In a debate on road safety on Wednesday, 5 October 2011, I proposed that the Minister conduct a national audit of road speed limits.
Today, Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Leo Varadkar TD has announced that he is going to do this. The purpose of the audit is to ensure that speed limits are not only safe but also sensible. The Department is engaging with the National Roads Authority and local authorities to conduct the audit but the Minister is also encouraging members of the public to highlight their concerns within their respective local authorities. While recent road safety measures have seen road fatalities for 2011 fall to the lowest levels since records began, the primary objective of the audit is to identify inconsistencies between different regions and to ensure that right speed limits are in operation on the right roads.
Audit of Speed Limits
Thursday, 2nd February 2012
I congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill before the House. We made a commitment to the people during the general election last year that this would be a reforming Government and that while restoring our country’s fiscal sovereignty would be our prime objective, we would also take the opportunity to reform all aspects of society to better meet the needs and realities of Ireland in the 21st century. Our aim would be to find a new vision for the country and to build a better country in pursuit of that vision. No sector of our economy or society can claim it is incapable of performing better, including this Parliament. We have only just begun our work, but already some important steps have been taken. This Bill is another important step in the process of the reform we hope to bring about for the country.
The Minister has asked for constructive proposals on how the Legal Services Regulation Bill may be strengthened and I hope to offer some in this debate. I have spoken with and corresponded with the Minister on this matter previously and I appreciate the fact he took the time to engage with me in detail on the various issues. We also had an excellent briefing last week on the Bill with the Minister and his officials where we had the opportunity to go through each section of the Bill in detail. Again, I thank the Minister for his time and for answering my questions in detail.
Today, I would like to speak about some particular aspects of the Bill because although we have discussed these issues previously, it is important that as a member of one of the Government parties I come into the House and contribute to the debate. Much of the work of Government Deputy happens in the background, in parliamentary party meetings and in one-on-one meetings with Ministers and their officials. However, it is important to the process that we also come into the House and express our opinions. I feel that too much of the work of an elected representative to this House is confined to that of a constituency representative and that needs to change. It is changing, but slowly. We are elected both to represent our constituents and to attend Parliament and bring our judgment to bear on matters of national importance. That does not mean coming in here and pushing a button once or twice a week, or standing up and speaking to a half-empty Chamber and calling it debate. This is a criticism I level at all of us, myself included. The country wants us to do better. It wants reform in this Chamber and wants us to be better and we cannot let reform of this House slip off the agenda, even for a moment.
As for reform of the legal profession, an issue this Bill attempts to address, it is critical to the functioning of a true and proper democracy that operation and regulation of the legal profession and system is truly independent of the executive and legislative branches of government. To blur that separation of powers even slightly is to strike at the delicate balance underpinning our society.
In a democracy, an independent legal system is essential to protecting and vindicating the legal rights of citizens. Anything that seeks to alter the constitution of that system, even with a view to improving it, must be examined very carefully. Independence is not an absolute term or meaning. It has different connotations. It is varied in its practice and it is relative. As a general principle, we can agree that it is preferable that no body or profession would regulate itself. That is true for the legal profession as it is true for the other professions. However, it is also important to recognise that in a democracy, given the special position of the legal profession, neither can the operation and regulation of that system be vested in the Government alone.
The Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011 establishes a legal services regulatory authority to regulate and control the legal profession, something we all would welcome in this House. However, questions have been raised about its constitution and there is a concern about potential political interference from future administrations. When we address new Bills in this House, we must remember that the ensuing legislation will remain after we are gone. We must always keep in mind those who will follow us into this Chamber and those who may occupy the front benches. Questions have been raised and we should not be afraid of them. We should answer these questions and where they are ridiculous, let us say that they are ridiculous and where they merit consideration, let us consider them. The Government will not have all the answers and we will not get it perfect every time.
I am personally interested in those proposals which have been put forward to parliamentarians that would seek to constitute the regulatory authority in a slightly different manner to that which is proposed in the Bill. I am particularly interested in those elements that seek to give more of a role to Members of the Oireachtas as a pillar separate to that of the Executive. These give us more of a role as legislators and give more weight to what we do in our work in the Government. That is important as part of the reform that we need to seek in this House. We can achieve that without impinging on the independence principle that we are all seeking to promote as we go about reforming the legal profession and as is contained in this Bill.
It is important that the appointment of a new regulatory authority is transparent and is seen to be transparent, uninfluenced by day-to-day political concerns. I wonder if there might be a role for the Commission for Public Service Appointments, or a similar body or committee, to nominate members for the Government to appoint to the regulatory authority. I agree with the Minister that it is also important the authority has a lay majority. However, it might be a good idea for those lay members to be nominated from particular sectors of our society, such as the non-governmental sector or other professional bodies, which will add to the variety of the authority and will increase its expertise. I would also like to see the regulatory authority reporting to the Oireachtas and its committees. If anything, this will strengthen the role of the Oireachtas and its independence from the Executive.
We could decide that Members of the Oireachtas will be responsible for dealing with those matters that may arise in the work of the regulatory authority, such as whether a member should be removed from the authority. That may fall to the Oireachtas or one of its committees to decide, and then only for stated reasons. I raise these two points because it is important in the context of the future Governments and future Members of Parliament who may sit here after us.
We have also discussed the potential costs of the regulatory authority. It is important that it is funded appropriately, so that it can carry out its work. It will have a lot of work to do under this Bill and it is appropriate that it has the right number of staff and all the resources necessary so that it can effectively regulate the legal profession.
The Minister is looking at the ways in which we might cost or provide for the funding of this authority but it is preferable that the authority would be established in such a way that it would not increase costs for the consumer. That is an important principle and I look forward to any proposals that the Minister has on that issue. He has also indicated that amendments may be made to the consent provisions in the Bill, and I look forward to considering them on Committee Stage.
I appreciate that there is a compelling reason for reviewing the current structures of the legal profession. However, given how significant the changes will be – it is a big change to how legal services operate in this country and to how people access those services – it has been suggested that there may be room for further development of the part of the Bill dealing with multi-disciplinary practices in separate legislation. This merits some consideration given the huge amount of work that will be involved in it, and I know the Minister is committed to it.
I am interested to hear more about how it is intended the new disciplinary tribunals are to interact with the new authority. Will they come under it? Will they share membership or other structures? Will they be appointed by the authority or will they be strictly independent of it? If they are independent, how will they be constituted and to whom will they report? We have not had an opportunity to speak about that yet, and I would appreciate clarification on that matter.
I hope that those proposals may be constructive to the work the Minister is trying to do. As a backbench Member of the senior party in the Government, it is important that contribute to this debate and be as constructive as I can. There is a long way to go. It is a large, ambitious Bill and I congratulate the Minister for that. I look forward to participating in further debates as we move to Committee Stage.
31.1.12
Introduction
Let me start by repeating that I fully subscribe to the freedoms, the opportunities and the access to information that the Internet provides us with. Ireland is home to some of the world’s most innovative internet companies and we are determined to grow our reputation as a location where smart people and these smart companies can continue to innovate in this fast moving arena.
The last thing innovators need is a culture where the outputs of their creative endeavours have to be locked away or kept secret for the fear of theft. Ireland is very proud of the fact that we have a modern suite of intellectual property laws that by their very nature balance a range of competing interests and rights in a manner that is seen, right across the globe, as reasonable and proportionate. I intend that this will continue.
Background to the proposed Statutory Instrument
It may be useful to explain the background against which the requirement for the amendment to the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 has arisen. In the EMI & others versus UPC High Court judgment of 11 October 2010, Mr Justice Charleton decided that he was constrained by the wording of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 and thus could not grant an injunction to prevent infringement of copyright against an information service provider (ISP) in the circumstances of “mere conduit” (transient communications). In doing so, he stated that Ireland had not fully transposed the relevant EU Directive(s).
The “Mere conduit” principle provides that if an ISP does not initiate a transmission, or modify the material contained in a transmission and does not select the receiver of the transmission, it is granted a “safe harbour” against liability, by virtue of the e-Commerce Directive [2000/31/EC]. However, according to the same directive, this freedom from liability does not affect the power of the courts to require service providers to terminate or prevent copyright infringements.
I would like to point out that two EU directives, namely the Copyright Directive 2001 and the Enforcement Directive 2004 require that the holders of copyright – authors, music composers, lyricists, record producers etc. – are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right.
What is an intermediary?
In a nutshell an intermediary is an ISP who provides mere conduit, caching or hosting services on the internet.
It is the case that my Department had considered that injunctions were available under Section 40 (4) of the Copyright Act and the inherent power of the courts to grant injunctions, which are equitable and discretionary remedies, granted according to settled principles, developed by the courts. However, this was not Mr Justice Charleton’s view.
Legal Advice
The Attorney General’s Office was asked (both by my Department and Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources) for its advice as to the implications of the High Court judgement. The Attorney General’s Office has advised that the obligation contained in the Directive is clear and unambiguous. Rightholders must have a mechanism available to them to apply for an injunction against intermediaries where their intellectual property rights are being breached. Separately the Office advised that the prudent course was to introduce a Regulation to ensure compliance.
I fully acknowledge that this is a sensitive issue (the copyright balance between creators and users and intermediaries) in relation to on-line services and businesses, which are of importance to Ireland’s economy. Considering this, and in the context of the obligations due under the EU Directives, discussions took place with the Attorney General’s Office and the legal advisor in my Department, in order to frame a draft Regulation and put it into the public domain for consultation. The Regulation follows the wording of the Copyright Directive so that we are in compliance and includes a very important proviso that the courts shall have due regard to the rights of any person likely to be affected and this includes, where appropriate, a direction requiring a person to be notified of the application. This latter provision respects the European Convention on Human Rights.
Public Consultation Process
After consultations with the Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, my Department launched a public consultation on the text of the proposed Statutory Instrument on 17 June, 2011. In addition to liaising with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, the consultation document was forwarded to bodies such as the Assoc of Trademark and Patent Attorneys, BT Communications Ireland Ltd, Consumers Association of Ireland, Digital Rights Ireland, Eircom, EMI Music Ireland Ltd, Enterprise Ireland, Google, Hinkson Solicitors, IBEC, IDA, IMIR, International Software Federation of Europe, Internet Service Provides Association of Ireland, Irish Copyright Licensing Agency, IRMA, Law Society of Ireland, Microsoft Ireland, O2, UPC, Vodafone, X-tra Vision. Following the consultation, I had meetings with representatives from many of the above bodies including, ISPs, rightsholders and consumers.
The consultation attracted over 50 submissions from interested parties. Several of these submissions contained legal arguments in regard to the issue as well as comments in respect of the draft statutory instrument which was published as part of the consultation process. These comments were forwarded by my Department to the Office of the Attorney General for further consideration. Following this, and after meetings with interested parties, it is clearly necessary to proceed with the Statutory Instrument which will restate the law in relation to injunctions against intermediaries which was considered to pertain prior to the judgment. This will make compliance with the Copyright Directive manifestly clear. The wording of the Statutory Instrument has been formally drafted and the text of which was published last Thursday (on 26 January, 2012).
I would also like to point out that there is no change of policy being put forward in the proposed legislative measure. It is merely a restatement of the position that was considered to be in place before a High Court judgment of Judge Charleton in October 2010. Ireland is obliged to provide that rightsholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third part to infringe a copyright or related right.
Legal Proceedings against the State
It should also be noted that legal proceedings against the State have been issued by the Plaintiffs in the UPC case and damages arising from a successful challenge could be substantial. The European Commission has also requested information (on 22 December, 2011) on Ireland’s compliance with the Copyright Directive.
The type of injunction that may be granted by the Courts
While the Copyright Directive requires that rights holders must be able to seek an injunction against intermediaries to prevent or terminate an infringement, the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that this must be interpreted in a way which allows a fair balance to be struck between the various fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order and the principle of proportionality. EU law has held that copyright is not an absolute right but must be balanced with other rights protected by the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights such as the right to freedom of expression and information, data protection, the right to conduct a business, and that any remedy must be proportionate.
No national authority or court can require an ISP to carry out general monitoring of the information that it transmits on its network. This means an ISP cannot be asked to monitor all of the data of each of its customers in order to prevent any future infringement of intellectual property rights. National courts must strike a fair balance between the protection of copyright and the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals who are affected by such measures.
Relevant Case law from the European Court of Justice
In this regard, I would like to refer the House to the recent Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) “Scarlet –v- Sabam” case (C-70/10) which enunciated the general principles in relation to the balances required to be taken into account. In this case on 24 November 2011, the CJEU clearly laid out the aforementioned principles that will guide all national courts in future (Case C-70/10- SABAM). It also found in that case that requiring an ISP to install a contested filtering system would not be respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information.
Differences between the proposed Irish Statutory Instrument and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the United States
I am fully aware that concerns have been expressed that the proposed Statutory Instrument mirrors the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the United States. However, I would point out that these concerns are not based on fact.
The most worrying aspects of the US proposals would involve blocking access to websites internationally; taking down entire websites for one infringing item; blocking access to websites by the US State enforcement without notice; targeting companies between the site and end-user, without notice, e.g. service providers, search engines, payment network providers and advertising networks; imposing a monitoring of content requirement on internet companies and, in effect, forcing them to self-censor; extension of criminal liability; the by-passing of the “safe-harbour” provisions in copyright law; the lack of due process; the disregard for fundamental human rights; the involvement of government in civil infringement areas, etc.
I would stress that such a regime could not be introduced in the EU, where the safe-harbour provisions are protected in the e-commerce directive and where, in implementing EU law, the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights must be applied. This includes the right to conduct a business, protection of data, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information with the right to intellectual property. Critically any order granted must be proportionate. These matters must be considered when deliberating on the granting of an injunction.
EU Law as it relates to this Statutory Instrument and the Balance of Rights
It is of the utmost importance to note that the purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is simply to provide explicitly that injunctions may be sought, as obligated by the two EU Directives that I have already referred to (namely the Copyright Directive 2001 and the Enforcement Directive 2004). It should also be noted that such injunctions are available in all other Member States of the European Union by virtue of the two Directives already referred to and have been required since at least December 2002 and since that time the internet has flourished
In granting such injunctions the courts must take account of Court of Justice of the European Union judgements. As I have already stated, these judgements require that a fair balance be struck between the various fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order and the principle of proportionality. The Statutory Instrument is sufficient because, particularly following the Court of Justice decision in the Scarlet/Sabam case, the Courts have authoritative guidance on the balance to be achieved between on the one hand, Intellectual Property Rights, and on the other hand, the freedom to conduct a business enjoyed by operators such as Internet Service Providers, the protection of private data and right of freedom of expression and information and proportionality of any remedy.
The Copyright Review Committee
I would also like to state that my Department launched an independent review Committee on 9th May, 2011 with the view of examining and reviewing the existing Irish copyright and legislative framework. The Copyright Review Committee is an independent body. Its terms of reference are clear and, in general, are concerned with identifying any areas that might be deemed to create barriers to innovation, and to make recommendations to resolve any problems identified.
I would reiterate that following the advice of both the former and current Attorney Generals, it is felt necessary that Ireland’s position in ensuring that rightsholders can apply for injunctions against intermediaries whose services are being to infringe their copyright, must be restated. Otherwise, the State is at risk of actions against it which would probably result in substantial damages. It is the case that nothing the Review Committee could suggest can change this fact. It is difficult to see what conditions could be attached to the S.I. that are not already provided for by EU law – e.g. data protection, freedom of expression, information, freedom to conduct a business.
The Copyright Review Committee is expected to publish its 1st consultation paper shortly (following consideration of the submissions received). It could be that one of the items it puts forward for further consideration would be a voluntary forum for all stakeholders, in which various copyright matters could be discussed.
Boards.is
As I have already stated, an intermediary is an ISP who provides mere conduit, caching or hosting services on the internet. As such an entity such as Boards.ie, because its avails of the hosting exemption, could be considered an intermediary. However, no injunction may be taken against it provided it abides by the notice and take down procedures as set out in the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 (section 40(4) refers).
Final Comments
In conclusion, I would like to make it perfectly clear that in proposing to amend the Copyright legislation, I am particularly conscious of the importance of online content and digital businesses in the Irish context and, by introducing the proposed Statutory Instrument, I am simply seeking to ensure Ireland’s continued compliance with its obligations under the relevant EU Directives following the decision of the High Court in the aforementioned UPC case. It is very clear from the rulings of European Court that any remedy applied will have to be proportionate and we can be confident that this approach protects rightsholders by allowing them the access to the courts that we must provide while protecting the fundamental rights of third parties.
I would also point out that going right back to 22 December, 2002, the date by which every EU Member State had to have implemented Directive 2001/29/EC, every EU country has had to “ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe a copyright or related right”. Having that provision enshrined in EU law and the laws of Member States for a decade has not restricted the development of the Internet or innovative internet companies. On the contrary, the Internet has flourished.
Today (Wednesday 21st December) Fine Gael TD for Dublin South East Eoghan Murphy welcomed the Minister for Environment Phil Hogan’s decision to extend the contract for the cycling officer post with Dublin City Council for a further six months.
Speaking after the decision was made Deputy Murphy said “I’d like to commend Minister Hogan for today requesting that Dublin City Council extend the contract for the Cycling Officer Post with the council for six months. Having brought this to the Minister’s attention and lobbied for retention of the position it is great to see a positive result.
“It is of the utmost importance that we have someone dedicated to this role. The Dublinbikes scheme has proved to be a very popular initiative from Dublin City Council, with an annual turnover in excess of €400,000. It is crucial that we have someone with the right vision at the helm of the operation ensuring its continued success.
“A dedicated cycling officer is the very least that city needs if we are to follow in the steps of other bike friendly European cities by providing a cheap, congestion free commuting option.
“Minister Hogan has further requested that Dublin City Council consult with the National Transport Authority during this six month period to review the situation and report to him on how the promotion of cycling in Dublin should be addressed in the longer term.
“I would also like to thank Lord Mayor Andrew Montague for his work, as well as to Peter O’Brien and others for bringing the issue to the wider public’s attention.
Eoghan speaking during Private Members Business, 8.12.2011
The Government’s amendment states that we “support efforts to secure an agreement at this week’s meeting of the European Council that fully protects Irish interests and that contributes to the restoration of stability in the Euro area.”
I might have added “and that also restores the founding principles and ideals of the European project”.
The democratic ideal behind the European Union is under threat. It is an ideal that is unique in the international system of states. Independent nations of different sizes and strengths have come together in cooperation. That cooperation is structured around the principle of equality amongst sovereigns – one Member, one vote.
The crisis in the Eurozone threatens all of this.
It threatens this, because if we do not save our currency and it breaks up it could very possibly break-up the EU and all that has been achieved before the Euro. No more equality on the continent between nations, no more common market.
At the very same time, the manner in which we attempt to save the Euro, also risks destroying the European project, as Member States and institutions seek to assert their will over others, undermining the democratic ideal and casting us back to the realpolitik of “the strong do what they will to survive, the weak do what they must”.
We have a good thing, a unique thing here in the European Union. We have a good thing, a unique thing here in the Euro currency.
If war is an extension of politics by other means, so too is economics, but at the other end of the spectrum. And with economics – the coal & steel community, the common market and then the Eurozone, people sought to make advances that war or politics could never make. But we may have taken economics too far, further than the people were willing to go.
It is clear now that we rushed with the Eurozone project, not putting in place the proper architecture for a properly functioning common currency, not heeding the many warnings from nobel prize winning economists and others that were given at the time.
We cannot go back to the past.
We stand here faced with a genuine dilemma.
This is the biggest decision that our government and our country will face in its lifetime. We must face in to it in a rational way. And in a calm way. A decision may not come tomorrow, but it will come. Everything will change and we must be ready for that.
Following the severe flooding in Dublin South-East last night, Eoghan Murphy requested that the Ceann Comhairle make this a priority topic for discussions in the Dáil today. Due to the importance of this issue, and requests made by other TD’s in the Dublin and Wicklow areas, special time was afforded to debate this issue. Responding to Minister Brian Hayes, Eoghan said the following:
I do not believe this is only about money. We must acknowledge that the local authority in Dublin city is no longer the correct responsible authority to deal with emergency responses in this city. Deputy Costello has already alluded to the lack of response from the local council last night. I can only outline my own experience. I tried to telephone officials at 9 p.m. last night but the emergency response number for the city council was down. When I managed to get somebody on their private mobile phone, they were not even aware that the number was down. I went onto the website but there was no indication that the number was down, nor was there any indication of the road closures or transport disruptions that had been occurring in the city for approximately four hours.
When I went to Gordon Street with Councillor Kieran Binchy I found Deputy Humphreys there helping residents to sandbag their homes. I did not see any council officials. I learned that the flooding of those homes could have been averted had the council acted more quickly, but at that stage it had not acted at all. I commend Deputy Humphreys for what he did. The people there owe him a debt of gratitude for the effort he put in. It was something to see.
I then went to Newbridge Avenue to see the flood defence walls along the Dodder. The floodgates were still open, although it was between 9.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. The residents and fire crews were trying to close them and when they did, they found they could not lock them because they did not have the correct keys. When the council officials arrived, they did not have them either. We can spend all the money in the world, and we have spent €3 million on the flood defence wall on this stretch of the Dodder, but that type of incompetence renders flood defences meaningless and useless. The local authority must hold up its hands and explain why those gates were not closed. People telephoned Dublin City Council in the afternoon to recommend that they be closed as a precautionary measure, but that did not happen.
Businesses in this city pay rates; in Dublin, 25% of the businesses nationally pay 50% of the total amount of rates to local authorities. Is the local authority the correct authority to protect their properties and businesses in this regard? Can we turn to home owners and ask them to pay rates to a council that cannot protect their properties? I realise the Minister cannot answer these questions directly but it is incredibly important that the local authority does. I believe its representatives should appear before an Oireachtas committee and answer these questions. If they have explanations, they should give them and if they do not, they should put their hands up. I recommend that the Minister consider a proper emergency response plan for this city, one that does not fall to the responsibility of the local authority in the city.
I thank Deputy Brendan Griffin for sharing his time. It is particularly gracious of him, given recent events in Croke Park.
Deputy Griffin touched upon a number of aspects. He made the point of having a 12-month tourism cycle and I agree with him that this is crucial. There is no reason not to have tourists coming to Ireland in every month of the year and in large numbers. Attractions such as Christmas markets in small towns is one excellent suggestion.
I wish to speak about a particular aspect of tourism, activity-based or sports tourism, where people travel to take part in sporting events around the country, whether a marathon, a half marathon or a triathlon. Before I became involved so actively in politics, I used to participate regularly in such sporting events. I have been to Achill and Killarney and twice to Westport. I have also travelled to the UK and to France for events.
This sports market sector of tourism is very significant as competitors spend a lot of money. There is the money spent on travelling abroad to an event or travelling to a domestic event. The kit and the registration all costs money and accommodation costs must also be catered for. I will give an example of my own expenditure. Last year I participated in the Gael Force adventure triathlon in Killary Harbour. The entrance fee for the competition was €100; I spent €200 on accommodation for two nights and another €200 during the course of the weekend. This amounts to €500 spent in Westport and only because the race was being held there. I was accompanied by a number of friends and that resulted in €4,000 being spent in Westport. Three of my friends had travelled from the UK so this was new money into Ireland. The race attracted 3,000 competitors. If each competitor spent as much as I spent that weekend, this amounts to more than €1 million into the Westport economy in one weekend.
This is a very lucrative event for the area of Westport and the town is to be commended on branding itself as a destination for activity events. These events provide a new opening for tourism revenue. Money came into the town of Westport during the Gael Force festival and this came from first-time visitors and those from abroad and also repeat visitors. For instance, once I had visited the town I was prepared to return on further visits and a few months later I returned to compete in a 10 km adventure race called Turf Guy. I am hoping to compete again this year. This event will bring more money into Westport.
Competitors in these events are young with a high disposable income. They may not have mortgage costs or dependants and they can spend their money on sporting activities. Ireland should be marketed as a destination for more international sporting events and sports tourism as this could provide significant revenue from people with high disposable incomes who spend their money in a way that is good for them and good for the local economies. I know the Minister of State is aware of my views but anything he can do in this regard would be very welcome.
The Volvo Ocean Race will be held next year. I wish the Chinese-Irish team the best of luck. I wished them well as they sailed from the River Liffey. I applaud the initiative on the part of the tourist board and the race will be a great event for Ireland. This is the type of event we should encourage and use to our advantage. I attended a Diaspora Matters event a few nights ago which was to highlight our networks abroad, of which the Volvo Ocean Race is another example. There are so many Irish people and those with Irish links living all over the world and they are all willing to become involved in related events and activities, to play a part in the renewal of the country and to help attract people to the country. This Bill is an important measure and along with other initiatives from the Minister’s Department, it is very welcome.
Eoghan Murphy TD, statement made during ‘Topical Issues’ in Dáil Eireann, 22nd September 2011, Answered by Minister for European Affairs, Lucinda Creighton TD.
Deputy Eoghan Murphy:
As the Minister of State Deputy Creighton will be aware, yesterday, 21 September was the international day of peace, a day that has been recognised by the UN for the past 29 years. It was also the first day of the opening of the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly, where leaders from around the world have come together to discuss their plans for progressing peace and human security for the coming year.
Our first endeavours in the United Nations in the 1950s were always in pursuit of peace, be it in sending peacekeepers around the world, as we have done for many decades and continue to do, or in the control of nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament generally. Indeed, the first Minister sent to the United Nations in the 1950s, Mr. Frank Aiken, pursued a treaty on the non-dissemination of nuclear nations. In 1961, the Irish resolution adopted by the UN took a hold of that vision and in 1965 was converted into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT. We have continued to work in the pursuit of arms control and disarmament since then and, most recently, at the review conference for the NPT in 2010, we were successful in achieving some significant progress in the pursuit of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. We will continue to work towards these endeavours. We have also worked very successfully in trying to abolish landmines and cluster munitions. In 2008, a declaration was signed in Dublin that brought into effect the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
Peace day is about more than one day, however. We must continue with these efforts on a constant basis until we have achieved a world that is free from the threat of nuclear weapons and other such threats. Tomorrow in New York, on the margins of the General Assembly, there will be a conference on facilitating the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, also known as the Article 14 conference. This is a treaty that was opened for signature 15 years ago, in 1996, yet it still has not come into force. It is the next most important step in achieving a world free of nuclear weapons and the next most important piece of architecture in the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Yet it is still not in force.
There are nine countries involved that have held out from signing and ratifying the treaty. It is imperative that Ireland, given its position and its history of involvement in this area, pursues this goal, of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, and that it gives dedicated effort to achieving finally the entry into force of that treaty sooner rather than later. This was the last major WMD arms control treaty to be negotiated by the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva a conference which has been in stalemate for the past 12 years, which is a disgrace. And we must also make efforts in this regard.
The Tánaiste is at the UN General Assembly at present. I wish him well in his endeavours and in the negotiations and bilateral meetings he will hold.
[Minister Creighton responds]
Deputy Eoghan Murphy:
I thank the Minister of State. It is very encouraging to hear that the Government is preparing for the 2015 NPT review conference process. It is particularly encouraging that the Middle East review will be going ahead in 2012, and I wish everyone the very best in that regard because it is very important to what we are trying to achieve in that region as well as in the wider world in regard to nuclear weapons disarmament.
With regard to the measures being pursued at present in relation to conventional weapons, it is commendable that we have a commitment in this area, both through the UN system and also through the NGO system. I wish the Government the very best on both these tracks.
The Tánaiste will become chairman of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe next year. I am the head of the Oireachtas delegation to the parliamentary assembly for the OSCE and I offer him and his Department all my support in everything he hopes to achieve next year. The delegation will be interested in meeting the Minister to hear more about his plans while chairman of that organisation and I look forward to hearing from him in that regard.
[Minister Creighton responds]
To read this debate in full, please click on the following link:
Statement to the Dáil during the Second and Subsequent Stages of the Bill, 15th July 2011
I should preface my remarks by stating that I am a smoker, so I have a particular interest in this important debate. I quit when the smoking ban came in. However, I then got a job abroad where it was permitted to smoke indoors and I started smoking again. I now smoke when taking a drink, as a lot of my peers do. If we could do something to break the link between alcohol and cigarettes it would go a long way towards solving the problems arising from the effects of smoking.
I very much welcome the Bill and thank the Minister of State for circulating the pictures. They are graphic and disturbing, and they will work. About eight years ago, when I was a student in Canada for the summer, they already had such images on cigarette packets. It was quite graphic and drove the message home. I always wondered why we did not have that system here, so it is great that we are finally starting to catch up with some of our international friends in this regard.
We should examine a number of other areas in this respect – not just what we are doing to discourage people from starting to smoke but also to help smokers to move away from the habit. Some good things are happening with new technological developments, including substitute cigarettes. I recently met with a group that had developed a battery-powered mechanical cigarette which provided a substitute effect without any of the harmful elements of smoking. If we can spend more time promoting such alternatives, including nicotine patches and substitute cigarettes, it would go a long way towards improving the situation. In addition, we should destigmatise such alternatives to smoking by making them more commonly available and more acceptable to use. We must also do what we can to aid research into the addictive nature of cigarettes.
Deputy Donohoe mentioned the dangers of smoking for pregnant women. I pass a hospital on my way home and it is shocking to see pregnant women smoking there. Surely we are not doing enough to educate people if such women think it is acceptable to smoke while pregnant. At the same time, one sees young mothers smoking. I understand that when one has such an addiction one will smoke, but there will be a negative affect on young children at home in their formative years who are subject to passive smoking. We should target particular groups, including young mothers, to help them stop smoking. The impact on people’s health and lives goes beyond the individual smoker.
I stopped smoking when the ban was introduced because one had to go outside and stand in the rain to have a cigarette. It was miserable. I started smoking again when I was abroad, but when I came back to Ireland I saw that there had been a proliferation of smoking areas in bars and restaurants. I understand the idea of erecting a canopy with a heater to help smokers but some of these smoking rooms are not outside. There seems to be no difference from being inside when one goes to the smoking areas. That needs to be examined and, although I understand that such businesses are suffering perhaps the law is being interpreted too loosely. They are able to build these rooms that might as well be inside, yet because there is a small hole in the wall for ventilation it is deemed appropriate to smoke there.
It used to be just the smokers who would go outside to have a cigarette and then come back inside but now everyone is going out to these smoking rooms and staying there for the evening. They are thus subject to the secondary effects of passive smoking, which is completely undermining the smoking ban. I urge the Minister of State and her officials to revisit the legislation to see if it is too liberal and whether we are allowing too many variations of the smoking section, which are undermining the purpose of the ban itself.
I welcome the Bill, which is a great initiative. I hope we can get the pictures on to cigarette packets as soon as possible.
Statement made to the Dáil during the Report and Final Stages of the Bill, 19th July 2011
I support the sentiments expressed in amendment No. 8. We all met people on the campaign trail who, for one reason or another, could not be present in the country or their constituencies at the time of the election. For example, they might have been working in Dublin while being registered at home because that was where they wanted to vote, which is acceptable. The issue needs to be examined. Simultaneously, we need to consider the case for giving a vote to people who are forced to move abroad because of the country’s circumstances. If they are forced by a Government’s actions to leave their country, they should have a right to vote that Government out of office from abroad in favour of another which they hope will one day make things right and allow them to return. However, this Bill is not the place for that amendment; it should be included in more appropriate legislation. The proposal should be considered. Therefore, I urge the Minister to take the idea on board to determine whether the proposal could be incorporated further down the line.
Latest Video
Contact Eoghan Murphy TD Website designed by Michael Banim |
 |
