children with special needs. I know from that experience the difference that the extra hours and the resources make and did make to children with special needs. It was great and we all got so much joy out of seeing those children with special needs - children with Down's syndrome - achieving their junior certificate and going on further.
I wish to make some general points. A very complicated system is in place for mainstream schools which have children with special needs, even though the National Council for Special Education has given some clarity and clearance on eligibility with the special educational needs organisers. I want to acknowledge the work of principals who have to do a great deal of juggling with the various allocations they are given. They have hours for special needs assistants, learning supports and resource teaching. The special needs assistants are supposed to look after the care needs of a child and that includes hanging up the child's coat, bringing the child to the toilet, getting the child's books ready and so on. Special needs assistants go further and get involved in helping the child with his or her homework and classwork. We are missing out a great deal in terms of the potential of special needs assistants when we do not examine their role further. There is a post leaving certificate course on the care of the special child and those who successfully complete it get a FETAC award and other qualifications and we could examine the role in that respect. A student can have teaching support but not special needs assistant support because of the rules applying to special needs students with regard to extensive care needs and issues where they would be a danger to themselves and others, but there are children with needs not in those categories who could benefit from the support of an special needs assistant.
Learning support is based on the number of children enrolled - I refer to the general allocations - but I believe it should be based on the needs of the individual child and not on the number enrolled in a school, and then it comes down to resource teaching. It is very problematic for schools when it comes to ensuring that each individual student receives allocated support. That is due to the logistical and financial constraints schools face. For example, a student could be awarded five hours weekly tuition but the wherewithal to deliver that on an individual basis may not be possible. Therefore, team teaching or group resource teaching may be used but then there will be other issues. There are difficulties for mainstream schools, including children with special needs. To take the example of a mainstream school, I could have 25 students and be teaching a curriculum to teenagers who all have varying social and behavioural needs, and in that context including special needs students without the resources would be a disserve and detrimental to all of those students.
The term "educational apartheid" has been used. Some schools that are very successful in including children with special needs get a name for being so and other schools are opting out of that responsibility. I hope the working group will examine this aspect. Down Syndrome Ireland tells us that the cost of including Down's syndrome on the low incidence list is less than €1 million. It is a paltry amount. I want to make it clear that we need a simpler and more straightforward system to ensure that children with special needs of whatever type are adequately served by our system. I hope the working group will tackle that and that we get that system.
We have two very good documents in our State, one is the Proclamation of the Republic and the other is our Constitution. Both of them guarantee equality and we often refer to the principle of the Proclamation of "cherishing all the children of the nation equally". We seem to be committed to the principle of equality and treating people equally but the reality is that we are not equal. Children born with special needs are not equal with other children who do not have those special needs. Children with special needs have to be treated differently in order that they can reach some level of equality with children who do not have special needs. All their parents are saying is: "Give our children a level playing field". In order to ensure a level playing there must be active, positive discrimination in favour of children with special needs. Is cúis áthais dom é go bhfuil deis agam labhairt ar an mBille seo. Ceapaim go bhfuil sé soiléir nach mbeadh an reachtaíocht seo os comhair an Tí murach an obair a rinne an Teachta Finian McGrath. I want to acknowledge the work of Deputy Finian McGrath not only on this legislation on special needs but on his dedicated and his long campaign as a parent, teacher, principal and TD on the whole area of special needs education. He invited members of the Technical Group to join him on the plinth in the summer when he launched this Bill and the press were invited but none of its members turned up. That just shows the interest in the media in children with special needs.
The central point is that because Down's syndrome is not listed as a complex, low incidence disorder, some children with Down's syndrome are not entitled to resource hours. Because of that classification of Down's syndrome for some as a mild learning disability, some children are not getting the extra hours that they need. Added to that, the cuts have been harsh. At times of financial pressure and constraint why is it that the needy and the vulnerable have to suffer?
This Bill will give children with special needs the resources they need to get on the level playing field. I speak from having long experience of teaching in a school that had a very open admissions policy and was very inclusive of children with special needs. I know from that experience the difference that the extra hours and the resources make and did make to children with special needs. It was great and we all got so much joy out of seeing those children with special needs - children with Down's syndrome - achieving their junior certificate and going on further.
I wish to make some general points. A very complicated system is in place for mainstream schools which have children with special needs, even though the National Council for Special Education has given some clarity and clearance on eligibility with the special educational needs organisers. I want to acknowledge the work of principals who have to do a great deal of juggling with the various allocations they are given. They have hours for special needs assistants, learning supports and resource teaching. The special needs assistants are supposed to look after the care needs of a child and that includes hanging up the child's coat, bringing the child to the toilet, getting the child's books ready and so on. Special needs assistants go further and get involved in helping the child with his or her homework and classwork. We are missing out a great deal in terms of the potential of special needs assistants when we do not examine their role further. There is a post leaving certificate course on the care of the special child and those who successfully complete it get a FETAC award and other qualifications and we could examine the role in that respect. A student can have teaching support but not special needs assistant support because of the rules applying to special needs students with regard to extensive care needs and issues where they would be a danger to themselves and others, but there are children with needs not in those categories who could benefit from the support of an special needs assistant.
Learning support is based on the number of children enrolled - I refer to the general allocations - but I believe it should be based on the needs of the individual child and not on the number enrolled in a school, and then it comes down to resource teaching. It is very problematic for schools when it comes to ensuring that each individual student receives allocated support. That is due to the logistical and financial constraints schools face. For example, a student could be awarded five hours weekly tuition but the wherewithal to deliver that on an individual basis may not be possible. Therefore, team teaching or group resource teaching may be used but then there will be other issues. There are difficulties for mainstream schools, including children with special needs. To take the example of a mainstream school, I could have 25 students and be teaching a curriculum to teenagers who all have varying social and behavioural needs, and in that context including special needs students without the resources would be a disserve and detrimental to all of those students.
The term "educational apartheid" has been used. Some schools that are very successful in including children with special needs get a name for being so and other schools are opting out of that responsibility. I hope the working group will examine this aspect. Down Syndrome Ireland tells us that the cost of including Down's syndrome on the low incidence list is less than €1 million. It is a paltry amount. I want to make it clear that we need a simpler and more straightforward system to ensure that children with special needs of whatever type are adequately served by our system. I hope the working group will tackle that and that we get that system.
Hear Maureen's statement
05 February Dáil Statement Northern Ireland
Tá sé tábhachtach agus oiriúnach go bhfuil an díospóireacht seo againn inniu. Tá a fhios againn go léir cad a tharla sna Sé Chontae - na daoine a fuair bás, na daoine a bhí gortaithe, na daoine a bhfuil gortaithe go fóill, an íobairt, an féiníobairt, an obair i rith na blianta i dtreo is go mbeadh síocháin linn inniu agus Comhaontú Aoine an Chéasta.
This is an important debate and we must, first, acknowledge the pain, suffering, destruction and sacrifices people experienced in Northern Ireland. We must also acknowledge the extent of the work and commitment that went into realising the Good Friday Agreement. It was disappointing to listen to contributions in which Deputies only seemed to recognise the role of members of their own parties in bringing about peace. Peace would not have come except that it was comprehensive, involving players from all walks of life. I acknowledge the front-line players and those behind the scenes who did so much to bring it about. No one wants to see it jeopardised and the Six Counties descend into trouble, but there is no doubt that there are serious threats to peace. The Irish section of the Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa, AWEPA, which I chair, had parliamentarians from north African conflict countries such as Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen in Ireland at the weekend. I was struck by what was common between them and what had happened in the North of Ireland. They had also experienced bloodshed, destruction and loss of life. They must deal with the legacy of bitterness and hurt. However, they were proactive and definite in what they appreciated - the values of freedom, democracy, social justice and equality. That is what they are trying to bring into constitutions. Equality means no discrimination on the grounds of gender, creed, sexuality or ethnicity. Human rights are at its core. I was struck by two points which had been made forcefully. One was on the need not to exclude anyone from political dialogue. The other was that no country could become complacent about safeguarding liberty and justice. There are groups in the North which are excluded from political dialogue and we have become complacent about the rights to justice and fairness of certain groups and individuals there.
With other Deputies, we have been involved in the promotion of the human rights of prisoners in Northern prisons. Meeting and listening to them has been frustrating because we see what is happening to them as undermining the peace process. It is certainly not conducive to maintaining peace. People in prison in the North, both loyalists and republicans, were denied justice. They feel they have been left behind by their leaders. Strip searching is a significant issue for them. In the two years we have been travelling there, very little progress has been made on that issue. Issues stem from the time of the dirty protest and protests by loyalists and there are outstanding issues. What is horrifying is the way licences have been revoked without giving a reason. We have met people who have been in jail for four years without charges being brought against them. If people are suspected of committing a crime, charges should be brought against them and due process followed. Depriving them of their rights is a recipe for disaster and will only fuel violence and threaten the Good Friday Agreement, which we see happening. We have also seen disengagement and the lack of interest among some in authority. People who have never been charged with a crime have been released on very restrictive conditions. In certain cases, they deprive them of the right to make a living.
People disagree with the Good Friday Agreement. They are entitled to their opinion and express it, but they are not entitled to express it through violence. It also means listening to those who have outstanding issues, whether they are loyalist or republican. We have seen violence in the North, the murder of PSNI and prison officers, which is regrettable and horrifying. The perpetrators must be brought to justice, but that means having a thorough investigation in order that the real perpetrators are brought to justice, not just the targeting of known individuals. There are outstanding issues of collusion, finding the murderers of solicitors such as Rosemary Nelson and Pat Finucane, the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, the murder of members of the Miami Showband and the disappeared. We must acknowledge the success of the Good Friday Agreement. We meet people who come from other conflict areas who are very supportive and respectful of it. They see it as a landmark, one that they want to follow. We owe it to people in the North and other conflict areas who see it as something to which they should aspire to ensure the inclusion of all in political dialogue. We must not be complacent in this regard.
Tá sé tábhachtach agus oiriúnach go bhfuil an díospóireacht seo againn inniu. Tá a fhios againn go léir cad a tharla sna Sé Chontae - na daoine a fuair bás, na daoine a bhí gortaithe, na daoine a bhfuil gortaithe go fóill, an íobairt, an féiníobairt, an obair i rith na blianta i dtreo is go mbeadh síocháin linn inniu agus Comhaontú Aoine an Chéasta.
This is an important debate and we must, first, acknowledge the pain, suffering, destruction and sacrifices people experienced in Northern Ireland. We must also acknowledge the extent of the work and commitment that went into realising the Good Friday Agreement. It was disappointing to listen to contributions in which Deputies only seemed to recognise the role of members of their own parties in bringing about peace. Peace would not have come except that it was comprehensive, involving players from all walks of life. I acknowledge the front-line players and those behind the scenes who did so much to bring it about. No one wants to see it jeopardised and the Six Counties descend into trouble, but there is no doubt that there are serious threats to peace. The Irish section of the Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa, AWEPA, which I chair, had parliamentarians from north African conflict countries such as Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen in Ireland at the weekend. I was struck by what was common between them and what had happened in the North of Ireland. They had also experienced bloodshed, destruction and loss of life. They must deal with the legacy of bitterness and hurt. However, they were proactive and definite in what they appreciated - the values of freedom, democracy, social justice and equality. That is what they are trying to bring into constitutions. Equality means no discrimination on the grounds of gender, creed, sexuality or ethnicity. Human rights are at its core. I was struck by two points which had been made forcefully. One was on the need not to exclude anyone from political dialogue. The other was that no country could become complacent about safeguarding liberty and justice. There are groups in the North which are excluded from political dialogue and we have become complacent about the rights to justice and fairness of certain groups and individuals there.
With other Deputies, we have been involved in the promotion of the human rights of prisoners in Northern prisons. Meeting and listening to them has been frustrating because we see what is happening to them as undermining the peace process. It is certainly not conducive to maintaining peace. People in prison in the North, both loyalists and republicans, were denied justice. They feel they have been left behind by their leaders. Strip searching is a significant issue for them. In the two years we have been travelling there, very little progress has been made on that issue. Issues stem from the time of the dirty protest and protests by loyalists and there are outstanding issues. What is horrifying is the way licences have been revoked without giving a reason. We have met people who have been in jail for four years without charges being brought against them. If people are suspected of committing a crime, charges should be brought against them and due process followed. Depriving them of their rights is a recipe for disaster and will only fuel violence and threaten the Good Friday Agreement, which we see happening. We have also seen disengagement and the lack of interest among some in authority. People who have never been charged with a crime have been released on very restrictive conditions. In certain cases, they deprive them of the right to make a living.
People disagree with the Good Friday Agreement. They are entitled to their opinion and express it, but they are not entitled to express it through violence. It also means listening to those who have outstanding issues, whether they are loyalist or republican. We have seen violence in the North, the murder of PSNI and prison officers, which is regrettable and horrifying. The perpetrators must be brought to justice, but that means having a thorough investigation in order that the real perpetrators are brought to justice, not just the targeting of known individuals. There are outstanding issues of collusion, finding the murderers of solicitors such as Rosemary Nelson and Pat Finucane, the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, the murder of members of the Miami Showband and the disappeared. We must acknowledge the success of the Good Friday Agreement. We meet people who come from other conflict areas who are very supportive and respectful of it. They see it as a landmark, one that they want to follow. We owe it to people in the North and other conflict areas who see it as something to which they should aspire to ensure the inclusion of all in political dialogue. We must not be complacent in this regard.