Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 18 Sep 2014

Vol. 234 No. 2

Adjournment Matters

Schools Building Projects Status

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, for coming in to take the Adjournment. This matter concerns one of the largest primary schools in County Donegal which has an enrolment of more than 440 children. The school was placed on the capital building programme prior to the 2011 general election but the then Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, for reasons probably best known to himself, removed the school from the capital building programme. While some progress has been made in the past 12 months in getting a design team up and running and while there have been meetings between departmental officials, the board of management and the architects appointed by the school, the danger is that if the project is not on the capital building programme all this work may be in vain.

The school was built in 1958 and an extension was built in 1974. It has only 12 permanent classrooms, only four of which have toilet facilities and running water. Approximately 40% of the children are being taught in prefabricated accommodation, including children with special needs. The playground is extremely dangerous because it doubles as a carpark which is used by the adjoining parish centre and St. Mary's Church. There is major traffic congestion particularly in the mornings when a mass service takes place and in the evenings and also when weddings and funerals take place at the local church.

A new site has been identified. I raise the issue to ascertain from the Department whether the project can be placed on the capital building programme. While the Minister of State, who is a big Tipperary supporter and is getting ready for the weekend, is not responsible for this particular area I am not sure if he has good news to announce today. I hope the Department has given him a script that may shed some light on the issues raised.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Tom Hayes)

I am taking this matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. I thank the Senator for raising it as it provides me with the opportunity to clarify the current position on the major capital project for Scoil Mhuire, Stranorlar.

The Senator will be aware of the demographic challenge facing the education system in the coming years. Primary enrolments, which have already risen substantially in recent years, are projected to rise by almost 37,000 pupils by 2016 and they are set to continue to rise, with a likely peak in 2019. In order to meet the needs of our growing population of school-going children, the Department must establish new schools as well as extending or replacing a number of existing schools in areas where demographic growth has been identified. The delivery of these new schools, together with extension projects to meet future demand, will be the main focus of the Department's budget for the coming years. Stranorlar has not been identified as an area of significant demographic growth. In 2014-15 there appears to be a slight spike in enrolment in the area. However, enrolment in the area is expected to gradually decline in the next few years.

Notwithstanding that Stranorlar has not been identified as an area of growth, a new site for the proposed new school was completed some time ago. A project brief was prepared and the project has been advanced into the architectural planning process.

The project at Scoil Mhuire B&C, Stranorlar, will consist of a new three-storey, 24 classroom school with ancillary accommodation on a greenfield site. The design team for this project was appointed in March 2014. The original project supervisor for the design process, PSDP, ceased trading shortly after their appointment and a replacement PSDP member of the design team has been subsequently appointed.

As conditional planning permission has been granted by Donegal County Council for this project, the project has been authorised to advance directly to stage 2a, developed design. Once the Department has received confirmation that the design team is prepared for the stage 2a stakeholders meeting, arrangements will be made to hold this meeting.

School building projects, including the project for Scoil Mhuire, which have not been included in the five-year construction programme but which were announced for initial inclusion in the building programme, will be ready to be progressed to the final planning stages in anticipation of the possibility of further funding being available to the Department in future years. Pending the provision of a new school building, it is open to the school authorities to submit an application for additional accommodation should the current accommodation be insufficient to cater for increasing enrolments.

I again thank the Senator for giving me the opportunity to outline the current position on the school and hope it satisfies his needs.

Apprenticeship Programmes

Senator John Whelan

I was astonished to learn from information that has been made available to me from both the trade union sector and the employer representative agencies such as the Construction Industry Federation that there are only 12 apprentices in the entire country. It begs the question what FÁS was doing and what its function and responsibility were if it was not to ensure sufficient training and an adequate skills set.

There was, as we all know, a dramatic and drastic downturn in the construction sector, but there are tentative signs of recovery. There is a housing shortage, but now it will be compounded by a dramatic and chronic skills shortage.

As recently as 2004, 1,200 apprentices were going through the system on an annual basis. I hark back to the time of AnCO when it was a great opportunity for any young person to be accepted on an apprenticeship programme. It meant they were trained, they became skilled and they had a job and a career path for life. Often, they went on to set up their own businesses and employ others.

As we talk about tackling a drastic housing shortage, it is hard to believe that there are only 12 apprentices in the entire country. It will lead to serious job creation problems and a shortage of skilled labour on building sites throughout the country.

All the stakeholders - employers and the trade union sector - have come together to appeal to the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, within whose remit this falls under the auspices of the newly formed SOLAS within her Department. I am informed there are 60 staff in the apprenticeship section of the Department. There are 60 staff to look after 12 apprentices. It does not add up. It does not make sense. We will walk into a terrible haymaker unless there is dramatic, drastic, robust and immediate intervention by the Department to get SOLAS to get its act together and ensure we will not have a situation in a year or two where one will not be able to get a qualified plasterer or block layer in this country. It is alarming to think that such could even possibly be the case. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, to outline the plans of the Department of Education and Skills and SOLAS to address this chronic problem.

Deputy Tom Hayes

SOLAS is the body with statutory responsibility for the management of the apprenticeship training model in Ireland. SOLAS also convenes the national apprenticeship advisory committee, representative of employers, unions, education and training bodies and State agencies, to advise on a range of issues relating to apprenticeship. I understand from SOLAS that, as of 28 August this year, the total apprenticeship population in Ireland is 7,483. This is made up of a live population of 6,331 and a redundant population of 1,152. Of the live population, the total of those on the job is 5,591 while a further 740 are on off-the-job training.

Apprenticeship is a demand-led scheme and SOLAS approves an employer as competent to train apprentices but does not limit or control recruitment numbers. The continuity of apprentice registrations and the number of apprentices registered with SOLAS is determined by individual employers within a broad range of occupational sectors.

In recognition of the fact that since the current system of apprenticeship was implemented in the early 1990s there have been major changes to the structure of the economy and the nature of employment, my predecessor established an independent review group to progress a consultation process and prepare recommendations on how the apprenticeship system could be improved. The group's membership included employers, representatives of business and unions and academic experts. Following a wide consultation process, the review group submitted its report in December 2013 and it was published in January 2014.

Key recommendations from the review group included new governance arrangements, including the appointment of an enterprise-led apprenticeship council hosted by SOLAS with close co-operation from the Higher Education Authority; a review of existing apprenticeship curricula as a matter of urgency; the expansion of the apprenticeship model into a range of new enterprise sectors; recruitment to apprenticeship to continue to be the responsibility of approved employers but with greater planning and control of numbers in apprenticeship; the development of clear occupational and academic progression routes; and a branding and promotion initiative illustrating the benefits of apprenticeship as a way of learning and the career opportunities arising.

The apprenticeship implementation plan was published on 30 June 2014. The plan adopts a phased approach to implementation, recognising the need to progress current work on existing apprenticeships and to determine demand from new enterprise sectors through a call for proposals before embedding new arrangements in legislation. The plan sets out how an apprenticeship council will be appointed and details a series of actions to renew existing apprenticeships and develop new ones, including a call for proposals for apprenticeships in new areas. These actions will be delivered in three phases and are under way.

The Department is confident that we now have a good basis for renewing apprenticeship in Ireland as a strong model of learning in both further and higher education and training, thus ensuring that our apprenticeship system meets the needs of trainees and employers now and in the future.

Senator John Whelan

I thank the Minister of State for his answer. It is not directly his responsibility. SOLAS is being deliberately disingenuous with the answer that it has provided for him. It is dodging the question. I state categorically that it is massaging the figures. I have verifiable figures from both the Construction Industry Federation and ICTU which have made a joint submission to the Department. There are only four plasterers, three block layers and three painters and decorators under apprenticeship in the country. Obviously, SOLAS is deliberately including mechanics and electricians in its figures to dodge the question. I refer to the wet trades. Specifically, I refer to the construction sector in this regard. These figures were only put together within the past fortnight.

I do not share the confidence that SOLAS is on top of the job and there is a robust system of training in place for these specific trades and skill sets. I respectfully ask the Minister of State to bring that back to the Minister for Education and Skills and see that it is addressed.

Deputy Tom Hayes

Nobody wants to give misleading figures. The Senator is accurate in stating there is a shortage of those skill sets because of the downturn in the economy. We are now in a different position. There is a realisation that plasterers, chippies and those involved in the needs of industry have gone to America or Australia, or they are all over the world. Those tradesmen can return. I am aware at first hand that in my area there are tradesmen coming back from Australia and other places.

The Senator's issue is apprenticeships. I am certain that the Minister will keep it in mind. If the economy is to grow, we need workers with such skills. I certainly will report back the Senator's concern to the Minister. I hope, as it should be the intention, that everybody involved ensures that there are apprentices to carry out projects and work as the economy improves in the future.

UN Resolutions

Senator Rónán Mullen

I welcome the Minister of State. Article 41 of the Constitution and Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights share the same understanding of the Family - with a capital "F". Marriage is between men and women, marriage is inextricably linked to family and children and family is the natural and primary unit group in society and therefore demands protection from the State and indeed is guaranteed that protection in the Irish Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, yet Ireland decided to vote against a UN resolution calling for the convening of a discussion on "the protection of the family". Instead, Ireland co-authored an amendment that greatly diluted the intended resolution by adding at its end the following quotation, "bearing in mind that in different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exist". The factual statement contained in Ireland's amendment is, no doubt, correct. However, as a legal and political statement, the amendment proposed by Ireland is not coherent either with the Irish Constitution as it stands or with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR, in terms of the respective understandings of the Constitution and the UDHR of the normative interrelationship between marriage, family and society. Consequently, Ireland's vote against the resolution cannot have been motivated by any concern or respect for either Ireland's own constitutional position on the matter or that of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The question to which I seek an answer is what motivated the Irish decision to vote against this resolution? I do not wish to believe it was any private ideology of the Minister, for whom I have great respect and who is an open-minded and thinking person, or one of his officials. However, I must ask whether some private ideology or some kind of groupthink was at work? I remind the Government that Ireland's presence at the United Nations is the presence of the Irish State, constituted by our basic law. It is not the presence of either of the governing parties or of their party political manifestoes or of their Ministers. I wish to ascertain whether the vote was dictated by an informal European Union voting alliance. If so, that is wrong because the European Union has no legal competence in the area of marriage and family policy. I wish to note that the official Irish statement made at a panel discussion on the protection of the family last Monday also openly departed from the current constitutional position on marriage and the family. It is time that Members began to examine the position that is being taken up by Irish officials in international fora and testing whether they comply, not with the current ideological preferences of the mainstream media or within Government parties, but with the requirements of Irish law and of the Irish basic law in particular. Can I have some objective rationale from the Government for the position it is taking? My point is that until we change the Constitution, the Government has no right to depart either from its spirit or its letter. Perhaps an explanation is forthcoming from the Government. While I have great respect personally for the Minister of State, as a Minister from another Department it is unfair to ask him to take an Adjournment matter on this issue. No doubt a response has been prepared for him and while I look forward to hearing it, I would appreciate the opportunity to engage directly with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on this issue in due course.

Deputy Tom Hayes

Ireland attaches great importance to family-related issues. We recognise the crucial role of parents, care givers and extended families in improving outcomes for children and young people, the important role of families concerning responsibility and care for the elderly, as well as the need to provide support to families to enable them to play these important roles. Families can provide an important framework to assist in the promotion and protection of human rights, in particular those of the family members themselves. This is recognised in the inclusion of the concept of the family in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.

For many years, Ireland has supported resolutions on the family at the United Nations, including most recently at the session of the UN Commission for Social Development held in February 2014. Ireland's engagement on these resolutions always has been guided by an understanding that negotiations among UN member states must be inclusive and must take into account the variety of human existence, while also ensuring the universal nature of human rights is respected. Discussions at the United Nations on the family must take into account this diversity. Past resolutions at the United Nations have consistently recognised that in different cultural, political, and social systems, various types of family exist, recognising the importance of the family to society while ensuring that our understanding of the family remains broad and inclusive. From the poor grandmother in a village in Africa taking care of her grandchildren after their parents have passed away, to the single father in Dublin looking after his children with the help of extended family and to the more traditional forms of the family, we must ensure that our understanding of the family is broad enough to encompass the diversity of families that exist around the world today.

Throughout the course of negotiations on the resolution on the protection of the family during the 26th session of the UN Human Rights Council in June 2014, EU member states and other democratic countries repeatedly requested the inclusion of language in the draft resolution that would clearly acknowledge the diverse forms of the family. Despite these consistent proposals on behalf of a sizeable number of states, the core group of countries proposing the draft resolution, namely, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, El Salvador, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Qatar, Russia, Sierra Leone, Tunisia and Uganda, refused to include previously agreed and accepted language recognising that various forms of the family exist. It was for this reason that Uruguay, together with Ireland, Chile, and France, tabled an amendment to the draft resolution to recognise this diversity of families, seeking to include agreed language from many previous UN resolutions, which state that in different cultural, political and social systems, there are various forms of the family. However, the Russian Federation, supported by China and Indonesia, called for a "no-action" motion on this amendment to prevent the consideration of the amendment by the council. The "no-action" motion passed with 22 votes in favour, four abstentions and 20 against, meaning that the Council was prevented from debating publicly the importance of recognising diversity in our efforts to protect the family. Ireland profoundly regrets that such a deplorable tactic was used to stifle debate and dialogue. Such "no-action" motions limit the ability of the council to discuss the substance of matters put before it and run contrary to the spirit of the council. With debate on this important aspect of the resolution effectively shut down, the United Kingdom called for a vote on the draft resolution as a whole. With the proponents of the draft resolution insisting on maintaining a narrow and exclusive definition and taking steps to prevent even a debate on its amendment, Ireland, along with all other EU member states that are members of the council, voted against the draft resolution. The resolution passed with 26 votes in favour, six abstentions, and 14 opposed.

Senator Rónán Mullen

I thank the Minister of State for being present to give an answer. However, I note both the answer and the somewhat emotive language there as well. I do not know whether it always is Ireland's practice to oppose "no action" motions. It would be interesting to consider that question at another time. However, I believe that Ireland's response does no service to the quality of the original proposal, which reaffirmed that states have primary responsibility to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all human beings. It also is a gratuitous slap at the Irish Constitution, because we have families headed by grandmothers in Ireland and other situations and yet that is compatible with Irish provisions on the family and those families are respected in Ireland. Consequently, Ireland must get back to respecting its own Constitution in international fora and some of the language in this response was quite revealing of a certain disregard. It almost is as though people feel they are off the reservation when they are in international fora and they are not obliged to worry too much about what the Irish Constitution currently provides. This is an issue I will be taking up further, I hope with the Minister and with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, because this important issue of respect for the Irish Constitution by our officials in international fora is being brought to the surface here.

Deputy Tom Hayes

Briefly, I am sorry the Minister is not available as he is otherwise engaged, but I have no doubt that he will engage with the Senator. However, I refer to the thrust of what he has been saying.

The family, as we know it, is a central part of what we want to protect in Ireland. We always value what the family stands for and what it does in regard to older people and protecting our children and young people. However, one has to look at the human rights aspect of this. People in different parts of the world have different views on this. In Ireland, the family is a central part of what we stand for and I know the Minister thinks the same. The family is fundamental to Irish society and that is what we want to protect.

Fisheries Protection

Senator Tom Sheahan

I welcome the Minister of State and compliment him on the fact that he has taken to his portfolio like the proverbial duck to water. Speaking to colleagues and others, it is widely recognised that he is the most helpful and the most approachable, for which I thank him.

The issue I raise is of national importance and relates to the whole fishing industry. It affects Dingle, Killybegs, Castletownbere, Rossaveal and Dunmore East and relates to the new process of weighing fish. The EU directive on the weighing of fish states that the fish will be weighed on the boat, on the pier or in the factory. We have spoken many times about Ireland and its participation in the European Union but the practice here currently is to do all three. The fish, including herring and mackerel, the season for which opened two weeks ago tomorrow, are being weighed on the boat, dry weighed on the pier and weighed in the factory.

Approximately two years ago, the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government brought in administrative sanctions, fines and penalties for indiscretions in the fishing industry. For the life of me, I cannot understand why they are not being implemented. A sledge hammer is being used to crack a nut here. Obviously, as in any industry, there is always a rogue or a couple of rogues but what is happening now is that the whole industry is being virtually shut down as a result of more red tape and bureaucracy. There are an additional 12 conditions.

The factories in which the fish are processed must put in cameras. I was trying to think of a comparable workplace, other than here where we are constantly looking into cameras, but I do not know of any other workplace in which there are cameras. It is not as if the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is short of staff. It has 100 inspectors and we are talking about five places in the country which must be inspected.

A compromise is needed. We are two weeks into the herring and mackerel season. I spoke to a factory owner in Killybegs during the week and he informed me that he lost a boat during the week and a turnover of €3 million. That boat, laden with fish, went to Scotland so those fish did not land in Ireland. The men and women were not working in the factory and the factory was effectively closed. It does not make sense. The fish are gone, the fish processors are closed and the fish processing workers will be gone.

As I said, two years ago, administrative sanctions were brought in by the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, to deal with rogues in the fishing industry and that is why they should be implemented. Why not tie up someone's boat following an infringement and remove that person's licence following another infringement rather than tarnish everyone in the fishing industry as a rogue out to fiddle the system? Rather than concentrate our focus on the Irish fishing industry, with which I have no issue, a compromise could be reached here. We should focus more on the Faroese and the Icelandics who have taken 1 million tonnes of mackerel and herring in the past five years and not hammer our own little industry. The factory workers will not have work and the factories will close.

The resolution lies with the 100 inspectors in the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. There should be random weighing checks and random checks in the factories with one weighing process, which is sought in the EU directive, and not three different weighing processes. Anyone found to be breaking the law should be dealt with by the courts. That is what should be done. A resolution could be found very quickly. As I said, we are two weeks into the herring and mackerel season.

Deputy Tom Hayes

I thank the Senator for raising this issue. All matters relating to the operational enforcement of sea fisheries law are, by statute, matters appropriate to the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. The SFPA is the independent law enforcement agency of the State for sea fisheries law.

As Minister of State, I do not have responsibility in regard to the issues raised by the Senator. Responsibility in these matters rests with the SFPA, which has a challenging job to do. Its statutory responsibility is to enforce EU and national law under the Common Fisheries Policy. It also has responsibility to provide a level playing field for everybody in this industry. If one boat or two or six boats are overfishing deliberately, it is not a victimless crime. It has an impact on others who are law abiding and who are catching in accordance with the quotas allocated to them.

The market situation for pelagic fish is currently challenging, as Russia has banned the importation of pelagic fish and Russia has been an important market for mackerel, in particular. If illegally caught fish are being placed on the market, it displaces and reduces prices for those operators, the majority of our industry, who are abiding by the rules set down. It is in the interests of the industry as a whole to have strong and fair arrangements in place that give confidence that the rules apply across the board and that all operators are abiding by the quota allocations made available to them.

The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority has sent me a report on the issues that have given rise to the current situation, the actions taken and the current state of consultation between it and the industry. Arrangements for the monitoring and control of fisheries are set down in EU Control Regulation 1224/09. Article 60(2) of the Council regulation requires that weighing of fisheries products shall be carried out on landing prior to the fisheries products being held in storage, transported or sold. SFPA has allowed a derogation from the EU regulations and permitted the weighing of pelagic fish post-transport in every plant since 2012, based on assurances that proper systems and procedures that accurately recorded catches were in place in these plants. However, there have been substantial indications that fish have been landed in weights that exceed those recorded by the weighing systems in factories. These indications have arisen through the routine course of SFPA's work and as a result of joint inspections with other organisations, including the National Standards Authority of Ireland.

The SFPA has set out some of the issues that gave rise to concerns. These include a high level of divergence between spot checks by the SFPA and the official factory weight, even taking account of some divergence relating to water content; a trend of individual trucks recording substantially more fish when subject to SFPA official control compared to instances when not subject to such controls; and one instance of a simple on-off switch on the belt weigher in a factory which had the effect of allowing the belt to transit fish without being recorded on the meter. If used in this way, fish would not be weighed or recorded.

The permits which allow in-factory weighing have lapsed owing to the SFPA's overall lack of confidence in the operation of the weighing systems. The SFPA has entered into discussions with both catchers and processors to implement systems and procedures that will restore confidence in the weighing systems in factories.

The authority has set out to the factories certain requirements necessary before permits can be granted, thus allowing the renewal of in-factory weighing. These requirements include provisions to give assurances that weigh belts in the factories are recording when moving. They include confirmation of product flows into and out of plants and checks involving weighing of a sample of landings on the pier side as a means of validating factory weighing.

Several pelagic fish factories have in recent days applied for permits under the new requirements, albeit generally qualified by statements around non-acceptance of some of the requirements described by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. These applications are being considered by the SFPA.

While the representative bodies for the pelagic industry have acknowledged the need for change, they are not yet willing to support the SFPA requirement for a continuous remote monitoring facility to increase assurances of accurate recording. Furthermore, the industry is not yet willing to provide stock movement records at the level of detail set out in the SFPA request. Catchers have indicated they are not willing to move to recognise the validity of weighing at landing, even as a component cross-checking arrangement of an overall system of supporting factory permits.

I understand and appreciate that the new arrangements sought by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority for the effective control of pelagic fisheries involve some changes in practices. However, in the long run it will be in the interests of the industry as a whole to commit to strengthened controls that give all catchers and processors assurances that there is a level playing field across the industry. I encourage the industry to continue its dialogue with the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. The SFPA is considering existing applications for in-factory weighing permits and is awaiting further applications from the remainder of the factories. If there are additional technical issues to be sorted out, the authority has assured me that it remains available for further discussion with industry representatives.

Senator Tom Sheahan

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. The easy way to secure a level playing pitch, a term the Minister of State used on several occasions, would be to tackle those who are impinging on the fishing industry, namely, the fishermen from the Faroe Islands and Iceland who are fishing just outside our waters and to whom quotas do not apply. As I stated, they have taken 1 million tonnes of fish in the past five years.

To return to the issue, on-pier weighing requires the fish to be weighed dry. This practice is not supported by the catchers or processors as it compromises the quality of the fish. To ensure weighing results are accurate, fish will have to be weighed dry on the pier because one cannot weigh a tanker that is half full of sea water. The quality of fish that have been weighed in this manner is compromised when it arrives at the processing plant. This issue must be borne in mind.

As I stated, I do not raise or flag problems without proposing a resolution. The solution in this case is to implement the administrative fines, sanctions and penalties the Minister introduced two years ago. While I do not propose to name individuals, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority has identified a number of cases involving indiscretions or breaches of the law. Those found to be breaking the law should be prosecuted.

Deputy Tom Hayes

I thank the Senator for his contribution. He has a great knowledge of the issue and I will relay his comments to officials in the Department. Securing a resolution will require that we take a balanced approach for the sake of the fishing industry.

The Seanad adjourned at 2.35 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 23 September 2014.