On a number of occasions since late 2017 I have raised the disgraceful treatment consistently meted out to hospices, disability organisations and mental health services by the Government, particularly its failure to restore the pay of their employees in line with that of other health service employees. The Minister for Health and the Government have been dishonest on the issue from the outset. Hospices and disability organisations are being treated as if they are second class, while their employees are being treated like second-class citizens. They implemented the FEMPI legislation in 2010 and 2013 and were deliberately excluded by the Government from pay restoration under the public service agreements of the past two years. The Government has stalled on the issue. We all know that these organisations depend significantly on voluntary donations and fundraising in the community. On average, they receive about 75% of their total annual revenue to meet operating costs from the Government and must fund the rest themselves. In particular, they have to raise almost all of their own capital. They have received no increase in funding in recent years to pay increments and meet inflation in non-pay costs. Since the early 2000s, the demand for their services has almost doubled. Hospices, in particular, are efficient and effective, have a significant impact and won the trust of the public, yet they are being treated in a very cynical, dishonest and shabby manner by the Government. It is difficult to comprehend why they were ever left out of pay restoration provided for in the Estimates and allocations, but a cynical decision was taken somewhere to brazen it out. The goalposts and the story keep changing, but, essentially, these organisations have been hung out to dry. I raised the matter with the Taoiseach in October and November 2017 and January this year, but he keeps shifting the goalposts. Fundamentally, this is not an industrial relations issue but a funding issue. It is an issue of basic fairness. Hospices and disability organisations have been short-changed. They have warned us that they will simply have to cut services if pay restoration does not happen in line with that for other health service employees. They face a funding crisis. Will the Taoiseach confirm that funding has been allocated in the Estimates for 2019 to facilitate pay restoration for the employees of hospices, disability organisations and those covered by section 39? When will the Government do the right thing in treating the employees of these organisations in a fair and just manner?

I thank the Deputy and welcome him back. I hope he had a nice summer.

I want, of course, to start by joining him in acknowledging the really valuable and important work that is done in section 39 organisations, whether it is hospices around the country, like St. Francis Hospice, which is very near to where I live, whether it is disability organisations around the country or whether it is people involved in social care. I think everyone in this House will understand and respect the important work that is carried out by these organisations and their staff.

As has been explained in the past, section 39 organisations are not part of the public sector and the staff in them are not public servants. As the Deputy pointed out, on average these organisations get 75% of their funding from the State but, as we all know, "on average" does not mean "in all cases". In some cases the funding from the Government may be as little as €10,000 or €11,000, whereas in some cases almost all of the funding may come from the public purse, and it is different in different circumstances. In almost all cases these organisations have had budget increases in recent years. There has not been a budget freeze for section 39 organisations in recent years. In fact, the money paid to section 39 organisations, taken in aggregate, or on average, as the Deputy may use the term, has increased every year in the last couple of years.

Analysis, which is not yet complete, has been done by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. It shows that the situation is very different across these different bodies. In some cases they have paid increases and made pay restoration, for example, in some hospices, whereas in others they have not. In some places they are entirely compliant with public sector pay policy and mirror almost exactly public sector pay policy and pay rates. In others they do not, and in some cases they use that flexibility to pay more or pay less, as they deem appropriate for the activities in their area.

We know from the analysis so far that some can afford to pay and some cannot. The fact there is such a difference across all of these different bodies means it is a complicated problem to solve, but it is something we want to solve. It is a matter that is now being considered by the Workplace Relations Commission. The Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, recently met SIPTU, one of the main unions involved, and the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, has met the head of ICTU to discuss this. We want to resolve it. We want to include in the Estimates for 2019 some moneys to resolve this situation but that requires coming to an agreement, and we have not yet come to an agreement on how that can be done.

It gives me no pleasure to say the Taoiseach's answer reeks of dishonesty. Let us cut the verbiage, the waffle and all the talk on the average and all the rest of it. I met the five hospices yesterday. The bottom line is the Government has not given them the money to restore pay. The reason there was strike notice this week is that one hospice did not pay. There has been no retrospection of pay. The Minister of State with responsibility for disability, Deputy Finian McGrath, should be up in arms in regard to the disability arguments. I have met St. Joseph's Foundation, Charleville. It is in debt, in crisis. Let us cut all the nonsense and the waffle. When the cuts happened, the HSE went down to the CEO of each of these organisations and said: "Cut. If you do not, we will cut your money". They are the only people in the health service who were excluded, deliberately and cynically, from the pay restoration agreement. There is no rationale for it.

I got a similar reply previously. The Taoiseach mentions St. Francis Hospice in every reply I get. That is fine, but the reality is the Taoiseach said the same thing over 12 months ago. He has been seeking information for about 15 months. The people love the hospices of this country. They will do anything for them. It is about time the Government did more than just sip a cup of coffee or tea with them and actually gave them what they are entitled to, the same as the nurses and all the other health alliance professionals working in other organisations in the health service. He and I know they should not even be section 39 organisations. They should be fully integrated into our health service. We should take lessons from them because they are the most trusted, well received and popular services in our health service across the country.

What the Deputy may call waffle and nonsense, other people would call facts. The fact is they are section 39 organisations. They are section 39 organisations in the Health Act, an Act the Deputy brought into this House. They are not publicly owned bodies. These are private organisations that receive grant funding from the Government to provide a particular public service. That is the way it works. These bodies receive-----

The Labour Court has adjudicated, as the Taoiseach knows. It has adjudicated that there is a 30-year link.

Can the Taoiseach be allowed to respond without interruption?

The Labour Court's determinations apply to the employers. In this case the employer is not the State. The way these organisations work is that they receive grant aid from the Government. They also have their own income streams. They have a decision to make as to how they should spend the money they are given. Some organisations have provided for pay restoration for staff, while others have not. Some can afford to do so and some cannot. Some receive almost all of their funding from the State, while some do not. This is not a straightforward issue, but it is one we want to resolve. We want to include some funding in the Estimates for 2019 to provide for pay restoration for staff in these organisations. However, we cannot calculate that figure until we get to the bottom of what is involved. We need all of the data from the organisations to get there and we will then need agreement with the unions to achieve it.

The summer has seen the housing and homelessness emergency go from disaster to calamity. According to the most recent homelessness figures, the number of homeless individuals now stands at nearly 10,000. The number of families accessing emergency accommodation stands at 1,778, which is 349 more than in the same month last year. Scandalously, the number of homeless children has increased again. There are now 3,867 children sleeping in emergency accommodation. Service providers have been reduced to referring families to Garda stations owing to the lack of emergency accommodation. In the course of the summer we witnessed the indignity of a family of seven sleeping in Tallaght Garda station. Rental costs have spiralled out of control; house prices remain above affordable levels and tens of thousands of homes lie vacant across the State. Naturally, people have responded and some have come out to protest against the Government's failures. The response has been a heavy-handed overreaction to the peaceful occupation of a building in my constituency which had lain empty for three years. Staff of a private security firm arrived in unmarked cars escorted by gardaí to evict a handful of peaceful protestors, which was an absolutely disproportionate response. I ask the Taoiseach to contrast that with the Government's response to the housing crisis which has been underwhelming, under-resourced and inadequate. The Government's flagship housing policy, Rebuilding Ireland, has been in place for two years, but the crisis has deepened. Instead of getting to grips with the emergency, the Government has attacked local authorities and Opposition Deputies and failed to see its own failures. Spin over substance and a refusal to accept that its policies are failing are the hallmarks of the Government's approach. We need a change of direction and a change of policy desperately. That means taking bold and urgent action. I have such an action to recommend to the Taoiseach. Sinn Féin has proposed the introduction of a temporary tax relief for renters, alongside a three-year emergency rent freeze. Existing tenants would have their rent frozen at current levels, while new tenants would have their rent pegged to the Residential Tenancies Board's average rent index. This would be a good move and a partial response to the crisis we face. Will the Taoiseach introduce such a rent freeze?

On behalf of the Government and everyone on this side of the House, I acknowledge the extent to which we share the concerns of everyone in the country and the Opposition about the impact the housing shortage and homelessness crisis are having on people across Ireland. It is something about which we all know from our constituency clinics, the increased workload and the increased numbers of housing queries coming through. We know about it from the experiences of people we meet, including, in many cases, family members and friends. In many cases, young couples who are struggling to buy their first home are paying more in rent than they would if they were able to buy and meeting mortgage repayments. However, they are unable to find the right property or even any property to choose. People are waiting for years on housing lists and have been forced into emergency accommodation.

The solution to this can only be increased supply. I should not say "only", but a large part of the solution must be increased supply, which we are now seeing. Figures from the CSO, which I believe everyone trusts - they should anyway - show that 4,500 new homes were built in the previous quarter alone, in the space of three months. Behind this number are real stories and real people: 4,500 families moving into newly built houses or apartments and in many cases freeing up 4,000 or 5,000 other properties for other people to buy or to rent. We anticipate that about 20,000 new homes will be built this year, certainly 20,000 if one includes vacant properties being brought back into use and student accommodation. That will be up from 14,500 last year, up from 9,000 the year before and up from about 5,000 the year before that. Therefore, I do not think anyone can doubt that we are on the right trajectory when it comes to providing more housing.

It is definite and a fact that supply is increasing, but it is not enough, and we acknowledge that. Our population last year increased by 65,000, and while this does not mean we need 65,000 new homes every year, it probably means we need about 30,000 or 35,000. We are not there yet but we are doing everything we possibly can to ramp up supply. If there are additional measures that will allow us to increase supply, we are happy to consider them, but tinkering around the edges with other things does not produce supply. While we will certainly consider the proposals Sinn Féin puts forward, I can see that they would cost. Certainly, any meaningful tax relief for renters would be expensive and we would be interested to see how Sinn Féin proposes to fund it. However, none of these things will increase supply. Ultimately, there will be more people competing for the same number of units, and as our population rises we will need more supply.

As for protests, all I can say is that in a democracy everyone has the right to protest, and protest is a very important part of a healthy democracy. It is very much my view, however, that when protests occur, they should be peaceful, in accordance with the law and respectful of gardaí, people who put their safety at risk to keep us and our communities safe.

Local authorities have the power to purchase vacant properties compulsorily. Many local authorities use their power to do so. If a local authority is not purchasing a particular vacant property compulsorily, it is probably not doing so for a reason.

It will not get the money from the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, to buy it.

I note that many of the protests are taking place in the central Dublin city area. Sinn Féin and left-wing councillors dominate Dublin City Council, so I assume that if Sinn Féin and left-wing-dominated councils are not compulsorily purchasing properties in Dublin city centre, they have a reason for not doing so.

The CPO process is long and arduous.

The Taoiseach says the Government is doing everything to increase supply. It is not. I had occasion to visit a fantastic social housing scheme in Cherry Orchard and an affordable scheme in Ballymun. I spoke to the approved housing bodies about their analysis of the current situation. They both said they cannot understand all the blockages, delays and red tape being placed in their way by Government. In fact, some of them speculated and asked me whether the Government has some big announcement or whether there is a rabbit to be pulled from the hat. The fact is, sadly, that there is not. The truth is that when one talks to these approved housing bodies, the story they tell is one of delay and prevarication.

I put to the Taoiseach the idea of a rent freeze. This is a very necessary mechanism to prevent more homelessness. We know that the bulk of people now coming into homelessness, including family homelessness, are coming from the private rental sector. The Government's approach, including its pressure zones, has not worked. We need something that is fit for purpose. I am not inviting the Government to tinker around the edges of anything. On the contrary, I am asking it to take decisive action. I put it to the Taoiseach again that the Government needs to introduce a rent freeze. I hope that what Fr. Peter McVerry described as a conflict of interest that might be on the Government's benches and on those of its colleagues in government in Fianna Fáil will not prevent it from introducing something as necessary as a three-year rent freeze.

There are plenty of landlords in Sinn Féin.

I assure the Deputy that I have no rabbits to pull out of the hat and I have no quick fixes. This is not a problem that will be solved by an announcement, by some sort of quick-fix measure or by changing one law or one piece of legislation. That is just not the case. To every complex problem there is an easy and simple solution that probably does not work. A rent freeze is probably one of those. We have rent pressure zones. They have brought some control around the extent to which rents are increasing. They cap rent increases at 4% and we know from the last two ESRI reports that rents increased by approximately 1% per quarter in those areas, so there is at least some initial evidence that they have helped to moderate the rate of increases.

Rents are increasing by 7% annually. The rent pressure zones are not working.

We have to bear in mind what a rent freeze might do. On the face of it, a rent freeze sounds like a good idea, but we should think about the unintended consequences of that kind of a measure.

Such as fewer people becoming homeless.

For example, we should think about what it would do to supply. Would more people be willing to rent out a property? Would more businesses be willing to build properties for rent-----

The Taoiseach should look at the money they are making.

-----if they were put in a situation whereby Sinn Féin decided the rent charged rather than themselves? Would people be willing to move from property to property? People who live in rent controlled cities say that if one has a rent controlled apartment, one should hang on to it and not move. That means less churn and fewer people moving. What often happens with these kinds of measures is that they work for some people, particularly those who are already in rented properties, but they make it much harder for people who are trying to rent for the first time. That is why, when it comes to policies around housing, we always need to consider the unintended consequences.

People cannot rent for the first time if there is nothing available.

What might seem like a solution on the face of it, a simple, easy answer, might actually do harm to many people.

One of the critical judgments to be made of the Taoiseach's Government is on how badly Ireland will be impacted by Brexit. It is clear that Brexit risks doing incalculable damage to our country. Everybody in this House knows it. We have discussed it in and out. Tens of thousands of jobs are at risk, as is social cohesion on both sides of the Border. For those of us who have had the opportunity to talk to both sides of the community in Northern Ireland in recent days, it is clear that they feel unrepresented and vulnerable in this entire process. Events are moving quickly. The EU is preparing a new position paper on the Irish Border question. We are told it will be a compromise on the initial paper, but which of our interests are being compromised? The backstop on the Border is now presented as the largest barrier to the UK's exit deal. Before the summer I asked the Taoiseach to resolve Ireland's Brexit concerns at the special September EU summit being hosted this week by the Austrian Chancellor. I understand that the backstop is on the agenda for the so-called working lunch of the EU 27. The backstop, however, does not represent the sum of all of Ireland's interests. The whole point of seeking a separate Ireland protocol in advance was to shield our wider interests, such as east-west trade, from the kind of brinkmanship and 11th hour negotiations we now see occurring. Regardless of the result of the EU-UK negotiations, including the potential for no deal, we need to resolve Ireland's interests before the pressure comes upon us to compromise further, which could now happen at a special meeting of EU Heads of Government as late as November next.

We need to secure a legally binding agreement on the common travel area. We need to ensure that what we enjoy now will continue to exist and will not be weakened or diluted over time. We are told by all sides that there is a political will to maintain the common travel area, but the Taoiseach knows that only exists by way of a so-called gentleman's agreement. The political environment created by a hard, messy Brexit would provide little guarantee that Irish passport holders could still work and reside in the UK, use the NHS and avail of all the other benefits they now enjoy. Brexit could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Irish people living in the UK. We need the EU to open up the space for a bilateral British-Irish agreement on this issue, the common travel area, which is in our interests.

This is the only concern which is historically ours and the UK's alone. It does not impinge on the wider EU. Will the Government seek the consent of our EU partners for such an agreement to be negotiated as a matter of urgency? Has the Taoiseach given consideration to setting out our understanding of the full implications of the common travel area in draft legislation here?

The Deputy can be assured that Brexit is very much at the top of the Government's agenda. We had a detailed discussion on Brexit contingency planning and Brexit planning at our Cabinet meeting this morning. As the Deputy served well and successfully in government for a period, he knows that if it was as simple as turning up at an EU summit to sort it all out, I would have done that a long time ago. What is required here is an agreement. That requires a negotiation and both parties, the EU on the one side, including Ireland, and the UK on the other, to come to an agreement.

The Salzburg Summit is an informal meeting of the EU Heads of State and Government. Accordingly, no decisions will be made at that. However, we will use the summit as an opportunity to discuss Brexit. We will meet in Article 50 format. The UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, will give a presentation. She will then leave the room while the other 27 will discuss our approach. I do not anticipate there will be any change to the EU's position or to our negotiating guidelines.

While I do not want to give a running commentary of the negotiations, as it would not be in Ireland's interests, some of what the Deputy has read in the British newspapers, particularly the British-owned newspapers, are very far off the mark when it comes to the reality of what is going on in these negotiations.

The draft withdrawal agreement provides for what we need, namely, protection of the common travel area, a transition period to allow business and others to adjust to any permanent changes in trade which may take place, guarantees on citizens' rights, particularly for people in Northern Ireland, and also the backstop. This insurance policy of the backstop, which we hope to never have to use, guarantees us that there will be no hard border on the island of Ireland. These remain our objectives and that is what we will negotiate towards.

On the common travel area, it is specifically stated in the withdrawal agreement that it will stay in place and that it will be a bilateral matter between Britain and Ireland. It will continue to allow our citizens to live, study, work, as well as access healthcare, housing, education, in each other's countries as though we are citizens of both. That arrangement has been in place for a long time. Both the UK Government and the Irish Government want that to stay in place. That forms part of the withdrawal agreement.

Time is running out or to use the phrase of Michel Barnier, "the clock is ticking". We had hoped to have the Irish issues settled, separate from the withdrawal agreement, in June. Then it was October. Now it is to be November.

The Taoiseach referred to some of the English newspapers. Bloomberg reported today that the EU will make support for Ireland's Brexit position conditional on Ireland dropping opposition to corporate tax reform. Bloomberg also quoted an alleged European Commission official saying that solidarity does not come for free.

This is the sort of brinksmanship and last-minute concern that people would have if the Irish matters are not settled well in advance of the final withdrawal agreement being negotiated at the last hour.

There is much briefing going on.

They are listening at the doors.

The Taoiseach would recognise that.

Whatever people may say about me and the Government, I can guarantee the Deputy it is not coming from Government Buildings or from the European Commission.

What does the Taoiseach make of it?

Is it the Taoiseach's alter ego on Twitter?

Not that long ago I read in one newspaper that the French President, Emmanuel Macron, was so impressed by the meeting he had with the British Prime Minister in the Riviera that he changed his position and France would suddenly do a deal with the UK. I read another story several days later saying much the same about Germany. I am forever reading this stuff. I can absolutely guarantee the Deputy that EU solidarity behind Ireland, the 27 member states supporting us as a country that is staying in the European Union, is absolutely solid.

On 3 October the National Homeless and Housing Coalition, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, housing non-governmental organisations, NGOs, such as the Peter McVerry Trust, Simon Communities and Focus Ireland and housing activist groups such as Take Back the City and many others are calling for a major national demonstration at Leinster House to demand emergency measures to deal with the spiralling housing crisis. The protests follow the magnificent protests of mostly young people in the Take Back the City movement who have occupied scandalously empty residential properties that could be used for housing to highlight the obscenity of people suffering from homelessness. Let us be clear: they are not protests for the sake of protesting, rather they are driven by intense frustration at the Government's continued policy of relying on speculators, vulture funds and corporate landlords to resolve a housing crisis that the very same people created in the first place, a failed policy that continues with the Land Development Agency initiative, the continued sale by the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, of public land, including the former Player Wills factory site, and scandalously section 110 tax reliefs whereby billions of euro are going into the pockets of vulture funds, the local infrastructure housing action fund, LIHAF, and Home Building Finance Ireland, HBFI, whereby we are financing private developers to build, in some cases, on public land, run away with the profits and charge astronomical rents and property prices, while all the while obscene profits are being made as the housing crisis gets steadily worse and the human misery it causes continues.

The protestors are demanding a change in policy. They are saying: stop selling public land to vulture funds and speculators, start an emergency programme to build public and affordable housing on public land, introduce rent controls, adopt robust and aggressive measures to go after empty residential properties where there is no justification for a property lying empty when it could be used to house those who need housing, stop evictions into homelessness - nobody should be evicted into homeless - and establish a constitutional right to secure affordable housing.

Does the Taoiseach think that rather than seeing paramilitary policing methods, with men in balaclavas, used against peaceful housing protesters - young protesters, in the main - some of whom were hospitalised such was the aggression used against them during the protests, and recognising that his policies have failed to address the deepening housing crisis, he might listen to the demands of the protesters? While he is at it, will he repudiate the unbelievable suggestion made by the Minister for Justice and Equality that gardaí should no longer be recorded in the conduct of their duties when it would amount to censorship of the press and the public in the context of their right to oversight of the heavy-handed policing tactics we saw used on North Frederick Street?

Protests will not build houses-----

Exactly, no.

-----but the Government will. The private sector will also build houses.

When?

Not quickly enough.

Ultimately, that will be the solution to the problem. As I said earlier, protests are part of a healthy democracy and welcome. However, they should be peaceful and occur in accordance with the law. I hope the Deputy will use the opportunity presented by his supplementary question to echo that sentiment-----

It goes both ways.

-----that protests should be peaceful, that there should be no violence and that protests should take place in accordance with the law. There are no Government proposals to restrict people in taking photographs or making videos. That would be a restriction of free speech and not something I would support.

The Taoiseach should tell the Minister that.

I reassure people - press photographers, individual citizens and protestors - that there are no Government proposals whatsoever to do so. I also hope that in his supplementary question Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett will affirm his view that peaceful protest is the type of protest we should have and that protests should happen in accordance with the law and that he will take the opportunity to condemn any abuse of gardaí-----

Hear, hear.

-----including racist abuse and name calling.

I hope Deputy Boyd Barrett will take this opportunity to condemn anyone who seeks to identify and intimidate online the members of the Garda Síochána. That is not the kind of behaviour that should happen in a decent society or a healthy democracy. Gardaí are people who put their safety on the line to defend our democracy, to protect our freedoms, to keep us safe and to police our communities. They deserve our support. I hope that Deputy Boyd Barrett would use the opportunity of his supplementary question to reaffirm his commitment to ensuring that protests are peaceful, that they happen in accordance with the law, and that gardaí are not subject to verbal or physical abuse in any way whatsoever.

I condemn, unreservedly, any threat or use of violence against anybody by anybody, be it against gardaí or against protesters. Will the Taoiseach condemn the use of actual violence - not threatened violence - against wholly peaceful protesters? Some of the protesters were hospitalised with concussion, cuts and bruises or had to get stitches as a result of the violence of hooded gardaí and the private security people who used excessive violence against peaceful protesters.

Yes, the Government should build public housing, as the Taoiseach has said, but last night I looked at his Departments' figures to refresh myself. They show that between 2011 and 2018 the Taoiseach's governments built 2,827 council houses while in the same period the housing list has gone from 96,000 families to 136,000 families when one includes transfer lists-----

Those figures are incorrect.

-----of HAP and RAS, which, I put to the Minister, is massaging the figures.

The Deputy is changing the definitions.

The number of people in emergency accommodation has quadrupled. We have the shocking obscenity of children and families in growing numbers in emergency accommodation.

The Deputy is over time.

That policy has failed, and unless the Taoiseach addresses it and stops with policies that continue to hand over billions of euro in tax breaks to private speculators and landlords for land, property and cash, as the Government is proposing to do again with the Land Development Agency-----

The Deputy is well over his time, please.

-----it will never solve this crisis and it will continue to get worse.

Will the Taoiseach conclude, please?

Absolutely. As I said earlier, with regard to the occupation of vacant properties, the city and county councils have the powers to use a compulsory purchase order, CPO, on properties. Many councils are doing that and if they are not using a CPO on a particular property, then I assume the council has a reason. Many of the properties being occupied are in the Dublin City Council area. This council is dominated by Sinn Féin and left-wing councillors. The Deputy should ask them to give an explanation as to why these CPOs are not being sought for these properties.

With regard to building social housing, this is exactly what the Government is doing. We have set aside funding to increase Ireland's public housing stock by 110,000 units over the next ten years and by 50,000 in the next five years. Last year we increased the social housing stock by 7,000. That includes direct builds and approved housing bodies such as the Iveagh Trust, which has provided social housing in Ireland for a very long time. It also includes councils buying properties from developers. It is all social housing that belongs to the councils. People are given secure tenancies. There were 7,000 last year and there will be more again this year. We will ramp it up to 10,000 per year and we will provide an additional 110,000 social housing units over the next ten years. That is our guarantee and we are making it happen.

It would be helpful if Sinn Féin and left-wing councillors did not vote down social housing in Dublin City Council and in South Dublin County Council.

It is Fine Gael councillors-----

Deputies have their reasons-----

That is not fair.

Can we have some order, please?

If Deputies were as concerned-----

The Taoiseach is telling lies.

Please, let the Taoiseach respond.

If Deputies were as concerned-----

If Deputies are as concerned about these issues as they make out, and if they really want emergency measures, then they must tell their own councillors not to vote against any social housing under any circumstances.

This dishonesty is incredible.

That is a bit rich coming from Deputy Ó Broin's party.

We need some order, please. We shall proceed to the Order of Business.

Today's business shall be No. 19, motion re Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures Order 2018 and Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income and Capital Gains) (Republic of Ghana) Order 2018 - referral to committee; No. 19a, Financial Resolution re Home Building Finance Ireland Bill 2018; No. 7, Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018 - all Stages; and No. 20, motion re Statement for the Information of Voters in relation to the Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018. Private Members' business shall be No. 207, motion re future of the post office network, selected by Sinn Féin.

An gnó fá choinne an Céadaoin seo, business shall be No. 38, statements on a scoping inquiry into the CervicalCheck screening programme; No. 20a, motion to instruct the committee on the Home Building Finance Ireland Bill 2018; and No. 8, Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2018 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. Private Members' business shall be No. 208, motion re BusConnects, selected by Fianna Fáil.

An gnó fá choinne an Déardaoin seo, business shall be No. 21, motion re European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere; No. 9, Central Bank (National Claims Information Database) Bill 2018 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 8, Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2018 - Second Stage (resumed). Second Stage of No. 58, National Monuments (The Moore Street Battlefield) Bill 2018 in the name of Deputy Peadar Tóibín, shall be debated in the evening slot.

Regarding Tuesday's business, it is proposed that Nos. 19 and 19a shall be taken without debate and any division demanded shall be taken immediately. Second Stage of No. 7 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 85 minutes and any division demanded on the conclusion of Second Stage shall be taken immediately. Speeches shall be confined to a single round for a Minister or a Minister of State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups, or a Member nominated in their stead, which shall not exceed ten minutes each, with a five-minute response from the Minister or the Minister of State and all Members may share time. Proceedings on Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 15 minutes by one question which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Justice and Equality. No. 20 shall be taken without debate at the conclusion of all Stages of the Bill and any division demanded shall be taken immediately. Immediately on conclusion of proceedings on the motion, Private Members' business will be taken for two hours and the Dáil shall adjourn at the conclusion of Private Members' business.

Regarding Wednesday's business, it is proposed that there shall be no questions to the Taoiseach and the sos, in accordance with Standing Order 25(1), shall be taken at the conclusion of questions on promised legislation. No. 38 shall be brought to a conclusion after 80 minutes and confined to a single round of statements by a Minister or a Minister of State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups, or a Member nominated in their stead. Speeches shall not exceed ten minutes each and all Members may share time. No. 20a shall conclude within 60 minutes and speeches shall be confined to a single round for a Minister or a Minister of State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups, or a Member nominated in their stead, which shall not exceed seven and a half minutes each and any division demanded shall be taken immediately.

Regarding Thursday's business, it is proposed that No. 21 shall be taken without debate.

On a point of information, while I may be mistaken, I have noticed that there is an additional microphone in front of many of our seats after the summer recess. Will the Ceann Comhairle clarify whether they are live all of the time or just when we are speaking? I would hate to think private conversations between Members-----

I presume they are live when-----

Fianna Fáil will get-----

I would not like anyone to hear what I am saying about the Ceann Comhairle when I do not get called to ask a question. I think it should be clarified.

Apologise now.

I can only imagine what Deputy John Brassil might have said.

Or the Healy-Raes.

It would take up twice the tape.

It is a backup system.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the clarification.

There are three proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Tuesday's business agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Wednesday's business agreed to?

No.

No.

It is not agreed on two counts. I understand on the time allowed for statements on the Scally scoping inquiry that there will be eight ten-minute slots.

The standard practice for statements is that time is allowed for a Minister to respond. Given the seriousness of the issue, one would expect that half an hour would be provided for questions and answers. However, there is no opportunity to come back on it, which is a mistake.

The second issue with which I have difficulty relates to the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill. The Bill has been under discussion for 1,000 days. That is six and a half years after the first recommendations were made on this legislation. A large number of spurious reasons have been given for delaying the Bill. Many tactics have been used by various Members here and in the Seanad as a result of the massive lobby put on by the alcohol industry. Time had been allowed to discuss the Bill tomorrow night and there is no reason we cannot deal with that. There are 14 Members of this House who are continuing to engage in these kinds of delaying tactics and have tabled all sorts of spurious amendments on the Order Paper. They come from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and, in one case, the Labour Party. I strongly appeal to the Taoiseach and Deputies Micheál Martin and Brendan Howlin to ask their party members to withdraw those amendments. Let us stop the game playing on this and get this important legislation through as quickly as possible.

We cannot get into a very detailed discussion on the matter.

I wish to say something on the same matter.

I will call Deputy Stephen Donnelly first and then the Deputy.

People have been waiting for a very long time for the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill. Our understanding as of around 10 a.m. this morning was that it would be heard and hopefully would pass Report Stage in the House tomorrow night. At about 11.30 a.m., we received word that it had been pulled from the schedule.

By the Government.

Yes. While I hope this is merely a scheduling issue, my concern is that this has also happened several times in the Seanad. Senators were told it was an administrative issue and that the Government would return with the Bill the following week, but then the legislation disappeared for months. The Bill will, I hope, save many lives. The Government pulled it from the schedule this morning. Will the Minister of State tell us why and assure the House that it will be back in the time necessary to get through Report Stage by next week at the latest?

The Public Health (Alcohol) Bill has been subject to disgraceful delays. The people who are doing it know who they are, and we know who is pushing this agenda. Will the Taoiseach give us an explanation? I join Deputy Donnelly in hoping that it is a scheduling error. However, the experience in the Seanad is that the Bill has disappeared from the agenda on several occasions. Will the Taoiseach explain why we cannot discuss it tomorrow when there seems to be consensus in the House that we should do so?

On the first matter raised by Deputy Shortall-----

That was the Scally report.

Yes. A circular was issued on the Scally report on Wednesday. In fairness, Deputy Shortall was alone in requesting time for questions and answers at the end of the discussion. We have a tight schedule but if Deputies agree, the Government side has no problem with having 15 or 20 minutes of questions and answers at the end.

Is it agreed to facilitate a question and answer period, as set out by the Minister of State?

Yes.

That is agreed.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. On the second issue raised by Deputy Róisín Shortall and also Deputies Stephen Donnelly and Louise O'Reilly, we have received messages that new amendments are being considered. There are no delaying tactics. The Bill was on the schedule because it is also one of the Taoiseach's priorities. The Deputy asked for an assurance that it would be on the schedule next week. As far as I am concerned, it will be. I am also happy to check to see if there is any possibility of getting it on the schedule this evening, with the amendments that need to be considered.

To clarify, if party leaders secure the agreement of their Members to withdraw the delaying amendments, can we take the Bill tomorrow night? I do not see any reason the legislation would not go through in the hour that was allocated for it, or in ten minutes.

I do not ever recall a Deputy arguing that amendments were delaying legislation. Members are entitled to table whatever amendments they wish.

The Deputy's point about starting the debate tonight or tomorrow on whatever it was originally proposed to deal with is very relevant.

To provide absolute clarity, it was the Government that withdrew the Bill. It was nothing to do with the Opposition or anybody else. Deputy Shortall might be implying that we had some involvement in withdrawing the Bill but we had none whatsoever. We want the Bill to go ahead as it is going on for too long.

In the interests of the House we must respect the process by which people can table amendments.

Of course.

All Members are entitled to table amendments and we should be very careful about imputing ill intent to anyone who tables an amendment.

For the record, as the Head of Government and the Minister who published the Bill, I want to see it enacted too, but I do not think we can play out the Business Committee here. I will speak to the Whip about it afterwards, and if there is a way to get it back on the schedule this week, we will do that.

Okay. Can we accept that from the Taoiseach?

Yes.

He was very positive. Therefore, is Wednesday's business agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Thursday's business agreed to? Agreed. We will move on quickly then to Deputy Micheál Martin and questions on promised legislation.

As the Taoiseach is aware, before the summer break the Attorney General advised the Government that it could not proceed with legislation to give effect to the people's decision to repeal the eighth amendment. Those cases have taken their course. Will the Taoiseach now confirm when the Government intends to publish the full Bill and when we can expect to take the Bill in this House?

As Deputy Micheál Martin is aware, the courts have made their decision, the referendum has now taken effect and the Constitution has been changed. I checked with the Minister for Health and I think we can have the Bill before the House in the first week in October. I will double-check but we are on target to meet our timeline of having the legislation through both Houses before the end of the year so that the new services can be made available in the new year.

This weekend the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, will make an historic first state visit to Ireland on his way to a meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York. I warmly welcome the President's visit and I hope it will be a very productive one. I understand that in a meeting with the Tánaiste on Saturday evening there will be a focus on a number of issues, not least the ongoing illegal blockade of Gaza, and the State's recognition of the state of Palestine, which is now long overdue. A Sinn Féin motion to that effect was passed by the Dáil in 2014 and the Seanad did likewise.

The Taoiseach will recall that there is a commitment in the programme for Government and yet he continues to drag his heels on this matter.

I thank Deputy McDonald.

Now is the time for us to afford the official recognition to the state of Palestine, which is the agreed position of the Oireachtas and a necessary one in international terms.

The programme for Government says that we support the Palestinian state - and we do - and that we intend to recognise the state of Palestine as part of a two-state solution. An agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority to bring that about has not yet happened.

We are working on the diary at the moment, and if I have the opportunity to meet President Abbas myself, I will do so. He will certainly meet the Tánaiste. I will use that opportunity to reaffirm our support for a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution, and I will also use the opportunity to raise other concerns about democracy and human rights in the Palestinian territories, in particular, for example, the fact that homosexuality has yet to be decriminalised in Gaza. It is important that when we meet representatives of the Palestinian Authority and other Palestinian groups, we support their demand for self determination but that we are not afraid to raise serious issues concerning the violation of human rights in the territories that are controlled by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

The UK Supreme Court ruled at the end of August that the exclusion of cohabitees from claiming widowed parent's allowance was discriminatory on the basis of marital or birth status.

Siobhan McLaughlin and her partner whom she never married lived together for 23 years and had four children together. The widowed parent's allowance in Northern Ireland is payable to widowed men and women with dependent children. In spite of Siobhan McLaughlin fulfilling the required conditions and her partner having made the necessary contributions to the UK authorities, her application was refused. The courts in Ireland may now interpret the paramount interests of the child under the European Convention on Human Rights in the same way as the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom. Has the Government considered this important ruling and does it plan to change the relevant law here to ensure the rights of citizens are fully compatible with the European convention?

The Government will reflect on the ruling in the United Kingdom, but it is a ruling that affects that jurisdiction. Our laws are different. However, we are reflecting on the ruling and will make a decision on the matter.

In July the Department of Health produced guidelines for the medicinal cannabis access programme which was first mooted in January 2017, almost 20 months ago. No progress has been made since. The guidelines have been welcomed by patients and doctors and provide some clarity in what is an extremely confusing situation for those who wish to access medicinal cannabis. I ask the Taoiseach to show leadership and say when the medicinal cannabis access programme will be implemented. No progress has been made since it was proposed 20 months ago. If it cannot be implemented, the Government should look to the Cannabis for Medicinal Use Regulation Bill 2016 I put forward and which the majority of Members in this Dáil voted to progress in October last year. The Government must do one or the other. It must provide clarity for patients, doctors and others on whether the programme will be implemented.

I understand from the Minister for Health, Deputy Simon Harris, that people may apply to him for a licence under the Misuse of Drugs Acts 1977 to 2016 and the regulations and orders made thereunder. Guidance on who may apply for a licence under the Misuse of Drugs Acts, as well as instructions on how to apply, can be found on the website of the Department of Health. To date, ministerial licences have been issued for the treatment of nine patients on receipt of valid licence applications from their clinicians.

On the medicinal cannabis access programme, Department of Health officials are working intensively on the issue to ensure supply of appropriate medicinal cannabis products from other EU member states and further afield to meet the need of patients. However, the Department has no control over business decisions taken by product manufacturers and no powers to compel such companies to supply their products to the Irish market. Until cannabis product producers make their products available in Ireland, it will be a matter for the prescribing doctor and the patient to source the prescribed medical cannabis product. Clearly, that is unsatisfactory. However, it is understood patients who have been prescribed such products under ministerial licence have been able to source them from a pharmacy in the Netherlands.

The health service is in a shambles. People have totally lost confidence in the service in County Kerry. There have been no hip replacement or orthopaedic procedures carried out in County Kerry for at least four months. People who need a hip or knee replacement are in significant pain. The ear, nose and throat section of University Hospital Kerry in Tralee is currently closed. People awaiting a hospital appointment in Cork are choking and afraid to sleep at night. Each day 25 patients on trolleys are awaiting attention in University Hospital Kerry. People are waiting to see consultants who are not even there. We have a Taoiseach, a Tánaiste, a Minister for Health, three Ministers of State at the Department of Health and a Government, but we have no proper health service for the people of County Kerry. That is unfair. The Government is allowing the HSE to blackguard the people of County Kerry and not give vulnerable people the service they deserve. Deputy Leo Varadkar is the Taoiseach and ultimately responsible for this situation, but he is doing nothing about it. The health service is failing the people I represent.

I will confine my remarks to addressing the issue of orthopaedic surgery in County Kerry. All operations were stopped for several months as a result of an infection control issue which was resolved a number of weeks ago.

I spoke to the chief executive officer, CEO, of the group last Monday week but, as yet, operations have not resumed. I ask the Taoiseach to look into this to ensure a speedy return to orthopaedic surgery.

I am afraid I do not have specific information relating to University Hospital Kerry in front of me but I will certainly ask the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, to provide the information to the Deputies from Kerry, or perhaps it could be raised as a Topical Issue matter.

For the information of the House, when it comes to operations and procedures, it is one of the areas where we are seeing some real progress. The number of people waiting for a procedure - hips, eyes, cataracts, knees and angiograms - is down on this time last year and 59% of patients are now waiting less than six months for those procedures, so it is one of the areas, unlike outpatients, unfortunately, where we are seeing some real progress.

I can also confirm to the House that, this morning, the Cabinet approved the appointment in principle of a new chairperson for the new board of the Health Service Executive, Ciarán Devane, who is a former member of the board of NHS England, and CEO of the British Council. He is somebody who has experience heading up a cancer charity and has degrees from both University College Dublin and George Washington University. I believe it is a very positive appointment and he will go before the Committee on Health for confirmation.

Appointments for-----

Please, Deputy. I call Deputy Eamon Ryan.

Earlier this summer, Deputy O'Connell and the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, supposedly had daggers drawn over the development of the Dublin metro. Later in the summer, I happened to be at a public meeting where the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, and the Minister of State, Deputy Catherine Byrne, who is sitting behind him, had an upfront, full-scale public row on how we would develop St. Michael's Estate in Inchicore. I read that the Minister, Deputy Catherine Murphy, said that Cathal Brugha Barracks would be used as a potential site for public housing, with which I agree and for which this House voted, only to read on Sunday that the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, said they can go to Mullingar.

In terms of my question, I welcome that the people of Cork have been given a chance to vote for a directly elected mayor of their city. I would like to know the process for doing that, but why is the Minister leaving the people of Dublin out and leaving our city with chaotic leadership and no co-ordination of transport, housing, planning and development? He is here saying that Dublin City Council should be doing something on the vacant sites levy. Allow it to do it by allowing us to elect a mayor so that we can have leadership of our city rather than have Fine Gael internal rows everywhere and letting the city go into gridlock and a housing crisis, which is what the Minister is doing. Where is our mayor for Dublin?

Perhaps if Deputy Eamon Ryan's party had more than two Members, there would be more disagreements within his party group. I can assure him that when one has 70 public representatives, or whatever the number is now, there will always be a degree of disagreement among members, and as somebody who does not lead with an iron fist, I allow for it. Sometimes one has to allow for people to have differences of opinion within political parties, but the decisions we make will always be the ones that are in the best interests of all the people and not any section of the people or any particular constituency.

The Minister of State, Deputy John Paul Phelan, will bring forward proposals on directly elected mayors in this session. The rough idea at the moment is to hold plebiscites in Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford to ask the people if they would like to have a directly elected mayor.

And Dublin.

Dublin is different. Dublin is complicated by the fact that we have four local authorities-----

No leadership.

-----and the proposal to have a fifth mayor - a sort of mayor of mayors, super mayor or chair of the mayors - is not one I believe would bring about better governance in the city of Dublin.

The Taoiseach spoke in favour of it when he was in opposition, as did the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy.

What we propose to do is something different, which is a citizens' assembly to ask the citizens of Dublin how best they would like to see the local government in Dublin reformed. I personally like the Paris and London model, which is a single authority with a small number of full-time assembly members, a powerful executive mayor and, below that, many local councils like boroughs that people would really identify with. I refer to places like Lucan, Blanchardstown, Castleknock, Dún Laoghaire or Dundrum-----

Balbriggan.

-----but maybe I am wrong. Let us ask the people of Dublin, not just the politicians.

Yesterday, I went to visit a family in my constituency where I met a boy by the name of Sam. Sam is eight years of age and suffers from spinal muscular atrophy, SMA, which is a degenerative neuromuscular condition.

Sam is in a powered wheelchair. His mother explained that he is PEG-fed - that stands for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy - and does not eat or drink orally. Extensive physiotherapy on his chest and on all his limbs to keep him supple and free from pain are part of his everyday routine. He has endured so much in his short life. He has had long hospital stays, sometimes for weeks and months at a time, largely because of chest infections.

Sam's mother went on to say, however, that his condition is not without hope and that there is a drug that is available in up to 20 countries around Europe but not in Ireland. That drug is Spinraza. I understand there are 20 families and 25 children in this country suffering with SMA from whom this drug would be deemed to have a positive effect.

SMA is a degenerative condition and timely intervention is very important. While I understand that the Government is looking at making this available, I am concerned that the period of consultation is taking a long time. It is young children who are involved. I appeal to the Taoiseach not to hide behind bureaucracy and procedure. I appeal to the Minister of Health to engage actively with these families.

Deputy Lisa Chambers on the same matter.

On Thursday, the families, friends and supporters of children suffering with spinal muscular atrophy, SMA, will demonstrate outside the gates of Leinster House to make sure we are all aware of the suffering their children are dealing with. Yesterday, I met one of the children, Cillian, and two of the families in my constituency who are affected by this terrible condition. They know it is a costly drug. They appreciate that there are other demands on Government. They have yet to receive any correspondence or response from the Minister for Health, however, whom they have tried to contact and who has failed to meet or respond to them. I am asking that the Taoiseach relay to him that he might respond to those families. They are also aware that this drug is not only a game changer but will transform the lives of their children. It is clinically effective and has been proven to work. It is available in more than 20 other countries and should be available here. I ask the Taoiseach to contact those families and for his Minister for Health to do the same. I also ask that he approve the drug without delay.

I know this is a very stressful and worrying time for people with spinal muscular atrophy and their families. I know the day-to-day challenges these people and these patients face in dealing with a progressive and life-limiting illness. It is important to say that this is not a political decision. Deputies should note this if they do not know it and I hope they do not tell anyone otherwise. It is not a case of anyone hiding behind bureaucracy. It is the law. This is not a political decision. Politicians do not sign off on which drugs are reimbursed and which are not.

The European Medicines Agency granted market authorisation in May 2017 and in October 2017 the HSE received a reimbursement application. The National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, which is an independent expert body made up of doctors and pharmacologists, conducted a full pharmacoeconomic evaluation and did not recommend that the drug be reimbursed due to efficacy and cost. The application is being processed by the HSE's national drugs committee. No final decision has been made as yet and it is always open to the manufacturer to produce new evidence or a different cost profile that would allow the drug to be approved. So far this year, 23 new medicines have been approved for reimbursement.

This may also be an issue for the Minister for Health. My question concerns a timeframe in respect of the new mental health unit at Sligo University Hospital. It is vitally important. I met quite a number of people over the summer who have been lobbying to ensure this would be an urgent case. I ask that we would get a timeframe as a matter of urgency.

I thank Deputy McLoughlin for raising this important issue. As he will be aware, the capital budget for health increased this year and will increase again next year. In excess of €10 billion has been set aside for investment in new buildings, new equipment and ICT in our health service over the next ten years. As is always the case, it is not possible to complete every project this year or next so it will have to be profiled. I will ask the Minister for Health to give the Deputy an indicative timeline if he has one.

I wish to raise the setting up of the Land Development Agency, the latest quango. I will give an example which I am sure could be replicated in every county across the State. Louth County Council has 50 acres of council-owned landbanks which would provide 1,000 social and affordable housing units, should the political will be there to fund them.

Under the Government's latest quango, those 50 acres will only deliver 100 social houses and 300 affordable houses or, as it now appears, unaffordable houses. In essence, the Government's Land Development Agency will deprive the citizens of Louth of 600 social and affordable houses on council-owned land banks. Why does the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government feel the need to set up a quango that he knows will not deliver, and has no intention of delivering, any meaningful volume of social and affordable housing when he is doing such a perfectly good job himself? Is it because he can hide behind it? Is that why he wants to set it up?

As our housing crisis deepens, will the Taoiseach tell me why he and his Government refuse point blank to fund a State-wide social and affordable house building programme when he knows the misery the housing crisis is causing families across this State day in, day out? Will he give me straight answers to the questions about the quango and funding?

I thank the Deputy for the question. For decades, we have had the wrong approach and attitude to the use of land in the public interest. As a result of that dysfunctional relationship, we have seen violent and dramatic swings in our housing sector that have hurt many people up and down this country, for example, ten years ago when the crash arrived and today. We know there is an unacceptable number of people in homelessness. This Government has a dedicated social house building programme. The Taoiseach referred to it earlier. A total of 110,000 homes will be built over ten years under Rebuilding Ireland and Project Ireland 2040. It is improper of Deputy Munster to mislead the public and the Dáil by saying that public houses are not being built because they are being built.

Less social and affordable housing will be delivered. That is a fact.

Fine Gael's friends, the developers, are back in-----

Could we have order for the Minister to respond?

The Minister accused me of misleading the Dáil.

Deputies do not have to agree with what the Minister says.

I want him to correct that statement.

The Minister has been asked a question. All Members deserve the courtesy of being able to reply. Members do not have to agree with them but please allow them to reply.

The Land Development Agency is in the public interest. The State will be the developer of public lands, not the private sector. We will bring forward State land for houses for the general public - social housing, subsidised housing and housing for people up and down the country who need homes. It is important to state that where a local authority has land, that is not our interest. This land is for the local authority to build social and affordable housing on. Louth County Council has been given the policy, powers and money to build housing. We are publishing the targets for those local authorities. It is for the local authorities to do that. A total of €6 billion was ring-fenced in 2017.

I move:

That the proposal that Dáil Éireann approves the following Orders in draft:

(i) The Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures Order 2018, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 13th September, 2018, and

(ii) Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income and Capital Gains) (Republic of Ghana) Order 2018, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 14th September, 2018,

be referred to the Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach in accordance with Standing Order 84A(3)(b), which, not later than 25th September, 2018, shall send a message to the Dáil in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 90, and Standing Order 89(2) shall accordingly apply.

I move:

THAT provision be made in the Act giving effect to this Resolution for the amendment of subsection (2) of section 133 of the Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012 (No. 52 of 2012), in the manner and to the extent specified in the Act, to provide for the extension of the relief allowed by subsection (1) of section 133 of the Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012 (No. 52 of 2012) in respect of certain properties that are subject to a mortgage.

Seanad Éireann has passed the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2017, without amendment; the Industrial Development (Amendment) Bill 2018, without amendment; the Children and Family Relationships (Amendment) Bill 2018, without amendment; the Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2018, without amendment; and the Companies (Statutory Audits) Bill 2017, without amendment.

I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 29A and the name of the Member in each case: (1) Deputies Fiona O'Loughlin and Martin Heydon - the delivery of home care packages in CH07 Kildare-west Wicklow; (2) Deputy David Cullinane - the provision of cardiac services and a cath lab at University Hospital Waterford; (3) Deputy Willie O'Dea - school transport from the Caherconlish-Ballynetty area to St. John the Baptist School, Hospital, County Limerick; (4) Deputy Pat Casey - school transport provision in Tinahely and Redcross, County Wicklow; (5) Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Richard Boyd Barrett - the need for action as a result of MDY's imminent collapse; (6) Deputy Maurice Quinlivan - the need for additional beds at University Hospital Limerick to alleviate the current and future chronically overcrowded conditions; (7) Deputy John Brassil - the need to consider a scheme to incentivise homeowners currently residing in nursing homes and availing of the fair deal scheme to rent their homes; (8) Deputies Eoin Ó Broin, John Curran and Gino Kenny - the need to provide funding for capital works to meet fire and safety standards at the Carline Learning Centre, Lucan; (9) Deputies Niamh Smyth and Declan Breathnach - the problems with the school transport system; (10) Deputy Fergus O'Dowd - the proposed Drogheda northern cross route project; (11) Deputy Frank O'Rourke - the provision of child and adolescent mental health services in Kildare North; (12) Deputy Peadar Tóibín - the impact of a population cap on County Meath; (13) Deputies Clare Daly, Mick Wallace and Joan Collins - recent protests at the occupation of vacant buildings and the Garda response; (14) Deputy Mattie McGrath - the status of the measures taken to tackle the fodder crisis; (15) Deputy Catherine Connolly - the ambulance service in north and south Connemara; (16) Deputy James Browne - the need to address delays in accessing child mental health services; and (17) Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly - the status of the 2018 health budget.

The matters raised by Deputies Fiona O'Loughlin and Martin Heydon; Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Richard Boyd Barrett; Stephen S. Donnelly; and Eoin Ó Broin, John Curran and Gino Kenny have been selected for discussion.

Tairgim: "Go dtógfar an Dara Céim anois."

I move: "That Second Stage be taken now."

Tairgim: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I apologise to the House, to the Ceann Comhairle and Deputy O'Callaghan. I did not realise that matters were running as they were.

I am always pleased to come to the House to advance new legislative proposals, many of which have the capacity to impact, often in a most significant way, on the lives of those who live in our country. It is an even rarer privilege to be in a position to propose legislation which, if passed by the Oireachtas and agreed to by the people, will result in an amendment to our Constitution. The Constitution is at the heart of our legal system. It is a document which has withstood the test of time but, as time has passed, it has also gradually evolved to reflect our country and its people as together we have moved from the 20th into the 21st century. Fundamental values are timeless, but some concepts are deeply rooted in a particular time and a particular view of what is socially appropriate. Blasphemy is one such concept, and it is with the removal of the reference to blasphemy from our Constitution that we are concerned this evening.

Before proceeding further, I express my gratitude to the House for agreeing to deal with this Bill in the first week of its return. It was inevitable that some discussion of the Bill would have to take place during the month of September. This is because under the referendum Act 2004, polling must be not earlier than 30 days and not later than 90 days after the polling day order, which can only be made by the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government when the necessary referendum Bill has been passed by both Houses. As it is intended that the referendum on blasphemy will take place on the same day as the presidential election, which is 26 October, I am sure that the timing constraints in respect of the passage of the Bill are apparent to everyone.

The Bill I introduce this evening is the Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018. This is a somewhat lengthy Title for what is undeniably a short Bill. However, the Title describes in precise terms the purpose and intent which underlies the Bill. The Bill consists of two sections. The key section is section 1, which sets out the terms of the amendment proposed. The proposal set out in the section is for the substitution of the word "seditious" for "blasphemous, seditious" in paragraph i of subsection 1° of section 6 of Article 40 in the English text. If this amendment is approved by the people in the forthcoming referendum, the relevant part of Article 40.6.1°.i of the Constitution will read as follows: "The publication or utterance of seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law."

Section 2 is a standard citation provision, citing both the name of the amendment and the name of the Bill.

One of the problems in addressing this topic is that in a modern society it is very hard to reach a common understanding on the precise meaning which attaches to the concept of blasphemy. A simple definition is perhaps one which focuses on the act of expressing contempt or a lack of reverence for God or sacred things. That apparent simplicity is, however, misleading in terms of the complexity which in reality underlines this subject. From presentations made at the Constitutional Convention and other analytical work, it is clear that the understanding of the concept has evolved greatly.

Within the Irish context, the analytical work suggests our legal understanding of blasphemy essentially derives from the common law as it prevailed in England and Wales over the centuries. Thus, in the late 17th century, the rationale for maintaining blasphemy laws was inextricably linked with the need to protect the Anglican religion as the established church. In other words, there was a fundamental link between protecting the state, on the one hand, and the religious system of belief which sustained that state on the other. However, as individual rights came more and more to the fore in social thinking, a new rationale, that of protecting the religious sensitives of believers, became more prominent. By the time the Constitution was adopted, it seems that the focus of our blasphemy laws was very much directed towards speech likely to cause gross outrage to such sensitivities. In addition, by virtue of the various equality provisions in the Constitution, it also seems that the perceived protection offered by the blasphemy provision was not confined to any one church.

The law on blasphemy has been invoked rarely. For example, it appears that the last recorded prosecution for blasphemy in Ireland took place back in 1855 and even that resulted in an acquittal. The public appetite, therefore, for entertaining blasphemy prosecutions does not seem to be that significant. In recent times the position and particulars of the offence of blasphemy in Irish law were considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Corway v. Independent Newspapers which involved an application by an individual to institute a prosecution for blasphemy. During the course of that judgment the constitutional framework which guarantees freedom of conscience, the free profession and practice of religion and equality before the law to all citizens was under discussion. It was noted that it was difficult to see how the common law crime of blasphemy, related as it was to an established church and an established religion, could survive in such a framework. The judgment placed particular emphasis on the fact that, while the crime of blasphemy existed as an offence in Irish law because the Constitution said so, existing legislation had not adapted the common law crime of blasphemy to the circumstances of a modern state. The court, therefore, concluded that, given the current state of the law and the absence of any legislative definition of the constitutional offence of blasphemy, it was impossible to say of what the offence of blasphemy actually consisted. This analysis and the implied criticism of the Legislature it contained are essentially what led to the much maligned provisions which were set out in sections 36 and 37 of the Defamation Act 2009. Section 36 sets out the elements which characterise the statutory offence of blasphemy. Section 37 concerns powers of entry to premises by An Garda Síochána and related powers for the search and seizure of blasphemous statements. It is fair to say the offence created under the Act is quite difficult to prove. I am not aware that any prosecution under it has taken place. However, Members will probably have read in the newspapers, as I did at the time, that a member of the public had made a complaint to An Garda Síochána about comments made by Stephen Fry in an interview with Gay Byrne on his television programme "The Meaning of Life" in 2015.

Deputies will be aware that a general scheme has been published on my Department’s website setting out the measures which will, in the event of the amendment being approved, be drafted in a formal Bill. While the scheme will be subject to change during the formal drafting process, the core provision it contains - the repeal of sections 36 and 37 of the Defamation Act 2009 - is one to which the Government and I are fully committed. This proposal is not being brought forward in a vacuum. There have been a number of reports in which the constitutional provision on blasphemy has been considered. All of the reports have recommended that the provision be deleted. In 1991 the Law Reform Commission published a report. In 1996 the Constitution review group came to the same conclusion. In 2008 the Joint Committee on the Constitution also concluded that the specific reference to blasphemy should be deleted from the Constitution, as did the Convention on the Constitution in 2014.

I am not going to deny that the proposal before the House is modest. However, there are good reasons for removing the reference to blasphemous matter from the Constitution. One relates to the fact that, for as long as it remains in the Constitution, we have in being a constitutional offence of publishing or uttering blasphemous matter. The provision must be operable. It is clear to me that, for as long as the existing constitutional provision remains, the offence of blasphemy must also remain on the Statute Book, even if it is viewed as being obsolete and alien to the minds of many within our society.

Another reason relates to our international reputation. An outsider looking in sees Ireland as a country with a blasphemy law not just on its Statute Book but also in its constitution. Even if the view is ill-informed, it marks us out as a country which keeps company with those who do not share the fundamental values we cherish such as belief in freedom of conscience and expression. Not only may there be misapprehension about the nature of our blasphemy laws and how they are applied in practice but the very existence of such laws in this jurisdiction gives comfort to other jurisdictions that can use it to justify the more extreme regimes they apply. At a minimum, therefore, there is considerable merit in putting distance between ourselves and such illiberal regimes.

In a society where there is a wide diversity of beliefs, it is simply not possible for the State to guarantee that from time to time individuals will not be hurt and possibly outraged because a form of expression which they might regard as deeply offensive is considered by others to be no more than comment which is humorous or, oftentimes, satirical in nature. Furthermore, notwithstanding the high threshold which must be met if there is to be a successful prosecution of blasphemy, it is not in keeping with best international practice that there should be even the most remote possibility that a criminal prosecution would be taken in such circumstances.

In our current society maintaining the criminal offence of blasphemy in the Constitution and, as a consequence, on the Statute Book has less to do with the protection of religious values and more to do with an unnecessary and anachronistic check on freedom of expression. It is time for us to move away from the inhibiting effect which a blasphemy law has on our fundamental freedom, even where the effect might be subliminal rather than to the forefront of our minds. It is timely that we affirm our belief in a more inclusive society where communication between those with different belief systems can take place on an equal basis, with tolerance and respect as guiding principles. I acknowledge that the removal of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution is, on the face of it, relatively small. Nonetheless, it would be deeply symbolic and, in a very tangible way, confirm our status as a modern democratic society where free speech is valued and multiculturalism is embraced. I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. Fianna Fáil will be supporting the expeditious passing of this legislation in order that a referendum can take place on 26 October. The purpose of that referendum, if this legislation is enacted, will be to amend Article 40(6) of the Constitution. As people may be aware, that article contains one of the most important rights Irish citizens and others in Ireland have, namely, the right to freely express opinions and convictions. Like every other right, that right is subject to restriction and can be affected when conflicting rights are at stake. However, what we are dealing with specifically in the legislation before the House is a specific restriction of the right to freedom of expression contained within the article. It states the "the publication or utterance of blasphemous [...] matter" shall be an offence. It is clear from the Constitution that there is no ambiguity about it. In 1937 the people made a decision that blasphemy was to be an offence.

The Minister mentioned the decision in 1999 in the case of Corway v. Independent Newspapers. It was a very important judgment, as a result of which - I would have thought even before it - it was apparent that the Legislature would have to give effect to the offence set out in the Constitution. It was for that reason that in 2009 the Oireachtas enacted the Defamation Act, in particular sections 36 and 37 which included a specific offence of blasphemy. Had that not been done, it would have left the public in an invidious position. There would have been a common law and constitutional offence of blasphemy, yet the citizen and the public would not have known how that offence would be committed.

Neither would the citizen or the public have known the penalty for the commission of the offence. It was for that reason that it was thought appropriate, as well as it being constitutionally necessary, to enact within legislation a specific section dealing with the crime of blasphemy. At the time, the then Minister who brought the legislation through the House was heavily criticised for the fact that it was presented as though he was introducing to Ireland the crime of blasphemy. which was incorrect. The crime existed in 1937 as a result of the enactment of the Constitution. It existed in 2008 and 2009 at the time the Defamation Bill was debated. It exists today as a result of the constitutional provision.

It is important to note that the crime of blasphemy has had a lengthy history. Originally, it was dealt with in the Star Chamber and the ecclesiastical courts. It subsequently developed from the mid-17th century as a common law offence. As the Minister indicated, in Ireland it was very much associated with blasphemy against the established religion. Some of the cases to which the Minister referred, the most recent being in 1855, were examples of people burning bibles. In 1855, when a Redemptorist priest accidentally burned a bible, he was prosecuted but acquitted. The truth of the matter is that no one has been prosecuted for blasphemy since 1855. When the Free State Constitution was passed in 1922, there was no reference to blasphemy in it. The right to freedom of expression was contained in the 1922 Constitution, but there was nothing about an offence of blasphemy. However, the drafters of the 1937 Constitution did see fit to specifically include an offence of blasphemy. Sometimes people are critical of the drafters of the 1937 Constitution. I am not as it has served the country extremely well. However, like all documents generated in the 1930s, parts of it are outdated, anachronistic and sexist. We will discuss the latter point tomorrow when we will examine the constitutional article in respect of a woman's place in the home. Notwithstanding that, it is inappropriate for the Constitution to set out offences. It is there to set out the fundamental political and constitutional structures for the State. It should not set out what offences are, whether it is the offence of manslaughter or murder, which are not there. Obviously, owing to the mores of the 1930s, it was thought appropriate that the specific offence of blasphemy should be included in the Constitution.

The Constitution respects and values the right of individuals to express freely their religious convictions. In a republic it is important that we respect and recognise the rights of individuals to express their religious beliefs. However, that right is contained in Article 44 which expressly states, "Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen". Religions have had a successful history in Ireland. However, I believe they are now strong enough to survive the abolition of the crime of blasphemy. They should be able to withstand criticism, ridicule or abuse in the same way many other institutions in the State are subject to ridicule and abuse, yet survive perfectly well. If the people remove the crime of blasphemy, it does not mean that they have disrespect for religions. Irish people have respect for religions. However, religions are entitled to be ridiculed. In many respects, that will also liberate religions. For too long the State has provided a support for religions that they do not need in a modern society. They are strong enough to survive on their own two feet without unnecessary anachronistic crimes being contained in the Constitution. If we remove the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution, there will be nothing to stop the Oireachtas in 50 or 100 years from deciding to include the crime of blasphemy in the Statute Book.

People might think the role of the church and the State is at the heart of this debate. It is unquestionably the case that, when drafted in 1937, the Constitution was influenced by members of the Catholic Church. The Jesuit priest Fr. Edward Cahill had a significant say in it, as well as the future archbishop John Charles McQuaid. We should also be aware that it was not that unusual in the 1930s for the Catholic Church to seek to influence the primary document of the State when one considers the history of this island back to the time of the Tudor conquest. However, that is a debate for another time. What is worth noting is that it is wrong to simply present the drafters of the 1937 Constitution as being in thrall to the Catholic Church. History does not support that argument. We know that the Catholic Church had an influence in respect of Article 44, within which the drafters included a reference to the special position of the Catholic Church. However, that was not satisfactory to the church in Rome. We know that the then Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, later Pius XII, thought it was of no use. Many in the Catholic Church in Ireland also believed Mr. de Valera did not go far enough.

The great achievement of the Constitution is not in those areas on which we now concentrate a lot but in the fundamental rights section. It was not inspired by any Catholic teaching or doctrine but by the 1919 constitution of the Weimar Republic. We need to recognise that the Constitution of 1937 is a much richer and more complex document than is sometimes presented by those who seek to suggest it was a Catholic document for a Catholic people during a Catholic time. When one looks at other constitutions around the world, one can see the value of the Constitution. America cannot change its constitution because of its constitutional framework. That is why so much energy is invested in the appointment of Supreme Court judges whose function is to interpret the constitution. In Britain sovereignty does not reside with the people but with parliament. Part of the problem in Britain at present is due to this confused constitutional make-up. The great point about the Constitution is that it invested sovereignty in the people. The people can change it if they want to and their elected representatives decide legislation is appropriate. They have done this many times in the past and are able to do it readily through legislation being enacted. That is the great value of the Constitution. It is not frozen in the 1930s. It can be changed readily. It needs to be updated and modernised. but the fundamentals are strong. That is why we have such a successful political system and society.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an gCeann Comhairle as an deis labhartha seo a thabhairt dom. Gabhaim buíochas freisin leis an Aire as an reachtaíocht seo a chur os ár gcomhair. Beimid ag tacú leis an mBille ós rud é go bhfuil sé ciallmhar, réasúnta agus ag luí leis an tsochaí atá againn sa lá atá inniu ann.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Bill which deals with the removal of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution. It is an outdated piece of the Constitution. This is an important step forward in a society where the fundamental belief in freedom of speech must be a central tenet and valued by all. The removal of the offence of blasphemy is welcome. I am confident that the people will wholeheartedly endorse this come referendum day with a strong majority, recognising that it belongs to a time and an Ireland long since gone and completely out of place in the Constitution of a modern state.

Unfortunately, partition created two conservative and reactionary states on this island, both dominated in different ways by an attitude which saw a particular religious affiliation or faith privileged. In many instances, it was an extreme interpretation of those faiths. The closeness of the church and the state in both jurisdictions led to the dominant religions abusing their privileged position to the detriment, in particular, of those who failed to conform to the theocratic ideals championed by both the church and the state.

The place of the church in the 1937 Constitution further enshrined the power of the Catholic Church as it filled a power vacuum that existed in the aftermath of the Civil War. It was no doubt held high in the esteem of the people, and their belief in it and its utterances were strong. It was a different Ireland where the church and the State moved hand in hand, and it is difficult to say which had more sway. Unfortunately, it was also a time of book bans, censorship and control and it is clear that blasphemy fits in with this censorious attitude and philosophy.

Tá an sochaí ina bhfuilimíd inár gcónaí inniu difriúil go maith. Níl an bhéim chéanna, nó an t-ardú stádais céanna, ag creideamh amháin thar chreideamh eile, nó ag daoine le creideamh thar dhaoine nach bhfuil aon chreideamh acu. Tá sochaí níos oscailte, níos réasúnta agus níos measartha againn faoi láthair. The society we live in today is much more diverse and more open in its thinking, analysis and beliefs. The need for a referendum is reflective of that and is something that could and possibly should have happened decades ago. Deputy O'Callaghan made points regarding the choices faced by a former Minister, Dermot Ahern, and his belief that he considered legislation was required. It would have been open to him, in the same way as it is open to the current Minister, to bring forward a constitutional amendment, and he should have done so.

That this motion is before us is in part down to what we have seen emerge in the past few decades in the form of scandals concerning mother and baby homes, Magdalen laundries, industrial schools and the significant number of public cases of child sexual abuse which were covered up by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. It was the hand-in-glove relationship that allowed such abuses to prevail and blurred the line between the public and private sphere, between church and State and between right and wrong.

However, this is a step towards recognition of a new Ireland, one that is diverse, culturally, spiritually and otherwise, and one that is accepting of all within it, from all faiths and none.

The recent visit by Pope Francis happened in a very different atmosphere from the previous papal visit. The church establishment was challenged and criticised in a way that would have been unthinkable in 1979, much less long before that. This is a healthy development. No institution or body should be immune from challenge or criticism. However, it is important that this does never extend to religious intolerance or prejudice against any particular faith or creed. If there was intolerance by those of religious faith against those without any in the past, and doubtless there was, that by no means should lead to the reverse taking place now.

I want to be clear in stating I have no problem whatsoever in anyone holding religious beliefs. An inclusive Ireland must recognise the entitlement to everyone’s own beliefs. Religion is deep and personal to many, and plays a huge role in people’s daily lives. It is something in which people find much solace and strength. It can often motivate many to selfless acts of charity and sacrifice in service of the common good. However, what it cannot do is define the laws of our land, something which I believe is wrong and ill-fitting in a modern society. It is in that context that this provision must be deleted from our Constitution.

The next steps in defining a new and better relationship between church and State should ensure decoupling of the State and church from the areas of health, education and public services. The focus should be on developing systems that represent modern Ireland as a whole in all its parts, moving away from an overwhelming religious ethos informing all services towards one which embodies an ethos that is accepting of all creeds and institutions that gives people options and choice.

This is also an important question in terms of the future of this country, not only the country that we are but that we want to become. It is a fact that the issue of Irish unity has become much more widely discussed in recent times. It is my view that in any united Ireland, any new republic, no religious faith could be privileged over any other. An important statement that the State and political parties should make is that this must be the case in any constitutional change and in a united Ireland.

I am a republican; my party is a republican party. We want to build a real republic, representative of all, regardless of religion or any other factor. We want to see a republic, as envisaged by Wolfe Tone, for Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter.

This referendum is representative of an intention to move forward and embrace an ever-changing Ireland. I hope the people endorse this important step but we must also build on it and continue to move in the direction of building a modern, secular, republican State that respects people of all religions and none.

I think we are all republicans here.

The sentence in paragraph (i) of Article 40.6.1o currently reads, "The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law." As I understand it, as amended, the sentence will read, "The publication or utterance of seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law."

I want to refer to the Corway v. Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd., case of 1999. In that case the Supreme Court pointed out the difficulty in prosecuting the offence of blasphemy. The case arose out of an attempt by Mr. Corway to bring a private prosecution against the newspaper for publishing what he claimed was a blasphemous cartoon. The difficulty for the court was that neither the Constitution nor any legislation provided a definition setting out the ingredients of the offence of blasphemy.

At common law, blasphemy consisted only of attacks on the doctrines of the established church, Anglicanism, by way of vilification, ridicule or irreverence. The Minister has alluded to this previously. Mr. Justice Barrington gave the lead judgment and stated:

In this state of the law, and in the absence of any legislative definition of the constitutional offence of blasphemy, it is impossible to say of what the offence of blasphemy consists... The task of defining the crime is one for the legislature, not for the courts.

The question for the Government is whether we could not make exactly the same criticism about at least one of the two offences the Government is proposing to leave in the Constitution. Is the Minister for Justice and Equality satisfied that he could provide a clear and comprehensive definition of the offence of indecent publication? None of the rest of us could. Is the Internet, for instance, covered by the Constitution? Although we still have laws that prohibit indecency-obscenity in various circumstances, there is no constitutional or statutory definition of either indecency or obscenity.

However, this is precisely the problem the Supreme Court identified in regard to blasphemy. As Mr. Justice Barrington stated: “The task of defining the crime is one for the legislature, not for the courts." Therefore, what was the thinking behind the decision to keep some offences in Article 40o while deleting this one, given that all three give rise to the same difficulties?

I will share time with Deputy Coppinger and we will each have five minutes.

Solidarity-People Before Profit will be supporting this legislation and the plan to remove references to blasphemy from the Constitution.

It should be obvious why we must do it. It is a relic of an old Ireland that we need to leave behind because the special relationship - to use a phrase the Taoiseach used recently - between the Constitution, the political institutions of the State and a particular morality, that of the Catholic Church, has left a bitter legacy for huge numbers of people. For the sake of writers such as James Joyce whose literature was banned in the newly founded State because of this morality and these notions of blasphemy and, more seriously, the Magdalene women, those who suffered in mother and baby homes, the Tuam babies, children who were separated from their mothers, those who were the victims of forced adoptions, LGBT people generally who were persecuted by the State for so many years, single mothers who were stigmatised and vilified because they did not fit in with the morality of the church, for all of the victims of that draconian and supposed morality that was inflicted on so many and which caused so much suffering, it is critical that we leave all of that behind and take the morality of a particular religious view out of the Constitution and our laws and remove any special position it might have in the State and the political system in our society generally. It is long overdue that we would do this and we will support it wholeheartedly, but we must go further.

Reference was made to seven reports and the recommendations that we not only remove references to utterances of blasphemy but also to seditious or indecent matter. Perhaps the Minister might explain why the Government ignored these recommendations. One person's blasphemy is another's robust criticism of a viewpoint with which he or she does not agree. That is also true of sedition. One person's sedition is another's completely legitimate criticism of the institutions of the State, society or particular laws. With regard to indecent matter, the work of many of the best writers of this country was considered to be "indecent". Ulysses was considered to be indecent and something that could not be read by certain people. Dr. Noel Browne's mother and child scheme was considered to be indecent, subversive and seditious according to the prevailing morality of the State. I do not know why this constitutional amendment does not also remove those references.

More broadly, I believe that simply changing words in the Constitution, while not giving real and tangible effect to the need to separate church and State more generally, potentially leaves us open to legitimate criticism of tokenism. Why does the Catholic Church continue to control schools and hospitals, to refuse to pay its debts under redress schemes, to have an influence over the curriculum taught in schools and to have influence over procedures carried out in hospitals? All of that is unacceptable. While this measure is to be supported, it is tokenism, unless we move to give full effect to the complete separation of church and State, particularly in the education and health sectors.

Solidarity supports the Bill and will campaign for a "Yes" vote in the referendum. We formally proposed the removal of the offence of blasphemy in our Bill in July 2017.

The 1937 Constitution which is being amended was designed in a Catholic state where the Catholic Church held a privileged and special position. There are multiple references specifically from a Catholic or Christian belief. There are religious freedoms contained in the Constitution, but the tone is very much that of a Catholic state that permits or tolerates other religions, rather than people having religious freedom as a right.

While supporting the removal of blasphemy as an offence, for reasons I will go into, I am very disappointed that our proposed amendments to the Bill were ruled out of order. It was an opportunity to go much further. The amendments would have given the House the opportunity to allow voters to move beyond the offence of blasphemy and remove all archaic religious based references from the Constitution. I shall give some examples.

The preamble to the Constitution refers to "our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ". Article 6 of the Constitution states "All powers [derive] under God ...". That is a ludicrous assertion for the many people who do not hold to it, or that we in this House must subscribe to one God. There are also religious oaths for the Judiciary and the Presidency which inhibit non-believers or those with non-Christian beliefs from taking these offices. Article 44 states, "The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God". There are provisions that give the green light to the State to impose and favour religion in public services and public spaces. We see this every day in the health and education sectors and the Dáil recently. I put it to the Minister that this was a chance to delete something as ludicrous as "Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers [nothing about our mothers, of course] through centuries of trial". We proposed that this be deleted from the English text of the Constitution, but, unfortunately, that opportunity was not taken. It smacks of tokenism following the historic and momentous referendum on the repeal of the eighth amendment which was driven from outside the Dáil by young and working people.

The reference to blasphemy curtails free speech and acts as a chilling effect on debate. Atheists who appear on television or radio programmes can be warned not to stray into blasphemy. While the last prosecution was in 1855, the offence is still in place. The case of Stephen Fry is pertinent; it is both well known and recent. Nothing he said could have been considered to be offensive. They were his honestly held views, but the Garda still spent time investigating him to state the 2009 Act had been contravened. In the end he was not prosecuted, but the case serves as a warning. Under the Constitution, the Oireachtas can legislate to allow people who question religion or God to actually be prosecuted.

It also says a lot that the Green Party and Fianna Fáil in government saw fit to bring forward not even ten years ago the Defamation Act 2009, which shows us that it is a sign of the times. It includes the provision, "A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000". That provision is still in place. For example, it has been cited that Pakistan's blasphemy law was taken from Ireland's. This is an attack on people who are religious. People who are religious can be convicted for blasphemy, as they are in other countries. A person who is a Muslim could be deemed to have blasphemed a Hindu's customs or mores. This is about freedom of religion, but it is also about freedom not to be forced to profess a religion.

With the massive support achieved in the marriage equality referendum and also in the repeal referendum, we see that the establishment is keen to be seen to be moving on very symbolic matters. While I welcome this, we should be going much further. It is past time that we separated church and State. The mass indifference shown by the public to the Pope's visit speaks volumes about where people believe society should be going.

It was obviously expected, including by the State, that there would be 500,000 or 600,000 people in attendance. Roads in Dublin West like the Navan Road were shut down. The State was out of step again, and this Bill should go much further than it does.

I am happy to speak on this Bill. I acknowledge that the issue of removing the offence of blasphemy is a source of deep concern for a very significant proportion of the population. I share those people's view that respect for authentically held religious values has been on the decline for decades. Anti-Catholic rhetoric in particular is rampant. Indeed, some have even described such views as the last acceptable public prejudice. That said, I support the Government's Bill to repeal the blasphemy clause from the Constitution. As Our Lord said: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's".

Ever since the 1996 Constitution Review Group found that the contents of the offence of blasphemy "are totally unclear and are potentially at variance with guarantees of free speech and freedom of conscience in a pluralistic society", the end has been coming for this particular clause in Article 40.6.1o. The issue also received a substantial and detailed analysis in the sixth report of the Constitutional Convention, which was established by the then Government in 2012. As I understand it, however, the convention voted in favour of including a new constitutional provision against religious hatred, with 53% of members in favour, 38% against and 9% undecided.

I am aware that many people will see the position I am taking as some kind of concession to those who want to remove even the mention of God or the sacred from our culture and society. That is emphatically not the case. I simply hold the view that it is not tenable for the State to involve itself in the making of theological judgments, much less enforce specific theological or philosophical judgments by any one particular creed or church. I believe in the separation of church and state. I do not believe, however, that that separation should become a division, which some people would like it to be. The church has a vital role to play in our society and it works effectively in a spirit of collaboration with the State on many issues. That role needs to be respected and protected. It is not appropriate for the State to act as the guard dog of any particular church. Such a position harms both church and State, an outcome that is in no one's interests. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

Through the Ceann Comhairle, I thank the Deputies for their contributions and co-operation in facilitating the passage of the Bill. I acknowledge the broad welcome they have given to the proposal to proceed along the lines suggested.

The background to the proposal has already been explained. It has been emphasised that, if the offence of blasphemy is to be removed from the Statute Book, a constitutional amendment is an essential first step. This is because, as Deputy O'Callaghan has stressed, the inclusion in the Constitution of the blasphemy provision in its current form requires the retention of an offence that merits that provision in the Statute Book. It does matter that there have been no successful prosecutions of the offence in living memory of anyone here or in the memory of our parents, grandparents or perhaps even great-great grandparents.

The provision identifies Ireland, however incorrect and misleading that might be, as a country that does not value freedom of expression and one that gives constitutional protection to a concept that many would regard as completely outmoded. Its very existence gives further comfort to those in other countries where the concept of blasphemy has a real meaning, one that can entail considerable suffering for those who run foul of the law that supports it.

Deputies Boyd Barrett and Coppinger spoke about the need to amend the Constitution so as to remove religious references and religious-based oaths of office. This is a much broader question than that which is the subject matter of the Bill before us, but the intervention made by the Deputies undoubtedly touches upon matters that are of public interest. In its ninth and final report, the Constitutional Convention proposed five issues for constitutional reform that it felt could be considered by a future convention or otherwise. Included in those issues was one directly related to the separation of church and state. As the report made clear, there was a mix of submissions on this point and not all submissions favoured an amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, among those submissions that favoured an amendment, it would seem that there was a variety of views as to the nature of the amendment. This underlines the point that, prior to any constitutional change in this area being embarked upon, the wider engagement of civic society will be required. Given the extensive programme of legislative and constitutional reform that is in prospect over the next 12 months or so, I do not have any immediate plan for legislative intervention in this particular matter.

Deputies Sherlock and Boyd Barrett queried the retention of the references to seditious or indecent matter. I agree that this language rings somewhat oddly to our modern ears. However, unlike the reference to blasphemous matter, these matters are covered by various statutory provisions. We can all agree that it is right and proper that there would, for example, be an offence relating to the production and distribution of child pornography. Equally, we can see the logic behind offences intended to criminalise acts aimed at attacking the constitutional order or the institutions of state. The same imperative to amend the Constitution does not exist in terms of these matters as it does in the context of blasphemy.

I acknowledge a point that was adverted to by Deputy O'Callaghan. The removal of blasphemy from our Constitution, should that proposal be approved by the people, is not in any way to be construed as an attack on our belief or unbelief. Nor is it intended to privilege one set of values over another. It is a simple acknowledgement that a concept that it is agreed is uncertain in meaning and rooted in a past where fealty to the State was conflated with fealty to a particular religion has no place in a Constitution that must provide shelter for all who live in this Republic. As Deputy Ó Laoghaire stated, we are a country of increasing diversity. The right to express differing viewpoints in a forceful and critical manner is one that must at all times not only be upheld, but be cherished.

I acknowledge the support of Deputy Mattie McGrath, which allows me to say how heartened I am that no Deputy has spoken in favour of retaining the offence of blasphemy in our Constitution. I also acknowledge the importance of cross-party support in the House for the action that the Government is taking. I hope that, when the people vote on this proposal, they will see the merits of the proposed deletion. I acknowledge that it may have taken more time than many of us would have wished to introduce the necessary proposal. However, we now have the opportunity to deal with this issue in a way that reflects the values we espouse as a modern democratic society.

Great.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, in the names of Deputies Coppinger, Barry and Paul Murphy are out of order.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 in the name of Deputies Coppinger, Barry and Paul Murphy are out of order.

Tairgim:

GO nDÉANFAR an ráiteas atá leagtha amach sa Sceideal a ghabhann leis an Rún seo a fhorordú mar eolas do vótálaithe, de bhun alt 23 d’Acht an Reifrinn, 1994 (Uimh. 12 de 1994), i ndáil leis an togra chun an Bunreacht a leasú, atá ar áireamh sa Bhille um an Seachtú Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Cion a aisghairm arb éard é ní diamhaslach a fhoilsiú nó a aithris), 2018 agus is ábhar do reifreann bunreachta.

An Sceideal

Ráiteas mar Eolas do Vótálaithe

An Bille um an Seachtú Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Cion a aisghairm arb éard é ní diamhaslach a fhoilsiú nó a aithris), 2018 – Páipéar Ballóide Uaine

Fiafraítear díot sa reifreann seo an aontaíonn tú leis an togra chun Airteagal 40 den Bhunreacht a leasú chun an cion a aisghairm arb éard é ní diamhaslach a fhoilsiú nó a aithris.

Má thoilíonn tú leis an togra, cuir X os coinne an fhocail Tá ar an bpáipéar ballóide.

Mura dtoilíonn tú leis an togra, cuir X os coinne an fhocail Níl ar an bpáipéar ballóide.

Is féidir teacht ar chóip den Bhille ar an idirlíon ar www.oireachtas.ie.

I move:

THAT the statement set out in the Schedule to this Resolution be prescribed for the information of voters, pursuant to section 23 of the Referendum Act 1994 (No.12 of 1994), in relation to the proposal to amend the Constitution which is contained in the Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018 and is the subject of a constitutional referendum.

Schedule

Statement for the Information of Voters

Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018 – Green Ballot Paper

You are being asked in this referendum if you agree with the proposal to amend Article 40 of the Constitution to repeal the offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

If you approve of the proposal, mark X opposite the word Yes on the ballot paper.

If you do not approve of the proposal, mark X opposite the word No on the ballot paper.

A copy of the Bill may be viewed on the internet at www.oireachtas.ie.

Private Members' business is a motion in the name of Sinn Féin Deputies on the future of the post office network. We need Sinn Féin Deputies in the House. We will suspend the sitting for five minutes while awaiting the arrival of the Deputies.

Private Members' business is a motion on the future of the post office network. I note, given some of the events of the day, that many of the personnel from our Whips' offices must have decamped to the ploughing championships because they are certainly not paying much attention to what is going on here.

It is shocking.

We are delighted to have Deputy Stanley.

I am delighted to be here even though the ploughing is happening down on my own patch.

That is dedication.

Plough ahead.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

recognises that:

— the recent announced closure of 159 post offices across the State will have a devastating effect on many rural communities;

— post offices form a vital part of communities, and have suffered long-term neglect by successive Governments, with hundreds of closures since 2000;

— successive Governments have allowed the post office network to decline and have not allowed alternative services to be established and expanded;

— postmasters and postmistresses are entitled to accept retirement packages, however, the criteria used by An Post in such instances, to retain post offices and advertise a new contract, are flawed; and

— A Programme for a Partnership Government commits to protecting the postal network; and

calls on the Government to:

— prevent the closure of 159 post offices across the State by advertising new contracts, offering alternative services and allowing the potential for co-location of post offices;

— reinvigorate the network of post offices by extending the services which post offices provide, and by retaining existing services such as social welfare payments;

— implement proposals contained in the Final Report of the Post Office Network Business Development Group (Kerr Report) from 2016 which included post offices providing alternative services such as financial services and Government services before closing post offices; and

— commit to a new model of community banking through the post office network.

This is important because it is about rural Ireland and the future of services in rural Ireland. Today, we had representatives of postmasters protesting outside this building about this important issue. We should not see the post office as something just to have in the community but rather something that is needed in a community. It can be if we have sufficient Government action. We need to see the post office in the community, as part of it, providing important services for the benefit of local people. It can be with long-term vision where additional services are provided.

A previous motion was passed two years ago, which was moved by the Rural Independent Group, but little or no action was taken. There was a lack of follow-up on the Kerr report from 2016 and an Oireachtas committee report from 2013. The progress made has been a little like a slow bicycle race. These all stressed the need for additional services to be provided through our post office network, which is key. Instead, successive Governments have allowed it to limp along.

Previous Governments viewed the post office network as a burden. From 2000 to 2010, under a previous Government, 732 post offices closed their doors. There have been Garda station closures and 542,000 households are still waiting for high-speed broadband. This is the situation in rural Ireland. Post office masters and mistresses are entitled to retire, but this does not mean the post office has to retire or cease operation. We need a long-term vision and interest in the service from the Government when it comes to rural Ireland. Some 390 post office masters and mistresses were offered exit packages recently and not offered new contracts. Of those, 159 post masters and mistresses are retiring, and have the right to do so. The remaining 231 were not offered new contracts due to falling incomes.

We need to address the criteria used by An Post to define a settlement, which are that there must be 500 or more people. Many of these villages have up to 600 or 700 people living on the outskirts. I can name plenty of them. It does not take into account the true population in the rural area. We have a dispersed population and clusters of houses on the outskirts of villages and small towns. We have one of the most dispersed populations in Europe. Everyone will have examples in their constituencies where they know the true population is not reflected. Much has been made of there being one within 15 km and nobody having to travel more than 15 km.

For someone on a pension of €220 a week, that could mean the first €30 or €35 could be gone on a taxi fare to get to the nearest post office to collect the pension.

Co-location is another important issue. It is something I have supported from the outset, although I accept that others have opposed it at various times. Sinn Féin believes co-location is a real option, but it is not being considered or sufficiently promoted. The Government and An Post need to support co-location. There are many places where a post office could easily be combined with a local shop or other business, thus giving an additional income and providing for the continuation of postal services, as well as new services. We need additional services, including Government services such as motor tax renewal. Having a State service in the community will benefit and contribute to communities.

Given that banks have withdrawn from rural Ireland, we must consider the introduction of community banking. There was a commitment in that regard in the programme for Government, specifically for the German Sparkasse model. In Germany, there are 390 individual local-authority owned banks. Another option is the New Zealand Kiwibank model, which now has a 20% share of the banking market and 25% of all bank customers in that country.

The post office is the last remaining service in many areas. Communities need services in order to stay alive. In addition to a postal network, communities also need broadband and rural transport services, which many areas do not have. Rural areas will become barren places if post office services are stripped from communities. I ask the Government to recognise that in many cases the post office is similar to the last man standing. We must retain services in rural areas by channelling them through the local post office, thus keeping local villages alive and maintaining vital services in rural areas.

I bring greetings from the National Ploughing Championships where I spent most of the day. Rural Ireland is alive and well-----

Good.

-----and working very hard. People from various rural communities throughout the country are angry about the situation. I know that the Minister is aware of this because he comes from a rural community. People are angry because they believe the Government has let them down. As my colleague just said, in many small towns and villages where post offices are due to close, other services have been withdrawn in recent years. We are not in this situation because of what happened in recent weeks or months but because of what happened in the past 20 years. The post office service has been run down. In fairness to the Minister, he was not in office while that was happening, but others have allowed it to happen.

The harp over the door in the post office is meant to symbolise the State providing services for the people. Thirty or 40 years ago the Department was known as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. What happened to it? Communications was considered to be a vital service the Government provided for the people, but that is no longer the case. It is something to be chopped and changed, privatised, hived off, cut back and made smaller and more compact. Government is getting smaller. Two weeks ago at a committee meeting, I said I felt it was part of a corrupt political system. I was not being personal towards the Minister or the Department but the entire system in this country. We have a political system that is about small government, government shrinking and stating to the public that it will not interfere too much in people's lives. Such a model was championed by Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. That is the model people are experiencing throughout the country and unless we change it, there is no hope for rural areas because the places that will be impacted first by such a model of governance are those that are under the most pressure, namely, places such as my community in Aughavass where the post office has closed and where there is little prospect of getting a new contract in place, although the post office would be co-located with a bar and a shop. The same situation is evident in the town of Killeshandra and Ballinphull and Gorteen, County Sligo where the post office is closed and people are seeking to take it over. That is happening all over the country. These communities deserve to have post offices. Other individuals want the contracts and are prepared to apply for them to run the post office for the benefit of the community. It is not too much to ask that the Government which represents the people, who are the messengers of the people and who are elected into government do what they need to do and provide a vital communications service for the public. The post office is a public office with a harp over the door to where people can go to avail of a service in their community.

I wish to focus on the core of the issue for communities. When people were told that their post office was to close, they were told the community could seek a review of the decision. The review was to look at the criteria used to close each post office. Reference was made to the number of people in a community. It was said no community with fewer than 500 people being left without a post office. When we get into the detail, it appears that the reference is to no settlement with fewer than 500 people would be left without a post office. I teased out the issue at the recent committee meeting, which the Minister also attended. It was acknowledged that An Post was using the definition of a settlement in the 2016 census, namely, 500 people living in at least 50 occupied houses, none of which was more than 100 m apart. Anyone who knows anything about the country knows that the vast majority of rural communities live in dispersed rural settlements with scattered dwellings. That is the way we have evolved over centuries, possibly for thousands of years, yet we use the stupid model I have outlined to decide whether we will keep vital post office services in place. The first thing the Minister needs to do is go back to An Post and tell those involved in the review of postal services that in order to make decisions about putting post offices in place, they must change the criteria used. They need to accept that, for example, in my parish when people speak about the community or the settlement, they speak about the entire parish. In other areas, they speak about a village and a reasonable distance around it from which people commute to avail of postal services. The definition of a settlement is totally anti-rural and destroys everything those who stand up for rural Ireland should support.

I spoke privately to the Minister about the issue and will not divulge the contents of a private conversation. The Minister said post offices such as my local post office in Aughavass should have a fair chance of survival because they had a pub, a shop and other services located there. Post offices in Killeshandra, Gorteen, Ballinphull and other places should have a fair chance of survival if they can be co-located, but that option seems to have been turned on its head by the managers in An Post. The challenge is for the Minister to stand up to An Post and make sure he stands up for rural areas and provides postal services for everyone who deserves them.

Táim buíoch as an deis labhairt ar an rún tábhachtach seo. Ba mhaith liom mo chuid buíochais a ghabháil leis an Teachta Brian Stanley as ucht an rún a chur faoi bhráid na Dála. Iarraim tacaíocht ó gach aon Teachta don rún atá os ár gcomhair.

The programme for Government contains a number of commitments on the postal network, principally in respect of providing additional services through post offices such as motor tax services, which would assist in safeguarding the future viability of the post office network. The announcement three weeks ago of the closure of 159 local post offices, however, flies in the face of repeated pronouncements that the Government is committed to the post office network. As the Minister well knows, post offices form a vital part of local communities. The fact is that their closure will have a devastating impact on many communities, mostly rural and in many cases isolated. That is a direct result of Government inaction which has resulted in the decline of the post office network and has not allowed alternative services to be established and expanded, as promised in the programme for Government.

Members of Fianna Fáil, despite the rhetoric, are as complicit as those on the Government benches. Between 2000 and 2011, Fianna Fáil closed 732 post offices; therefore, it is a little galling to listen to Fianna Fáil representatives talking tough about post office closures when the reality is that they will do nothing to prevent it from happening. Sinn Féin, however, has a motion before the Dáil. It is a common-sense motion, practical in its approach and calls on the Government to prevent post offices closures by advertising new contracts; to reinvigorate the network by extending the services post offices provide and retaining existing services such as social welfare payments; to implement proposals contained in the Kerr report from 2016 which included post offices providing financial and Government services; and to commit to a new model of community banking. These are meaningful actions which would go a long way to ensuring the future survival of the post office network.

Mar sin, iarraim ar gach Teachta, Teachtaí Dála de chuid Fhianna Fáil san áireamh, tacú leis an rún atá roimh an Dáil anocht.

Táim fíorbhuíoch as deis a bheith agam labhairt ar an ábhar fíorthábhachtach seo. Tréaslaím leis an Teachta Kenny a chuir an rún ós comhair na Dála seo le síniú. Shínigh mé féin agus mo chuid comhghleacaithe é. Cuireann sé isteach go mór ar mo chontae féin ina bhfuil 17 d'oifigí poist atá le druid mar gheall ar an neamart a bhfuil an Rialtas ag déanamh orthu. Is ionsaí millteanach é ar cheantair tuaithe, agus go háirithe ar cheantair Ghaeltachta ina bhfuil go leor de na hoifigí poist sin lonnaithe. Mar a dúirt an Teachta Mary Lou McDonald, tugann an Clár Rialtais gealltanas go mbeadh an Rialtas ag caomhnú agus ag cothú na n-oifigí poist seo.

A Programme for a Partnership Government contains a commitment to protect the postal network, but, far from protecting it, the Government is decimating it and driving a knife through the heart of rural Ireland. It is very clear from the meetings I have attended in recent weeks that the people of rural Ireland will not stand for it. They are on their feet, attending meetings and making clear that they will not stand for another cut in services in their local communities.

It was announced that 159 post offices were to close. However, all Members know that post offices and the services they provide have long been a symbol of rural Ireland. These services have been part of the fabric of almost every aspect of community life, both economically and socially, for many years. We also know that that fabric and those institutions has been under sustained attack since the 2000s. As Deputy Mary Lou McDonald stated, 732 post offices were closed over 11 years by Fianna Fáil-led Governments. On average, those Governments oversaw the closure of a post office every week. Closures were made in my parish, affecting communities such as those in Crolly and Gweedore, places where people wanted to keep their post office and postmasters wanted to ensure there was a service, but they were closed down. The Government then closed the closest post office to Gweedore, that in Dunlewey. It was trying to sell a pup to the public and state they could go to the post office in a place such as Bunbeg or wherever the nearest one might be. However, the Minister now plans to close those post offices.

Last night I attended a meeting in Gortahork. The 3,500 people who live there will be left without a post office. The Minister of State at the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Joe McHugh, tá sé ag caint ar straitéis 20 bliain. Cad é an maith atá le straitéis 20 bliain muna bhfuil seirbhísí curtha ar fáil ó thaobh na Gaeilge de? Ba chóir go mbeadh seirbhísí ar fáil i nGaeilge sna ceantair sin. Nil sé ceart nó cóir go bhfuil daoine sa cheantar is láidre Gaeltachta sa tír ag fágáil an cheantair. Tagann sé salach ar an méid atá an Rialtas ag déanamh.

Is féidir leis an rud ceart a dhéanamh. Is féidir leis éisteacht le glór phobal na tuaithe. The Government can still do the right thing. It can listen to the voices of rural communities. It can listen to the voices of the people who have taken to the streets and sent the clear message for us to deliver to the Government that they will not take this lying down because they have seen what the closure of a post office means for communities. They saw this when Fianna Fáil closed 732 post offices, many of which were located in small shops in rural Ireland; the shops were next to close, followed by the withdrawal of bus and other services. They are saying there can be no more such closures. It is time for the Government to do the right thing. It is time for Fianna Fáil to apologise for what it did, stand with Sinn Féin and support the motion and stand with the people of rural Ireland and defend the services they have available.

The decision to close another 159 post offices across the State is a continuation of the flawed policy perpetrated by Fine Gael's co-partners in government, Fianna Fáil. However, rural communities across the State will not take this lying down. They are mobilising and planning on fighting back for their survival. It is planned to close the post offices in Donard and Coolboy in my constituency of Wicklow. However, the communities in those areas have other plans because they are fighting for their existence. The local Garda station in Donard has already been closed by the Government's friends in Fianna Fáil. It seems that there are plans to reopen it, but they have been shelved while plans to reopen Stepaside Garda station progress. Those living in rural parts of the State such as Donard are genuinely concerned. The people of the area mobilised and held a massive public meeting which was attended by over 120 people who vowed to fight these flawed plans in order to ensure their own survival.

The plans are flawed because the criteria laid down by An Post refer to settlements. According to census 2016, the settlement area of Donard has a population of 196. However, I do not refer to settlements but, rather, to communities, which is what Donard is. It has a wide geographical area, rather than one small settlement area. That community which includes the Glen of Imaal comprises more than 1,500 people, well exceeding the criteria laid down by An Post for a population or settlement area of more than 500 persons not being left without a service. It is a flawed plan. The criteria laid down by An Post state no person will be more than 15 km from a local post office. However, 33% of the 1,500 people of the Donard community who use the post office there on a daily basis live more than 15 km from Dunlavin, which is where the closest post office will be located under this plan. I spoke to an elderly lady in Donard last week when there was a community mobilisation involving 800 people who signed a petition opposing these plans. She is an independent lady of 93 years of age who will not be able to get to Dunlavin. There is no public transport service and she does not drive. She has her pride and does not wish to be a strain on her neighbours or family. What would the Minister say to this elderly woman? She is one person, but many thousands like her across the State will be affected if the plans go ahead. Rural Ireland is fighting back. It is doing so not for the sake of it but to ensure its survival.

I move amendment No. 3:

To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:

“recognises that:

— post offices provide crucial economic, administrative and social services to communities all around Ireland, especially to those in rural and isolated areas;

— technological and societal changes have presented significant challenges to the existing post office business model and, as a result, the post office network is in need of modernisation to build, maintain and protect a service that meets the needs of communities across the country, both rural and urban, for the medium- and long-term;

— the announcement by An Post of 159 voluntary closures stems from an agreement reached in May with the Irish Postmasters’ Union (IPU) Executive, which was endorsed by 80 per cent of IPU members;

— in its negotiations with An Post, postmasters sought both the modernisation of the network and a voluntary redundancy package for those who wanted to leave the business;

— postmasters throughout the country have given dedicated service to rural and urban communities over many years and individual decisions to exit the business, for whatever reason, must be respected;

— the agreement between An Post and the IPU represents an important first step in reinvigorating our national post office network and in making it a viable, sustainable and modern network for the future;

— the Programme for a Partnership Government is committed to revitalising the An Post network through the introduction of new services; and

— it is longstanding Government policy that postal services will not be directly subsidised by the State, a policy which has been supported by successive Governments;

notes that:

— the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment has taken significant action to ensure the future viability of An Post and secure the future of the post office network, and these actions have resulted in a restructuring of the company, expansion of services in the post office network and have protected thousands of jobs in the postal sector across the country;

— a Government investment of €30 million was secured for An Post in order to safeguard the 5 days a week mail delivery service (€15 million) and to protect post office counter services (€15 million);

— Government action has enabled An Post to stabilise its financial position, develop and begin to implement a strategic plan which has seen the company split into two distinct business units:

(i) An Post Mails and Parcels; and

(ii) (ii) An Post Retail;

— as part of its strategic plan, An Post announced a renewed vision for the post office network which centres on the availability of new services in a modernised, revitalised network, and critical to the implementation of this vision is the deal secured with the IPU;

— An Post is committed to investing €50 million in growing and modernising the post office network over the next few years, which is the equivalent of €45,000 per post office across the country;

— the Government continues to provide significant business to An Post through the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection social welfare contract and National Treasury Management Agency business;

— An Post has confirmed that it has implemented 17.5 of the 19 recommendations of the Final Report of the Post Office Network Business Development Group (Kerr Report) which relate to An Post, and arising from the recommendations of the Kerr Report, Government funding of €80,000 has been allocated to roll out a pilot scheme called ‘Digital Assist’, which will see 10 post offices being equipped to help citizens with online Government interactions;

— the Government has also approved the establishment of an interdepartmental working group, which will report to Government by the end of the year, to identify options, including procurement frameworks, for delivering services to those citizens who do not wish to use, or are unable to use digital services;

— the Government has recently published its report entitled ‘Local Public Banking in Ireland', and on foot of this report, an independent evaluation of local public banking will be carried out alongside a stakeholder forum;

— in line with the terms of the agreement with the IPU, a voluntary redundancy package was advertised by An Post and 159 postmasters and postmistresses have elected to avail of this package, as in the majority of cases the business is simply no longer sustainable due to declining footfall;

— while the voluntary redundancy package will result in post office closures, An Post has given a commitment that there will be a post office in every community of over 500 people and within 15 kilometres of 95 per cent of the rural population and 3 kilometres of the urban population;

— a protocol specifically sought by the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment ensures that any closures are on a voluntary basis, and where a closure is due to occur An Post will make an assessment on the future provision of services within the locality by reference to specific criteria;

— individuals, groups or representatives can apply to have decisions reviewed through a new independent review process which will determine if An Post has correctly applied the criteria outlined in the protocol, and any retailer in the locations earmarked for closure can apply to An Post to be considered to take over some or all of the services of that post office and may appeal an unfavourable decision; and

— by facilitating those that wish to exit the business, neighbouring offices will be further supported, thereby ensuring a sustainable network for the future; and

calls on the Government to:

— ensure Government services continue to provide the backbone of a sustainable nationwide post office network;

— support An Post in the roll out of new services and the delivery of its strategic plan to ensure the financial viability of An Post and the continued fulfilment of its mandate to deliver a mail delivery service and a viable post office network; and

— ensure that An Post engages fairly with the 159 communities where postmasters are retiring, to ensure post office services are appropriate to the local area and take into account the potential for co-location.

I thank postmasters the length and breadth of the country for the dedicated service they have given to rural and urban communities over many years. As Members are aware, some postmasters have taken the difficult decision in recent weeks to leave the business. I will return to that issue.

Some people have mischievously given the impression that I do not understand or care about the issues of rural Ireland. As many Members are aware, I represent the most rurally dispersed constituency in the country and have consistently raised the issue of the post office network in Dáil Éireann over many years. I have first-hand experience of the concerns and issues involved. I understand the concerns of older people and that this is an anxious time for many of them. I have watched the gradual demise of the post office network over many years. More than 500 post offices closed during the economic boom between 2002 and 2007, while people sat on their hands and allowed the post office network to fall into decline. There was no new investment in the network or services provided. I do not want that to continue. My objective is to keep as many post offices as possible viable and open across the country.

As I have previously pointed out, some post offices have minimal numbers of transactions. One particular post office issues 11 social welfare payments a week. We all know of places the length and breadth of the country where people are voting with their feet, bypassing the local post office and going elsewhere. That is the reality which cannot be ignored.

The postmasters of this country and the communities they serve deserve a clear future and a plan to be put in place for the development of and investment into the post office network and its services. Such action was not taken by a series of Governments through the decades. Although Government after Government promised to do something, nothing was done. We have now set out a clear path and a future for the post office network and by the middle of next year, every single post office in this country will have access to high-speed broadband.

As a Member of Dáil Éireann, I have for many years put forward constructive solutions to bring new business into the post office network. I am now in the lucky position that I can implement some of those solutions. I point out to Members here, some of whom have been Members of this House for a considerable number of years, that I was one of only five Members of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann to make a submission to the Kerr report. I want to take this opportunity to thank Bobby Kerr for his meticulous work on this issue. An Post has confirmed that it has implemented just over 17 of the 19 recommendations appropriate to that company in the Kerr report. In addition, the Government has recently agreed to look at a new offline avenue for all Government online services. This work has started and the Government will be updated on progress before the end of the year. We want to have a sustainable post office network that is available to all our citizens, both urban and rural, in the medium and long term. Although I accept that the closures will have an impact on the communities served by the post offices in question, the background to this issue has not been well represented.

It is important to put the An Post announcement relating to the changes to the post office network in context. Ninety-eight weeks ago, I was presented with a future for An Post and the post office network that was uncertain and very bleak. I was determined that the company would not go under and there was a real possibility that would happen because of the failure by successive Governments to act. The potential for a complete shutdown of postal services with the loss of thousands of jobs was undeniable. Immediate action was needed to ensure the survival of An Post. We also needed to safeguard the post office network. That was necessary to protect thousands of jobs across the country. Nine thousand people work in An Post. Those imperative requirements needed decisions. I can tell the House that those decisions have been forthcoming. I did not shirk my responsibility as Minister, as my predecessors did. We have worked tirelessly to restructure the company to save it. I am sure members will recall the urgent need to introduce legislation to facilitate the increase in the price of a stamp. That was an essential first step to avoid a cash crunch for the company and give An Post time to construct a plan for a sustainable future. The challenges facing An Post were recognised across all political parties. I acknowledge the support I received from colleagues on all sides of the House to put that legislation in place and provide a much-needed window for An Post to put its strategic plan in place.

I also worked hard on securing Government investment of €30 million in An Post to safeguard the five days a week mail service and collection service and to protect the post office counter services. Two years later, critically important decisions have been made. An Post has been stabilised because of the action that has been taken, and it is now one of the few mail services in the world that is expanding its service from a five-days-a-week letter service to a six-days-a-week parcel service. The fabric of services An Post delivers has been strengthened.

The company is changing from a 19th-century model to one that has relevance and resonance in the 21st century in both rural and urban areas. In fact, the current postmasters’ contract dates back to 1907, and we all accept that things have changed dramatically since then. While the future is not as bleak for An Post, the underlying challenges remain. Mail volumes continue to decline. E-substitution and the move to online payments and online banking continue to have an impact on the post office network. There is widespread acceptance that the post office network requires modernisation to build, maintain and protect a service that meets the needs of communities throughout this country. An Post’s strategy for the post office network centres on the availability of new services in a modernised, revitalised network. These services must include a better range of Government services, financial services and e-commerce services for shoppers and small businesses.

Since taking office, I have been driving the offline avenue with my officials, my Cabinet colleagues, the management team in An Post, the Office of Government Procurement and other agencies. I recently received Government approval to look at an offline avenue for all Government online services. This work has started and Government will be updated on progress before the end of this year. Investment of €50 million in the post office network will now take place, which is equivalent to €45,000 per post office, and is based on getting communities to use the enhanced services their local post office will provide through a modernised network.

These measures are meaningless unless the public use the service An Post provides. Key to the survival of the network is the willingness of all to use it. Government funding of €80,000 has been allocated to roll out the Digital Assist programme. Ten post offices are being equipped to become digital hubs to help citizens navigate online Government services and access other online goods and services.

Essential to delivering on a renewed vision for the post office network is the agreement reached with the Irish Postmasters Union, IPU. This agreement followed months of intensive negotiations which were overseen by Turlough O’Donnell at my invitation. I take this opportunity once again to thank Mr. O’Donnell for his work, time and commitment to this process.

In its negotiations with An Post, postmasters and postmistresses sought the modernisation of the network and a voluntary redundancy package for those who wanted to leave the business. It is important that the decision of those who wish to leave the business is respected. The decision on whether to accept the package was an individual one for each postmaster. All closures have been on a voluntary basis and the IPU has publicly confirmed that.

It is also important to remember that when a post office closes, 70% of that business will transfer to the neighbouring office. The reality is that by facilitating those who wish to exit the business, neighbouring offices will be further supported, thereby ensuring the sustainability of the network as a whole. Deputies will be aware that an independent appeals process has been put in place to enable communities to review the decision of An Post. Retailers have the opportunity to look for those new and additional services and that can be independently reviewed as well.

I call Deputy Dooley. I understand the Deputy has an arrangement with colleagues.

My time is shared. The time slots were submitted. The Minister has taken the wrong approach to this debate from the very start. He has taken the position of An Post and based the closure of post offices around viability. We know that 159 post offices, and a far greater number, are not profitable. We accept that. People have changed the way they live their lives. Some people do their transactions online. Some people email. They do not use the services of the post office, and the Minister thinks the solution is to embarrass more people into using the post office. There are more services that can be delivered but there is no guarantee that if the Minister follows this profit and loss approach he seems to have bought into, these locations will ever be financially viable, but their closure and their elimination go to the ruination of the communities they serve. The Minister should be looking at the viability of the communities and the services the people need.

Nowhere have I ever heard a Minister with responsibility for transport say that if a road is lightly trafficked and there is not enough traffic on it, we will not fill the potholes unless more people use it. They have never said it because it is an essential public service. Equally, the post office is an essential public service to elderly and vulnerable people who cannot make the ten or 15 km to the nearest service. That might make the neighbouring post office viable in that, with more transactions, it breaks even.

What about the people who have to make that trip? They have to pay for taxis, as Deputy Stanley said, or get relations to bring them to collect their social welfare payments. That is an unfair encumbrance on them. It is an intolerable burden. The hollowing out of the social welfare payments from that community will have a cascading negative effect. It will take money away from the local shops and other businesses and we will see a further denigration of services in those communities.

I accept that previous Governments allowed post offices to close. In many cases, the contract was re-offered and other businesses did not take them up because the demand had deteriorated.

That is an insult.

I will get to that in a minute. Never before was there such a wholesale thing-----

Fianna Fáil turned its back on rural communities.

With respect, I have tried not to be drawn by Deputy Pearse Doherty and I will take no history lesson from Sinn Féin Deputies. I will avoid the temptation to remind them how they treated postmasters and postmistresses in the past. I will pass on that but I will not take the lecture.

The reality is that on many occasions when post offices closed, there was no alternative and nobody took the business up. There was no attempt made by a Government at that stage to do a wholesale closure. If services can be identified that will generate more income for the businesses where a post office could be co-located, there is an opportunity, but I would not hang my hat on that solution or say it would bring the remaining post offices up to the viability threshold. What we have to get over as a State is being prepared to provide a level of subvention to support the delivery of postal services in those communities. It does not have to be a stand-alone post office.

I have sat in meetings the same as everyone else over the last months and heard it said that we could put the post office into a local shop. We do not need a postmaster or postmistress; we do not need concrete ceilings and roofs. The lads in Sinn Féin will appreciate that some of those threats we were talking about do not exist any more because of decommissioning and so on.

There is an opportunity to deliver the social welfare payments through the PostPoint platform. That has the capacity to ensure that social welfare payments are retained within communities and it would probably cost significantly less than the older model. At the community meetings that I attended, the people on those nights were more than happy to put forward ideas like that and would be happy if that service could be accommodated. The Minister has given some hope by suggesting the PostPoint platform could be expanded. So long as it can be expanded to deliver social welfare payments, there is the capacity to meet the needs of the communities.

However, this should not be allowed to take from the other villages that are now expecting to get the windfall from the closures because that is robbing Peter to pay Paul, which does not work either. That would be making big of one community and destroying another, and we should not be about that, in truth. We need to see a policy coming forward from the Minister's Department. I am sure he will get support from my side of the House and, based on the motion Sinn Féin has put forward tonight, it seems largely to be of a similar mindset to support the idea of State subvention for the smaller post offices that would not be viable no matter what business model the Minister came up with.

The Minister knows the small communities. I will name the post offices that are for closure in County Clare. Cooraclare post office almost closed but the village managed to retain its post office through a deal with the local postmaster. Doonbeg, Cree, Kilfenora, Lissycasey and Fanore are places where we absolutely need to retain the post office service. They are synonymous with similar villages throughout rural Ireland. The post office network cannot be condensed any further. I am of the view that we should protect what we have. For sure, there might be a fall-off in business in future years but just because there is a fall-off in demand does not mean we should eliminate a service for the elderly and vulnerable that is so much needed.

I welcome Tom O'Callaghan from the Independent Postmasters Group and representatives of Save Ballinfull Post Office in north Sligo, who are in the Gallery and represent the many protestors who were outside the House today.

Increasingly, the Minister and his colleagues look more like chairmen of a GAA club. They get to stand in for the photo on ceremonial occasions and say a few words but they really have nothing to do with running the club. Increasingly we hear the refrain: "That is a matter for An Post, the HSE, HIQA or Transport Infrastructure Ireland, a matter for everybody but me." I am beginning to wonder - as the presidential election begins to kick off for that ceremonial role - about the 15 ceremonial positions the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues are adopting.

We know An Post has a commercial mandate and has to balance the books and there are ways and means of achieving that. One of them is not to sub-contract out to companies or to the Irish Postmasters Union, as a private trade union representing members. Good luck to the IPU - it does a good job - but it does not represent communities.

Hear, hear.

We represent communities. We decide on their behalf what services they are provided with and where they are provided. That is the Minister's responsibility and he has abdicated it. He talks of a 19th-century model being modernised. What is his plan? Is it to put everybody into a city? We have a culture in this country where people live in communities. Our responsibility in this House and what we are all paid good money for is to provide them with services, but no, the Minister is obsessed with the cost of everything and the value of nothing. It was a community that elected him and his father before him and everybody else that represented anybody in this House in the past. We have a responsibility to communities. I ask the Minister to remember who elected him and why he is here. It is not for the photo call; he is here to provide services. He must reverse this decision.

I welcome the motion and fully support Fianna Fáil's amendment, which brings a degree of realism and ambition to an issue that is causing great hardship to rural communities in Wicklow. Rural post offices should not be held to the same profit and loss margins that other businesses are bound by. The Bobby Kerr report rightly outlined the social capital character of post office services in rural Ireland.

In Wicklow, the latest post offices to be closed by the Fine Gael Government include Donard and Coolboy and there are many more to follow. In the case of Donard, the minimum distance requirements determined by An Post are being breached with many rural customers of Donard post office living much further than the minimum distance of 15 km. On that condition alone, I ask the management of An Post to review the decision and accept the business proposals from the community of Donard. However, I am not confident the Government or senior management of An Post will take their responsibilities seriously.

Nearly two years ago, my local post office in Laragh closed even though the Laragh-Glendalough area receives more than 1.2 million visitors a year. Our locally-led campaign was successful in achieving a review of that decision and two credible, sustainable and enterprising alternative business plans were sent to An Post. The response from An Post in two years has been that the review is still taking place and no decision has been made. To have 24 months of inertia in any business is nonsense but in this case it indicates An Post's total lack of interest in seeking alternatives to closures throughout rural Wicklow and Ireland.

Our public service obligation model would save post offices in rural Wicklow and allow the State to provide these needed services to many rural areas. Rural pensioners, farmers, businesses and families pay the same taxes and obey the same laws and they expect equal treatment by Government services. Today's protest from ordinary people must be listened to. Rural Wicklow deserves equality in service delivery.

Our postmaster in Kiskeam refused to take voluntary redundancy and we must pay huge tribute to him for trying to hold the post office in our community. Although we have the matter of commercial sensitivity and all the rest of it, An Post is a social contract with the people. We have to fundamentally understand that. Every community that loses a post office loses the heartbeat of the community and its social contract. We have to make up our mind as a people as to whether we are going to make sure that these rural communities are vibrant into the future. If we start losing services, we will curtail their ability to be relevant. I know many of my colleagues want to speak on this and I will give them as much time as possible.

We need to make sure the social contract is in place. That underlines the reason we are in favour of having a public post office in each and every community.

Tá áthas orm deis a fháil chun labhairt ar an rún fíorthábhachtach seo maidir le na hoifigí poist. The current plan for rationalising post offices is an extremely blunt instrument. No consideration has been given to rural proofing, social and economic grounds, the exact and central locations of post offices or those who do not have transport available to them. Even the population calculations are based on settlements rather than population. Like Deputy Pearse Doherty, I attended numerous meetings in County Donegal in the past few weeks that were attended by hundreds of people. There are a lot more than 500 people in each and every one of the areas affected. It was contrived. The settlement pattern was used to try to ensure all of the post offices could be contracted based on a figure above 500. The majority of areas in my county have a population well in excess of 500.

The timing of the announcement was despicable. The Minister may not know but An Post decided, in conjunction with someone else, to make it when the Dáil was in recess. It was a time when there would be the least publicity, which meant that it might have gone under the radar, but my goodness, it did not. County Donegal has been extremely hard hit. Who took the decision? It was not made according to any objective analysis. It forced postmasters and postmistresses to take a decision. I believe we must go back to the drawing board. My party is happy to support having a public service obligation that might cost in the region of €8 million to ensure we will have a continuation of the excellent services that have been provided during the years. Those who have been made an offer it are quite entitled to take it, but a decision must be taken on co-location and to immediately reduce many of the overheads that are part of the losses by 50%.

In the past few months 12 communities in County Cork, four of which are in my constituency of Cork South-West and one of which is in a neighbouring constituency, were dealt a devastating blow. The areas include Allihies, Ballineen, Desertserges, Drinagh and Minane Bridge. As I worked in the post office for many years, I know first hand the economic and social benefits provided for a community by a post office. If someone collects his or her social welfare payment, he or she will spend the money in the locality. He or she will do his or her grocery shopping, have his or her hair done or have a cup of tea. If we take that money away from the community, we will take away business from it. What have not been mentioned that much are the post offices which encompass sorting offices. Businesses built around these post offices will have to wait far longer to receive their post. Ballineen is one, if the Minister is asking what they are. On the one hand, we are trying to encourage people to set up businesses and, on the other, taking away a lifeline.

I have heard the Minister say many times that nobody was forced into this as if it was a feather in his cap. That may be the case, but at the same time, communities are at a loss. A contract to provide a service in the area should be given to someone else. The Minister has often spoken about being one of the five people to make a submission to Mr. Bobby Kerr. That is grand and well done, but Deputy Denis Naughten is now Minister and the buck stops with him.

I refer to the remarks made by Deputy Margaret Murphy O'Mahony when she spoke about how she learned about the economic and social benefits of post offices provided for local communities through her work in the post office during the years. None of us should ever ignore the fact that most postmasters and postmistresses went beyond the call of duty during the years in assisting people who might not have had good numeracy or literacy skills. As a society, we are being abusive to people who do not have those skills, may not have access to technology or are not technology-friendly. We should be able to provide a service to ensure people will not be left behind because of a lack of numeracy or literacy skills or an inability to travel a distance by car to receive their pension.

Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher referred to the fact that the wrong measurement of the population of an area had been used. People are going by the last census. We know that the entire population of a town might not be included in a census. Two of the streets in Killeshandra where the post office is closing have not been factored in in the number of people who use that post office.

That is why there is a review mechanism.

It is very important that there be a realistic measurement to take the entire catchment area into account. I said this at a public meeting last Saturday in Kilnaleck where I saw people from a wide catchment area who would not have been factored in in the population taken into account.

Seven post offices across the constitutency of Cavan-Monaghan are set to close. Of course, the Minister has a responsibility to ensure viability, but the most important reason should be the social conscience and social fabric of communities. In the areas in question those who will be hit hardest will be the elderly and the most vulnerable. The Minister spoke about the changing era and technology being the cause of all of this. I can assure him that most houses across counties Cavan and Monaghan and the rest of rural Ireland do not have broadband; therefore, it is not the case that they can turn to technology to compensate for the loss of their post offices. The issue of broadband provision would need to be well sorted out before we consider closing any post office. The towns and villages where it is proposed to force post offices to close have already lost their banks, have no ATMs and have perhaps seen the closure of Garda stations. This may be the last financial institution standing in those towns and villages. Last year I held a public meeting in Shercock that was attended by over 200 people. There was a public meeting in Killeshandra that was attended by hundreds of people. Last Saturday hundreds of people attended a meeting in Kilnaleck. People do care. It is not an issue that will go away. Deputy Timmy Dooley made a very valid point about the public service obligation, at which the Minister should look.

Eleven post offices in my constituency, part of which was included in the Minister's constituency at one stage, will close. I know that post offices will close and that there is nothing we can do about it, but there are post offices that are viable. I speak of those in Gorteen and Ballinfull, County Sligo and Newtowngore, County Leitrim. These post offices would be well able to survive if they were given an opportunity. People must apply to the review. I believe in the public service obligation where needed. Bus services are run in Dublin where there is no problem with the public service obligation. We need money to run these services for the elderly people with whom we are trying to deal because they are being discriminated against.

I am amazed that the number of post offices to be closed in my county is 12. Where capacity has reached a low ebb in the context of activity levels in some of these post offices, I can understand a postmaster or postmistress making a decision to exit the market. That is understandable and the reasons are very personal. The Kerr report was published in 2016. The Minister tells us that in 2018 An Post has implemented just over 17 of the 19 recommendations made. I put it to him and An Post that many of the post offices affected in County Cork were never contacted or had no engagement on the recommendations made in the Kerr report. Their capacity was reduced to such an extent that they decided to exit the market.

There was no meaningful engagement on the Kerr report in regard to e-payments, motor tax or community hub pilots in respect of many of the post offices in Cork, such as at Minane Bridge, Lackaroe, Drinagh, Carrigadrohid, Ballynoe, Ballyclough, Ballineen and Allihies. It may not seem a long distance but for the people of Allihies to drive to Eyeries is a distance of approximately 11 km and from Lackaroe to Youghal is 5 km. While this does not seem a long distance, it is the loss of an essential service.

The Minister will not convince me that those making the Kerr recommendations, of which the Minister said An Post has accepted 17 of the 19, visited these post offices in any way, shape or form in order to allow these communities at least a fighting chance if they decided they wanted to retain the service in their area. We need a further analysis of some of the postulations of the Minister in terms of his speech to the House. When we stood here in 2017 to reluctantly agree to facilitate the increase in the cost of the stamp to €1, we did so in good faith on the basis that the revenue generated would allow An Post a fighting chance. We did not do it on the basis that 159 post offices would be closed as a result. I do not know if the Minister sold us a pup-----

I was given a pup when I went into the Department.

-----but if the revenue increase as a result of that increase in the cost of the stamp was used to buy out contracts or pay part of a redundancy, then I believe we should demand absolute transparency in regard to that process.

This is a real blow to rural communities, to pensioners and to people who are dependent on social welfare. It is the biggest cull of post office services in the history of the State - 159 closures, effectively in one fell swoop. The post office in Allihies has been mentioned as one of the post offices in County Cork that will be closed. The nearest post office to people living in this area is now 10.9 km away, which makes it difficult for people with disabilities or people who do not drive to avail of the postal service.

The media tonight are trying to say that the movement to resist post office closures is on the wane and they are pointing to the size of the protest outside Leinster House today. The protest outside today was not at all insignificant, given it is a working day, given the ploughing championships and so on. A more accurate picture of the level of resistance to these post office closures is shown by the size and scale of the protest meetings being held in communities throughout rural Ireland. I received correspondence from a community campaigning to save its local post office in Gurteen, County Tipperary. Some 500 people attended the public meeting in opposition to that closure, which is an indication of the level of resistance.

There is talk of a general election in the air: "Will Leo roll the dice?", "Will Leo not roll the dice?" and so on. There are a number of issues the Taoiseach would need to be mindful of if he is considering going down that road. The biggest one nationally is housing, whereby people will vote for change and vote against the Government. In rural Ireland, however, the post office issue is a real issue which poses dangers for the Government and it will ignore those communities and their wishes at its peril.

Post office services, first and foremost, should be provided on the basis of the needs of communities and the people who live in those communities, rather than on a break-even basis. That is my belief; it is a socialist, left opinion. It is clearly not an opinion that is shared by the Government but it is also not shared by other parties in this House because the decline in the post office infrastructure has taken place under both Fianna Fáil-led and Fine Gael-led Governments - right-wing government that turns its back on the idea of providing a service for a community and instead looks at it in terms of pounds, shillings and pence.

To look at post office services a little more broadly, but in a way that is very relevant to this debate, back in 2011, after examining the effects of opening the postal service to the free market in mainland Europe, the Communication Workers Union was able to predict widespread job losses, a severe strain on the universal service obligation and a decline in the quality and level of postal services. What is happening at the moment has to be seen in light of those points. I would also make the point that in addition to recent closures and job losses, An Post employees have also experienced wage reductions over the last few years which have resulted in savings of €100 million. We need to learn from the experience in this country and internationally. Cutbacks in postal services and privatisation of essential services are a total failure for customers, for working people and for the communities they serve.

As an Independent Deputy for Galway West, and with Galway being the county picked out to have the highest number of closures, I am trying to avoid despair at the decisions that were made. There are 18 closures in Galway city and county, from the Gaeltacht to east Galway, including Indreabhán, where the criteria do not match the population on the ground, which is way in excess of 500.

That is why the review process is there.

The Minister might say that. Tonight I do not want to thank the Minister but to acknowledge the work done by the Public Banking Forum of Ireland, the Independent Postmasters Group and the International Small Business Alliance for their oral and written submissions to the Oireachtas committee on 4 September, their letters to Deputies and their letter of 27 June. I specifically mention it because all of that has been done on a voluntary basis. They have done it to educate us and what they have done, thankfully, has changed the narrative from the very limited debate of saving our post offices to one that envisages the transformation of our post offices into a network of thriving, profitable community banking services and multi-service providers. They have given us all of this language and all the statistics, and they have moved on to point out the intrinsic link between the future of the post office network and the future of Ireland's indigenous economy and indigenous companies, which are the backbone of our economy.

They have pointed to the crucial difference between funding the productive economy, which is very important, and the funding of speculative bubbles, and the role of the post office network in assisting the transformation of the Irish socioeconomy. They go on to give us examples from New Zealand and Germany. Indeed, the programme for Government committed to looking at a community banking model and I have read the report prepared for the Minister on local public banking in Ireland. Extraordinarily, it highlights exactly what those organisations have said. It points out the advantages and the returns to the community of these types of models but it goes on to say there is no case for rolling them out in Ireland because it would involve the spending of public money, and some €170 million is mentioned.

Coincidently, I am on the Committee of Public Accounts and tomorrow we will be examining the billions of euro paid to the banks with absolutely no return or pay-off to the economy. This is a model with huge pay-off on every level. It will keep our rural areas thriving and will be the backbone of indigenous industry, yet the Minister has rejected it. I ask him to review that.

Across Donegal, there are 17 post office closures. Galway and Donegal have the greatest number of closures nationally. In Donegal, one has Dunkineely, Brinlack, Bunbeg, Burtonport and numerous others will close. It is the responsibility of the Minister and An Post that those closures are taking place and they are doing nothing to ensure the survival of the remaining post offices. There will be further closures over the coming years in response to which the Minister will wring his hands and say he did his best to roll out services. I do not believe he has done his best or that the best has been done for post offices.

Deputy Connolly outlined how An Post could be an alternative banking model. It is perfectly feasible and could be done if An Post was willing. I sat on the committee last week when the head of An Post said no one came to him. Why did he not go out and speak to people? He is responsible for maintaining the service and he should be going out and speaking to people. The Government has divided itself from An Post in order to keep a separation which allows it to say there is nothing it can do because its role relates only to governance, not to day-to-day operations or the closure of services. The Government has failed An Post and the service will be failed further because it will not be allowed to develop.

Fianna Fáil presided over the closure of 460 post offices. The least we can say for the Government is that it has put together a plan, although it is a failed one. Fianna Fáil simply closes post offices. Both parties are cut from the same cloth because as long as An Post is required to be independent and to tender services on a financial basis, we will see the decline of rural Ireland. We have to make our post offices a centre for communities. Only then will we see post offices developing. That is what is important.

While post office closures constitute an issue which will massively affect rural communities, they are also an issue in my own urban constituency in Rialto where I have worked with people to prevent the closures. We heard recently that Bluebell post office could be under threat with the retirement of a postmaster. I have been in contact with An Post, which is trying to get that out for tender now. There is always the difficulty of rent prices. The question therefore arises as to how the Government should supply services according to need and what sort of intervention should take place to provide those services. Many of our vital local services are under threat today, whether it is post office or bus services, in rural and urban areas. We have a Government which is fixated on the notion that market forces, the private sector and profits constitute the only way to provide the services people need for a decent life. We need only look at the housing crisis to see where this fixation has led.

It is now ten years since the great financial crash of 2008 when a banking system obsessed with huge profits, speculation, bonuses and favoured clients, such as big property developers, brought the country to its knees. Another crash is entirely possible and being spoken about internationally. I do not feel confident at all that things have changed in the world of "too big to fail" private banks. That is the reality. We need an alternative way to do things which acknowledges a right to housing and affordable and efficient public transport. There is a right to live in viable and sustainable communities in urban and rural settings. Central to such an alternative must be the idea of public not-for-profit banking. This is where the failure is. I saw the statement from the Irish Postmasters Union saying that community banking is not a panacea for the challenges faced by the post office network, but in my view it would play a crucial role in maintaining the post office network if public banking were brought into it. Public banking is a sensible and completely workable proposal for an alternative banking system. It has been working successfully in Germany as we know, having had representatives from the German community banking sector in Leinster House speaking to Members in committee.

I ask Fianna Fáil what its criteria were for closing almost 752 post offices during its time in power. The party has challenged the Minister here as to what his criteria are. We must maintain these services in our communities. This issue is the needs of our elderly and people who want to use alternative banking. That is what we should be addressing. It would work successfully and I hope the Minister will introduce it.

The Rural Independents have a total of six minutes for four speakers. Deputy Michael Collins is first.

I had hoped the Government had learned from the errors of its predecessor but the fact that we are here tonight fighting to save our post offices shows that nothing has changed. I have seen five post offices targeted for closure in my west Cork constituency, including a three-generation post office in Allihies, which will close in January, Drinagh post office, which will close in October, and Minane Bridge post office. Ballineen and Desertserges post offices have already closed their doors. I sincerely thank the O'Driscoll family in Ballineen for 44 years of service and Hannie Crowley in Desertserges for 43 years of service to the people.

The Government is continuously letting down the people of rural Ireland. For years, postmasters and postmistresses have had to put up with living on the minimum wage and being treated terribly by the Government. In the last two weeks in west Cork alone, I have seen the closure of Lisgriffin national school, Ballineen post office, Hickey's foodstore in Kilbrittain and Lordan's butcher shop in Ballinspittle. Rural Ireland is suffering every day as our community amenities close. We have seen the closure of schools, banks, post offices, Garda stations and local shops. Where does this end? The Government promised rural proofing during talks to form an Administration. Rural proofing is meant to be a commitment by the Government to review and examine all public policy to ensure it does not disadvantage rural areas. Where is the rural proofing here? How many more post offices will the Government close? No new services were injected into rural post offices. The only Government policy was to get rid of them.

I refer first to a communications consultant who issued a statement this evening on behalf of the IPU. The IPU should have been outside the Dáil to protest with the rest of us, including the independent postmasters led by Mr. Tom O'Callaghan. We should all be on the same side in this argument to keep as many post offices open as possible. I thank Sinn Féin for its motion. However, while its heart is in the right place, its motion does not go far enough. What is needed is the implementation of the 2016 motion voted on by every Deputy here, including the members of Sinn Féin. If that were implemented, it would solve our problem and save as many post offices as possible. I am very sorry that County Kerry is being hit very severely. It is not just a matter of the current wave of 159 closures, but what is coming after. The other post offices are not safe. People who have not been issued with a contract to close will not necessarily survive. We are all in the same boat and going down the Swanee unless the Government wakes up. Unlike others, I do not lay this at the door of the Minister. However, I am looking for the Government to work with us. For God's sake, the Minister, above anyone else, knows the answers to the problem we have. We only want to save as many post offices as possible. That is what we are looking for.

It is the Minister's responsibility to govern for all communities, not just the strongest or luckiest ones. That is what is happening now. It is the strongest and the luckiest that are retaining their post office services. Those which are neither strong or lucky are losing theirs. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure Ireland is not just an economy and to consider the fundamental societal issues this raises. It is not an issue which can be resolved through industrial relations and the retirement of postmasters and postmistresses. That is a very unfair way to deliver the Minister's plan. While 159 have opted to go and 231 have not, all 339 were encouraged to go and will continue to be encouraged to go until they are all gone. There is no guarantee that the 690 post offices which are being offered new contracts will take them up. It is a very unfair way to deliver a post office service.

A Programme for a Partnership Government committed to the exact opposite course to the one the Government is taking. There is no reference in that programme to the closure of 390 post offices. There was a commitment, rather, to support the post office network, provide it with extra services and develop community banking. However, the Government has gone in the opposite direction and against A Programme for a Partnership Government.

We will table an amendment to the motion to propose that our motion of November 2016 be implemented.

Post offices have been part of the fabric of rural communities since the foundation of the State. I thank Tom O'Callaghan for attending all the meetings in rural Kerry, where 12 post offices are to close, for his assistance and for attending meetings as far away as Ballinskelligs, way down in south Kerry. Nine post offices in one part of north Kerry are being closed. The Minister says rural communities can appeal and look for a contract to be issued to a new provider but he also says the appeal must be submitted before 26 September.

It is 31 October now. The deadline has been extended.

I am asking the Minister to extend it much further than that - for at least one month.

Yes. It is 31 October. That is an extension of a month.

People in rural communities have been shocked and are reeling at what is happening in their parishes. The Government says that by closing one post office it is saving two. How does the Minister explain closing nine in one part of north Kerry? What will happen is that people will get their pensions paid into their bank accounts. They will not go to the bigger towns or leave their own communities. The Government is going to close many more of them. I am very disappointed with this Government and this inaction. It is so easy to close everything, which is what seems to be happening; the trick is to keep things open. I am asking the Minister to work harder to ensure that communities-----

Glaoim ar an Teachta Carol Nolan.

No one is begrudging the retirement packages postmasters such as Séamus McCarthy in Gneevgullia-----

An Teachta Carol Nolan, le do thoil.

-----who gave 52 years behind the counter. No one is begrudging him of the money-----

We must be fair.

-----but the community of Gneevgullia is entitled to a post office service.

The Deputy must have respect for his colleagues.

I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I call Deputy Carol Nolan.

I welcome tonight's motion and support amendment No. 1, wherein we call on the Government to honour immediately its commitment in the programme for Government to support the establishment of a five-year post office network renewal process and to honour the Dáil motion on this very issue that was passed two years ago, yet here we are again.

Much debate on this topic over the past two years and many innovative solutions that could have been implemented by many stakeholders who put them forward were ignored. Post offices were denied opportunities to help them. The closure of 159 post offices in rural areas is nothing short of an abject failure of Government. I call on the Minister to acknowledge his failure and that of his Department and to respond effectively to and address the continued decimation of the rural post office network, which is a testament to his Government's inability to lead change or develop innovative delivery models for the post office and community banking services. If the Minister implemented the community banking services, it would reap benefits for our rural communities. Farming families are unable to access low-credit loans, which is a huge issue that is being widely discussed as we speak at the National Ploughing Championships in Offaly.

There are other issues, including small businesses, which are struggling. The Minister and other Government members have got up several times and spoken about the small businesses in our villages. A community banking system would benefit those businesses and our farming families, who are struggling. We need to look at these solutions. The solutions are there. It is now up to the Minister to take action.

The solutions are coming.

I hope so. When are they coming? Can we expect them-----

In the new year.

Okay. We do need them and we all need to ensure that fair play is given to rural communities. We do not want to be back here again in a year or two with the same issue.

I call on An Teachta Seamus Healy, who has kindly given two minutes of his time to Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice. The Deputies have a total of eight minutes.

I confirm my support for this Private Members' motion on the future of the post office network. This issue raises the whole question of democracy in this country and the relevance of this Dáil. The motion passed here in November 2016, agreed unanimously by the House, meant - or should mean - that the post office network would be supported and improved and that, as the motion stated, "a five-year holding plan will be put in place while these changes are being implemented or there will be no network left to salvage". The House unanimously agreed this motion in November 2016, including the Minister, the Fine Gael Party and every other party and every Independent in this House.

What is the relevance of Dáil Éireann if a motion unanimously accepted by the House is simply thrown aside and An Post carries on as if it never happened? Surely the Minister has something to say about that. Surely this Dáil has something to say about that. We are here as Teachtaí Dála, the messengers of the people, and we all voted here unanimously in November 2016 to support the post office network and to ensure that nothing would happen for a period of five years until the network was built up and established, yet no one takes a blind bit of notice of this, including the Minister, the Government and An Post. One would wonder what is the point of us being here at all.

I thank and compliment the postmaster in Kishkeam, who has refused to take the package, stood up for his local community and said this is a step too far. There is no question but that he is absolutely correct in that, and I applaud him for his leadership in the community. There is no financial necessity for the closures we are seeing, and it should be remembered that the closures are only the beginning. David McRedmond, the CEO of An Post, told us very recently that in 2018 it would make a minimum of €20 million profit and possibly closer to €30 million. This was on top of a profit of €8.4 million in 2017. There is therefore absolutely no reason whatever from a financial point of view for these closures.

The postal service is a public service, not a commercial operation. This means that making profit is not the priority of An Post; providing a public service is its priority. This in turn means that if An Post needs to be subvented by the State, that should be done because there is an obligation on the State to provide public services, including postal services, to local communities. There is no doubt but that it is time to cry halt to this. The Minister, the Government and An Post will not accept the will of the people, the will of this Dáil. We now have 159 post offices closing, and 390 will effectively close over a period if the plan goes ahead. In my constituency we have eight closures in Clogheen, Ballingarry, Templetuohy, Littleton, Newcastle, Coolbaun and Upperchurch. Many of these post offices have more than 500 residents in the area. As everyone here knows, the local post office is the heart and soul of the local community, of local towns and villages, not just from an economic point of view, but also from a social point of view, which is very important. Local communities look to the weekly visit to the post office to keep in touch with everything that goes on in the community.

Many such towns and villages already have lost Garda stations and banks and if they lose the post office, there will be knock-on effects on the local shop, café and hairdresser because if people are not collecting their social welfare payments at the post office, they will not do their other business in the local village either. It is incumbent on the Minister and on this Dáil to ensure that this is reversed immediately.

First, I support the motion and the proposed amendment to it. Some 62% of all the closures are along the west coast, from Kerry right up to Donegal. Some 42% are in the west of Ireland. One in six post offices to be closed are in counties Galway and Roscommon. One thing that needs to be debunked, which I hear day in and day out, is the idea that these people had a choice. The fact is they got a letter to state they no longer formed part of An Post's plans. Some of them were sick and some were elderly. Had they not a right? In every walk of life one has a right to take a pension. These people were trying to cling on for the simple reason that An Post would not give the offices to their sons and daughters in the towns and villages about which we are talking.

Every one of us here sat with Mr. McRedmond in the last few weeks. There has been no reply yet to a question he was asked, which was whether the 231 people would be given the new contract. If one of these 231 unfortunately gets sick or dies, will they be replaced? He has not answered that yet. Mr. McRedmond said no more post offices would be closing. I can tell the Minister that this evening I heard another one is to go in the constituency the Minister and I share. That is Mr. McRedmond. Everything he has said seems to have been untruths. He was asked whether there would be an extension made to the appeals process from 27 September or would the formula be changed. Each post office that is closing possesses a computer and a safe. If a business beside that office is willing to help those people and communities and to keep open a shop or a business, will the Minister make sure they are transferred?

Imelda Burke's name was mentioned. She has written to all of her people, as was rightly pointed out, and has got a great response. The Irish Postmasters Union has come out with a statement this evening. It should have been outside that door today because neither An Post nor the Irish Postmasters Union represents the people across rural Ireland. The Minister has to get involved in the appeals mechanism for the simple reason that its terms of reference absolutely will whitewash any hope of people getting a proper set-up.

There is one solution to this and it is a quick one. Deputy Dooley rightly asked whether, if there is a road in an area in which there are not many people, the potholes are fixed. He is dead right. The potholes need to be fixed. Deputy Dooley will be the driver of the lorry in the next few weeks when the budget is being put together. His party will be the one that can stand up under the confidence and supply agreement and either support the Government in closing the post offices or not.

The same as Deputy Fitzmaurice did when he negotiated the programme for Government and then bottled it on the last day.

At least I did not go in under false pretences. I was not in in one way and out in another.

He should take responsibility.

At least I was able to stay out.

He bottled it.

Deputies, please. There is plenty of room at the back of the Chamber. I call on Deputy Cullinane who has ten minutes and who I understand is sharing with Deputies Ó Caoláin, Adams and Ferris.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. First of all, I commend my colleague Deputy Stanley on tabling this motion. Three post offices in my own constituency are closing in Ballinamult, Kilmeaden and Lemybrien. It is true to say that if one does not nail everything down in this State, either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael will sell it off, privatise it or close it down. It is a bit disingenuous and hard to take when Fianna Fáil representatives come in here with pious words, empty rhetoric and crocodile tears when they closed hundreds of post offices. They have a bit of a brass neck to stand outside Leinster House today and say that what this Government is doing is a disgrace when their party closed hundreds of post offices. Deputy Dooley talked about potholes. There would not be a pothole big enough to be filled with the absolutely empty rhetoric which he spewed here today. His party is directly responsible for the closure of hundreds of post offices. The Deputy should own it.

The Deputy's party disappeared many people into holes too.

His party is keeping this Minister in office. He should own it. The Deputy talked about the ruination of rural Ireland. He should take responsibility for the fact that rural Ireland is ruined because of what his party did. Hundreds of thousands of young people are in different parts of the world today because of the policies of his Government, yet time and again the Deputy thinks it is okay to come in here, play politics with people's lives and pretend he cares when he simply does not. If he did care he would not come in here with the brass neck he brings every single time issues like this arise and point the finger at a Minister whom he is keeping in office. He then talks about post offices which are closing tomorrow, next week and next month when Fianna Fáil is responsible for hundreds of post offices closing.

Would be better off having no government? That is what Sinn Féin perpetrated on the Six Counties. It has never taken responsibility for anything.

He has absolutely zero credibility and the people in rural Ireland know it. He has zero credibility. The Minister with responsibility is gone. It is a pity he did not stay for all of the exchanges.

He will be back.

He should be here for all of the debate because he is the Minister with responsibility for this area. He should be listening to all of the contributions. I will just say this, because other speakers need to come in. We have put forward solutions, as have others in this House. Independent Members and others, including Fianna Fáil by the way, have put forward some solutions in respect of this issue. One of the obvious solutions is to continue to allow, and to in fact encourage, social welfare recipients to use the post office. The Minister of State's party and Government, however, forced many of them to use banks. The policy of the Government was not just to encourage them but to force them to use banks and to move away from post offices. Again the Minister talks about the fact they are not viable and how they need to be profitable and all the rest while the Government systematically runs them down. I do not have confidence in either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael to support rural Ireland. They have both failed it. There are towns and villages up and down this State that have lost post offices, Garda stations, schools and healthcare services because of the policies of both parties. I do not have faith in any of them, especially Fianna Fáil which, as I said, has an absolute brass neck to be talking about rural Ireland.

The Government has failed rural Ireland. This latest attack on post offices is unforgivable and I today applaud the good people of rural Ireland who have stood up in community centre meetings and in other fora all around the country in opposition to this most damaging measure. In the counties I represent of Cavan and Monaghan, we are facing nine closures, namely, Corraneary, Killeshandra, Kilnaleck, Mountnugent, Swanlinbar and Tullyvin in County Cavan along with Clontibret, Dartrey and Smithborough in County Monaghan. We should make no bones about it, this is totally unacceptable and is unnecessary. The smallest towns and villages in Ireland have seen their economic viability wiped out by the Minister of State's Government. The local bank, butcher, grocer, pub and, in some cases, schools and Garda stations have all disappeared under the Government's watch and under that of its predecessor Administration. The post office was the last hub of both social and economic activity. The local post office was the last stand and this is why we are seeing such resistance. These closures are happening as a result of determined inaction. It is said that these closures are happening because these particular offices are unviable. I put it to the Minister of State that they are unviable because his Government has, by its inaction, made them unviable.

Its programme for Government, in respect of post offices, has reference to an "ePayment Account" and "community banking" but it has sat on its hands. Its rural action plan, published in 2017, stated it would enhance local services "through support for the rural post office network to adapt to a changing business environment". The Cabinet was due to discuss the introduction of a public banking model last January. What was the outcome of these discussions? Officials from the German Sparkasse model offered to act as advisers. I fear the mainstream banks have scuttled this proposal. These are the very same banks that have also abandoned rural Ireland and, by and large, the people of Ireland; the very people who bailed them out when the crash occurred.

I will leave the Minister of State with this. Our most marginalised towns and villages need and deserve support, not closures. The Minister of State neglects them at his peril. I commend the Sinn Féin motion to the House.

I commend Teachta Stanley on tabling this motion. The closure of Garda stations, rural schools and transport systems have torn the heart out of rural communities. Is ionsaí é seo ar dhaoine atá ag brath ar sheirbhísí poiblí.

The proposed closure of 159 post offices, including Annagassan post office in County Louth, makes this worse. In Annagassan, the local post office provides a vital social hub for local people, particularly older citizens. It is a vital public service and the Government has broken the social contract it made with these citizens.

Local services should be enhanced not destroyed. Additional services could and should be delivered to all post offices as the 2016 Kerr report outlined, such as extended financial services, Government services and motor taxes. This would keep jobs and services in rural areas. That is, of course, if the Government is really committed to doing this. Previous Governments have shut down the post office network with Fianna Fáil closing 732 of them. It can stop the Government which it supports from closing any more. The Government must keep to its commitment regarding post offices contained in the programme for Government.

I thank Deputy Stanley for bringing this motion forward. All rural Deputies are very taken by this debate because we know the consequences of the closure of a post office for a small village. If one closes the post office, then one effectively closes the village's only pub and shop. The knock-on effect is quite significant. This is all done in the name of viability with the claim these post offices are no longer viable. This wonderful word is being used by An Post and by the Government. What about social viability? What about viability for the elderly people who live in rural communities?

During the week I was with Deputies Michael and Danny Healy-Rae at a meeting about the closure of the post office in Ballinskelligs. It is 14 miles away from Cahersiveen on a peninsula. Nearly 400 people attended the meeting and they knew about the viability of their post office. The post office in Mastergeehy will also be closed, meaning the two post offices in the only Gaeltacht area in south Kerry will be shut. That is a nice statement to those trying to promote the Irish language and ensure it survives. They are also doing a good job at it. It was heartening to see the conversation at that meeting both as Gaeilge and through English. The closure of the post offices in Ballinskelligs, Mastergeehy, Ballylongford and Moyvane will have a knock-on effect. Up to 16 post offices are due to close in Kerry because of this great word "viability".

Deputy Healy spoke about the motion on post offices passed in 2016. That motion is not worth the paper it is written on because neither the Government, nor its partner in government, Fianna Fáil, have done anything about its implementation. This is another failing of the political establishment in the State.

What can be done for the survival of post offices? Community banking and ensuring social welfare payments are paid out through the network have been mentioned. In 2011, Deputy Ó Snodaigh called on the Minister to use the post office network to pay for all 80,000 State community scheme payments. If this happened, it would have an effect on ensuring their survival.

It is in the hands of the Minister and Fianna Fáil to ensure our post offices are protected

Like many of the Deputies this evening, I pay tribute to the postmasters across the country for the service they have given over many years.

In April this year, An Post announced its renewed vision for the post office network which centres on the availability of new services in a modernised and revitalised network. The announcement was supported by an agreement reached between An Post and the Irish Postmasters Union, IPU, executive following months of intensive negotiations. It was subsequently endorsed by 80% of IPU members. The IPU agreement represents a necessary first step in reinvigorating our national post office network and making it a viable, sustainable, modern and vibrant network for the future, capable of adapting to the changing environment in which it operates by providing a service that meets the needs of communities across the country, particularly in rural areas.

In its negotiations with An Post, postmasters sought both the modernisation of the network and a voluntary redundancy package for those who wanted to leave the business. Some of those have now taken the decision to leave and it is important that these decisions are respected. They have not been taken lightly or without good reason. There are several reasons that postmasters across the country are availing of this offer including age and low population levels, as well as the fact that some postmasters are not even earning the minimum wage as a result of declining transaction levels and mail volumes.

An Post has advised that where a post office closes, 70% of the business transfers to a neighbouring office. The reality is that by facilitating those who wish to exit the business, neighbouring offices are further supported thereby ensuring a more sustainable network for the future. As part of its strategy for modernising the post office network, An Post has established a dedicated business unit within An Post, An Post Retail. Investment of €50 million in the network by An Post, which is equivalent to €45,000 per post office, is about getting communities to use the enhanced services in their local post office that will be provided through a modernised network.

Additional services that An Post proposes to introduce through the network include a better range of Government services, financial services and e-commerce services for shoppers and small businesses. There is already a rapid expansion of banking services happening with the smart current account and enhanced foreign exchange facilities. Post offices will have credit card services and will be able to provide loans to small business and personal loans. An Post is committed to ensuring that our post offices will be equipped with the range of services that will attract and retain footfall. However, these measures are meaningless unless the public uses the services provided.

There has also been an expansion of postal services in the past two years. An Post vans can now be seen in rural communities on Saturdays. That is because An Post now provides a parcel service to every rural townland six days a week. There was a concern several years ago that we would not be able to retain the five-day service.

Agreement with the IPU removes a level of uncertainty that has existed as a result of the piecemeal approach associated with closures of post offices for the past 30 years. The IPU has publicly acknowledged that. An Post has given a pledge to retain a post office network right across the country. However, we must of course be cognisant of the declining transactions in recent years that reflect the reality of the world we live in today. We must equip post offices with a range of services that will attract and retain footfall. Those measures are meaningless, however, unless the public uses the service the post office provides.

Government business is the backbone of the post office network. The National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, service in respect of State savings and the social welfare contract are the two big financial drivers for the overall network. In April this year, the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection renewed her Department's contract with An Post to provide pensions, child benefit and other social welfare payments at post offices.

While the Government's policy is to offer Government services online, there will always be a segment of the population which is not comfortable or proficient accessing online tools or services. The post office network is the obvious choice as the offline gateway for citizens with its nationwide network and existing strong relationship with offline citizens. Government funding of €80,000 has been allocated to roll out a pilot scheme for digital assist which will see ten post offices equipped to help citizens with online Government interactions. Government approval has been secured to explore how further services might be made available to our offline citizens. This would be delivered via a centralised procurement framework. A working group comprising representatives across Departments will be established to consider this issue and will report back to the Government by the end of year.

Standing still is not an option. If, politically, we tread water or if we shirk decision-making, we will not have a stronger post office network. Instead, we will have a weaker one and, potentially, ultimately we will have no post office network at all. The Minister is determined to embrace change because change is required to deliver for post offices and a postal service for the future. Change is especially required in rural areas. There is widespread acceptance that the post office network requires modernisation to build, maintain and protect a service that meets the needs of communities across the country today and into the future.

While much has been achieved in An Post over the past two years, there must be a clear focus on continued delivery for the future. That is critical to ensuring the long-term success of the national postal operator and a sustainable post office network to serve future generations.

It is important also to restate that any individual, group or representatives concerned about a decision can apply to have An Post's decision reviewed through a new independent review process. It is a completely independent process. The closing date for receipt of appeals has also been extended to 31 October, which gives the groups, communities and businesses the maximum chance to put forward an appeal to allow it to be individually adjudicated on.

Having worked with the Minister, Deputy Naughten, for the past two years, I know the commitment he has to ensuring the viability of An Post. We have had darker days in terms of the future of the company. We have had debates in this House about increasing the price of stamps, etc., to ensure the viability of the business. We have seen that turned around to a degree with the parcel delivery service with six-day deliveries, when we were concerned we would not be able to keep vans on the road for five days to deliver ordinary mail.

An Post has a plan and a vision to secure its future and to secure the maximum number of rural post offices. That is what this is all about. We can have a scattering of very small post offices that are not viable and will never be viable or we can try to consolidate the network and ensure the viability of the maximum number of post offices in urban and rural areas.

Sinn Féin has the final ten-minute timeslot to be shared among Deputies Tóibín, Stanley and Buckley.

Tóghfaidh mé dhá nóimeád.

I visited a number of rural towns in my constituency last week. The first one I was in was Kildalkey where secondary school children have to walk ten minutes along a windy road, wearing high-vis jackets, first thing in the morning because the Department of Education and Skills took their seats on the school bus from them.

I was also in Collinstown on the first day the post office was closed. I was told by the person in the only remaining shop in that village that their profits and turnover that day were radically down.

I was also in the village of Clonmellon. It has a lovely broad street with beautiful old houses but only one in three of them is currently occupied. One bus rolls into and out of that village every day but that cannot be guaranteed.

I then went to Rathmolyon where I had organised an An Post save our post offices meeting. It was really well attended. People told me it would cost them €35 to get a taxi from their village to the next shop to collect their pension. In one day they were going to spend nearly 20% of their income just getting their income. As I drove home in the dark from that meeting, I realised Fine Gael is ripping the fabric of rural Ireland apart. In 20 years' time we will have 50% of the population living in Dublin city. This is an outlier in European terms. I do not know of any other European country where its capital city is so dominant. We will have a city state in this country. That is not good for the people of Dublin because Dublin is overheating. People cannot get houses, they cannot get their children into schools and the streets are congested. The Government is even talking about taking water from the Parteen Basin on the River Shannon so that the people in Dublin can have water.

What we need in this country is proper spatial delivery, which we do not have. We are currently rudderless. It is incredible. A critical mass of footfall into these towns and villages is necessary so that other shops and businesses can function. If the post office is taken out of them, there is no way they can function. This is only the tip of the iceberg. The truth of the matter is that I met An Post and it told me that 500 post offices in this country were not economically viable. An Post sought 230 closures and it only got 159. It is a nonsense that the Minister would say that the pension decision of an individual postmaster should determine whether a whole town or village has a post office. A postmaster can make such a life decision and I am not questioning that but the Minister cannot let that be the decision of whether people can have a functioning rural society in which to live.

I commend Deputy Brian Stanley on bringing forward this motion, which I urge the House to support. The Minister, Deputy Naughten, and the Minister of State, Deputy Kyne, both surprisingly said that it is important to remember that when a post office closes 70% of the business transfers to a neighbouring office, but the knock-on effect of a post office closure is that 100% of that service is lost in the community. It simply does not make sense.

The 2011 census of population found that 40% of lone pensioner households in rural areas did not own or have use of a car. Closing local post offices for the sake of trying to save a few euro while forcing people to travel where there was virtually no public transport is a very cheap trick.

We are talking about 159 post offices. One such closure is one too many. Twelve post offices are to close in County Cork, the knock-on effect of which will be that 34 towns and villages in those areas will be directly affected. I find it ironic that the nearest post office for those living in Rockchapel in County Cork will be in Brosna in County Kerry. That is very strategic planning. It must be extremely frustrating for our elderly and disabled throughout the country.

This affects the people in rural areas but, in terms of the service a post office provides, in one's post office one talks to one's postmaster or postmistress. They help one with filling out forms. That is gone. Paying €5 off the ESB or any other bill is now gone. We are losing services.

Another issue is rural isolation. The post office was probably the last remaining local hub because the Garda station and the pub are gone and now the post offices and shops will possibly be gone. For some people living in rural areas, the post office might be the only point of one-to-one human contact they might have once a week, if they are lucky, or once a month. One does not realise the detrimental knock-on effect in terms of what will happen rurally when this service, which is a public service, ceases. The Minister mentioned earlier that one post office made nine social welfare payments. It does not matter how many it made. It was providing public services. That is what post offices are supposed to provide.

The Minister is closing down rural Ireland and I can tell him that the loneliness experienced by older people and those who are disabled can kill. He should remember that.

The Minister needs to get the message here tonight that he is not a bystander in or a commentator on these matters. He is the shareholder on behalf of Joe and Mary public, the citizens of this State.

Many proposals have been put forward on what should be done. Over the past two years, I, on behalf of our party, Sinn Féin, and my predecessor, the former Deputy Michael Colreavy, have put forward many sensible proposals on the expansion of services, community banking and co-location. We have been very open in recognising the need for flexibility and change. However, the Government amendment calls for the Government services to stay in the network but it is not getting the additional services recommended such as motor tax renewals, rates payments, etc. It has ignored those. It also calls for an additional service to ensure the network's viability. The Minister said that 17 out of the 19 recommendations in the Kerr report have been implemented. I have some of them in front of me that have not been done. I refer to the network renewal, a basic payment account, motor tax, a financial service strategy and credit unions, with the exception of a pilot scheme.

Despite the commitment in the programme for Government, that has not happened. The political will has been lacking, and this is the key issue. In its amendment, the Government calls for a proposal to ensure that An Post services are appropriate in the areas where the 159 postmasters are retiring and to take into account the potential for co-location. I take it that the Government also questions the current criteria.

I made the point earlier today to the Minister that the issue of retirement should not equal closure. Just because somebody is retiring from a business or a job does not mean the factory should be closed down. That is just a convenient way of doing it.

I want to revisit the definition of a settlement with the Minister. I refer to settlement areas with a population of 500. What about the town of Geashill in County Offaly? That town has 500 citizens living within its environs or very close to them. Another such town is Ballybrittas in County Laois. Moneygall, on the southern tip of Offaly on the border with Tipperary, needs to be looked at again. Those are three post offices that are up for closure.

That is why we have the appeals process.

If the Minister is extending the deadline to 31 October, what happens to the post offices that are due to close before that date? What about those that have already been closed? In County Laois alone, we have Ballinakill and Ballybrittas. Crettyard was lumped in with Carlow but it is actually in County Laois. However, we will not split hairs on that. In Offaly, we have Geashill, Moneygall, Mount Lucas, Pullough and Walsh Island. They are substantial communities and these closures will be a huge loss to them.

The Minister has not committed to community banking.

The banks have withdrawn from rural Ireland and what the Minister is proposing will allow the pillar banks to use the post offices to provide limited services, but the pillar banks will withdraw the profits from them. These are the pillar banks we bailed out. We need to put in place either the Sparkassen or the Kiwibank model where the profits are reinvested in the local community or into government services in rural areas. The Kiwibank model is the option in New Zealand and the Sparkassen model is used directly by local government in regions of Germany.

The whole process of reform of the post office network has been like watching paint dry. It has been like a slow bicycle race over the last seven years. It has been grinding on and on. The Oireachtas committee looked at this early in the last term of the Dáil and it has been grinding on since then. I have to agree there has been inaction on this for decades. There was clearly a need for quick action in the years 2012 to 2014 but that did not happen. Here we are still watching the slow bicycle race taking place. We are looking at the definite closure of 159 post offices, with one more mentioned tonight, and there is the likelihood of another 230 post offices which have not been offered a new contract. This affects the most marginalised rural communities. The Minister must remember it affects the most marginalised people within those communities. It is those people who are elderly and those who are on the smallest incomes who will be hit hardest. I have heard people say someone can get a taxi and do a round trip to a post office within 15 km. However, that would be the first €30 gone out from a pensioner's income as a taxi would cost €25 or €30. That must be borne in mind.

I also ask the Minister to bear in mind that people over the age of 70 are having huge difficulty in getting car insurance and I know many older people in rural areas who can no longer drive. This matter requires a hands-on approach. The Minister is not a bystander in this but is representing the public in this regard. He is the sole shareholder and he needs to get a grip on this to stop these closures.

In accordance with Standing Order 70(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Thursday, 20 September 2018.