Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Apr 2012

Vol. 214 No. 13

Adjournment Matters

Human Rights Issues

This matter relates to Ireland's relationship with China in a human rights context. I fully appreciate the trade opportunities available in growing China and that it is very much the land of opportunity for foreign businesses. I appreciate also that China is a major economic player and that improving our relationship with the Chinese Government is a key plank of the Government's overall economic strategy. However, while China is very much open for business to the outside world, it is also home to some of the gravest human rights abuses in the world.

It has been well documented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Falun Gong and other groups that China is home to arbitrary imprisonment without charge or trial and that hundreds of human rights lawyers and political opponents of the regime have been imprisoned or locked away from their families. The Chinese Government recently admitted that China's most prominent human rights lawyer had been in detention for the previous year and that his family had not been notified where he was. There has been widespread persecution of religious groups and minorities, in particular during the past ten to 15 years with the repression of Falun Gong. Falun Gong practitioners, many of whom are active in Ireland, have been routinely subjected to arrest and to what the Chinese call "re-education", namely, sending people to labour camps where they are tortured, with women threatened and subjected to sexual assault in an effort to force re-education on them. Organ harvesting is now also an issue. It has been stated that some members of the Falun Gong organisation have had their organs harvested.

I appreciate that there are different schools of thought in regard to how the western world should engage with countries like China. I studied international relations at college and appreciate that many people would say that the best way to deal with these countries is to engage with them and that over time, as they become more economically progressive, they will come to respect political and civil rights and discontinue repression of their people. However, like other countries, we have been working with the Chinese Government during the past ten years in particular, and, if anything, the evidence is that things from a political point of view are getting worse rather than better. I acknowledge there has been huge economic progress but evidence is that political repression is worsening. In the wake of the Arab spring last year, there was a greater crack down on opponents within China.

I recognise the economic context of the Government's engagement with China. However, Ireland has a proud history of raising human rights issues even when difficult to do so. As chair of the OSCE and in the context of our holding the EU Presidency next year, we have a responsibility to use our voice on this issue. We have done so previously when the Chinese premier was here ten years ago, at which time I was a student union officer in Trinity and one of our students, Ming Zhao, had been arrested in China for taking part in Falun Gong and was detained in a labour camp for two years. The Government raised the case with the Chinese premier when here and Ming was subsequently released.

During the recent visit of the Vice President of the People's Republic of China, Mr. Xi Jinping, Ming said: "Words are very powerful" ... "And my release was proof that a small country like Ireland can make a difference." I ask that the Minister, in his continued engagement with the Chinese Government on economic matters, ensures we do not lose our soul. While undoubtedly there are economic opportunities for us in engaging with China, they should not come at the cost of silence. Perhaps the Minister of State will say if the Government raised the ongoing human rights violations with the Chinese regime during the recent visit of Vice President Xi Jinping to Ireland, whether these issues were raised during the State visit to China, whether they have been raised in general bilateral relations with China and if the Government has raised them at European level.

I thank the Senator for raising this important issue. Human rights are and have always been a priority of successive Irish Governments and a key plank of our foreign policy. The Government is concerned about the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Yesterday, officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade met with representatives from the Falun Dafa Association of Ireland and discussed ways in which human rights issues, including those relating to the Falun Gong, are raised with the Chinese authorities by Ireland and the European Union. Freedom of religious belief and expression is discussed regularly with the Chinese authorities during bilateral meetings and at European Union level. At these meetings, the Government reiterates the great importance Ireland attaches to human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.

Through the formal framework of the EU-China human rights dialogue, which was established in 1995, the EU continues to share with China its experience in the field of human rights protection and promotion and continues to urge China to take clear steps to improve the human rights situation. Arbitrary arrests and imprisonment, treatment of ethnic minorities and persecution of the Falun Gong are also raised by the European Union as part of regular political dialogue, as well as during specific human rights dialogue with China.

Human rights are a constant and important issue of dialogue and discussion with the Chinese authorities at national and European Union level. In the course of the recent visit of Xi Jinping, the Vice President of the People's Republic of China, the issue of human rights was raised at a variety of levels, including directly between the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Vice President.

The Taoiseach recently returned from his first official visit to China. During the visit, the Taoiseach and Premier Wen Jiabao released a joint statement establishing a strategic partnership for mutually beneficial co-operation between Ireland and China. This new strategic partnership will facilitate practical, effective and result-oriented co-operation to further develop the bilateral relationship. It covers several important sectors including education, tourism, agriculture and food as well as science and technology. The two sides agreed to maintain the momentum of high-level exchanges and underlined the leading role of such exchanges for the development of bilateral relations.

The strategic partnership, which is a major step forward in bilateral relations, provides for a strengthened political and economic dialogue between China and Ireland and promotes closer consultation and co-operation between my Department and its Chinese counterpart. The strategic partnership reaffirms the commitment of Ireland and China to representing and safeguarding human rights. As indicated in the joint statement, Ireland and China will conduct exchanges of expertise in governance and rule of law on the basis of equality and mutual respect. As China develops, we hope further progress will be possible in ensuring individual rights are enjoyed by all Chinese citizens. We will continue to address these matters in a frequent and regular dialogue, including in human rights dialogue and bilateral discussions, in a spirit of mutual respect and co-operation.

Equality Issues

I thank the Cathaoirleach for facilitating me speaking on this matter earlier than arranged. A scheme under the auspices of the Equality Authority for a number of years was funded by the European Social Fund and facilitated small and medium-sized enterprises having equality training provided on site by consultants. This applied in particular to human resources. It facilitated companies with 50 employees or fewer to ensure all employees were not just treated equally but also knew how to treat customers with respect and equality.

It was regarded as an extremely worthwhile scheme. I spoke to a number of companies that benefitted from it. I did not just speak to the owners or managing directors but also to unions and workers in the companies. It ensured people working in the company and the management, supervisors and line managers understood equality legislation, how to implement it practically and how to ensure equality was respected and legislation was adhered to, technically and practically, in the day-to-day job. The scheme has been discontinued.

A consultant from County Clare, Kenneth Buchholtz, provided the training very successfully for a number of years for a number of high profile companies in the Shannon free zone and the mid-west region. He is the source of my information and research. No one seems to know why the Equality Authority or the Department have discontinued the scheme. It was cost neutral from the point of view of taxpayers because it was funded by the European Social Fund. Is the European Social Fund no longer providing financial support for the scheme or has the Department decided to channel money to alternative schemes?

We have worked hard to ensure we have good equality legislation. During the lifetime of this Government, we will ensure the quality legislation will be superior but there is no point in legislation unless it is implemented and becomes reality in people's lives. The scheme was beneficial to companies without the necessary resources for equality officers on the payroll. I am bemused by the scheme being discontinued. Was there negative feedback or are the resources unavailable? I hope the Minister of State has good news for us to the effect that the scheme will be reintroduced.

I am taking this matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, who is unavailable, for which I apologise. I thank the Senator for raising it on the Adjournment.

I emphasise the Minister's continued commitment, and that of the Government, to promoting good employment and equality practices by all employers in Ireland, including those in the SME sector. There is a body of evidence that such practices, in addition to improving the welfare of workers, have advantages for firms in respect to stimulating innovation and improving competitiveness.

The scheme to which the Senator refers is one of the activities undertaken by the Equality Authority under an overall equality mainstreaming approach programme. The programme was set up under the human capital investment operational programme in Ireland, which is running from 2007 to 2013. Administered by the Equality Authority, the equality mainstreaming activity is jointly funded by the European Social Fund and from the Equality Authority's grant-in-aid provision, to a maximum of €4 million over the seven years of the European Social Fund programme.

The overall objective of the programme is to contribute to improving access to the labour market for specific groups experiencing barriers to employment. The programme does this by supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, providers of vocational education and training, and providers of labour market programmes to make institutional changes to combat discrimination, to promote equality and to accommodate diversity.

There are a number of distinct strands to the overall programme. Support packages are provided to providers of vocational education and training and labour market programmes and to trade union and employer networks. Funding is also available for research to support the knowledge base on vulnerable groups across the nine discriminatory grounds under equality legislation. Funding is available to develop resource materials to support good practice in combatting discrimination, promoting equality and accommodating diversity.

Consultancy support is provided for small to medium-sized enterprises, either in the form of sectoral projects, or individually under an SME grant scheme. Under the grant scheme, small businesses have been offered from one to four days' consultancy support by expert equality trainers and facilitators to put in place equality policies and practices, which is paid for directly by the Equality Authority. In the first four years of the programme, spending on the SME grant scheme amounted to €759,000. Some 282 individual SMEs benefited from direct interventions of this nature. The scheme has not operated in 2011 and 2012. The Department's ESF budget line to the Equality Authority was reduced from €260,000 to €150,000 in 2010, with a commensurate reduction in activity on this programme.

The selection of individual projects for funding is a matter for the project management, within the criteria set out and agreed with the European Social Fund for the overall programme. The Equality Authority receives advice on the work plans for this programme from a national framework committee that comprises the social partners, the Department of Justice and Equality, the Department of Finance and other stakeholders. The Minister understands that the national framework committee, while acknowledging that the objectives of the SME grant scheme remain valid priorities for the programme, decided in early 2011 that it would not be prudent to operate the SME grant scheme in that year. It suggested that a sectoral project approach might be an effective mechanism for engaging with the SME sector in the current difficult economic environment. Such an approach was pursued by the programme in 2011 and 2012. It is open for discussion.

It is not in dispute that individual businesses and their employees and customers have benefited from this scheme and that it would be of value for it to continue. The Minister supports the decision that has been made by the Equality Authority, which was a valid one in the difficult economic and budgetary context we face. The Minister has been advised that the Equality Authority has not closed the door on reinstating the SME grant scheme in the future, if and when the budgetary outlook is more favourable. I thank the Senator for raising the important topic of employment equality on the Adjournment. I will be happy to reply to any further questions he might have.

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. That the door is being left open is a cause for hope. We all hope that many new companies and indigenous enterprises will establish in this country and employ 20, 25 or 30 people. If such companies were unable to access equality training, it would be a retrograde step. We can have all the legislation we want, but if it is not implemented on the ground in practice it will have little effect. I support the theory that we need to be prudent. I suggest that we reduce the budget in this area while allowing the scheme to continue. Perhaps we could enter into an arrangement with companies whereby they would pay a portion of the cost and the rest of the cost would be met by means of limited funding, as opposed to 100% funding. I suggest that the Minister of State might encourage the Minister, Deputy Shatter, to let the Equality Authority know that he, his Department and the Government as a whole are in favour of the reintroduction of this scheme. It has done good work. The number of companies that have benefited from it was set out in the Minister of State's comprehensive reply. I would like more companies to benefit from it in the future. As legislators, we can——

I remind the Senator that he is supposed to ask a brief question at this stage.

I appreciate that.

It is more of a convention than anything else.

As legislators, we can produce excellent legislation here but it is a problem if it is not operated in practice. I thank Senator van Turnhout for allowing me to jump the queue.

I thank Senator Conway for raising this important matter. I have listened carefully to what he has said. I will raise the matter directly with the Minister, Deputy Shatter. I will contact the Equality Authority to discuss training opportunities in this area. Although the budget is limited, the fund has not been closed. The Minister and the Department keenly understand the importance of the work being carried out by the Equality Authority and its partners, particularly in the employment field. It is important for the new companies that are being established to be aware of the opportunity for discussions with the Equality Authority. The Senator's suggestion that these training programmes should be paid for jointly is a good one. I assure him that I will take the briefing notes I have been given and I will contact the Equality Authority on this issue as part of my SME agenda. It has been proposed that this particular grant scheme should continue in difficult circumstances. As I indicated earlier, the Equality Authority has not closed the door to its reintroduction in the future.

The economic context we face has forced many difficult decisions to be taken. There is no doubt that this scheme has allowed very good work to be undertaken by the social partners. The current position has arisen as a consequence of the many difficult decisions that are having to be made across the board. A level of co-operation and advice is being given to employers. I am well aware that the Equality Authority will forward such information to any company that might make a direct inquiry to it. I assure the Senator that the matter will be kept under review. I do not want to hold out any false hope, however. Having listened to what the Senator has said, I will ask the Minister's Department to raise it with the Equality Authority. I will contact the authority from my perspective as Minister of State will responsibility for the small business agenda. Many of the good points the Senator has made on the Adjournment today would be of assistance to small businesses. I will contact the Equality Authority to discuss the issue that has been raised.

Liquor Licensing Laws

In light of the launch on 7 February last of the steering group report on substance misuse, and the recommendation in the report that section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008, which relates to the sale and display of alcohol in the off-trade sector, should be commenced, I would like the Minister for Justice and Equality to clarify the manner in which section 9 will be implemented, in light of the two very different options that are available. When I examined the Act in question, it struck me that I had never before seen legislation that allows the Minister of the day to choose between two different sections when the time comes for the commencement of the legislation.

In 2008, the then Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Dermot Ahern, deferred the commencement of section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008, which relates to the structural separation of alcohol from other products in mixed trading outlets, in favour of a voluntary code of practice. One of the conditions of this deferral was that there would be strict adherence to and implementation of the industry code of practice, which was devised by the Responsible Retailing of Alcohol in Ireland group. The Minister said that statutory provisions would be activated if the voluntary measures were not successful.

I suggest that the provision for structural separation in the voluntary code of practice was insufficient from its conception. The inclusion of the caveat "as far as possible" in the relevant part of the code acts as a built-in get-out clause. It completely undermines the intention of the provision. Furthermore, there is ample evidence to show that the voluntary code is not working. It is being breached on a regular basis, particularly in the convenience store sector. This is supported by the findings of the Responsible Retailing of Alcohol in Ireland group's third annual compliance report, published in 2011, which shows that complaints relating to breaches of the code increased by 55% from 2010 to 2011.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, which published a report on the misuse of alcohol and other drugs in January. The committee made two recommendations that relate to the structural separation of alcohol. We proposed that "legislation be introduced which would ban the presentation and sale of alcohol products alongside groceries, confectionary and fuel" and recommended that "voluntary codes of practice in the retail industry pertaining to the sale of alcohol be abolished and replaced by statutory codes". This recommendation was replicated in the steering group report that I mentioned.

On 23 February last, in response to a parliamentary question, the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, said "what was mainly contemplated by the Steering Group were the substantial provisions on structural separation in Section 9(1A) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 — though the powers of commencement of these provisions are vested in the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence". I ask the Minister, Deputy Shatter, to commence section 9 of the 2008 Act. It is unusual for a steering group report to recommend something that is already provided for in legislation. I strongly believe we should be commencing the section in question.

I am replying on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, who is unavailable. I thank the Senator for raising this important subject. In its 2008 report, the Government's alcohol advisory group recommended the structural separation of alcohol products from other retail items in mixed trading outlets such as supermarkets, convenience stores and garage forecourts. The recommendation addressed a concern that alcohol is not an ordinary product and that this should be reflected in more restricted visibility, display and sale arrangements for alcohol products in such premises. This recommendation subsequently formed the basis of the statutory provisions which are contained in section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008.

Section 9 of the 2008 Act requires that alcohol products be displayed and sold in a separate part of mixed trading outlets. It provides that the display and sale of alcohol is confined to a part of the premises that is separated from the rest of the premises by means of a wall or similar barrier; that access to this part can only be gained from the rest of the premises through a door, gate, turnstile or similar means of access; and the only place within the premises that customers can pay for alcohol is at a counter or point of sale within this separated part of the premises. The only permitted alternative, which was included in an attempt to accommodate small outlets, is to confine the display and sale of alcohol products to a part of the premises to which the public does not have access, for example, an area behind a counter. In such cases, wine could continue to be displayed as before.

During the period leading up to enactment of the 2008 Act, bodies representing the mixed trading sector proposed implementation of a code of practice as an alternative to section 9. The then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform agreed to postpone implementation of the statutory provisions in favour of an agreed code of practice, subject to compliance with stated conditions. In particular, it was made clear that deferring implementation of the statutory provisions was conditional on independent verification of compliance with the code and that the code was achieving the objectives of structural separation. A code of practice was drawn up and agreed between the Departments of Health and Children and Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the mixed trading sector. The code sets out voluntary commitments on structural separation, advertising and training.

A new body, Responsible Retailing of Alcohol in Ireland Ltd., RRAI, was established by the mixed trading sector to oversee implementation of the code. Mr. Padraic White is the independent chair of RRAI. The results of his compliance reports for 2009 and 2010 were broadly positive and the previous Government was sufficiently satisfied with the progress made that it did not feel it necessary to implement section 9 of the 2008 Act. On receipt of Mr White's compliance report for 2011, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, launched a consultation process in which he sought the views of interested parties on the 2011 report and, more generally, on the effectiveness of the voluntary approach to implementing structural separation in mixed trading premises. The response to the consultation process elicited a broad range of views on future arrangements for structural separation. It appears there are three main options: continued reliance on the RRAI's existing voluntary code of practice; implementation of the statutory provisions set out in section 9 of the 2008 Act; or implementation of a statutory code of practice under section 17 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 2011.

Section 17 of the 2011 Act provides that the Minister for Justice and Equality may prepare and publish a code of practice, or may approve a code drawn up by any other body, for the purpose of setting standards for the display, sale, supply, advertising, promotion or marketing of intoxicating liquor. In both cases, a draft of the code must be published for the purpose of allowing those who may be affected by it to make representations. Having considered representations received, if any, and decided whether to modify the contents or not, the Minister may proceed to publish the code in the Iris Oifigiúil. Importantly, section 17 provides that any failure on the part of a licensee to observe the provisions of a statutory code shall not of itself render the licensee liable to any civil or criminal proceedings but may be a ground on which objection may be made to renewal of the licensee’s licence.

Following examination of the submissions received in response to the consultation process, and the recommendation in the recently published steering group report on a national substance misuse strategy, the Minister expects to be in a position to seek Government approval for proposals relating to future arrangements for the display and sale of alcohol products in mixed trading outlets in the coming weeks. I thank the Senator for raising this issue.

We have a steering group report and an Oireachtas joint committee report and both have clearly called for structural separation. We are in a position where we have legislation in place to do it and it is up to the Minister to commence section 9(1)(a). I appeal to the Minister to consider the tools in his armoury already.

The final line in the Minister's statement was that he expects to be in a position to seek Government approval to act with regard to future arrangements for the display and sale of alcohol products. This is good news. He has listened to everybody's submissions and I have no doubt the work of the committee and the reports he has received will lead him to make a decisive decision on this issue within a number of weeks as he has said.

Higher Education Grants

This Adjournment matter relates to the changes announced in the budget last year with regard to the means testing of capital assets for third level maintenance grants. The specific reason I have tabled the matter is that many farm families are very worried that as a result of the Government decision and the work currently being undertaken by the asset implementation group, their children will not be in a position to avail of third level maintenance grants for the 2013-2014 academic year.

There is a myth in Ireland that all farm children obtain third level maintenance grants, but there is no factual basis to back this up. A survey of 72% of first level students carried out in 2009 found that 8.9% of new students were from farming backgrounds. Of those, 8.3% were children of farmers and 0.6% were children of agricultural workers. Some 39.7% of the children of farmers were in receipt of a higher education grant and 63% of the children of agricultural workers were in receipt of grants. This clearly indicates that not all children from farming backgrounds are in receipt of third level grants.

The current application form for a third level maintenance grant is complicated but there is a simple basis used for calculating the net income of the farm family. That income is derived from whatever assets the farmer holds and from lands let or leased. If I understand correctly, if the Government accepts the recommendation that agricultural land be classified as an asset, farm families will be penalised disproportionately. While the income calculation is understandable, it would be very unfair if they were also to be assessed on the basis of the value of the property from which they derive their income. An exemption from this proposal must be made for farm families.

Agriculture is a resilient sector and it is helping to restore economic progress to this country. There are other people with assets. Some wealthy developers may have assets, but they may have fancy accountants who can hide those assets for them and their children get third level grants. While we need to look at overall assets, farming land should be ring-fenced and should not be included in an assessment, whether for a farmer with 100 acres in west Donegal or east Cork . The income they are deriving from that asset is actually contained within the net income on the application form for the third level grant. That is the reason I have raised this. I know some of the farming organisations have also been raising it, as have constituents of my own. There is a worry out there that the recommendation coming from the implementation group will be accepted by the Government. Unfortunately, the Minister, Deputy Quinn, in response to a number of parliamentary questions, has indicated that farming or agricultural land will not be excluded. That gives me cause to believe that farming lands will actually be included as an asset, for which farmers will be doubly penalised. That is the point being made by farming organisations. I hope the Minister has some good news.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House.

I thank Senator Ó Domhnaill for raising this important issue. The Senator refers to an announcement last December that the means test for student grants will be amended to take account of the value of certain capital assets as well as income for the 2013-14 academic year. A considerable body of reports over a number of years have strongly recommended the introduction of a capital test for student grants, particularly on the grounds of equity and fairness. The introduction of such a test would create a more equitable basis for means testing through a more complete analysis of a family's capacity to support their children in pursuing further or higher education.

The Senator will appreciate that in the context of the current financial climate, the importance of accurately targeting increasingly scarce resources to those who need them most has become a high priority. Given the increasing cost of providing student maintenance grants, the potential for this proposal to deliver cost savings on the student grant budget is also a critical consideration at this time. While the introduction of a capital assets test for student grants may traditionally have been perceived as being likely to affect the farming community in particular, this is not the object of the proposal. I emphasise that the proposal is not designed to target any one group.

The Senator is aware that a dedicated capital asset test implementation group has been established, as he referred to this in his speech. The group has been charged with introducing detailed implementation proposals on new means testing arrangements for student grants, to include the value of assets, for new applicants from the 2013-14 academic year. The group has met on three occasions and its deliberations are ongoing. I expect the group to report to the Minister by the summer and to make recommendations on the inclusion or exclusion of various classes of asset. Any proposals will require further Government agreement and necessitate legislative amendment.

I thank the Minister. I fully appreciate that he cannot give any indication of what the group will report, but my great fear is for farming families. The reason I am concerned about farming families in particular is that they will be penalised twice on the same income. When filling in the application form for a third level grant, a family must specify the net income that was derived from the farm the previous year. It is a matter of public record, in any event, because of all the payments from departmental schemes. As that money is derived from land the family owns, if that land were classified as an asset, the family would be penalised a second time for the same income, which would be totally unfair. There will certainly be a legal challenge to such a provision if it is introduced by the Government. I appeal to the Minister of State to consider this view when the implementation group reports back to him and the Minister, and when dealing with any proposal with regard to farmers, to be extremely sensitive to the issues that are being raised.

I thank the Senator for the points made. I respectfully suggest to him that not all farm income is necessarily a matter of public record. We would both agree on that. However, I understand the Senator's point about double-counting farm incomes. That is clearly set out in the application form. The Minister will be receiving a report on this, and I will certainly convey to him the concerns outlined by the Senator. He need have no doubt about that.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.45 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Monday, 23 April 2012.
Top
Share