<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rdf:RDF
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
  xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
  xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
		
<channel rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/mp/?pid=76">
<title>Simon Coveney - Recent appearances (From KildareStreet.com)</title>
<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/mp/?pid=76</link>
<description></description>
<dc:language>en-gb</dc:language>
<dc:creator>KildareStreet.com, mprss.php script</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-04-15T16:11:17+00:00</dc:date>

<items>
<rdf:Seq>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g379.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g377.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g374.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g371.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g362.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g349.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g338.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-07.405.0&amp;m=189#g415.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-07.326.0&amp;m=189#g379.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-07.86.0&amp;m=189#g196.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g404.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g400.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g394.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g385.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g378.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g365.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g346.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g342.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g340.0" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g337.0" />
</rdf:Seq>
</items>

</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g379.0">
	<title>Financial Resolution No. 11: General (Resumed) | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g379.0</link>
	<description>Not as bad as us.</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="379.1">Not as bad as us.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-08T15:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g377.0">
	<title>Financial Resolution No. 11: General (Resumed) | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g377.0</link>
	<description>The Government has been in office for two years and Ireland is in crisis.</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="377.1">The Government has been in office for two years and Ireland is in crisis.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-08T15:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g374.0">
	<title>Financial Resolution No. 11: General (Resumed) | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g374.0</link>
	<description>Deputy Gormley has a cheek to even refer to this Government&acirc;€™s record.</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="374.1">Deputy Gormley has a cheek to even refer to this Governmentâ€™s record.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-08T15:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g371.0">
	<title>Financial Resolution No. 11: General (Resumed) | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g371.0</link>
	<description>This Government&acirc;€™s record of achievement is that it has driven the country into recession.</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="371.1">This Governmentâ€™s record of achievement is that it has driven the country into recession.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-08T15:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g362.0">
	<title>Financial Resolution No. 11: General (Resumed) | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g362.0</link>
	<description>The Green Party has not done anything.  </description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="362.1">The Green Party has not done anything.  </p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-08T15:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g349.0">
	<title>Financial Resolution No. 11: General (Resumed) | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g349.0</link>
	<description>With all due respect, this issue is not about the Green Party but about the country.  We are speaking about the people the Government is asking to bail it out.</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="349.1">With all due respect, this issue is not about the Green Party but about the country.  We are speaking about the people the Government is asking to bail it out.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-08T15:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g338.0">
	<title>Financial Resolution No. 11: General (Resumed) | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-08.329.0&amp;m=189#g338.0</link>
	<description>I am glad to have a chance to speak on this debate, which is quite crowded as many people are trying to have their say before we break for Easter. If the Government wants to introduce a budget...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="338.1">I am glad to have a chance to speak on this debate, which is quite crowded as many people are trying to have their say before we break for Easter.</p><p pid="338.2">If the Government wants to introduce a budget such as that introduced yesterday, it must have an effective communications strategy if it expects people to accept the kind of hardship it is imposing on them.  It expects people to have a bond of trust with the Government over a period of four years during which we will go through great hardship and it will be asking for more and more sacrifice.  This year we have saved â‚¬3.5 billion; next year it will be â‚¬4 billion and the year after another â‚¬4 billion.  The way in which the Government started this process yesterday was extraordinary.  It stuck to the firm line that Ireland is experiencing the same hardship as all other countries in the Western world, that this is a global recession and that we have just hit a wall, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, says.  A bit of humility would have gone a long way towards building a sense of honesty in Government.  If in this budget it is asking families on middle incomes to take an income reduction of â‚¬4,000 or â‚¬5,000 after asking them to take a cut of about â‚¬2,500 last September, the least it can do is to be honest with them in terms of how we got here and who made the mistakes that have resulted in our having to slam on the brakes now.  However, it does not seem to be able to do that.</p><p pid="338.3">I am pleased the Minister here is a Green Party Minister, who is largely not responsible for the mistakes that have been made in the past five to six years. I appeal to the Minister, Deputy Gormley, to reach out to the public with that type of honesty.  People are not fools.  They know mistakes were made in particular domestic policy decisions.  They know this country was excessively reliant on the property sector for taxation revenues and that current expenditure was built on the back of this entirely unsustainable income.  They know Ireland has become uncompetitive and sloppy and that it is expensive to do business here.  They know we have allowed this to happen in the last four to five years.  Ten years ago, we were highly competitive.  People are aware of the wasteful expenditure that has taken place.  They know that in the boom times, when we were lucky enough to have surpluses, we should have been preparing for a downturn or for the deep recession we are now experiencing.  However, that is not what happened.</p><p pid="338.4">Is it too much to ask that a Government which expects the populace to shoulder the burden of its own mistakes should at least be honest about those mistakes?  I acknowledge that the current crisis is being added to in a significant way by a global banking collapse and a difficult exporting environment to which Ireland is particularly vulnerable.  We are all aware of these realities.  However, if the Government is asking people to accept the need for hardship and for everybody to come together in a unified effort to bring about national recovery in a time of emergency such as we currently face, the least people deserve is a dollop of humility and honesty from the Government.  Instead, all we have had is the type of arrogant speak we heard yesterday which saw fit to refer to the budget as evidence of the Governmentâ€™s leadership, courage and vision.  What a load of waffle.  The measures announced yesterday are decisions into which the Government has been forced.  Leadership and vision were required last September when the Government bottled it in introducing its unsuccessful first emergency budget.  It was only in view of collapsing revenues and the realisation that the country is heading towards the abyss in terms of our ability to borrow to meet the deficit requirement that the Government was forced into making the decisions it made yesterday.  So much for vision, courage and leadership.</p><p pid="338.5">The budget includes some measures that I support, including several of the initiatives on taxation.  There is undoubtedly a need to bring more money into the Exchequer and to close the widening deficit.  However, other challenges were totally ignored in this budget, the main one being job creation.  We in Ireland are faced with a dual challenge.  Like most countries in the western world, we must find a way to put in place a new banking structure that can ensure credit flows into the economy so that economic activity can be sustained and rebuilt.  There is new thinking in the budget in this regard.  I may not agree with the specific proposals but I recognise that there is at least an effort at new thinking.</p><p pid="338.6">The problem Ireland has which other countries do not is our massive and increasing revenue deficit.  We must deal with this at the same time as we deal with other issues.  The limit of the Governmentâ€™s imagination is evident in that its response has merely been to engage in a cash grab, largely from the middle income families who are always hit when there are tax increases.  How can the Government expect that making up 68% of a required saving of â‚¬3 billion or â‚¬3.5 billion through tax increases will be of benefit to an economy that is on its knees?  Such measures will merely ensure that consumers are brought to their knees.  Any fragile remnant of confidence in terms of the willingness of consumers to part with their money will disappear with the introduction of this budget.  Moreover, people know the situation will get even worse.  Who will buy a television, a laptop computer or a new car when average  annual incomes are dropping by â‚¬4,000 to â‚¬5,000, with even more severe reductions expected next year?</p><p pid="338.7">Is this the Governmentâ€™s economic strategy for recovery?  Crises always bring opportunities but there is no evidence of imaginative thinking on the part of the Government in this crisis.  For example, there is an opportunity to bring about dramatic and fundamental reform in the way the public service does its business in terms of rewarding initiative and performance and cutting out the fat and keeping the muscle.  However, there is no evidence of such a necessary initiative.  We still have an entire layer of middle management in the Health Service Executive, comprised in large part of staff who are not required, while staff are desperately needed in other areas of the public service and Civil Service.  The budget contains no measures for flexibility in public sector staffing.</p><p pid="338.8">We have an opportunity to put people back to work on infrastructural developments in areas of the new economy which are of particular concern to the Minister, Deputy Gormley, such as energy, information technology and water.  New State companies should be set up and there must be an examination of new structures of finance that would not impact on Government deficit.  We put our cards on the table and asked the Government to consider such measures, but we got nothing in return.  This budget will anger people not because it is tough but because it is unfair and because it takes Ireland in the wrong direction.  It will deepen and prolong the recession rather than lead us in a new direction with new thinking.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-08T15:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-07.405.0&amp;m=189#g415.0">
	<title>Financial Resolution No. 4: Mineral Oil Tax | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-07.405.0&amp;m=189#g415.0</link>
	<description>I do not have a difficulty with the proposed measure relating to tobacco, although I am sceptical that this will result in an 8% reduction in the consumption of cigarettes.  The evidence is that...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="415.1">I do not have a difficulty with the proposed measure relating to tobacco, although I am sceptical that this will result in an 8% reduction in the consumption of cigarettes.  The evidence is that as the price has increased, there has not been a corresponding reduction and while I hope there is a corresponding increase in the tax take, I have doubts about that as well, as the black market for cigarettes in Ireland is expanding and developing.  We have a battle on our hands to combat that illegal industry as peopleâ€™s incomes come under more pressure.  I encourage the Government to ensure the policing measures adopted regarding cigarette smuggling are examined and beefed up.</p><p pid="415.2">My reason for being present relates to the excise duty increase on diesel.  I accept the Government needs to find money from somewhere and it makes sense to target this area.  My problem is that the Government is targeting diesel but not petrol.  I understood clearly the rationale in this yearâ€™s budget was that a price advantage would be proffered on diesel over petrol on the basis of emissions.  Presumably, this was due to the influence of the Green Party.  The decision has been reversed.  It is a fact that, in equivalent sized engines, diesel produces significantly lower emissions than petrol.  The Government made the sensible decision to ensure a price advantage for diesel over petrol to encourage people to buy diesel engines to drive down emissions, to improve the efficiency of engines and so on because diesel was more expensive than petrol in the autumn of last year for supply and demand reasons primarily.  Why has the Government reversed this policy?  If there is an issue regarding competitiveness and fuel prices north and south of the Border, surely that applies to diesel as well as petrol.  The Governmentâ€™s policy in this yearâ€™s budget was correct to give diesel an advantage over petrol from an excise perspective.  Why has it reversed this policy?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-07T20:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-07.326.0&amp;m=189#g379.0">
	<title>Financial Resolution No: 2: Income Tax | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-07.326.0&amp;m=189#g379.0</link>
	<description>I wish to emphasise the point made by Deputy Noonan, in terms of the impact of what is proposed in the budget on single income families.  The debate we had on tax individualisation a number of...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="379.1">I wish to emphasise the point made by Deputy Noonan, in terms of the impact of what is proposed in the budget on single income families.  The debate we had on tax individualisation a number of years ago when the former Minister, Mr. McCreevy introduced it and the debate which has developed since then comes back onto the table here.</p><p pid="379.2">If one looks at the annexes provided in the Supplementary Budget Statement, it can be seen that a family with two children and a single income of approximately â‚¬75,000 is losing more than â‚¬4,000 of its income.  A double income family with exactly the same income loses just over â‚¬2,000.  There are many families who are changing from having two incomes to one income at the moment because of the number of people who are losing their jobs.  We are widening the gap between the unfairness of treatment in the taxation system between single income and double income families on exactly the same household income.  I appeal to Government to look at that issue.  I do not want to get involved in the other debate, which is more political.</p><p pid="379.3">I wish to raise another, more general issue which is linked to this.  If one looks at table 7 in the budget, which contains budgetary projections from 2009 to 2013, one can see net current expenditure, as well as gross current expenditure increasing dramatically over that period.  I cannot understand that rationale.  Clearly, the major problem for the State regarding the current deficit is because we have allowed current expenditure to increase on the back of an unsustainable income that has now collapsed, in terms of taxation revenue.  Yet, we are continuing to pursue a net current expenditure programme which increases from â‚¬46 billion this year to â‚¬54 billion in 2013.</p><p pid="379.4">In doing that we are requiring revenue to chase and overtake it to try and close the deficit problem.  I cannot understand the rationale behind allowing current expenditure to dramatically increase over a five year period at a time when we are trying to close the deficit.  The result of that will be increased pressure on the Government to raise more and more revenue through more and more taxation which will have knock-on impacts on everything from competitiveness to jobs, spending, confidence and all the other things.  I ask the Taoiseach to try to help us understand the rationale behind current expenditure projections in the context of the major challenge we face to close the deficit and raise extra tax revenue.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-07T19:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-07.86.0&amp;m=189#g196.0">
	<title>Supplementary Budget Statement 2009 | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-07.86.0&amp;m=189#g196.0</link>
	<description>What are we exposing the State to?</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="196.1">What are we exposing the State to?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-07T16:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g404.0">
	<title>Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages. | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g404.0</link>
	<description>I wish to make a brief comment.  I am not seeking the Minister to establish an Irish version of Sky Movies.  I propose that we have a film channel which is a shop window for the talent we have in...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="404.1">I wish to make a brief comment.  I am not seeking the Minister to establish an Irish version of Sky Movies.  I propose that we have a film channel which is a shop window for the talent we have in Ireland for movie making and all of the other broadcasting talent we have here but which would, where possible, be able to pay for itself.  It should try to attract new audiences all the time by playing popular films as well as niche films.  We are getting there and I look forward to seeing how it develops.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-02T13:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g400.0">
	<title>Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages. | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g400.0</link>
	<description>I am glad we have made progress in this area.  I accept that the Minister has genuinely tried to take on board some of the points I made on what I would have had regarded as a totally...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="400.1">I am glad we have made progress in this area.  I accept that the Minister has genuinely tried to take on board some of the points I made on what I would have had regarded as a totally unsustainable proposal in terms of cost to create an Irish film channel with no way of raising money to finance itself and therefore would have to be financed by the Exchequer or another form of levy system.</p><p pid="400.2">The concession from the Minister that he accepts there should be a form of advertising on the channel is welcome.  I agree with him that the advertising should be somewhat restricted.  We should ensure that we can play on such a channel full length films uninterrupted by advertising.  I accept what the Minister is trying to do.  I still have some concerns about the structure of an Irish film channel in the context of the other channels with which it must compete.  However, I recognise that the Irish film industry can be provided with a new outlet here whether it is for documentaries or short films.</p><p pid="400.3">With regard to the Ministerâ€™s view of how this channel will develop, will it be for Irish made film only or will a certain quota be set for Irish made film with non-Irish film broadcast on the channel.  If we are to introduce a commercial element, it is necessary to play a blockbuster to get sufficient audiences to make advertising worthwhile and, more importantly, to expose the audiences to Irish film which otherwise they would never watch.  This should not be allowed to become a niche arts channel in which only a very small number of people or those connected with the Irish film industry would watch.  We should attempt strategically to attract large audiences by showing very popular movies and then introducing Irish short film, animation and documentaries between them so we expose as many people as possible to the talents in the Irish film industry.  I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 30 because it is catered for in amendment No. 31 tabled by the Minister.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-02T13:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g394.0">
	<title>Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages. | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g394.0</link>
	<description>I welcome amendment No. 26, which acknowledges in a very real way the existence of community television in addition to community radio.  We are getting rid of the phrase &acirc;€śsound broadcasters&acirc;€ť,...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="394.1">I welcome amendment No. 26, which acknowledges in a very real way the existence of community television in addition to community radio.  We are getting rid of the phrase â€śsound broadcastersâ€ť, which had limited the functions of the authority to considering needs associated with community radio.  It will now be required to consider the needs of both community television and community radio broadcasters.  This is a forward step.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-02T13:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g385.0">
	<title>Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages. | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g385.0</link>
	<description>I want to comment on the remark made by the Minister that free-to-air should mean free-to-air.  That is okay for the consumer, but it is not necessarily okay for the broadcaster, because...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="385.1">I want to comment on the remark made by the Minister that free-to-air should mean free-to-air.  That is okay for the consumer, but it is not necessarily okay for the broadcaster, because free-to-air is not free-to-air.  There is a great deal of expense involved in the provision of product that is broadcast to the consumer on a free-to-air basis.  An issue arises for new networks, which will have a right under this legislation to re-transmit free-to-air programmes through a series of different platforms.  We must consider the effect on broadcasters that are providing the free-to-air service but financing it through advertising or, in the case of RTE, through a combination of commercial revenue and licence fee money.  That is the basis of my concern.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-02T13:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g378.0">
	<title>Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages. | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g378.0</link>
	<description>A number of issues arise in regard to the amendments we are considering.  I wish to focus on a matter relating to an addition by the Minister in amendment No. 25 outlining the principal functions...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="378.1">A number of issues arise in regard to the amendments we are considering.  I wish to focus on a matter relating to an addition by the Minister in amendment No. 25 outlining the principal functions of the authority.  I share the concerns that we are adding a whole series of new functions to the authority at the last possible opportunity.  I have some concerns about one of them, which we will discuss again at a later stage on an amendment that we will probably not reach today.  Section 26(i) and (j) relate to asking the authority to determine disputes arising under section 76(2) and section 77(5).  That relates to the â€śmust offerâ€ť and â€śmust carryâ€ť obligations on new networks that will be provided through multiplex systems and others.  We are basically asking the authority to become a dispute resolution body when it comes to what I anticipate will be significant differences of opinion between free-to-air broadcasters and the new networks to which they may be obliged to offer their programming for retransmission.  The whole negotiation process on how broadcasters will be compensated or paid for that could be problematic.</p><p pid="378.3">I want to flag this as a problem area for the authority and the Minister.  It adds a new role for the authority at a very late stage, when there is already a great deal of concern among existing free-to-air broadcasters who have entered into five or seven year contracts with sole rights in Ireland to transmit certain programmes.  New networks that will be put in place to broadcast free-to-air programmes in Ireland will face a â€śmust offerâ€ť or â€śmust carryâ€ť requirement and this will create an issue around compensation for moneys already paid for exclusive rights in Ireland for certain programmes.  We are asking that the broadcasting authority determine disputes arising in this area.  The Minister will be aware of what I mean when I say I am concerned about an amendment dealing with this issue that he proposes to put forward later in this legislation.  Clearly, somebody must have the role of determining disputes in this area.  It makes sense that the broadcasting authority should do that.  We are introducing a whole new area at a late stage without having had sufficient discussion on the matter.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-02T13:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g365.0">
	<title>Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages. | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g365.0</link>
	<description>Amendment No. 20 is a response to my concern on Committee Stage at the possibility that board meetings could be held where people telephone to give a decision on a question.  It is open to abuse...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="365.1">Amendment No. 20 is a response to my concern on Committee Stage at the possibility that board meetings could be held where people telephone to give a decision on a question.  It is open to abuse in difficult decisions where the board is split.  To be fair the Minister has tried to address this concern.  In the unlikely event there is not a full attendance at the board meeting and members must be telephoned for their views on a certain issue, it would not be acceptable for the chairperson to be on the telephone when other members could not hear and a vote may be taken.  I have experience of controversial decisions made on the basis of telephone calls from people who were abroad at the time.</p><p pid="365.2">I accept the RTE board will have to meet in emergency session when some members could be abroad.  I have no problem with telephone or video-conferencing whereby every board member can contribute to a discussion and give their decisions to the meeting.  It must happen, however, in a way where all members can hear what is being said and have the opportunity to contribute.  The Ministerâ€™s amendment covers this.</p><p pid="365.3">My only concern is the drafting of the amendment.  It states, â€śmeetings of the Authority or a statutory committee shall be capable of being held by telephone or other suitable electronic means whereby all the members of the Authority or the relevant statutory committee can hear and be heard.â€ť  If one member cannot be heard, for example by not having access to a telephone, it would negate those who were contributing through other conferencing means.  There could be an awkward scenario of a board member being in hospital.  This would negate other members using telephone or video-conferencing facilities.  Even if a decision were taken by a large majority of the board, it would not be valid.  When entering the telephone or video-conferencing realm, it is either all or nothing.  Either every member is there as part of the process or else one goes back to the old-fashioned way of people turning up for a meeting.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-02T12:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g346.0">
	<title>Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages. | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g346.0</link>
	<description>I move amendment No. 10: In page 18, to delete lines 8 and 9 and substitute the following: &acirc;€ś(2) The nomination and approval process shall have regard to the need for gender balance and...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="346.1">I move amendment No. 10:</p><p pid="346.2">In page 18, to delete lines 8 and 9 and substitute the following:</p><p pid="346.3">â€ś(2) The nomination and approval process shall have regard to the need for gender balance and representation from the disability sector.â€ť.</p><p pid="346.4">Question, â€śThat the words proposed to be deleted standâ€ť, put and declared carried.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-02T12:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g342.0">
	<title>Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages. | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g342.0</link>
	<description>We might disagree on that but whether there is the exact same representation of men and women on the board is less important than having a representative who has expertise and knowledge in this...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="342.1">We might disagree on that but whether there is the exact same representation of men and women on the board is less important than having a representative who has expertise and knowledge in this area.  We must have general regard to gender balance on the board but being exacting in that area and not being prescriptive in the area of disability is wrong.</p><p pid="342.2">My amendment No. 13 seeks to facilitate a speedier and more efficient decision-making process when there is a vacancy on the board.  If a person must leave the board for a reason, what the Minister is proposing in the legislation is that the Oireachtas committee would meet and go through the process of making a nomination, which the Minister will either accept or reject, to fill that role.  If that happens at the start of July there will be no replacement until, say, September because the Oireachtas committee might not be able to meet to consider the matter.  If there is a vacancy on a board it is the Ministerâ€™s job to replace that person and then go to the Oireachtas committee to inform it of the reason the person has been chosen.  In terms of going through that laborious process, and I am speaking against my own interests in Opposition, the Government must be efficient as well.  It appears to be an overly laborious process for the Oireachtas committee to go through the process of interviewing, selecting and recommending a person to the Minister before he can make the choice to accept or reject that nomination to replace one person on the board.  Should the chair of the board take ill, have an accident or have to leave because of a scandal, we do not have an efficient system to replace that person quickly, and that is a flaw.  That is the reason I propose that the Minister would take charge in that scenario, make an appointment and stand over that appointment before a committee.  This is an efficiency of Government issue also in terms of making a decision like that.  That is the purpose of amendment No. 13 which I would have expected to come from Government rather than from Opposition.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-02T12:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g340.0">
	<title>Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages. | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g340.0</link>
	<description>I thank the Minister for the clarification on the RTE board.  We should just get on and do it in order that it can get clear direction and have a full sized board with all of the expertise it is...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="340.1">I thank the Minister for the clarification on the RTE board.  We should just get on and do it in order that it can get clear direction and have a full sized board with all of the expertise it is hoped that will bring.  </p><p pid="340.2">Deputy McManus has made the point repeatedly about the need for representation of the disability sector.  I agree with everything she said in that regard.  I suspect our committee will take that into account when we nominate names for the Minister to consider, but the unfortunate aspect is that there will not always be the same relationship between an Oireachtas committee and a Minister.  In five or six yearsâ€™ time we could have an entirely different political structure here, never mind political personalities, and we will not have legislation that requires representation of a person from the disability-access sector on the board.  That is a missed opportunity.  Without being overly prescriptive, the Minister has a reasonably big board to fill and to insist that one of those members would fulfil that role is not unreasonable.  I would consider it as being more important than having a precise gender balance on the board.  We should take account of gender balance butâ€”â€”</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-02T12:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g337.0">
	<title>Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages. | D&amp;aacute;il debates</title>
	<link>http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2009-04-02.295.0&amp;m=189#g337.0</link>
	<description>I will leave the argument where it stands in the context of our difference of opinion regarding the role of committees and that of the Opposition.  I was lucky enough to have been involved in the...</description>
	<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p pid="337.1">I will leave the argument where it stands in the context of our difference of opinion regarding the role of committees and that of the Opposition.  I was lucky enough to have been involved in the hearings process in another parliament and was extremely impressed by it.  That was my sole motivation behind my proposal that we adopt a similar structure in Ireland.  I will endeavour to play my part in ensuring that the system proposed by the Minister will work.  I accept that there is a benefit to having the opportunity to put people forward for membership on boards as well as the opportunity to test the decisions of Ministers.  I return to the point that the majority of the members of the authority the Minister will appoint will never be tested by the Oireachtas.  It will, therefore, continue to be possible to place on the State board in question someone who might be termed a â€śdudâ€ť, without he or she ever being exposed as such.  That is not good enough.</p><p pid="337.2">Deputy McManus referred to the disability sector.  The Minister made a strong point to the effect that he does not wish to be overly prescriptive with regard to whether the person appointed to the board from this sector represents a sectoral area or something else.  The Minister has taken action in this regard in an absolute way in respect of gender balance.  As such, he has already established a precedent with regard to being prescriptive.</p><p pid="337.3">I support Deputy McManus in respect of the disability-access sector.  There are many people who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty accessing broadcasting services.  While I accept the principle that we should not prescribe the exact make-up of the board in the context of sectoral interests â€” this would essentially request that the Minister and the Oireachtas committee, in terms of their nominations, to operate within the confines of a straitjacket â€” an exception could be made in respect of disability-access interests to ensure that at least one board member would represent those with such interests.  In that context, amendment No. 10 in my name states that the nomination and approval process â€śshall have regard to the need for gender balance and representation from the disability sectorâ€ť.</p><p pid="337.4">Amendments Nos. 73 to 79, inclusive, deal with RTE.  How does the Minister plan to proceed in this regard.  The existing RTE board has been put in place on a temporary basis.  How does he intend to add to this board?  Will he merely add further members to the existing board when the committee puts forward a panel of nominees or does he intend to establish a new board?  Will the members of the temporary board comprise a percentage of the new board or will an entirely new membership be selected?  I presume the Minister will merely add to the six people who are already in place.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	<dc:date>2009-04-02T12:00:00+00:00</dc:date>
</item>


</rdf:RDF>