Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 - 16th December 2008

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 – Committee Stage – 16th December 2008
Senator David Norris: I concur with Senator Fitzgerald. I am aware that there has been a problem for some time and it has been accepted practice that processing claims takes eight to ten weeks. The Department gave an explanation and stated that people receive an immediate gratuity or some other payment from their employer to tide them over. It seems harsh that people should be placed in this position.
The issue on which I ask for further information is recent newspaper reports, which I presume may have some substance as they appeared in reputable newspapers, that some of the Polish workers who were formerly employed here are flying over on cheap flights and collecting social welfare payments as if they were still resident here. I do not want to tar all Polish workers as I believe only a small minority is involved, as is the case in every community. There is, therefore, nothing anti-Polish in raising this issue. If, however, the reports are true, it is an abominable practice because it diminishes the pot for the rest of those experiencing difficult circumstances during a period of economic turbulence. Does the Minister have further information on the matter?

Deputy Mary Hanafin: Two separate issues have been raised. The length of time required to process claims is due to the pressure caused by the number of applications being received. Unfortunately, all offices have experienced a large increase in the number of people applying for jobseeker's allowance and jobseeker's benefit. To ensure we can expedite the processing of claims, approximately 30 additional staff were made available some months ago. The Department also received sanction for 115 extra staff who are being recruited from other Departments and moved into the relevant offices. We also established a special unit in the Townsend Street office consisting solely of deciding officers.
They will take claims from throughout the country and work very quickly through them to try to ensure people with claims can receive them before Christmas. We are targeting claims for jobseeker's allowance and benefit.
The jobseeker's benefit never takes as long because it is directly related to people having paid their social insurance stamps. The jobseeker's allowance, because it is a means tested payment, can take longer. We are very conscious of it and hope the extra staff in the special unit will help to expedite issues.
On the question asked by Senator Norris on potential fraud, there was anecdotal evidence some months ago that this was happening. To combat that, rather than having people sign on once a month and have their payment paid electronically through their bank and not have to collect it in person, I decided people could sign on once a month but had to collect their payment in the post office every week. The measure applied to new claimants and we are satisfied it has cut down substantially on any potential fraud. It is something we must keep under close control.

Senator Martin Brady: Senator Norris has covered some of what I wanted to say. Some constituents brought a matter to my attention of a situation where a landlord has a partner living under the same roof and the partner receives rent supplement. The evidence is anecdotal. I believe the situation is widespread in north Dublin. Is the Minister aware of this? If it is happening, what can be done about it? It is something I have not come across before.

Senator David Norris: I welcome the clarification the Minister has given. It is a good idea to have payments collected weekly.
Another element in the article I read stated that people are not normally asked for clear or photographic identification. Can the Minister consider introducing that through regulation? The same article had a build-up of so many incidental facts that an accurate case was suggested. It was suggested that some people were getting colleagues or friends to sign on for them and there was no photographic check, such as a driver's licences or passport.

Deputy Mary Hanafin: On Senator Brady's point on rent supplement, it is an area where, because we are spending €410 million, we must keep under control who is receiving it for whom. It can be difficult because we give it to the individual tenant rather than to a landlord. Records would not be kept under the name of a landlord but under the name of each individual tenant. I will check if we can have further control on that matter.
Senator Norris is correct. We do not look for photographic identification. When people come in to claim they must bring all their details with them. If we have evidence that people are signing on behalf of others, which was the story we both read, we must see how we can ensure the right people are getting the money.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator David Norris: I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, between lines 10 and 11, but in Part 1, to insert the following:
" "Spouse" shall be construed to include marriages and civil partnerships between persons of the same sex which would be recognised in other jurisdictions.".
This is an attempt redefine the term "spouse" to include same sex couples. In an extraordinary move a number of years ago, the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Mary Coughlan, on foot of a decision by the Equality Tribunal which found a case of serious discrimination and violation of human rights because a transport company had denied the same rights to a spouse in a same sex relationship that were available to heterosexual couples whether they were married or not, chose not to address this discrimination but copperfastened the violation of human rights by redefining "spouse" to exclude people. We were told, four or five years ago by the then Minister, Deputy Coughlan, that this matter would be addressed speedily and was a temporary tidying-up operation. It has been consistently long-fingered.
It is disgraceful that this Government, as far as I know, is the only one in Europe to have introduced highly discriminatory legislation of any kind against citizens in the last 15 years. Citizens were reassured by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, that they had exactly the rights, that it was the responsibility of the law to justify and vindicate those rights, and that sexual orientation must never be used as a reason for discriminating against people. In an attempt to be helpful, as I always am, I tabled this amendment to address this glaring, blatant and mean-minded attack on the civil and human rights of a vulnerable minority.

Senator Phil Prendergast: I support Senator Norris in this.

Deputy Mary Hanafin: I do not propose to accept the amendment. The reason is the preparation of the Civil Partnership Bill which, as the Senator knows, is due to be published early next year. It will give civil partnership registration for same sex couples and will also confer a range of rights and obligations. I intend, following the passing of that Bill, to ensure equivalent social welfare treatment will be extended in a future Social Welfare Bill to the category the Senator is talking about. It is appropriate at this stage, given how advanced the Civil Partnership Bill is, to wait until the issue is dealt with in that.

Senator David Norris: While I do not wish to impugn the Minister's honour or goodwill in this matter, since the Social Welfare Bill was used as an instrument to discriminate viciously against gay people, it is perfectly appropriate that it be used in a positive manner to remove the discrimination. There is nothing to prevent that in the future. It can be done now quite easily, simply and technically. It would be a good day's work.
I have heard about this Bill for the past four years. It has now been postponed until the end of 2009. I had a Civil Partnership Bill on the Order Paper of the House for four years and it was kicked to touch every time. I cannot remember how many committees there were. There was the Anne Colley committee, the human rights committee, the committee on the constitution and old Uncle Tom Cobley and all. The whole gasworks were involved in it and they all said, "Yes, go ahead and do it." The courts said the same. I do not know what the problem is. It is being long-fingered again.
I remind the Minister that justice delayed is justice denied. I look for the amendment to be accepted. I am not anti-family. I would like the Minister to know that because a Senator from Wexford on the Government side of the House produced material on supporting the family. It was apparently intended to undermine those of us taking a progressive point of view. I offered to sign it and begged to have it given to me so I too could support the family. I did not come out of the hot tap in the bath. I came from a family. I support the family. I do not support it with uncritical fervour regardless of whether the father is fiddling with the children or there are other types of abuse going on. There are some pretty rotten families. To use the family as a scapegoat for denying people human rights is an idiotic piece of nonsense. I do not accept what the Minister has to say on this issue.

Deputy Mary Hanafin: The difference between now and previous occasions is that the scheme for the Civil Partnership Bill was approved by Government last year. Preparation is well under way, unlike previous occasions when generalities were being discussed.

That Bill will have a significant impact on same sex couples and on their rights. Therefore, it is appropriate to wait until that Bill has dealt with those issues so that I can then follow it up afterwards in a social welfare Bill, which is my intention.

Senator David Norris: I thank the Minister for her courteous response. This will be my last intervention on this matter. To have something in the heads of a Bill does not matter a tuppenny damn. In the Charities Bill 2007, we had a clear indication that human rights would be included as it had been included in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England, Wales and even Australia. However, it was suddenly whipped out. How do I know that my human rights will not be whipped out at a convenient moment? The fact that it is in the heads of a Bill has no significance whatever in law. That is what we are here for. We are not here to daydream about how wonderful it might be in 2009 if the Government gets itself together and does something. We are here to legislate.
With the greatest regret, I do not accept what the Minister has to say. I have had too many promises for too long. There has been too much of what the late Sean O'Casey would have called "prognostication and prevarication". I will call votes on all these things from now until the Government stirs itself and does something. It has been long enough in the waiting.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 28.

Tá
Hannigan, Dominic.
Norris, David.
Ross, Shane.
Ryan, Brendan.


Níl
Boyle, Dan.
Brady, Martin.
Butler, Larry.
Callely, Ivor.
Carty, John.
Cassidy, Donie.
Corrigan, Maria.
Daly, Mark.
de Búrca, Déirdre.
Ellis, John.
Feeney, Geraldine.
Glynn, Camillus.
Hanafin, John.
Keaveney, Cecilia.
Leyden, Terry.
MacSharry, Marc.
Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
O'Brien, Francis.
O'Donovan, Denis.
O'Malley, Fiona.
O'Sullivan, Ned.
Ormonde, Ann.
Phelan, Kieran.
Quinn, Feargal.
Walsh, Jim.
White, Mary M.
Wilson, Diarmuid.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Dominic Hannigan and David Norris; Níl, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson.

Amendment declared lost.



Senator David Norris: I, too, support the amendment, particularly the element Senator Prendergast singled out, the issue of mortgages. I raised this issue on the Order of Business for many months before the situation became disastrous. I am concerned about it. At least, mortgage interest rates have fallen. However, we are moving towards a situation of considerable unemployment and the point made by my two colleagues about the banks is significant. The banks are being bailed out by taxpayers' money but there is still a significant number of repossessions. Over the past six months to a year I have put on record the steady increase in the number of repossession orders given by the courts in Dublin. One of the judges drew attention to this as an important and significant fact.
I will conclude by pointing to the biblical lesson in this. There is a parable in the Bible, with which the Minister will be familiar, about a man who is in debt to his master. The debt was forgiven by his master but the man was then utterly severe with somebody lower down the chain of indebtedness and insisted on his pound of flesh. The master took a grim view of that and of somebody whose debt had been forgiven being so unfeeling and callous. There is that element in the banks. They got themselves into this situation because they could not be bothered with the little people, the people who were described by an American woman, whose name I cannot recall, as the little people who pay taxes. These are the people who take out bank loans and so forth.


We have all seen the way in which the banks have treated ordinary customers with indifference and went after big corporate sources, futures, derivatives, gambling on the Stock Exchange and so forth. When they got themselves into trouble, however, they had to seek money from the taxpayer. That is all I have to say in support of my two colleagues.

Senator Paul Bradford: I concur with the previous three speakers on the issue of house repossessions. When the State, Government and taxpayer is coming to the aid of the banking and financial institutions in a fashion not yet determined, we need to demand some form of reciprocation. That so many people have difficulty with their mortgage repayments is a cause of grave concern. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the number of court orders for repossessions being granted each week is staggering. While action is not taken on foot of many of these court orders, once granted a repossession order may proceed. This leaves many people living in fear of losing their homes.
The Minister outlined the mechanisms in place to address this issue. The supplementary welfare system, for example, provides assistance for people in difficulty with mortgage repayments. We must send a strong political signal to the banks and mortgage agencies that we expect them to tread softly with regard to those in difficulty. As many Senators noted, the economy needs a banking system and financial houses if it is to survive. On the other hand, mortgage companies and banks also need customers and home owners if they are to survive. The Minister, Minister for Finance and Taoiseach should hold direct talks with the lending agencies to impress on them - we do not need to implore or beg them - that the financial institutions must respond to the generosity of the Government and taxpayers by showing flexibility, compassion and common sense to those experiencing financial difficulty.
Jobs are being lost at a record rate and the trend is set to continue for some time. However, like all economic cycles, the current one will come to an end. The majority of those experiencing mortgage difficulties are responsible citizens who are not seeking a free lunch but time and space to get their financial affairs in order. The financial institutions should respond generously and in the same fashion as the State responded when they found themselves in a difficult position in recent months.

Deputy Mary Hanafin: I am on record as asking financial institutions to show forbearance with clients, not to foreclose early and to give people an opportunity to reschedule their payments or pay only the interest on mortgages, an issue raised by Senator Prendergast. However, arrangements the Government makes on behalf of taxpayers to ensure money is made available more freely to the banks in order that small businesses can secure loans, overdrafts and credit are with the main financial and banking institutions. In general, these institutions are not seeking repossessions in the courts. It is the sub-prime lenders and mortgage companies, some of which gave mortgages too generously in the first instance, which are trying to claw back properties. For this reason, I am not sure to what extent the Government can influence the major banks. When I referred to this issue in conversation with the chief executive of one of the two large banks the other day, I was informed that the bank in question had only two or three repossessions. The Government is examining this issue.
Senator Prendergast referred to a sense of doom and gloom among members of the public. While there is no doubt she is correct, Ireland continues to attract significant foreign direct investment. Many major projects have been announced in recent months, for example, by Pfizer, Intel and Coca Cola, which will create jobs. Infrastructure is still being built and the Government continues to invest heavily in a range of projects. The Government will also announce an economic plan aimed at regenerating the economy.
I accept that many people are losing their jobs. Unfortunately, my Department has made provision for an average of 290,000 people being on the live register next year. This is terrible for the individuals in question and their families but we must ensure Irish entrepreneurs and companies around the world know that Ireland is open for business and has a well-educated, flexible and adaptable workforce. Employers like being here because the workforce is so flexible and adaptable. While the news on the jobs front has not been good, there is scope, through good economic planning, to be able to improve matters.

Senator Paul Bradford: Has the Minister held direct talks with the financial institutions on this issue and, if not, does she plan to do so? I noted her remark that she had made her views known. The Minister or other Ministers should discuss this issue with the banks and other mortgage lenders and strongly impress on them the Government's thinking and position on this issue. Will she consider doing this?

Deputy Mary Hanafin: I have not held formal talks. As I indicated, however, I had a casual conversation with the chief executive of one of the large banks. The Government deals with the major institutions whereas the companies taking cases to court tend to be sub-prime lenders. I have discussed the issue with the Minister for Finance and I may discuss it again.

An Cathaoirleach: Is the amendment being pressed?

Senator Nicky McFadden: While I do not propose to press the amendment, I implore the Minister to hold formal talks with the financial institutions to protect those who are suffering. She has the capacity to do this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 24 agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach: Amendment No. 12 in the name of Senator McFadden is out of order as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Amendment No. 12 not moved.



Senator David Norris: I will comment briefly on section 28? I pay tribute to the work that is done by the money advice and budgeting service. It is an important arm of the social welfare system. It does a great deal to assist people who are bewildered by the financial predicament in which they find themselves. I commend any provision the Minister might consider that would strengthen this worthwhile service, to which I pay tribute.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 29 agreed to.

SECTION 30.

Question proposed: "That section 30 stand part of the Bill."

Senator David Norris: I oppose this section of the Bill, just as I will oppose every section in Part 5. It may seem like a slight waste of time to oppose the definition of "agency" for the purposes of this part of the Bill. I will give my reasons for opposing Part 5 when we reach section 31, which provides for the dissolution of the Combat Poverty Agency.

Senator Nicky McFadden: I join Senator Norris in opposing Part 5 of the Bill. The Combat Poverty Agency has made a number of presentations to the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs. The agency has been exemplary in carrying out its research function. Its professionalism and expertise have allowed it to operate as an independent voice. It has been highly critical of a number of developments. It has spoken out on fuel poverty, for example. I completely disagree with the proposal to abolish the agency. I oppose Part 5 of the Bill.

Senator Phil Prendergast: I support what my colleagues have said about this excellent agency, which has done immense work over the years. I regret the Government's proposal to abolish the agency, which provides a great service.

Deputy Mary Hanafin: As Senators are aware, Part 5 of the Bill is necessary to give effect to the Government decision to integrate the Combat Poverty Agency with the Office of Social Inclusion in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The decision arose from a recommendation made by a review group that was established on foot of a Government decision in June 2007. Long before I was appointed as Minister for Social and Family Affairs, it was decided that it was necessary to review the role of the agency in light of changes that had happened in the preceding years. Other agencies and structures had been established to do the work associated with combating poverty that is central to the work of the Government and is of interest to all Senators and Deputies. Although the legal wording of section 31 of the Bill refers to the "dissolution" of the agency, it is not intended to absorb it without recognition into the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It is intended to enhance both sections, the Office of Social Inclusion and the Combat Poverty Agency, both of which do good work.
The Combat Poverty Agency was established at a trying time in Ireland, when it was decided that there was a need for a body to highlight issues, conduct independent research and contribute to Government policy. Those aims and aspirations are as relevant today as they were then. We have to look at what has happened in the meantime. The community and voluntary pillar has a valuable role in social partnership. There are offices of social inclusion in various Departments. A number of good non-governmental organisations contribute to policy-making and participate in the social inclusion and budget forums etc. The Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion has been mentioned. There is a high level group of Government officials in this area. Many people have contributed to the significant amount of research that has been undertaken in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. An independent voice has been given to those who experience poverty. One of the things the Combat Poverty Agency has been very good at is helping people to participate in domestic and EU forums in this country and in Brussels.
I envisage that all the work I have mentioned, such as the research and policy advice that directly gives a voice to those who experience poverty, will continue in an enhanced and focused way that ensures we get the best possible value from the skills of the staff of the Department and the agency. That was the intention of the review in the first instance. The challenge we face is to ensure that the new structure works. Although the board members and staff of the Combat Poverty Agency to whom I spoke expressed their disappointment with the Government's decision - they wanted the agency to be retained as an independent body - they are willing to co-operate to ensure that the work of the agency continues and is enhanced. I am satisfied that we can and will work with them to ensure that happens. I appreciate that other issues will be raised by Senators as this debate continues. The section of the Bill under discussion provides for the dissolution, in a legal sense, of the agency.

Senator David Norris: We are speaking about the section that sets out the definition of "agency".

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 31.

Question proposed: "That section 31 stand part of the Bill."

Senator David Norris: This section is strenuously opposed. I was interested in the Minister's comments during the debate on section 30. She seemed to be somewhat queasy about accepting responsibility for this decision. She pointed out that the original decision was not made on her watch. I agree with that and accept it. If she had been there, perhaps a voice might have been raised against it. She honestly accepted that there continues to be a need for independent research etc. and she suggested that this need could be met within the Department. That has not been the experience of any professional body I have ever come across. I have been involved in politics and management long enough to know that the proposal to incorporate, absorb or swallow the agency into the office of social inclusion is bad practice and will inevitably militate against the independence that is necessary. It has to be considered in the context of the destruction, in effect, not only of the Combat Poverty Agency but also of every other organ that has spoken out on behalf of marginalised people. The Government has a really shameful record in this regard. I am sorry that some of my decent friends are involved in it.
The Minister, Deputy Hanafin, used soft language when she said that the work of the Combat Poverty Agency will be "enhanced and focused". I would hate to be "enhanced and focused" in this manner because it would mean the extinction, in effect, of the life form that I am. If it is not the case that the agency is being made extinct, in effect, why is every group speaking out, as a coalition, against this savage attack on the most vulnerable people in society? In the week in which we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is absolutely insufferable that the Government is embarking on such a swinging series of demolitions. I do not accept the Minister's response. I spoke at great length about this issue. I do not intend to be tedious on this matter, unless I am seriously provoked. I am sure I would be restrained by the Cathaoirleach if I were to attempt to be tedious.
I do not believe for a single minute that any money will be saved as a result of this proposal. Questions about the nature of these savings have been asked by Senators on the Government side. During the break, while we were waiting for the last division to take place, I checked whether anything was lingering in my little postbox and I was rather interested to find a document setting out the details of a Supplementary Estimate of €50 million that is being provided for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

An Cathaoirleach: We are on section 31 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and we are not discussing agriculture.

Senator David Norris: I am exactly concentrating on that. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his guidance. The point I am making is that the Government can suddenly, at 6.50 p.m. on a Tuesday, find €50 million lying around the place, but apparently we are told there must be all these swinging cuts that do not save a penny, will create inefficiencies in the system and will deprive people of their rights. The Minister may well have been supplied with facts or figures that might appear to show otherwise. I will find great difficulty in swallowing them. If there is any serious intention to try to hoodwink people about this, why not subject it to an independent cost-benefit analysis and let us know what are the facts. I challenge the Government to do that. I bet it would not have the courage to do so because it knows what the answer will be, as do a few wise old birds on the other side of the House.
I am opposing this section. I shall probably confine myself to that one vote. It shames the House that these words should be read into the record: "The Agency shall be dissolved on the commencement of this Part." What an awful thing. As we go into the worst recession this country has probably ever seen, the Government addresses it, as it addressed the question of inequality and discrimination, not by curing it, not by reaching out and trying to do something positive, but instead by a negative and destructive action, by collapsing the agency that is more than ever needed during these difficult times. This is a shameful day's work and I shall certainly call a vote on this issue as I understand my colleagues who have spoken so effectively this afternoon also wish for a vote.

Senator Brendan Ryan: I am also amazed that the Minister would argue that the work of the Combat Poverty Agency would continue in a more focused manner following its abolition than if it were to continue.

Senator David Norris: Life after death.

Senator Brendan Ryan: I ask the Minister to comment further. It is beyond belief that she could argue that. The Labour Party will certainly be opposing the section.

Deputy Mary Hanafin: I certainly appreciate the interest and passion of the Senators on this matter. The interest and passion is more about combating poverty than in just having an agency, and everybody would share that. That will always be at the core of my policies, particularly in the portfolio I now hold. Senators will be well aware that the development of the DEIS scheme in education was about doing the same thing. When I talk about a focused way, I mean ensuring there is not overlap and duplication and that it can work closely with other State agencies and Departments, including the National Economic and Social Development Office, the National Economic and Social Council and others I did not mention earlier. It can be very focused because it can start work immediately on, for example, preparing for the European Year of Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion in 2010. As a group, they will be working closely on that and it gives them a set project to do. Together they will benefit from it.
Research is a really important part. I know that Senator Norris of all people would appreciate the importance of evidence-based work. It has been a measure of the importance they attach to it that the Office of Social Inclusion and the Combat Poverty Agency have commissioned research. While that will continue, it will not be just research commissioned as a result of a request, but they will initiate that type of work. We can only combat poverty if we know where is the particular need. They will be able to identify it from work and research they will do. They will continue to do that work, sharing the expertise they will have from the new division. At a strong policy level they will undoubtedly be able to enhance their work. They will be able to do it in a way that will feed into the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and to the various other bodies I mentioned earlier. They will also bring their skills and expertise to it in a way that will ensure that the voice of people experiencing poverty is heard.
I appreciate the work that has been done in recent years. However, the review was established not as a budgetary issue, but to ascertain how the work can continue in a way that will benefit policy most and to ensure it is feeding in properly. As a result of the review, this was the recommendation. From the manner in which the board, the staff and officials in my Department are working through what I appreciate is a difficult time for the staff, it is clear they are very anxious to ensure they keep working on the projects and research they have been working on and that they can start preparing for the European Year of Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion as a joint group.
I believe the integration - not the abolition - of the agency into the Office for Social Inclusion will ensure we are drawing from the best of the skills and talents of both groups. The Office for Social Inclusion as it stands will also be disbanded and an entirely new unit will be set up. The agency should in no way feel that it is just being brought into an existing office. It will be a new unit and that will give everybody an opportunity to draw on the best of what they do.

Senator David Norris: I am sure the Minister will be familiar with the historical use of the word "dissolution". It was used by Henry VIII. He dissolved the monasteries, and there is not much left of them.

Deputy Mary Hanafin: And his marriage.

Senator David Norris: He dissolved lots of marriages. He was an enthusiastic supporter of marriage. He was a great family man. He was a defender of the Catholic faith. What else can we say about such a remarkable scion of the Tudor family?

Deputy Mary Hanafin: And six wives.

Senator David Norris: It is dissolution. I agree that, of course, they are co-operative - that is their spirit of professionalism.
On the basis of this series of scandalous attacks on human rights, I will write to every international organisation I can think of indicating the approach of the Government. It should be shamed internationally as well as nationally. I certainly propose to do this, as I did when we had the awful collaboration between the Government and President Bush's regime on the issue of rendition flights. Our Minister went over to appear before the parliamentary-----

An Cathaoirleach: On the section, Senator.

Senator David Norris: It is a parallel point and I am going to make it.

An Cathaoirleach: I know, but it is not relevant to the section.

Senator David Norris: I wrote to them and said they should not believe a word of what is being said because the Minister will tell them it was never raised. I mentioned all the debates and so on in which it was raised. I am going to make sure this news travels.
The Minister said that the agency can continue to be independent. Will that really be so? In that case, why does the Government routinely include in legislation a section restricting criticism of Government policy on the part of civil servants? Such sections have appeared in many Bills in recent years. That is the official position. Civil servants cannot be allowed to be critical from within Departments. That is the problem. I know the Government does not like criticism - of course it does not. None of us particularly likes criticism, but it is a very important element of democracy. The Minister says everybody feels the same way, but they do not. The Government has lost touch with reality - not all its members, by any means, but a significant number of them. The Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, said last Friday that nobody gave a damn about the removal of the medical card entitlement from the over 70s because there was only one person in the Gallery. She was blithely ignoring the fact that that person represented 10,000 pensioners. The Leader told us it was great for shopping to have all these protests, and another Member on the Government side said they had only come up for the craic on the day.

An Cathaoirleach: On section 31.

Senator David Norris: I am responding to what the Minister said. She said that everybody was very supportive. That is the extent of the sympathy that exists in some sections, although by no means all. There are splendid people on the Government side who have a heart. It is important that these matters are placed clearly on the record.

The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 12.

Tá
Brady, Martin.
Butler, Larry.
Callely, Ivor.
Carty, John.
Cassidy, Donie.
Corrigan, Maria.
Daly, Mark.
Ellis, John.
Glynn, Camillus.
Hanafin, John.
Keaveney, Cecilia.
Leyden, Terry.
Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
O'Brien, Francis.
O'Donovan, Denis.
O'Malley, Fiona.
O'Sullivan, Ned.
Ormonde, Ann.
Phelan, Kieran.
Walsh, Jim.
White, Mary M.
Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl
Bradford, Paul.
Burke, Paddy.
Buttimer, Jerry.
Coffey, Paudie.
Coghlan, Paul.
Cummins, Maurice.
Donohoe, Paschal.
Fitzgerald, Frances.
McFadden, Nicky.
Norris, David.
Ryan, Brendan.
White, Alex.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Diarmuid Wilson and Camillus Glynn; Níl, Senators David Norris and Nicky McFadden.

Question declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Senator Donie Cassidy: Now.

Senator David Norris: I do not agree. It is awful that a very significant Bill like this should go through all Remaining Stages like this. That allows for absolutely no suggestion of amendments whatever and no real Report Stage. They might as well abolish the Seanad-----

An Cathaoirleach: There were no amendments.

Senator David Norris:----- and they forgot the Ombudsman's office as well. Why do they not get rid of that?

Question, "That Report Stage be taken now", put and declared carried.

Question put: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 13.

Tá
Boyle, Dan.
Brady, Martin.
Butler, Larry.
Callely, Ivor.
Carty, John.
Cassidy, Donie.
Corrigan, Maria.
Daly, Mark.
Ellis, John.
Hanafin, John.
Keaveney, Cecilia.
Leyden, Terry.
Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
Ó Murchú, Labhrás
O'Brien, Francis.
O'Donovan, Denis.
O'Malley, Fiona.
O'Sullivan, Ned.
Ormonde, Ann.
Phelan, Kieran.
Walsh, Jim.
White, Mary M.
Wilson, Diarmuid.


Níl
Bradford, Paul.
Burke, Paddy.
Buttimer, Jerry.
Coffey, Paudie.
Coghlan, Paul.
Cummins, Maurice.
Donohoe, Paschal.
Fitzgerald, Frances.
McFadden, Nicky.
Norris, David.
Ryan, Brendan.
Twomey, Liam.
White, Alex.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Fiona O'Malley and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Maurice Cummins and Nicky McFadden.

Question declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?

Senator Donie Cassidy: Now.