3 o’clockPrelude
Business of Dáil.
Priority Questions.
Social Partnership.
Departmental Bodies.
EU Funding.
Departmental Appointments.
Other Questions.
Consumer Strategy Group.
Business Regulation.
Groceries Order.
Local Authority Funding.
Unemployment Levels.
Adjournment Debate Matters.
Leaders’ Questions.
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed).
Tribunals of Inquiry.
Freedom of Information.
Requests to move Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 31.
Order of Business.
Social Welfare Consolidation Bill 2005: Motion.
Health and Social Care Professionals Bill 2004 [Seanad]: Order for Report Stage.
Health and Social Care Professionals Bill 2004 [Seanad]: Report Stage.
Private Members’ Business.
Irish Unification: Motion.
Adjournment Debate.
Industrial Relations.
Criminal Prosecutions.
Written Answers.
Community Employment Schemes.
County Enterprise Boards.
EU Funding.
Health and Safety Regulations.
National Consumer Strategy.
Industrial Relations.
Employment Support Services.
Pension Provisions.
Departmental Inquiries.
Regulatory Amalgamation.
Public Safety Regulation.
Small Business Forum.
Insurance Industry.
Proposed Legislation.
Labour Inspectorate.
Economic Competitiveness.
Legislative Programme.
Employment Rights.
Job Creation.
Employment Support Services.
Employment Rights.
Ministerial Appointments.
Community Employment Schemes.
Employment Permits.
Employment Rights.
Economic Competitiveness.
Labour Inspectorate.
Employment Rights.
Economic Competitiveness.
Employment Rights.
Industrial Development.
Company Liquidation.
Employment Rights.
Job Losses.
Employment Rights.
Labour Court.
Proposed Legislation.
Economic Competitiveness.
National Consumer Agency.
Job Losses.
Job Creation.
Job Losses.
Ministerial Appointments.
Labour Inspectorate.
Work-Days Lost.
EU Directives.
Private Rented Accommodation.
Northern Ireland Issues.
Public Relations Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Consultancy Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
District Electoral Divisions.
Domestic Violence.
Health Services.
Medical Cards.
Hospital Services.
Hospital Accommodation.
Cancer Screening Programme.
Proposed Legislation.
Health Services.
Mental Health Services.
Health Services.
Hospital Waiting Lists.
Health Services.
Irish Blood Transfusion Service.
Psychological Service.
Health Services.
General Medical Services Scheme.
Health Services.
Hospital Staff.
Official Engagements.
Health Services.
Nursing Home Charges.
Community Employment Schemes.
Health Services.
Hospital Waiting Lists.
Health Services.
Hospital Accommodation.
Ambulance Service.
Hospital Waiting Lists.
Health Service Staff.
Hospital Waiting Lists.
Health Services.
Hospital Services.
Hospital Waiting Lists.
Drugs Payment Scheme.
Food Labelling.
Hospital Waiting Lists.
Care of the Elderly.
Services for People with Disabilities.
Public Relations Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Consultancy Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Health Service Staff.
Hospital Services.
Nursing Home Subventions.
Hospital Accommodation.
International Agreements.
Health Services.
Ambulance Service.
Hospital Services.
Health Service Allowances.
Health Services.
Departmental Funding.
Medical Cards.
Health Services.
Legal Definitions.
National Treatment Purchase Fund.
Medical Aids and Appliances.
Medical Cards.
Civil Registration.
Health Service Staff.
Health Services.
Vaccination Programme.
Health Services.
Garda Vetting Procedures.
State Property.
Decentralisation Programme.
Garda Stations.
Stamping Services.
Garda Stations.
Flood Relief.
Departmental Offices.
Tax Collection.
Public Appointments.
Decentralisation Programme.
Financial Services Regulation.
Freedom of Information.
National Lottery.
Tax Collection.
Infrastructural Development Funding.
Tax Code.
Tax Collection.
Public Appointments.
Child Care Funding.
Tax Collection.
Tax Code.
Public Appointments.
Ministerial Staff.
Consultancy Contracts.
Tax Collection.
Decentralisation Programme.
Mobile Phone Masts.
Offshore Exploration.
Fishing Industry Development.
Harbours and Piers.
Decentralisation Programme.
Alternative Energy Projects.
Departmental Staff.
Freedom of Information.
Coastal Erosion.
Fishing Vessel Licences.
Communications Masts.
Public Relations Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Consultancy Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Decentralisation Programme.
Passports for Investment Scheme.
Northern Ireland Issues.
Ministerial Representations.
Public Relations Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Consultancy Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Development Co-operation.
Decentralisation Programme.
Public Relations Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Consultancy Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Grant Payments.
Decentralisation Programme.
Company Closures.
Unemployment Levels.
EU Funding.
Job Creation.
Health and Safety Regulations.
Insurance Industry.
Public Relations Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Consultancy Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Health and Safety Regulations.
Community Employment Schemes.
EU Funding.
Job Creation.
Community Employment Schemes.
Job Creation.
World Trade Negotiations.
Economic Competitiveness.
Work Permits.
Economic Competitiveness.
Job Losses.
Insurance Industry
Employment Support Services.
Decentralisation Programme.
Social Insurance.
Pension Provisions.
Social Welfare Benefits.
Identity Cards.
Social Welfare Code.
Social Welfare Benefits.
Security for the Elderly.
Public Relations Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Consultancy Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Social Welfare Benefits.
Decentralisation Programme.
Driving Tests.
Environmental Policy.
Road Traffic Offences.
Driving Tests.
Rail Services.
Road Traffic Regulations.
Driving Tests.
State Airports.
Public Transport.
Driving Tests.
Rail Services.
Road Traffic Regulations.
Public Relations Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Consultancy Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Road Network.
Rail Services.
Decentralisation Programme.
Rail Services.
EU Directives.
Dublin Port Tunnel.
Rural Social Scheme.
Inland Waterways.
Fostaíocht Gaeltachta.
Security of the Elderly.
Consultancy Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Departmental Correspondence.
Irish Language.
Decentralisation Programme.
Calafoirt agus Céanna.
Garda Vetting Procedures.
Grant Payments.
Direct Payment Schemes.
Medicinal Products.
Bovine Disease Controls.
Rural Environment Protection Scheme.
Grant Payments.
Poultry Industry.
Food Industry.
Grant Payments.
Dairy Sector.
Animal Welfare Bodies.
Grant Payments.
Animal Diseases.
Consultancy Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Consultancy Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Health and Safety Regulations.
Grant Payments.
Animal Diseases.
Decentralisation Programme.
Citizenship Applications.
Pension Provisions.
Garda Investigations.
Registration of Title.
Work Permits.
Road Traffic Accidents.
Garda Operations.
Road Traffic Accidents.
Garda Equipment.
Garda Operations.
Asylum Applications.
Visa Applications.
Work Permits.
Garda Disciplinary Proceedings.
Garda Vetting Procedures.
Victim Support Services.
Legal Aid Service.
Tribunals of Inquiry.
Visa Applications.
Courts Service.
Visa Applications.
Garda Investigations.
Missing Persons.
Garda Stations.
Departmental Agencies.
Work Permits.
Citizenship Applications.
Extradition Requests.
Garda Deployment.
Public Relations Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Consultancy Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Garda Investigations.
Crime Levels.
Garda Deployment.
Drug Seizures.
Criminal Prosecutions.
Garda Stations.
Garda Deployment.
Public Order Offences.
Visa Applications.
Garda Stations.
Garda Training.
Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
Garda Investigations.
Garda Deployment.
Land Registry Office.
Violence Against Women.
Garda Vetting Procedures.
Garda Deployment.
Garda Stations.
Garda Strength.
Decentralisation Programme.
Child Care Services.
Schools Building Projects.
Teachers’ Remuneration.
Schools Building Projects.
School Transport.
School Inspections.
School Transport.
Schools Building Projects.
School Management.
Schools Building Projects.
Special Educational Needs.
Schools Refurbishment.
Residential Institutions Redress Scheme.
Schools Building Projects.
Special Educational Needs.
Schools Building Projects.
Third Level Fees.
Schools Building Projects.
Public Relations Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Consultancy Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Schools Funding.
Higher Education Grants.
Schools Building Projects.
Telecommunications Services.
School Staffing.
Higher Education Grants.
School Transport.
Institutes of Technology.
Schools Building Projects.
Physical Education Facilities.
Health and Safety Regulations.
School Placement.
Schools Amalgamation.
Vocational Education Committees.
Teachers’ Remuneration.
Departmental Records.
Departmental Guidelines.
School Curriculum.
Mental Health Services.
Schools Building Projects.
Pupil-Teacher Ratio.
Schools Building Projects.
Garda Vetting Procedures.
Departmental Programmes.
Defence Forces Training.
Ambulance Service.
Pension Provisions.
Defence Forces Personnel.
Defence Forces Strength.
Military Medals.
Defence Forces Property.
Defence Forces Recruitment.
Public Relations.
Ministerial Staff.
Consultancy Contracts.
Ministerial Staff.
Decentralisation Programme.
Water and Sewerage Schemes.
Water Charges.
National Parks.
Water and Sewerage Schemes.
Water Charges.
Public Relations.
Ministerial Staff.
Consultancy Contracts.
Fire Stations.
Waste Management.
Decentralisation Programme.
Planning Issues.
Consultancy Contracts.
Departmental Investigations.
Road Safety.
Chuaigh an Leas-Cheann Comhairle i gceannas ar 2.35 p.m. Paidir.An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputies should note the reason for the delay was that the House cannot commence proceedings until a quorum is present.
100. Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the initiatives he intends to take to improve employment standards as requested by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in the context of the renewal of social partnership; the progress or otherwise that is being made in the dispute between Irish Ferries and SIPTU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31861/05]
101. Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in view of [2]the decisions of ICTU and SIPTU to defer entry to talks on a new social partnership agreement, the steps he has taken and the proposals he has formulated to address concerns regarding the protection of workers’ jobs, pay and conditions of employment from displacement in favour of cheap labour involving the exploitation of non-national workers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31717/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): I propose to take Questions Nos. 100 and 101 together.
A comprehensive body of employment rights legislation is already in place. It has as its objectives the protection of employees against arbitrary behaviour by employers, provision for the safety and health of workers and to foster labour market harmony by promoting policies that minimise conflict and maximise fairness. While recognising the exceptional circumstances which have arisen in the maritime sector, it is important to remember that all labour law on the Statute Book applies to non-national workers working in this country in the same way as it applies to Irish [3]workers. If a non-national worker feels he or she is being treated by his or her employer in a way which breaches any employee protection legislation, it would be open to him or her to refer a case for adjudication to a quasi-judicial body or person such as a rights commissioner, the Labour Court or the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
Following the announcement on 12 April last, 31 inspector posts are sanctioned for the labour inspectorate. This represents almost a doubling of the complement of inspectors in the past 12 months and is indicative of the Government’s determination to ensure compliance with employment rights legislation.
Apart from strengthening staff resources, other initiatives are also under way. Arising from a commitment in Sustaining Progress and to assist in the preparation of proposals for consideration by Government, a discussion document was prepared by the labour inspectorate on its mandate and resourcing. The document covered the full range of issues that impact on the operation of the labour inspectorate, extending from the legislative framework through to operational aspects and staff development. It has been well received among the social partners and the parties are well advanced in their consideration of the proposals, of which there are in excess of 40. The objective is to formulate a set of recommendations for Government and it is intended that the process will feed into and complement any future partnership discussions.
On 24 May last, I announced a programme of action in response to the report and recommendations of the review group on the role and functions of the employment rights bodies and following consultations with the various interested parties. This included the establishment of an employment rights group, ERG, comprising representatives of my Department, the employment rights bodies and the social partners. The ERG is to consider how best to simplify and streamline the complaints, appeals and enforcement procedures and documentation across the various employment rights bodies. It will also examine the extent to which common procedures and a simplified approach to the conduct of hearings or investigations can be adopted, leading to procedural simplification and improved customer service. Its work should be completed by the end of next year.
The concerns expressed by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and SIPTU to which the Deputy refers raise complex legal and policy issues. The Government is, however, committed to taking whatever steps are feasible, through legislation or otherwise, to develop in partnership with ICTU and employers a meaningful package in the area of enhanced employment standards generally. [4]Those issues can best be advanced through dialogue in the context of the partnership process.
I understand that the Irish Ferries dispute has been referred to the Labour Court, an independent statutory body that acts independently in carrying out its functions. I have no function regarding the decision-making process of the court.
Mr. Hogan: Will the Minister of State comment on the fact that, in the context of Irish Ferries changing its workforce in a very unorthodox fashion, the Taoiseach cast doubt in the House on the legality of its conducting its business in such a manner? Has the Taoiseach or the Minister of State checked the legality of the move by Irish Ferries to change its workforce from indigenous Irish to migrant labour? Is that now legal? If not, does the Minister of State intend to change the law to prevent the activity in question from proceeding?
The Minister of State said that approximately 40 issues relating to employment law and standards were being considered in the context of partnership. What is the Department’s thinking on those issues, and will the Minister of State spare us from having to rely on people involved with the social partners to acquaint us of the issues under consideration? The democratic process of this House requires that he inform it of the 40 ideas that he has said are being considered.
Mr. Killeen: The Deputy has raised several issues. In the first instance, any legislation that might arise would clearly be a matter for the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. However, I had a meeting with the Minister of State at the Department, Deputy Gallagher, and subsequently with officials from it and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on these issues. As Deputy Hogan said, legal advice was sought on a range of issues.
The suggestions and recommendations made during Question Time a few weeks ago were pursued at European and other levels. No definite decisions have been made in that regard, but the matter is being followed up by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. There have already been more than 40 recommendations which will be brought to the attention of the House at the appropriate time. Some of them concern resourcing and others additional legislation or amendments to existing laws. Some are fairly simple and others quite complex. They deal with the resourcing and mandate of the labour inspectorate.
Mr. Howlin: The Taoiseach wrote to the president of ICTU outlining his views on the protection of workers. That was found wanting and both the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and SIPTU [5]have declined the invitation to participate in talks on a successor agreement to Sustaining Progress. Has there been any further communication from the Taoiseach to ICTU to clarify his position?
The Minister of State seems to believe that the Irish Ferries dispute is a unique aberration in this country’s labour relations. Has the exchange of legal views between ICTU and the Departments that the Taoiseach told the House was taking place actually happened? What is the current legal situation? Does the position that the Taoiseach relayed to the House on 26 October, that it would be extremely difficult in Irish and international law to deal with the issue of re-flagging, remain the Government’s view?
Regarding the Minister of State’s reply that 31 labour inspectors have now been authorised, how many are in place? Does he believe that even if all 31 were in place, this would be adequate to monitor a workforce that has now exceeded 2 million?
Mr. Killeen: Subsequent to the Taoiseach’s letter to ICTU, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, had meetings with SIPTU on 20 October. On the same afternoon, ICTU had a meeting with the Taoiseach on this and a number of other issues.
Mr. Howlin: Were those meetings with the Taoiseach or the Minister, Deputy Martin?
Mr. Killeen: Initially, the meetings on 20 October were between SIPTU and the Minister, Deputy Martin. On the same day, however, ICTU had a meeting with the Taoiseach on this and a range of other issues, though principally, perhaps, on this issue. Deputy Howlin is of the view that I consider the Irish Ferries case to be a unique aberration. It is fair to say that the set of circumstances apply to maritime law and the enforcement of Irish industrial legislation outside the jurisdiction. Members of the House are aware of the situation in that regard.
The Department has not received a notice of redundancy from Irish Ferries at this stage nor is there any indication that it will. The Taoiseach has indicated that the situation is extremely difficult as regards taking any of the actions stipulated, some of which were proposed in this House when the matter was discussed on a private notice question and some of which were raised subsequently. It continues to be extremely difficult. However, the Government is committed to ensuring that if any means can be found to address the crisis, it will take whatever action is available to it. At this stage it is not clear what effective action is available to the Government as regards the international maritime law.
Deputy Howlin asked about the number of inspectors. The announcement was made earlier in the year and subsequently the positions were [6]advertised. There were not sufficient candidates on the first round of interviews. A second round of interviews was held and completed in the middle of October. I understand the positions will now be filled. The inspectors will have to be trained and that process will have to be undergone——
Mr. Howlin: My question was about how many were in place.
Mr. Killeen: I will find out the exact information for the Deputy. I understand that some from the first round may already be in place. Those appointed from the second round have not been trained as yet. However, the process of short-listing and choosing the applicants has been completed.
Mr. Hogan: The matter does not appear to be that urgent given it is five or six weeks since the Taoiseach indicated that legal advice would be required. I am surprised the Minister of State has not got legal advice that he can impart to the House or indicated that the legal process has been completed. It does not seem to be urgent. It has placed the partnership talks under scrutiny and raised a doubt about the process itself because it has taken so long to get this legal advice.
Can the Minister of State make an assessment as to where matters stand as regards a new partnership agreement in the light of this dispute and the lack of clarity by the Taoiseach over the correspondence with the president of SIPTU? Does he believe the current partnership process should be reformed if a new national agreement is to be arrived at within the coming months?
Mr. Killeen: The Taoiseach has informed the House of the up-to-date situation as regards legal advice. Legal advice has been sought across a range of issues including the implications for redundancy payments and international maritime law as well as those which might arise if flagging were to be undertaken either within or outside the EU. The Taoiseach has answered questions on all of these issues and there is no more up-to-date information available.
Deputy Hogan believes there is a doubt about the future of partnership. I assure him that the Government is entirely committed to ensuring that the partnership process continues and that every effort is being made to ensure that the next round gets under way as soon as possible. Notwithstanding that considerable difficulty has arisen, mainly from the Irish Ferries dispute, this has been addressed. The Taoiseach has met SIPTU. I am to meet the ICTU this afternoon as regards related issues and I am sure this matter will be raised at that stage, too. There is no lack of clarity on the Government position. It is [7]entirely committed to the process of partnership. Should the issue of reform arise, I am sure this will need considerable debate. In the interim, a better model has not been presented by anybody. It is clearly in the interests of everybody in the State that every effort is made to ensure that the partnership process continues.
Mr. Howlin: I will pursue that matter again. The Taoiseach told the House on 26 October, that the Attorney General was looking at a legal way to address this issue. Will the Minister of State give the House a progress report on that? Given the degree of urgency which should be attached and which I thought the Government attached to this issue which is the foundation of our economy in terms of the social partnership model that has worked effectively for 18 years now, if the social partnership is under threat because of the actions of one sole rogue operating company, surely we should have a definitive view as to whether legal action is possible at this stage. What views, even in a preliminary way, has the Attorney General given to the Minister of State on this issue? What is the status of the commitment given by the Taoiseach to examine the Labour Party Bill, which has been examined by international lawyers and seems to be a workable solution?
Mr. Killeen: I am sure the Taoiseach will fulfil his commitment to examine the Labour Party Bill. The legal advice received since 26 October indicates there is no easy way to address the difficulties that have caused problems for ICTU in terms of participation in social partnership. There are clearly difficulties for the Government also. Most of the issues in question arise in the area of international maritime law in respect of which this country cannot unilaterally make changes. None of the legal advice indicates such a course of action is open to the Government.
I imparted to the House on a previous occasion the legal advice we received in regard to the redundancy situation. There has been no request from the company in question in terms of the redundancy scheme. Until such is received, it is impossible to be definitive in this regard.
Mr. Howlin: Will the Minister of State share the Attorney General’s advice with the Opposition?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Question No. 102 is in the name of Deputy Eamon Ryan. As the Deputy is absent, the question cannot be taken.
103. Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason for the delay in bringing forward legislation to [8]establish the national consumer agency; the timescale for the appointment of a new chairman of the Competition Authority; the timescale for the appointment of a new Director of Consumer Affairs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31862/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): Given the importance of the national consumer agency, NCA, to the development of future consumer protection policy, it is vital that the legislation is framed to ensure the NCA has sufficient powers and functions to enable it to carry out its role as a forceful advocate on behalf of the consumer, as envisaged by the consumer strategy group. In addition to setting up the NCA, I will take the opportunity in the legislation to update the existing code of consumer protection law, some of which is more than 100 years old, as also recommended by the consumer strategy group. Furthermore, the legislation will seek to transpose the recently promulgated European directive on unfair business to consumer commercial practices, one of the most significant directives in the area of consumer protection, into national law.
Given the scope of the legislation, its preparation will take time. It is my expectation, however, that the legislation will be published in the latter half of next year and that the national consumer agency will be up and running early in 2007. In the meantime, I have appointed a board to the agency to act in an interim capacity. Since its appointment, it has been active in putting the consumer’s case on issues such as the debate on the future of the groceries order. I am confident the interim board will continue to be a forceful advocate for consumers in ensuring their voices are heard.
With regard to the timescale for the appointment of a new chairperson of the Competition Authority, the Competition Act requires that the recruitment process be undertaken by the public appointments service. However, the vacancy has been advertised both nationally and internationally, and consultants, PricewaterhouseCoopers, have been engaged to carry out an executive search for suitable candidates. The Public Appointments Service is arranging for a high level board to conduct competitive interviews. However, in view of the high profile of this post and the worldwide scope of the executive search for suitably qualified candidates, it is unlikely an appointment will be made until 2006.
The Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs continues in existence until such time as it is incorporated into the new agency. The Director of Consumer Affairs continues to perform her enforcement functions to guarantee the protection of consumer rights. I understand she has been approached in regard to a possible appointment to another position. No decision has been [9]made in this matter, however, and the question of appointing a successor does not therefore arise at this time. The Government is determined that policy in the areas of competition and consumer protection is robust and is fully developed to meet the needs of the modern marketplace and the modern consumer.
Mr. Hogan: Does the Minister accept that the Government voted down a Fine Gael proposal in November 2003 which aimed to establish a consumer rights enforcer, similar to the agency advocated by the consumer strategy group? On its announcement, the Minister stated the national consumer agency was important and urgently required. A year and a half later, however, the relevant legislation has not been produced. There is no evidence of urgency in terms of the importance of ensuring some mechanism of redress for consumers. It is unacceptable to delay until the latter half of 2006 the establishment of an agency that is long overdue. Consumers effectively have no right of redress or of complaint at present.
Does the Minister accept that he appears to have decided to merge the Office of Director of Consumer Affairs with this national agency? Would it not be better to state that explicitly now and not allow this inept body, the Office of Director of Consumer Affairs, to continue in existence without knowing its future?
Mr. Martin: I reject the Deputy’s assertions. We said on the publication of the consumer strategy group’s report in May that it would take time to produce the legislative template for the new national consumer agency. That is why, almost immediately, we took steps to establish an interim board of the agency. It has already been forceful in articulating and advocating on behalf of the consumer, for example, with regard to the debate on the groceries order.
Mr. Hogan: It has not. That was in the consumer strategy group’s report.
Mr. Martin: It has made submissions and so forth.
Mr. Hogan: The group made its views known before being appointed to the interim board. The Minister should get it right.
Mr. Martin: No, the consumer agency advocated in a vigorous fashion on behalf of the consumer in the groceries order debate. It has also been in discussions with the Department with regard to its plans for the coming months. The [10]Estimates assessment will reflect that in due course.
It is correct, therefore, with regard to the legislation to be put in place, that we do not simply deal with the establishment of the consumer agency but we also transpose that important directive into law. It is an important consumer protection measure. We must also update consumer law. In the meantime, the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs is not an inept body. It has clear statutory functions to discharge and legislation has been passed to increase the fines the office can levy in penalties. This, too, was recommended by the consumer strategy group.
There is a unit in the Department dealing with this issue. Resources have been allocated for people to work on the legislation and it will be a substantial measure. Obviously it is reasonable that it should take that length of time.
Mr. Hogan: After nine years in office it is clear today that there is no consumer policy. The Minister announced last May that he would establish a new agency and that the required legislation would be presented to the House a year and a half later. The Minister has stated that he will bring forward legislation in the latter half of 2006, which will be October or November in 2006 unless the House sits during the summer recess next year or there is some other interruption to the Minister’s schedule.
The national consumer agency is an important development for consumer protection. The Minister should take a more urgent approach to putting in place an agency to advocate on behalf of consumers and, similar to the Ombudsman, to offer consumers the opportunity to seek redress. The Minister should use his good offices in Government to fast-track this process. It is most important because people are not getting the benefit of good consumer protection at present.
The appointment of the chairman of the Competition Authority is most important in the context of policing consumer issues and with regard to mergers and takeovers. There is a vacuum in the chair of the authority at present and most of the members of the authority are not involved in business or consumer activities. Does the Minister have any plans to reform the Competition Authority or to strengthen competition law in the context of the appointment of a new chairman? This would make it easier for consumers to secure a better deal in the marketplace.
Mr. Martin: The Competition Authority has been an effective body. The chairperson has moved on to a new position——
Mr. Hogan: There have been no prosecutions or fines.
[11]Mr. Martin: He was an exceptional performer.
Mr. Martin: He retired from the post on 5 October. It is reasonable——
Mr. Hogan: Did the Minister know he was leaving?
Mr. Martin: One cannot do anything until the person actually leaves the position.
Mr. Hogan: He could have told the Minister in advance.
Mr. Martin: The search is under way for a replacement. Any analysis would indicate that the authority has been an effective and powerful body in terms of advocacy for competition in the economy generally.
Mr. Hogan: The Minister should look at the replies he gave to my questions last week.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: As Deputy Eamon Ryan has arrived in the House and it is still within the time allocated for Priority Questions, I call his Question No. 102.
102. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the grounds on which he has made an application to the European Commission for grant aid to Centocor; the amount of Government funding already committed to the project and the consequences for the ongoing construction of the plant should grant aid be refused. [32015/05]
Mr. Martin: Member states are obliged to notify for approval all projects which exceed the threshold provided for in the multisectoral framework for large investment projects. The aid in this case exceeded the threshold and accordingly had to be notified to the European Commission, and discussions are ongoing.
The amount of Government funding already committed to the project is a confidential matter between the Government and the company involved. It would be wholly wrong of me to breach this trust. Construction of the plant has already commenced.
Mr. Eamon Ryan: I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and apologise to the Minister for being slightly late to ask the question.
I want to broaden the matter. We have been remarkably successful as a location for foreign direct investment. I am querying whether the success of that policy is possibly being threatened by [12]a different perception of it, specifically within the European Commission’s rules. We have seen the difficulties in getting certain projects in Intel and others developed. Is that a signal from the Commission or from the European Union of a change of policy on Ireland’s policy in this area? Given the failure of other countries to attract similar levels of foreign direct investment and given the concern about our lower tax rate, even though I would contend that their effective tax rate due to reductions for research and development and other expenditure may be as low, if not lower, than ours, does the Minister sense that there is a political problem for this State in dealing with the European Union or with our European colleagues in terms of attracting support for our policy, particularly for having applications for capital grant support accepted, as in this case?
Mr. Martin: The issue is as follows. The European Commission and its officials must operate in the context of the regional aid guidelines and multisectoral framework that have been passed by the member states. Ireland entered a number of submissions on that, particularly for large projects. There was a footnote attached to the multisectoral framework which we argued should allow for innovation in terms of large-scale projects, even where the company may have a dominant share of the market. In one previously highly publicised case, that argument did not win through.
The number of projects caught up in this sort of multisectoral framework is few. The majority of projects do not necessitate notification. Notification can be necessary under a range of criteria. Enjoying in excess of 25% of market share is a key one and it is one which affects this case. We are engaged with the Commission at present, answering questions and responding with information on the market share of the company concerned.
The issue the Deputy has raised is more general. It is not a political problem for Ireland vis-à-vis the Commission. It is really about the competitive position of Europe vis-à-vis other trading blocks across the globe and in terms of overall globalisation.
We in Ireland have a view and have made a submission to a review being undertaken of those regional aid guidelines and the new multisectoral framework for large investment projects. We have made the point that Ireland often wins these projects not from European member states but from countries in Asia, South America or elsewhere. We submitted that this point should be taken on board and that Europe as an entity must be competitive and must face up to competition in terms of effective corporation tax rates in the context of the state aid policies of non-EU countries. We have concerns about that overall position.
[13]The good news is that the significant players see Ireland as an attractive location for industry and for high-end activities. The activities plan in this respect is relatively good for 2005. I have accompanied IDA Ireland on a number of trade missions and we are working hard to position Ireland as an attractive location. That continues to be the position.
Mr. Eamon Ryan: When does the Minister expect to get a decision from the Commission in this regard? Can he indicate whether he expects that decision to be favourable or negative? If there were to be a negative response to it, what would be the implications for the project in question or a similar project? I do not want to go into the specifics of a commercial operation. If grant aid is not allowable, what are the implications for projects such as this when they have already proceeded?
Mr. Martin: There are two stages to the ongoing engagement with the Commission. As a first stage, the Commission must make a decision as to whether to open the issue to full, formal investigation, in which submissions are received from others who may have an interest in the issue. This is a process that can take some time. We hope it will not be necessary in this case but I do not want to be seen to pre-empt the discussions and the exchange of information which are ongoing between ourselves and the Commission.
Mr. Hogan: That would be terrible.
Mr. Eamon Ryan: What if we do not get a decision in our favour?
Mr. Martin: There is little point going into the realm of speculation. “So far, so good” is how I would term the way we are operating within the multisectoral framework. We have strong relationships with many of the companies which have established in Ireland and which may be establishing new phases to their development here. We want to maintain that relationship. I cannot speculate in terms of what may happen. However, it is important that, at a pan-European level, we take a more competitive approach to Europe’s global competitors in terms of the attraction of mobile international investment.
104. Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason applications for the position of chief science adviser were not invited and the position was not advertised; the number of such positions filled by his Department in this way without advertisement or competition; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31718/05]
Mr. Martin: The decision to appoint the chief science adviser was made by the Government as part of a package of measures in the area of science co-ordination and oversight. These measures were agreed by Government in June 2004 and included the following: the establishment of a Cabinet Sub-Committee on Science, Technology and Innovation; the establishment of an interdepartmental committee to support the Cabinet committee in its work; the creation of the post of chief science adviser to the Government; and the putting in place of a new Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation, comprised of stakeholder interests from academia and enterprise. The chief science adviser is contracted to Forfás and reports to the chief executive of Forfás in respect of his day-to-day functions. He reports to the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Science, Technology and Innovation in respect of his advisory functions.
Mr. Howlin: Will the Minister answer the question?
Mr. Martin: As regards the filling of the position of chief science adviser, there were particular circumstances surrounding this matter. The Government was aware of the availability of a specific individual with a particular background and experience of relevance to the position of chief science adviser. That individual was retiring from a post in the European Commission at director general level. The post in question was that of director general of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. The Joint Research Centre employs over 2,000 staff and covers a broad range of scientific and technological areas including energy research, food safety and quality, and chemicals.
The individual had previously worked for the European Commission as head of the unit responsible for the Marie Curie research fellowships. Prior to his employment in the European Commission, he had been responsible for Ireland’s first national biotechnology programme, BioResearch Ireland. He had also held a number of positions in industry, as a clinical biochemist at Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin and as senior research biochemist at the Wolfson Research Institute, Birmingham. As such, the individual had an extensive range of experience and a track record across a spectrum of science and technology disciplines in the public and private sector, nationally and at European level. That experience and track record matched very well with the multidisciplinary nature of the position of chief science adviser.
The prospective availability of the individual in question coincided with the finalisation of the overall package of measures on science and technology co-ordination and governance which I have just described. Following consideration of [15]the experience and track record of the individual, and in the context of its consideration of these measures, the Government approved the creation of the position of chief science adviser. Arising from these unique circumstances, the position was not filled by way of competition and was exceptional in this regard as far as my Department is concerned.
Mr. Howlin: In a previous reply to Deputy Hogan, the Minister referred to the appointment of the Director of Consumer Affairs as being of such importance that a worldwide search would have to be carried out independently by the Public Appointments Service, so critical was that job to the economy. Does the Minister regard the job of chief science adviser, one of the pillars of the approach of recognising science as a pivotal part of Ireland’s economic future, in the same light? Would it not have been best to advertise to find whether a more suitable candidate was available, rather than simply selecting one individual, as exemplary as the Minister obviously believes the candidate to be?
An Irish Independent article of 31 October stated the Minister met with the chief science adviser last week to present him with a series of questions and requested that he clarify the position within seven days. Is this the case? Did the Minister meet with the chief science adviser? What questions did the Minister pose to him? What concerns has the Minister in regard to his position?
Mr. Martin: At the time the Government was satisfied there was a need to give momentum to science co-ordination policy and the general science agenda.
Mr. Howlin: Why was the position not advertised?
Mr. Martin: A situation arose within the Commission where an individual was readily available to fill the position of chief science adviser. He occupied a significant post in the Commission, under which a significant number of people were employed in a research facility. He had a track record with the establishment of BioResearch Ireland and is well thought of in academia and government circles.
Mr. Hogan: Why was he leaving the Commission then?
Mr. Martin: It made sense at the time, with the other measures taken in science and technology policy, to create the position of chief science adviser. In a short time, many positive developments have taken place in research, such as the [16]programme for research in third level institutions and the creation of Science Foundation Ireland.
Last week, I met the chief science adviser, not to present several questions as has been described or to set a target of seven days, but rather because I received several parliamentary questions, arising from an article in a particular newspaper, pertaining to one of his academic qualifications. I pointed out to him that this raised concerns among parliamentary colleagues and that it needed to be dealt with in a comprehensive and substantive way. I also explained to him that I was receiving follow-up correspondence from a Deputy. Regarding the specific academic qualification in question, I explained to him that I needed to have information to me available to deal with that issue. The chief science adviser undertook to do this and this matter is ongoing.
Mr. Hogan: So he is not qualified.
Mr. Howlin: The Minister’s reply was a long one to a simple and straightforward question on the advertising of a post. The principal academic qualification, the PhD held by the chief science adviser, is in question. Is the Minister satisfied that the awarding university, the Pacific Western University, is acceptable for the prestigious post of chief science adviser? Has the Minister independently checked the university’s record, its capacity and its recognition within the academic community in the US, or is the Minister entirely dependent on the view given by the chief science adviser?
Mr. Martin: No, I am not dependent on his views. The National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, the body responsible for accreditation in Ireland, was asked to assess the bona fides of this institution.
Mr. Howlin: What was the authority’s view?
Mr. Martin: Its view was that it did not have accrediting powers within the US. In our discussions with the chief science adviser, his view was that the body he dealt with at that time is vastly different from the one in place now.
Mr. Martin: There is an issue of due process in this case.
Mr. Hogan: He is on the way out then.
Mr. Martin: I am anxious to bear this in mind when considering the individual’s position, particularly as he has a significant track record in public positions both in Ireland and the European Commission. I put the position we received from the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland on that body in the US to the chief science adviser.
[17]Mr. Hogan: That does not sound good.
Mr. Morgan: I wish to raise a point of order.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: What is the point of order?
Mr. Morgan: I need guidance as to whether the Chair has jurisdiction over the transfer to another Department of parliamentary questions placed with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It has been repeatedly stated that the Chair has no responsibility with regard to this issue.
Mr. Morgan: A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, unfortunately the effect is that a member of the public, who is not a Member of this House, has more access to accurate information from the Minister through a freedom of information request than a Member of this House through a parliamentary question. I find that grossly unacceptable.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The point has been made clear on numerous occasions. I call Question No. 105.
Mr. Morgan: The Minister should rethink his position on this matter. It is grossly unfair to Members of this House. Through freedom of information requests, members of the public have more access to accurate information than Members of this House have through parliamentary questions. The parliamentary question system defies logic. It is ridiculous.
105. Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress made to date with regard to the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the consumer strategy group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31600/05]
Mr. Martin: As I advised the House in my reply to Question No. 205 of 28 September, the consumer strategy group’s report, Make Consumers Count, was published on 18 May 2005. The Government has already approved the report’s core recommendation that a new statutory body, the national consumer agency, be established to advocate on behalf of consumers. Given that this [18]will require primary legislation, a board has been appointed to act in an interim capacity until the new agency is established on a statutory footing. The Deputy will be aware that since its appointment the interim board has been active in terms of articulating the consumer’s case on issues such as the groceries order. In addition to being a forceful advocate on behalf of the consumer, the interim board, as part of its terms of reference, will have a key role in preparing the way for the fully operational agency itself.
The other significant recommendation in the consumer strategy group report related to the abolition of the groceries order. The Deputy will be aware that following the publication of the report my Department embarked upon a public consultation process on the future of the order. In excess of 550 submissions were received in the course of the consultation process.
Mr. Howlin:
Will we deal with Question
No. 107 on the groceries order?
Mr. Martin: No, this is a recommendation of the consumer strategy group. I will deal with whatever issues the Deputy wishes me to deal with.
Those submissions have been examined and I met with various groups in the last month to discuss the groceries order. I intend to bring a report to Government detailing proposals in relation to the future of the order shortly.
In addition to the above mentioned recommendations, I have accepted a number of the consumer strategy group’s recommendations relating to my Department, some of which have already been implemented. For example, the fines for breaching consumer protection laws have recently been significantly increased. The fundamental review of the existing code of consumer protection law, as recommended by the consumer strategy group, is already under way and additional resources have been dedicated by my Department to this task.
The consumer strategy group report contains more than 30 separate recommendations involving a variety of different Departments and agencies whose activities directly impact upon the interests of consumers. The scope and breadth of the recommendations required a co-ordinated response from Government. For that reason a high level interdepartmental committee was established to prepare a detailed plan for the implementation of the recommendations. The report of the high level committee is expected to be submitted to Government shortly.
I am confident the consumer strategy group’s report offers the way forward in developing a robust and effective national consumer policy. Considerable progress has been made in implementing the report in the short time since its publication. I am anxious that progress continue to [19]be made in this regard and I am confident that in conjunction with the interim board of the national consumer agency we will continue to make progress to the benefit of consumers.
Mr. Howlin: God bless word processors. The reply is identical to the reply given the last time this question was submitted, in September. The Minister tells us again that the scope and breadth of the recommendations require a co-ordinated response from Government. God forbid there might be a joined-up response from Government.
What progress has been made in establishing the high level interdepartmental committee? How many meetings has that committee had? Has it submitted the report to Government that was promised “shortly” in September?
Mr. Martin: The work of the committee is virtually complete. We are preparing a memorandum for Government.
Mr. Howlin: How many meetings has it held?
Mr. Martin: I do not know. That is not relevant because the report is complete. When it involves other agencies and Departments it is necessary to request consideration of and commitments on the various recommendations from outside my Department.
Mr. Howlin: I ask because the phrase “requiring interdepartmental committees to co-ordinate” normally means long-fingering something. I am heartened to hear the committee’s work is complete or virtually so.
Has the high level committee submitted its report to Government and when will the House have sight of the implementation procedures that will be agreed?
Mr. Martin: It will be submitted to Government shortly. The memorandum is in preparation.
106. Dr. Twomey asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of meetings of the better regulation group which have taken place; the action which has been taken arising from those meetings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31631/05]
Mr. Martin: I have set up the business regulation forum, BRF, with effect from today. I was very pleased to secure the services of Dr. Donal De Buitléir, General Manager, Office of the Group Chief Executive, AIB Group, as chairman. The members appointed encompass an excellent spread of business and regulatory expertise and [20]this will be complemented by the addition of departmental representatives.
Establishment of the BRF is a key element in implementing the Government’s commitment to better regulation and to address administrative burdens which can genuinely be identified as disproportionate. My intention is that the BRF will advise me, and that I, in turn, will advise the Government, on regulatory issues as they impact on business and competitiveness, in particular issues and problems arising from outdated, inefficient or disproportionate regulation.
The forum will work in parallel with the existing better regulation group of Government officials and regulators. It will take a strategic overview of the application of better regulation principles to new regulation and examine specific existing regulations on a problem-solving basis. As the business regulation forum should be a dynamic body which will identify, focus on and prioritise regulatory issues of concern, I do not want to be prescriptive about its work. The adoption of a detailed work programme will be a matter for the forum. My Department and the State enterprise agencies will assist the forum to carry out its task and I have requested other Departments and the independent regulatory bodies to facilitate the effective analysis and review of particular regulatory issues.
Mr. Hogan: I am sure the Minister will not mind me stating that we have heard all this before. In January 2004 it was stated in a document issued by the Taoiseach that the Government had established a group on better regulation to promote better regulation across the public service and oversee implementation of the commitments and action plan arising from the White Paper. How are we now to believe the Minister on any announcement he makes on a new forum, group or committee established to deal with the same matter?
With regard to the bona fides of the Government on the issue of better regulation, how many regulatory impact analyses have been carried out across Departments since January 2004 in line with what was committed to at that time? Will the Minister comment on the company law reform group’s report, which was to deal with a number of issues related to company law and which affect the regulatory burden on small businesses in particular?
Mr. Martin: In terms of the world of business, there was a requirement and a desire from business that there would be formalised dialogue on working relationships with Government on regulations in general. This is a good thing. During the summer, the Taoiseach announced that such a group would be established. It is important for business in Ireland, as there is a strong external perception that the Government and its process [21]are agile and responsive to enterprise and business. We gain competitively on that point compared with other countries with which we compete. This is a strong view of Ireland. I see the establishment of the aforementioned forum in such a context. It clearly demonstrates that the Government listens to what people say on the impact of regulation on business and enterprise.
The company law review group was asked to carry out a specific task with regard to legislation pertaining to directors’ compliance. It has completed this work, which is currently at Government. The Government will make a decision on the matter shortly.
Mr. Hogan: I do not agree with the Minister’s comment that the Government has an agile perspective of the matters that come before it. The approach is reactive rather than agile. The Government has been warned about these issues as legislation proceeded through the Houses. In particular, there were warnings that the directors’ compliance statement in the Companies (Auditing and Accounting) Bill 2003 would create enormous problems for inward investment in the country, with directors based in the US, for example, needing to sign off directors’ statements for businesses and foreign direct investment here.
The Government and the Taoiseach in particular was warned about these issues and potential mistakes. The Minister is now attempting to disguise this with a forum report. Will the Minister comment on the small business forum that he felt obliged to set up recently? There is also a group to implement the enterprise strategy group’s report. Another group is being announced today to deal with better regulation, some issues of which we are already aware and which we do not need a group to recognise. Does the Minister agree that what is needed is the implementation of the enterprise strategy group’s report in a concerted proactive way? The views of people could be taken at that stage rather than now setting up another committee and waiting another year and a half to implement measures required to assist small business in the regulatory environment.
Mr. Martin: This is an example of typical cheap Opposition tactics condemning any group established. The bottom line on the enterprise strategy group is that the fundamentals have been implemented in terms of economic migration policy.
Mr. Hogan: How many recommendations have been implemented?
Mr. Martin: The Employment Permits Bill 2005 is awaiting this House to pass it on to Committee Stage. The transport initiative unveiled yesterday is central to recommendations arising from the [22]enterprise strategy group. Another example is work on and investment in research and development.
Mr. Hogan: Why is another group needed?
Mr. Martin: I am dealing with the issue. The One Step Up initiative has been allocated an extra €40 million this year. It was used immediately to upskill the workforce. Whatever criteria are used, there is solid progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the enterprise strategy group. The reorganisation of Enterprise Ireland, taking into account its new strategic vision is another example. The restructuring approach is dealing with sales and marketing along with technology. This is a key driver of the recommendations of the enterprise strategy group.
The last time a small business task force existed was when Deputy Séamus Brennan was Minister for Trade and Employment, more than ten years ago. Most people would accept the outcome of that work was particularly significant for small business in terms of improving the environment for these businesses within the general economy. We must get away from the simplistic notion that we should not think strategically about the country’s future.
Mr. Hogan: This is a talking shop and the Minister knows it.
Mr. Martin: One of the great driving forces behind Ireland’s transformation economically over the past decade or so has been the strategic approach taken on macro issues. These are significant fundamental issues in attracting investment and getting the overall business climate correct. This is why the country has been so successful, more successful than any other country, in attracting mobile investment. We should move away from silly politicking.
Mr. Hogan: No new group is needed to cover up the mistakes made.
107. Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress made to date with regard to the public consultation process on the groceries order; when he expects to make a decision on the issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31581/05]
133. Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment when he intends to take a decision on the groceries order; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31632/05]
Mr. Martin: I propose to take Questions Nos. 107 and 133 together.
The public consultation process on the groceries order generated more than 550 submissions which were received from a wide range of parties, including a significant number from the general public. The submissions have all been considered and my Department has now compiled a detailed report on the process. I have also met various groups in the past month to discuss the groceries order. The report is comprehensive and I intend to bring recommendations to Government shortly. Revocation or amendment of the order will require primary legislation.
Mr. Howlin: The last line has at least been changed from the standard reply. A word processor was required to change the answer this time.
Mr. Hogan: It is definitely changing.
Mr. Howlin: The last answer the Minister gave the House on this issue stated that findings would be considered and recommendations would be brought to Government by the end of October. That date has come and gone. When will the Minister make the decision, and what will the decision be? The Minister has consulted widely and there were 550 submissions, so what is so difficult? The Minister’s public utterances convey a very clear view on what he wishes to do, regardless of submissions. When will we witness the decision and relevant legislative proposals?
Mr. Martin: The Deputy will see those very shortly and I look forward to his support.
Mr. Hogan: It is difficult to support something we cannot see.
Mr. Howlin: What does that mean? In telling this House for months that the decision is coming shortly and then providing a specific date, the end of October, it is not good enough to be glib and state that it will come shortly. The livelihood of interested parties depends on this decision and it is a matter to get right.
The Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business has had detailed discussions with all interested parties. I was aghast to hear the Minister dismiss all this on a radio programme as being irrelevant, and that the work done on a cross-party basis by the joint committee was of little concern to him. When will the Minister appear before the joint committee to hear the views of all members, including members of his own party, on the issue and reach an accommodation? The joint committee is agreed on change that will drive forward an agenda to best protect the consumer and present choice, accessibility and proper spatial planning.
[24]Mr. Martin: I have made no glib response. I have given detailed consideration to the issue, as is appropriate. The Government will make the decision before it is brought to the House along with legislative proposals.
Mr. Howlin: When will this happen?
Mr. Martin: The Deputy should allow me to respond. I was somewhat surprised that originally, there was a knee-jerk reaction on the part of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business to oppose any change to the groceries order, even before the consumer strategy group reported.
Mr. Howlin: There was no such thing.
Mr. Martin: However, I am glad to see there has been some amendment of that position.
Mr. Howlin: Has the Minister read the reports? There are two of them.
Mr. Martin: I have. While it is extremely carefully worded on a number of fronts, I have made it clear that the retention of the groceries order is not a tenable proposition in the future. However, the Department received 550 written submissions on this matter. As I have stated, it was only fair to give those concerned about the issue an opportunity to discuss it with me verbally. This has taken place over recent weeks. I was not being glib about the issue and it was unfair of Deputy Howlin to suggest that. It is important to give that opportunity to people——
Mr. Howlin: When will we see a result?
Mr. Martin: ——from different sides. Consequently, as I have stated, I will go before the Government shortly and will not pre-empt its decision. I will come back before the House when that decision has been taken.
Mr. Hogan: Does the Minister believe there should be a retention of the ban on predatory pricing and below cost selling?
Mr. Martin: As I have stated, the existing order is not a ban on below cost selling but is on below the net invoice price——
Mr. Hogan: The Minister should answer the question he was asked.
Mr. Martin: In the first instance, I will bring my recommendations to the Government. It will make a decision on the issue and I will then revert back to the House. In time honoured fashion, I am going about this in the proper manner. First, I will go to the Executive and then I will bring the matter back before the House.
[25]Mr. Hogan: The Minister has stated he is in favour of abandoning the groceries order. He has just stated he will bring his views on the groceries order to the Government first and then before this House in an orderly fashion. He has already made his views known.
Mr. Howlin: That is the Minister’s conclusion.
Mr. Hogan: Does the Minister agree that the bans on predatory pricing or below cost selling should be retained? I know this is not easy for me to understand.
Mr. Martin: The Deputy should define what he means.
Mr. Hogan: The Minister is being quite arrogant.
Mr. Martin: Does the Deputy understand what he has just asked?
Mr. Hogan: Yes. The Minister should answer the question.
Mr. Martin: The groceries order is not a ban on below cost selling and is not a ban on predatory pricing.
Mr. Hogan: I did not ask the Minister about the groceries order. I asked him another question.
Mr. Martin: Existing legislation already covers that.
Mr. Hogan: I asked the Minister a different question. That is not a shared view.
Mr. Howlin: Can the Minister clarify the supplementary answer he has just given? He stated that existing legislation deals with the issue of predatory pricing. What section of the Companies Act deals with the issue of predatory pricing? Is it not a fact that one must be a dominant player and that in the grocery trade, the criteria are laid down by the courts? No one has reached the 40% threshold for being a dominant player in the market. The Minister has now told the House that a law exists which would protect against predatory pricing. Where is it?
Mr. Martin: The Competition Act deals with the issue. I sought advice and views on this matter and it deals with the issue of predatory pricing and abuse of dominance.
Mr. Martin: The issue of jurisprudence is separate. However, I do not accept the proposition which the Deputy has just articulated. As I stated earlier, I will bring the full range of proposals and [26]recommendations on this issue to the Government shortly. I will then make a full presentation of those recommendations to the House. Comprehensive work has been carried out on the issue by officials within my Department and I ask Members, when they get time, to read them——
Mr. Hogan: Has the Minister read the report by the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business?
Mr. Martin: I have read the joint committee’s report and have had discussions with its chairman.
Mr. Hogan: In that case, the Minister is fully briefed. Deputy Cassidy will have briefed him fully.
Mr. Martin: It is an interesting report.
Mr. Howlin: As a brief and final supplementary matter, there are two reports, so I am unsure whether the Minister has read both. He has referred to a single report when there are two reports.
Mr. Howlin: In view of the importance which the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business has attached to these matters and the fact that it has spent a great deal of time and public energy on them, will the Minister come before the joint committee with his comprehensive proposals to discuss them in advance of working out the mechanisms for a final decision? In other words, I ask him not to pre-empt the Government’s decision but to discuss mechanisms, as far as the specific legislation is concerned, with the joint committee before reaching a final immutable position.
Mr. Martin: First, the Government makes decisions on these issues. This is the position.
Mr. Howlin: Under the Constitution, law is made by the Oireachtas. I know that comes as a shock to the Minister.
Mr. Martin: I have not finished and the Deputy does not appear inclined to give me an opportunity to do so.
Mr. Howlin: It is the Oireachtas and not the Government which makes law.
Mr. Martin: The Government makes decisions on whether to introduce legislation to the House. Such legislation is then published and it is then open for all Members to have an input into it.
[27]Mr. Howlin: Does that mean the Minister will not come near the joint committee?
Mr. Martin: The Deputy should allow me to finish. This will require primary legislation and all Members will have the opportunity to contribute to any legislation. In addition, I have no difficulty in discussing the report that I will produce and publish with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. The joint committee members will require time to discuss the report. However, under no circumstances can the committee itself take on board the executive function of the Government to decide what legislation may be brought before the House. In the ordinary course of legislation which passes through the House, Deputies may table amendments to it. This is the context in which they normally make their views known on any issue.
Mr. Hogan: It is good that the Minister may accept the Members’ views. If he had accepted them on the issue of directors’ compliance, he would not have walked into that problem.
108. Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his concerns regarding the impact of levies being imposed by local authorities on the development of small to medium-sized enterprises; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31529/05]
Mr. Martin: The framework for development contribution schemes was agreed under the Planning and Development Act 2000 to update the long-standing development levy system. That system had applied since 1963 and is a means of funding capital projects to service land for new development. The operation of these schemes is primarily a matter for my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Nevertheless, from an enterprise development and an employment perspective I am concerned about issues that affect the competitiveness of companies operating in this country and the jobs they sustain. I am aware that some enterprises have voiced concern about their experience regarding development contributions and the manner in which they are applied. This is of particular concern to manufacturing companies and those facing international competition.
Consequently my Department recently wrote to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to explore how these issues can be considered. As a result, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has agreed to chair an interdepartmental group to examine the matter.
This examination is particularly timely as all local authorities have indicated they will review [28]their schemes in the next year or so. If the Deputy or others in the House wish to contact me about the operation of development contributions from an enterprise perspective, I will ensure that these views will be taken into account in the context of this review.
Mr. Timmins: I thank the Minister for his reply. All local authorities were obliged to have adopted these levies by March 2004. I have recently become a fan of the Minister and read his Ard-Fheis speech in which he criticised what I believe he referred to as the alternative Government when he expressed concerns about the councils and the high level of levies they had imposed. Does he agree that these high levels were imposed when the councils were, in the main, controlled by his party colleagues?
Can the Minister indicate what might be a reasonable levy for these councils to impose on potential development? Does he agree that the reason we have these development levies, be they residential or commercial, is because the Government does not fund local authority projects as it did in the past?
Mr. Martin: I do not accept the Deputy’s points because a range of new revenue opportunities have emerged for local authorities in recent times, not least these development levies. The economic growth and buoyancy of recent years must have added significantly to the revenue generating capacity of local authorities.
I have been around the country meeting the various——
Mr. Howlin: Fianna Fáil Deputies.
Mr. Martin: ——sectors involved in the productive side of the economy, particularly on the manufacturing side as well as the chambers of commerce and so on. The variation between local authorities emerged as a factor. There can be quite sharp differences between the levies imposed by some local authorities as opposed to others, which illustrates the strong local control over the schemes adopted by any particular local authority.
We must be careful, particularly in respect of export-oriented manufacturing companies, to examine the overall picture in terms of retaining indigenous companies’ manufacturing capabilities in this country to avoid the inadvertent creation of disincentives to their expansion here, given the global cost bases involved.
Mr. Hogan: Was the Minister in Government at all during the last two years?
Mr. Martin: Local authorities must take due note of this in future and I hope they will examine their schemes in that respect. I understand there [29]is no differentiation between the commercial, manufacturing and retail sectors in many of the schemes. That is another factor which should be taken on board.
While these levies have been in force since 1963, updating them has been taken as an opportunity to ramp up some of them. The Deputy has asked a simple question and I have a concern about this matter from an enterprise perspective. I have articulated that concern to a number of managers.
Mr. Hogan: The Minister was very disingenuous when he said we always had these levies. A total of €250 million has been collected in levies arising from the Planning and Development Act 2000, at which time the Minister sat at the Cabinet table and allowed the 20% cut in capital expenditure of local authorities to be funded by another stealth charge to communities in the form of development levies. The Minister is crying crocodile tears if he talks about the threat to the manufacturing sector imposed by these levies and other costs when he presided over stealth charges and taxes set by his Government in order to make up the shortfall in local authority funding. He should ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to review these levies, the related legislation and the state of capital funding to local authorities in light of this imposition.
Mr. Martin: First, I object to the Deputy’s comments. It is about time we accept responsibility at local level.
Mr. Hogan: The Government must accept it.
Mr. Martin: With the greatest respect, Deputy Hogan’s party made a big song and dance about gaining control of local authorities the length and breadth of the country. We will now see how——
Mr. Timmins: The Government complained.
Mr. Martin: ——pro-enterprise and responsible it is in terms of managing these levies at local level.
Mr. Hogan: If the Minister read the legislation, he would see the levies cannot be reviewed for two years.
Mr. Martin: The legislation is no excuse for the wide differentiation between local authorities vis-à-vis these particular levies. Why is it that in one county it can be at a certain level and at a much higher level in another county? The Deputy cannot keep blaming the centre.
[30]Mr. Hogan: The Government imposed the levies.
Mr. Martin: When we give enabling powers and authority to local authorities, we in this House should accept that the responsibility then lies——
Mr. Hogan: Will the Minister accept that the Government imposed the levies?
Mr. Howlin: It took away capital funding.
Mr. Hogan: The Government took away the authorities’ capital funding.
Mr. Martin: ——with that particular body. The amount of funding allocated to local authorities has been increased year by year by consecutive Ministers.
Mr. Hogan: The Minister is out of touch. He should survey the country again.
Mr. Martin: I am not out of touch and am very insulted.
Mr. Hogan: The Minister is totally out of touch.
Mr. Martin: I hope that, from Fine Gael’s latter day control of local authorities, we will witness some response to these types of issues.
Mr. Hogan: The Minister should not worry about that happening.
Mr. Timmins: What about stamp duty on commercial properties?
Mr. Martin: I look forward to engaging with that party. I hope the matter rates enough of Fine Gael’s attention in the forthcoming election at local authority level.
Mr. Timmins: We are not afraid.
109. Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the details of the recently established Donegal interdepartmental group; its terms of reference and membership; if any meetings have been held; when it is due to report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31550/05]
111. Mr. Noonan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the action that is to be taken to deal with the high rate of unemployment in County Donegal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31638/05]
151. Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the unem[31]ployment rate in County Donegal and the measures being adopted to redress the imbalance in respect of the national average unemployment rate. [31549/05]
Mr. Martin: I propose to take Questions Nos. 109, 111 and 151 together.
The House will be aware that there have been significant job announcements in County Donegal recently with over 210 new jobs announced by Zeus Industrial Products, Letterkenny and PowerBoard, Burnfoot, which are being supported by the Industrial Development Agency and Enterprise Ireland, respectively. This was in addition to 423 jobs I announced earlier this year for the north west region. I assure the House that the State development agencies under my aegis, namely, IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, FÁS and Donegal County Enterprise Board, are fully committed to supporting and promoting job creation and job retention in the county.
In addition to recent job announcements, this commitment is also evidenced by ongoing development and support by the agencies for a number of business parks and enterprise centres in County Donegal, which include the completion of the IDA Ireland Letterkenny business park, the provision of a 25,000 square foot advance office building at Windyhall, and the completion of site development work at Ballyshannon for a new facility and a development at Buncrana, where IDA Ireland is working with a local developer to provide new manufacturing and office buildings. In addition to providing support for nine community enterprise centres in County Donegal, Enterprise Ireland has provided substantial support for the expansion of the Letterkenny Institute of Technology business development centre and the development of a marine biotechnology centre.
While the Central Statistics Office does not provide information on unemployment rates on a county by county basis, the quarterly national household survey shows an unemployment rate of 4.9% for the Border region in the second quarter of 2005. Bearing in mind that unemployment in 1995 stood at 11.4%, this represents a very significant positive development.
Mr. Martin: The figure was 11.4% in 1995 but it is now 4.9%.
Mr. McGinley: What is the current figure for County Donegal?
Mr. Martin: However, I recognise that there have been significant job losses in County Donegal in recent years, which is why I have vis[32]ited the county a number of times since becoming Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I have met many groups and companies on these visits to discuss the county’s difficulties and its positive developments. My colleagues in Government recognise the particular difficulties in the county and we will work together to assist in improving the overall environment to increase the attractiveness of County Donegal as a location for enterprises.
In this context, I have established an interdepartmental group on County Donegal to be chaired by the Secretary General of my Department. I have asked the group, which will hold its first meeting this week, to report back to me as a matter of urgency. The group’s terms of reference are to identify the various local issues posing barriers to the establishment and operation of enterprises, take stock of relevant projects and actions already under way or planned and identify measures that could be taken by the relevant Departments and agencies to support the environment for enterprise development and quantify the resources required. I assure the Deputies that support for job creation in County Donegal will continue to remain a priority for the State development agencies under the auspices of my Department.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 21 and the name of the Member in each case: (1) Deputy Crawford — the need for the Minister to allow Cavan No. 1 national school recruit a third teacher as a matter of urgency; (2) Deputy Boyle — that the Minister explain the reason Mr. Frank McBrearty Jnr. was not permitted to travel from here as a result of a false conviction; (3) Deputy Michael Moynihan — to discuss the delays in the construction of the extension to Kanturk Hospital; (4) Deputy Seán Ryan — the non-payment of minor works grants to the Rush and Lusk Educate Together national school in 2004 and 2005; (5) Deputy Finneran — that the Minister seek to resolve the problems that have arisen between child care committees (details supplied) in County Roscommon; (6) Deputy Andrews — to ask the Minister if he will consider amending the Defamation Acts to allow the estate of a deceased to sue for defamation within a period of one year following date of death; (7) Deputy McManus — the failure of the Minister to provide information and support to the family of Ms Georgina Eager in regard to the trial of her murderer, Mr. Christopher Newman, in Britain; (8) Deputy O’Sullivan — the need for the Minister to have an economic impact study carried out on the Shannon region; (9) Deputy O’Shea — the need for legislative measures to [33]deal with anti-social and unlawful behaviour; (10) Deputy Cooper-Flynn — to discuss the announcement by the Minister in connection with the western rail corridor; (11) Deputy Broughan — that the Minister address the serious difficulties at An Post in the light of imminent strike action; (12) Deputy Cowley — to ask the Minister why obligations to An Post have not been fulfilled under Sustaining Progress; and (13) Deputy Durkan — the imminent danger of industrial action at An Post arising from unresolved difficulties.
The matters raised by Deputies Broughan, Cowley, Durkan and McManus have been selected for discussion.
Mr. Bruton: A transport plan was launched yesterday after what we were told was 11 months of planning. I have a slim volume of it here. It consists of four speeches, three maps, two lists and one repackaged transport plan designed to get the Government’s neck off the line.
Ms Hanafin: It mentions a spend of €34.4 billion.
Mr. Bruton: The plan will cost €34.4 billion. Maps were produced that were virtually identical to those produced previously. A total of 35 of the 40 projects were announced previously. Every householder will be asked to pay €25,000 through taxes or road tolls but they were not given any detailed costings, evaluations of the key items or prioritisation of projects based on the rates of return. Why is the Government denying these types of details to the public, which must pay this money in the coming years? Any plan worth its salt would have them. Most of the previous plans originating from any Government source were not slim volumes of this nature or did not cost €34.4 billion but were substantial documents.
I suppose we must accept it on faith when Ministers tell us that detailed and due diligence has been paid to this plan and careful scrutiny has been carried out. Will the Taoiseach answer three questions on the plan under this heading? First, will he give an indication of when work on the Luas line to Lucan will start? Will the Taoiseach state how much will the metro cost? Will he also state which projects will be funded under public private partnership? If he has done the due diligence and the analysis he stated he has, those are not unreasonable questions on specific flagship projects within the plan.
The Taoiseach: I will not go into all the details of the plan.
[34]Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Just three answers are required.
The Taoiseach: I emphasise that the Ministers for Transport and Finance, the Tánaiste and I yesterday outlined how the plan was put together and the fact all of the agencies and the Department costed the plan as per their normal contracting arrangements, based on what it would cost during the next ten years.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: That will cause more concern.
The Taoiseach: If one examines 19 of the last 22 projects that have come in on time and budget, they include the Border Dundalk route, the Ashbourne bypass, the Edgeworthstown relief road, the Monaghan town bypass——
Mr. Stagg: What does that have to do with it?
The Taoiseach: ——the Kinnegad to Kilbeggan route, the Loughrea bypass, the Naas road upgrade——
The Taoiseach: ——the Fermoy to Watergrasshill road, the Mitchelstown relief road, the Bundoran to Ballyshannon bypass, the Ennis bypass, the Castleisland to Abbeyfeale road, and developments in Farranfore, Kinsale and Enniscorthy. They have all been on time and on budget. Based on the procedures operated——
Ms Burton: None of them is in Dublin.
An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.
The Taoiseach: They have all come in on time and on budget. I know the Opposition hates that.
Mr. Durkan: What about the port tunnel?
An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.
The Taoiseach: The same estimation procedure that brought in 19 of the last 22 projects on budget has been used. Projections for where projects will come in during each of the next ten years have been made, based on the estimates of CIE, Iarnród Éireann, Dublin Bus and the NRA. All of the organisations had a full input to this.
Ms Burton: It contains nothing for Dublin.
The Taoiseach: I am trying to answer Deputy Bruton’s question. Deputy Rabbitte will ask a question for the Deputy.
[35]Ms Burton: The Taoiseach will be in Dublin 15 on Monday.
An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Burton, the Taoiseach is entitled to the same courtesy as everybody else while answering a question. Deputy Bruton is quite capable of handling his own question and does not need the support of any other person in the House.
Mr. Bruton: The Ceann Comhairle is generous.
Mr. F. McGrath: Teacher’s pet.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: He asked three questions and did not get a reply to any of them.
The Taoiseach: After the sixth interruption may I reply to Deputy Bruton, who did not interrupt me once? Deputy Bruton asked a fair question on the detailed cost of each project. If the Department were to outline and detail all of the projects and the cost estimate that CIE and other organisations and agencies had for each project, it would make that information available commercially to everyone who tenders. Deputy Bruton would accept that would be entirely wrong. On each project, the agencies and the Department have individually and collectively given estimates to the Department of Finance. The same processes, including the revised issue regarding value for money requested by the Department of Finance, are dealt with in these projects.
Individual projects, such as the Luas from Lucan to the city centre, are listed in the one page report on when projects will be out. For years the agencies had an annual capital programme but were not able to procure the staff or organisation to create a team to deal with projects on a year by year basis. While over the past six or seven years we have made a major move toward producing proper infrastructure, the full list of projects of which is impressive, it is important for the agencies and the country that we systematically analyse all the projects to see what is necessary and put them in a detailed format. That answers the question.
With regard to questions asked on due diligence, the Minister outlined in a statement yesterday the criteria he took into account. It is not necessary for me to do so. I am sure the Minister will do it again if he is asked.
Mr. Bruton: The Taoiseach’s answer is an elaborate sham. We know the National Roads Authority published what it projected various projects would cost time and again. That did not result in commercial folly. It resulted in finding that many of those projects ran massively over cost and embarrassed the Government. The Government is not willing to commit itself to any costing. The [36]Taoiseach has not done due diligence on this. If he had, he could tell me what the metro will cost, which projects will be PPP and when the Luas line to Lucan will start, none of which is in the plan.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: It is a State secret.
Mr. Bruton: Let us be honest. The national development plan was published in 2000. It was to cost €8 billion. Twelve months before the end of that plan, we see that half of the projects will not be completed on time and the cost will be three times what was originally stated. The public is asking how can it have more confidence in this plan than in the previous one, when the Government and the Taoiseach are not willing to give any open evaluation or costing to justify the cost of €25,000 per household and show it will yield value for money.
The truth is that every time a difficult issue arises, the Taoiseach and his Government produces another plan. Deputy Martin produced a health plan to end waiting lists. Where did it get us? Deputy Cullen’s electoral voting plan is rusting in warehouses. A computing plan for the health service is lying abandoned because it cannot compute.
Mr. McGinley: What about decentralisation?
Mr. Bruton: Deputy McGinley mentioned decentralisation. We now find that less than 5% of the jobs to be moved through decentralisation will be moved within the schedule of the three year plan. The Taoiseach described it as an issue of essential political commitment on which Ministers would be judged. On all of these issues the Taoiseach looks for a card to get him out of jail. Like many of the great socialists before him who produced plans such as the great leap forward, spurious five year plans have been produced to get away from the fact the public does not want plans, it wants delivery. That is the acid test on which this Government fails.
Yesterday the Labour Party produced a chronicle of the wasted money that could have had an impact on many critical services. That is where the Taoiseach fails and this programme does not provide the answers to key questions to which the public has a right.
The Taoiseach: I refer the Deputy to the costing criteria set out yesterday by the Minister for Finance. I do not accept any of the points made by the Deputy. The national plan produced 185 km of motorway, 385 km of dual carriageway and bypasses in approximately 20 towns throughout the country. We spent €1,370 million on roads this year alone. I can outline all of the contracts [37]if necessary. It includes work on doubling Exchequer support for CIE, new buses for Dublin Bus, new buses for Iarnród Éireann——
Mr. Hogan: Rail carriages for Iarnród Éireann.
The Taoiseach: ——new rail carriages for Iarnród Éireann and putting the Luas on the streets. When the Opposition had an opportunity, it announced the Luas but did not provide funding for it. To announce the Luas, put no money in the kitty and leave it for us was an intelligent plan. Its entire transport plan was approximately €250 million per year, which would never have got us to where we are.
Mr. Hogan: Mary O’Rourke was the Minister then.
The Taoiseach: We invested greatly across a range of areas through the national development plan, the results of which can be seen throughout the country. It is true that items in the national development plan are not completed. Those items are included in this plan because we want to see the intercity rail routes completed. We put together a coherent plan based on the best professionalism of all the statutory agencies working with the Department of Transport which we never had.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Do not forget about the consultants.
The Taoiseach: Now the agencies are delivering because they have money and the economy is good. As one of my colleagues said yesterday, the Government is not into wasting money by doubling the national debt or spending money——
An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Taoiseach without interruption.
The Taoiseach: The great success of the parties opposite——
The Taoiseach: ——was they spent practically all our resources. About 28% or 29% of the entire resources of the country was used to service the national debt. Deputy Burton knows because she was appalled at that.
An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Taoiseach, please.
[38]The Taoiseach: Now we are able to have plans and put in resources. Those opposite had practically bankrupted the country. This Government is doing constructive things.
Yesterday I saw the senior members of the Labour Party driving a bus around town; it was not much of a bus, being about 20 years old and it would not have carried many of the public.
Mr. Rabbitte: It is the only new bus.
The Taoiseach: They were horrified to see that a plan exists because they used to talk about doing something about Tallaght.
The Taoiseach: There will be proper transport and proper infrastructure and the IMF will not need to come to talk to the Minister for Finance.
An Ceann Comhairle: Allow Deputy Rabbitte without interruption, please.
Mr. Rabbitte: I have two questions for the Taoiseach. Does he recall the speech made by the Minister for Finance on 20 October? This was a 12 point plan the Minister for Finance announced to counteract the litany of waste, misspending and maladministration that had given rise to the controversies in the public domain before that. He announced a major initiative, a 12 point plan, point three of which was that there would be ex ante evaluations including economic cost benefit appraisal for all projects above €30 million.
I presume that as a result there has been that kind of ex ante evaluation and cost benefit analysis of yesterday’s plan. On the assumption the Taoiseach has complied with the Minister’s requirement, when will he put it into the public domain and publish it? For example, I would like to see the costings of the superior plan for a metro system to Dublin Airport, as compared to a spur line to the railway or DART system. I would like to hear the arguments that set out that the metro is the superior system. There are several other things I would like to see supported by the documents. When will the Taoiseach put these into the public domain and lay them before the House?
On the subject of the buses, the Minister announced he had provided for 20 additional buses. I asked for information from CIE because I have been looking for more than 20 new buses for my constituency and I was shocked by that statement which he repeated last night on “Prime Time”. The information provided to me by CIE is as follows, that the national development programme, as referred to by the Taoiseach, between 2000 and 2006, provided for an additional 275 buses but only 93 were provided and none at all [39]since 2001. I further find that CIE made a submission to the Department of Transport for 210 additional buses between 2006 and 2008 and not 20 buses. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, as brazen as you like, said last night in a speech to which the Taoiseach referred, “However I am conscious that Dublin has short term immediate needs for 20 additional buses in the coming weeks and I will immediately sanction these”.
Mr. McCormack: He will drive them too.
Mr. Rabbitte: They were sanctioned last year; they were ordered last year; they are ready; they are 20 buses to replace 20 buses that are being retired by Dublin Bus.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s time is concluded.
Mr. Rabbitte: What credibility can the House give to a plan that on something as particular and specific as this, the Minister could have lied barefacedly through his teeth——
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy must withdraw the words that the Minister lied. I ask him to withdraw them. I do not want confrontation on the floor of the House.
Mr. Rabbitte: How does one describe what I have just described?
An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to withdraw the word “lie”.
Mr. Stagg: It is a blatant untruth.
An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to withdraw the word “lie”.
Mr. Rabbitte: I will say instead they are blatant untruths. How can the Taoiseach justify what the Minister said? How can he justify the fact that——
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy will withdraw the word “lie”.
Mr. Rabbitte: I withdraw the word “lie”.
The Taoiseach said they have provided so many buses for Iarnród Éireann. That must be where they are running — on the railway tracks — because they are not running in Dublin.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s time is long since concluded.
Mr. Rabbitte: Three new QBCs are ready to be rolled out by Dublin Bus, one in the Tallaght [40]orbital route, one in south Clondalkin and one on the Rock Road. Dublin Bus is looking for buses for those three QBCs which cannot be rolled out because it does not have them and meanwhile the Taoiseach’s Minister has the cheek to say that because 20 buses are being retired and 20 were ordered last year, he will immediately sanction 20 buses. This is the only thing he will sanction between now and the general election.
An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to give way to the Taoiseach.
Mr. Rabbitte: This was a media event and a stunt and the Taoiseach is making a very bad job of defending it.
The Taoiseach: I will make three points for the information of the Deputy. He does not wish to listen. Before he saw any of the plan yesterday he decided to go out on a political campaign and a poor one at that.
Mr. S. Ryan: The Taoiseach would never do such a thing.
The Taoiseach: When Luas was launched I remember the Deputy’s party saying we would never see it in the lifetime of the next Dáil and now 20 million people——
Mr. Rabbitte: That never happened.
The Taoiseach: I suggest the Deputy stops telling deliberate untruths.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Chair will not tolerate interruptions when the Taoiseach is speaking on this question.
The Taoiseach: I was merely making what I regard as a fair point that the Labour Party said it would never see Luas in the lifetime of this Dáil but I remind them that this Dáil has a long way to go. Luas has been operating for a year.
Ms Burton: That was said in the last Dáil.
The Taoiseach: I disagree; it was not.
The Taoiseach: No, it was not.
An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Burton will leave the House.
The Taoiseach: Deputy Burton should make up her mind whether she is a heckler or a politician.
[41]The Luas has carried 20 million passengers so I doubt the credibility of the Labour Party to make any comments on this matter.
Deputy Rabbitte asked me three questions. This plan is the result of due diligence and the full costing of the agencies to enable the Department of Finance to properly cost it as a proper national plan. I hope this will be sufficient to deal with it over the years. As the Minister stated yesterday, there may be contingencies needed and other priorities might be decided upon. However, based on what is in this plan and based on the proper costings and on the criteria set down by the Minister for Finance, the first point has been dealt with.
On the subject of buses, Deputy Rabbitte has decided to jump on one issue to which the Minister referred yesterday and that is fair enough. I will list the figures for the House. In recent years, 862 new buses have been provided to Dublin Bus, 624 new buses to Bus Éireann——
Mr. S. Ryan: Are those the fleet numbers?
The Taoiseach: The Minister stated yesterday there was a requirement this year for 20 additional buses; he was referring to the needs of the next few months. He then went on to give full details of the full requirements for buses over the next decade and this is contained in his speech. I am sure there is no need for me to read sections of his speech to the House.
Mr. McCormack: The Taoiseach should give the speech to Deputy Martin because he will read it.
The Taoiseach: I will not read the full list of all the issues but as Deputy Rabbitte is of the view that none of these issues will be of great value to the Dublin area I will refer to the Dublin area. The metro north will go from St. Stephen’s Green to Swords via Dublin Airport and is scheduled for completion in 2012. A new orbital metro west will shadow the M50 to the west and connect the Luas red line at Tallaght with metro north to Ballymun. A new Luas line will operate from Lucan to the city centre and there will be an extension of the Luas green line from Sandyford to Cherrywood. Those are the details of how it will link in. A railway interconnector will also be constructed while the electrification of the Kildare line——
Ms Burton: That will not be complete until 2015.
The Taoiseach: None of the projects is set out in detail now. From an engineering point of view, not to mind a cost point of view, for planning reasons and to try to get co-operation with the agencies, we will not be able to deliver projects [42]like these if we do not work on the basis of a prolonged period. The Government, based on the national development plan, the national spatial strategy and the best advice we have been able to muster, which has included working with people from South Africa, Australia and the United States in the course of the NDP, is trying to move satisfactorily from having very poor infrastructure to having very good infrastructure. We have done an enormous amount of work, which has been far ahead of our commitments.
Deputy Bruton mentioned the costs. We have spent more and delivered much more and have not completed all projects. In some cases we got stuck in planning——
Ms Burton: They have not delivered new buses in Dublin.
The Taoiseach: ——but the fact is we have set out a coherent way forward by working with professionals.
Mr. Hayes: We have a consultant-led Government.
The Taoiseach: The transport plan is not about making a political point. The Government is not saying what we will have done by 2007 or 2012 but trying, over the next decade, to move infrastructure from the very good base to which we have brought it in a manner which is properly planned, costed and designed and to give people adequate time to get this right. If that approach is wrong, it is a sad day for the country. Rather than whinging about some broken bus somewhere, which is a ridiculous attitude, the Opposition should at least acknowledge that the plan involves proper planning and investment.
Mr. S. Ryan: My constituents want to get to work by bus. Delivering a bus service is the simplest element of transport, yet the Government has failed to do so.
An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Ryan is not yet leader of his party. I ask him to resume his seat and show some respect for his leader.
Mr. Rabbitte: I have never seen an elaborate programme announced by Government fall so flat on its face so quickly, and in all the time I have been opposite the Taoiseach in different positions, I have never seen him make such a poor defence of such an elaborate plan. I have a copy of a reply to a parliamentary question tabled by my colleague, Deputy Shortall. Dated 3 February 2005, it details the number of buses operating in Dublin in different years. The figures, which can be checked, show that the [43]number of buses in Dublin in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, respectively, was 1,062. One can gather from this the number of new buses the Government has provided. Given that the Minister for Transport deliberately sought to misrepresent the figures on buses, what confidence can we have in him on any of the other aspects of the transport plan?
The Taoiseach seems to resent Deputies asking him to support the claims he made yesterday, which were purely aspirational and for which no supporting documents were provided. In a speech made on 20 October the Minister for Finance stated:
The speech is only a couple of weeks old.
Mr. McCormack: The panic is on.
Mr. Rabbitte: That was the new initiative and the Government appears to have spurned it already. I simply asked the Taoiseach to lay the results of the evaluation before the House. The reason he did not indicate that he would do so was that no such evaluation has been done.
There is little point in referring to a protest which we — properly — organised when the trams or carriages were delivered during Senator O’Rourke’s time as Minister for Public Enterprise when she was trying to make up her mind on whether to go underground or overground. The issue we were protesting against was the delay and serious cost overrun for the project. Since then, the Government has built five kilometres of tunnel in a project which has overshot by two years and €340 million. The Taoiseach now asks the House to believe the Government will build tunnels from Ballymun to Tallaght and the inner city to the airport. What kind of cloud cuckoo land does he believe the rest of us join him in? This only backs up the campaign we launched yesterday which the Taoiseach so resented.
The Government Front Bench comprises a shower of wasters who will not come in to the House to support the Taoiseach’s grand plan. They misrepresent facts and expect us to buy a pig in a poke. The transport plan is purely a media event to try to get out of the hole in which the Government finds itself and the more it digs, the deeper the hole becomes, although it is not yet big enough to build a metro.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: It is time for the Government to go underground.
[44]Mr. McCormack: The Government is in panic mode.
The Taoiseach: As usual, I will ignore the political points made very poorly by Deputy Rabbitte.
Ms Lynch: In that case, I would not like to see Deputy Rabbitte on form.
The Taoiseach: I have seen him involved in several different parties and activities.
Mr. Rabbitte: The Taoiseach could not answer any of the questions put by any of the parties in question.
The Taoiseach: If Deputy Rabbitte would like me to give all the details of the plan in two or three minutes, he knows I cannot do so. We outlined the details yesterday. I repeat the point that the Department of Transport in the work leading up to the plan with all the relevant agencies looked in detail at the proposals we believed it would be necessary to deal with as a priority. We did this on every single project. As I said, it would be commercial nonsense to indicate the exact figure on costs for every project. However, the Department and the relevant agencies, based on what they have been doing for a number of years, have built up what they require to undertake this plan.
Now that we have clearance on the precise elements of the plan, all the necessary detailed planning and development work as well as the implementation of the constituent programmes will have to move ahead in the timeframes outlined. The Department will establish a monitoring group under its chairmanship for the purpose of overseeing the implementation of what is a very elaborate plan to bring the infrastructure of this country up to scale. It obviously irks people that we have done this.
The work was done not by politicians but by the best engineers available to us who, day in day out, are delivering successfully, whether it is the rail safety plan, the opening of Luas or the construction of the port tunnel, a hugely successful operation and only the second tunnel of its kind in Ireland. I have already given the figures on buses, rail——
Mr. S. Ryan: The figures are wrong.
Mr. McGinley: They do not stand up.
The Taoiseach: I will give the relevant figure again. The official figure on what has been produced in terms of buses in this country is 1,550 between——
Mr. English: We want figures on additional buses, not new ones.
[45]The Taoiseach: This country, which the Opposition is so happy to knock, has one of the most modern fleets of buses in Europe because the Government has replaced them. It is a much more modern fleet of buses.
Ms Burton: When was the Taoiseach last on a bus?
An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
The Taoiseach: As I outlined, we have successfully introduced a very good national development plan. It is not the case, as one Deputy indicated, that we have not completed projects. The opening of 185 km of motorway, including 66 km this year, ranks very highly by international standards. We have built a massive 385 km of new dual carriageway and single carriageway in recent years and have bypasses in many parts of the country. A total of €1.37 billion was spent doing this. Exchequer funding for CIE doubled, 1,550 buses were delivered, as were intercity carriages and new rail cars. In addition, we had the success of Luas.
Unfortunately, all we have seen today is the usual old begrudgery of people who hate to see progress.
Mr. Durkan: We hate to see a con job.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The Government had its chance.
The Taoiseach: I am proud of this land and what we are achieving. It is a pity that so far not one member of the Opposition has been able to accept the benefit of what CIE, the National Roads Authority and all the other transport bodies are successfully doing to improve the transport system. People outside the House want to see this plan realised. The Government is doing this. We will not go back to using our money to pay the national debt accumulated by an irresponsible Government which doubled debt in a four-year period. That is the reason we are not going back.
Mr. McGinley: The Taoiseach is rewriting history.
An Ceann Comhairle: Before Deputy Ó Caoláin commences, perhaps I might point out that seven minutes are allowed for each leader’s question. The last question took 18 and a half minutes, and I ask that Members co-operate.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Does the Taoiseach recognise that the social partnership process is falling asunder? Does he realise there can be no meaning or future for it if the management of Irish Ferries gets away with dumping Irish-based [46]workers and hiring vulnerable people who will be exploited through lower wages and poorer conditions? Is he aware that Irish workers in the public and private sectors are deeply concerned at the development and that they express that concern daily? The Taoiseach has condemned the Irish Ferries management, but what will his Government do about it?
Is he aware that a draft EU directive on ferry services was proposed by the European Commission but withdrawn in August 2004 because agreement could not be reached on the final text at the Council of Ministers? To his credit, a Fianna Fáil MEP, Mr. Liam Aylward, asked the Commission if it intended again to propose a directive on staffing conditions for ferry services operating not only between EU member states but linking such states with other destinations. Does Mr. Aylward’s question reflect Government policy, and will the Government support and lobby for the reintroduction of such a draft directive so that social dumping on ferries and the setting of the lowest labour standards in order to exploit workers further can be combatted and ended?
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s two minutes are concluded.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: On the same theme, this morning I met representatives of the Communication Workers’ Union. Does the Taoiseach not also recognise that, in An Post’s refusal to pay increases due under Sustaining Progress, its management is also contributing to the further erosion of confidence? The future of social partnership has seriously been called into question. What is the Taoiseach’s view of IBEC’s support for An Post management, and what will he do? Will he call on An Post to pay the due increases to its 8,500 workers——
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s time is concluded.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: ——recognising that only by doing that can we reach a situation where we can hang on to the Sustaining Progress agreement? All the issues that An Post wants to bring to the table can then be substantively addressed by the CWU on behalf of its membership.
The Taoiseach: I have answered the Irish Ferries point three weeks in a row, but I will briefly recap by saying that the issue is before the Labour Court. As Deputy Ó Caoláin stated, we have examined our legislation at both European and national level. Last week Deputy Rabbitte also made some proposals in this regard. We must see if there is a way of dealing with ships registered offshore that endeavour to use this country but keep their staff totally outside its jurisdiction. [47]I have been advised to date that no law can do that. There is no relevant European law, and even if there were one, many of the flags of convenience linked to other places would remain outside of European Union law and the legal difficulties in trying to implement this would create substantial difficulties.
I met Irish Ferries management at the beginning of last week. I outlined the difficulty that its actions have caused. It made all its arguments to me, but I do not accept that the procedures it used are valid. I know it argues that nearly all its workers have applied for redundancy. It wishes to deal with that, but it has created difficulties in the wider trade union movement. It is a bad practice to remove Irish jobs in order for others to come in on lower rates. I have heard arguments in that regard outside the House, but I still do not agree with it and I have made my position very clear. I have agreed to work with the unions to examine its legality. The Minister has already done so and set out a detailed case to the unions. Regarding IBEC agreeing with the employers, it is the employers’ organisation. Since it tends to agree with employers, that does not surprise me.
On the issue of An Post, the membership of the CWU has voted for strike action on the basis of the non-payment of Sustaining Progress increases. The union has granted the company 14 days before industrial action. That will expire on Friday. Talks are ongoing today to see what, if anything, might be done to deal with that. I do not want to say anything about them, other than to say that I naturally hope that they facilitate an acceptable agreement.
On the pay issue the Deputy raised, the membership of the CWU voted for action, but it is not clear what form that action might take. At the request of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, the implementation body will facilitate today’s talks between the two sides to find a resolution in the context of the Labour Court recommendation to which I referred last week. The AHCPS, the PSEU and the CPSU have referred the non-union payment of Sustaining Progress to the Labour Court for determination. The Labour Court decided that members of the AHCPS and CPSU have agreed and implemented change agreements and on that basis are entitled to Sustaining Progress increases as set out in the Labour Court recommendations issued last summer.
That means that Sustaining Progress payments due this year and next will be paid from the due dates. That due in 2003 and 2004, which amounts to 5%, was paid to An Post employees and pensioners from 1 January 2005 on foot of the assessor’s report, and retrospective payments due will be considered in the context of the company’s financial situation. The recommendation made regarding the PSEU is that, where it agrees and [48]implements changes to work practices, Sustaining Progress will be paid on the same basis as to members of other unions.
An Post has accepted the Labour Court recommendation and stated that pensioner members of the AHCPS, CPSU and PSEU will also receive payments under Sustaining Progress. As I understand it, An Post is prepared to continue negotiations on that basis.
I have outlined the position in full regarding all the unions involved. Needless to say, I hope the discussions on the remaining parts will be successful.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Does the Taoiseach not recognise that his response to IBEC’s backing for the actions of Irish Ferries management will only create greater concern among workers in the public and private sectors? The notion is implied in his response that it is normal and acceptable from an employer’s perspective, but it is no such thing; it is abnormal and must be addressed. If the Taoiseach is not prepared to grapple with IBEC, recognising his special responsibility for the partnership process, will he not now intervene with An Post to modify its intransigent position and allow for payment to workers to proceed under the Sustaining Progress agreement? Will he help avoid——
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s time is concluded.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: ——a postal strike, with all its serious consequences for the economy? Does the Taoiseach know that tomorrow thousands of Irish workers will march on this House in a further cry regarding their concerns about the future of partnership and the serious consequences of the actions of Irish Ferries management of which I have given account? In conclusion——
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s time is concluded.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: ——will the Taoiseach take this matter further? Will it be raised at EU level and beyond so that the abuses by Irish Ferries management can be stamped out and no other employer, Irish or otherwise, seeks to adopt such a threatening and serious approach, which can only damage the Irish economy?
The Taoiseach: I do not believe I misheard Deputy Ó Caoláin, but if I did, I apologise. The question he asked was about IBEC in the context of An Post and I said that was normal practice.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: No, it was in the context of Irish Ferries, and I put it clearly.
[49]An Taoiseach: I will not argue, but I thought the Deputy said the opposite. As regards Irish Ferries, I am on record to the effect that I thought that was an ill-advised position for IBEC to take. In fairness to the director general of IBEC, he changed the confederation’s position on that about three or four weeks ago, which I certainly appreciated. I believe IBEC should not have taken the line it did. I answered as regards what it said about An Post, because it is the employers’ organisation, rather than about Irish Ferries.
I have outlined the situation. It is not for me to be directly involved in any of these disputes. That is not the practice and it is not the correct or appropriate procedure. I have just outlined the factual position. The industrial relations machinery, including the Labour Court, the Labour Relations Commission, the conciliation councils and the registered trade agreements as well as the National Implementation Body, NIB, should be used to resolve such matters. I have indicated strongly that these are issues I should like to see resolved and will not change. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dempsey, has been enormously helpful in trying to resolve these issues and in trying to be fair.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: He has backed An Post——
The Taoiseach: Every Minister involved in such disputes is attacked by both sides, and the Minister, Deputy Dempsey’s position is the same. He has been working hard to try to find resolutions for the issues involved and will continue to do so.
1. Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to date to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24244/05]
2. Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the entire cost to the State to date of the Moriarty tribunal; the estimate of future costs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25209/05]
3. Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the costs to his Department during 2005 in relation to the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25358/05]
4. Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the costs accruing to his Department in respect of each year since the Moriarty tribunal was established; [50]and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26560/05]
5. Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the costs to his Department of the Moriarty tribunal since its establishment; the projected costs for the completion of the tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27687/05]
The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
The total costs incurred by my Department in respect of this tribunal from 1997 to 30 September 2005 is €21,364,879. This includes fees paid to counsel for the tribunal and administration costs incurred to date since its establishment. Total payments made to the legal team were €16,052,473 up to 30 September, 2005.
As regards the projected costs for the completion of the tribunal, it is impossible to predict what costs may be awarded, and to whom, by its sole member. The overall estimate for 2005 is €10.552 million. The day to day costs for the tribunal provided for in the Estimate for 2005 amounts to €4 million. However, provision of an additional €6.5 million was made to cover costs such as report publication and some element of award of legal costs in the event that the tribunal completed its work in 2005. I propose to circulate in the Official Report the costs accruing for the tribunal in respect of each year.
Given the subject matter of this reply, I think it opportune to inform the House that this morning the Government agreed to a request to extend the deadline for completion of the tribunal. The date originally envisaged for the application of the new fees to the Moriarty tribunal was 11 January 2006. This was calculated on the basis that the tribunal’s programme of work, as it stood in mid-2004, would be concluded on or about that date. Due to unforeseen circumstances that have since arisen, the extensive nature of its terms of reference and ongoing inquiries, and litigation by the parties involved, the tribunal has requested that it be given an additional amount of time to complete its work.
The matter has been discussed with the tribunal. Given the relative imminence of the conclusion of its work, it is believed that it is reasonable to facilitate its continuance until 30 June 2006. This represents an extension of five and a half months on the previously expected completion date. It is to be borne in mind that the tribunal has been in operation for eight years and is now nearing its completion.
It is expected that the new tribunals legislation will be enacted prior to 30 June 2006. Therefore, there should be no obstacle to reducing fees payable to lawyers appearing before the Moriarty tribunal after that date, in the event that it has not completed its work by then.
[51]Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Mr. Sargent: The Taoiseach has indicated that the goalposts have been moved again. The conclusion date of 11 January has been put back. Can he estimate how long the Moriarty tribunal will continue, based on current information? Will he clarify the situation as regards the unforeseen circumstances, given the unacceptable cost that is involved, since the inquiry is about corruption within the political process? What unforeseen circumstances make it impossible to predict when the tribunal will finish? Given the proposed scaling down of the fees, will he indicate what has been the response to date on that from the tribunal? Is it a matter of course that this will take place or are there unforeseen difficulties in that regard too, given that the House would like to minimise the cost of the tribunal?
The Taoiseach: The Deputy has asked a number of questions. The tribunal states it will finish its work by the end of June next year. Given the unforeseen circumstances as regards the litigation of parties involved and other matters, it remains confident that it will finish by next June. The new legislation will be in place by then. That means we will automatically move to the new fees arrangements. We have agreed those dates. Were it not for genuine delays and additional work, the new fees regime would be in place anyway. The Attorney General and Government agree that it is reasonable in these circumstances to allow the tribunal the time it needs to finish. I am advised, however, that the tribunal is confident it will finish by the end of June next year.
Mr. Rabbitte: Does the Taoiseach agree that this tribunal has continued for much longer than anyone could have anticipated? Is it not fair that we factor in the number of times its work has been obstructed? That is not a value judgment on my part as to whether it ought to continue, but merely to note that it has been obstructed many [52]times as various parties have had resort to the courts. In assessing the balance sheet, it is fair to say that?
In his reply to Deputy Sargent, did the Taoiseach say that there is informal contact between the tribunal and the Office of the Attorney General and that there is an end in sight? Has the Taoiseach further information on a question which I put to him before about this, whether the figures he has given in the House include the cost of litigation engaged in to date and whether the State is picking up the bill for that? Is that included in the figures he has given the House?
The Taoiseach: On the first point, it is true that there have been a number of unforeseen circumstances. The extensive nature of the terms of reference, ongoing inquiries and litigation by parties have contributed to this. Nonetheless, the tribunal believes that its work can be finished entirely by 30 June 2006. The Attorney General, who has been notified of the reasons for the extension, has told the Government that he believes this is the last one and that the tribunal will finish on 30 June. It remains to be seen whether that is the case, but I understand that it is, so long as no further difficulties arise.
The position is not so clear as regards Deputy Rabbitte’s second question. The total cost which I have given is €21,364,879. This figure includes fees paid to counsel for the tribunal, administration costs incurred to date and the cost of the legal team. It is impossible, however, to predict the projected cost upon completion, including what costs may be awarded and to whom by the sole member of the tribunal. That is not in our estimation. Such decisions must be made by the chairman and will depend on those who try, in whatever form, to recover their costs. The precedent set by other tribunals suggests that some but not all third-party costs will be allowed.
I included some €10 million for this purpose in this year’s Estimates. I have already released a major part of this into the Exchequer because it is clear the tribunal will not end this year. We must decide what figure to factor in for next year. The Government has no clear idea in this regard and this year’s figure was indicative. We do not know whether it is too much or too little.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: What is the Taoiseach’s reaction to Mr. Justice Moriarty’s ruling on 29 September, rejecting submissions from Mr. Denis O’Brien that——
An Ceann Comhairle: The business of a tribunal should not be discussed in the House. There are many rulings from the Chair that such issues are not a matter for the Dáil.
[53]Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: It was extremely difficult to follow what the Taoiseach said in response to Deputy Sargent. In the context of the ruling to which I referred, does the Taoiseach not anticipate any extensive roll-on in time in regard to the Moriarty tribunal’s sittings? Are there cost implications from this ruling for his Department? It is unclear whether the new fee to apply from 11 January 2006 will kick in as of that date, irrespective of what progress has been made by the tribunal at that time.
The Taoiseach: I will try to be clear. An extension was sought for the reasons outlined in my reply and reiterated to Deputies Sargent and Rabbitte. It is hoped the tribunal will complete its work by the end of June. The new fee rate will come in after that.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The specified time was 11 January.
The Taoiseach: Yes. However, I have given the reasons for the change in this regard. Due to the extensive nature of its terms of reference, its ongoing inquiries and the litigation of parties involved, the tribunal has asked for additional time to complete its work.
I can make no comment or judgment in regard to any of the tribunal’s decisions. Neither do I know what costs will be given by the sole member. These are matters he must adjudge at the completion of his work.
Mr. Bruton: The terms of reference made provision for the publication of an interim report not later than three months from the date of establishment of the tribunal. Was such a report presented to the House? Has the Taoiseach asked for any subsequent reports that would give some indication of the tribunal’s thinking, bearing in mind that some of the issues, apart from the investigative side, concern recommendations in regard to public policy, including those relating to the Revenue Commissioners, Central Bank, accountancy law and procedure, company law and public administration? Has the Taoiseach, over the years, sought interim reports that could shed light on how we can prevent any corrosion of the nature in which we do business across all these spectrums?
The terms of reference also specify that the inquiry should be completed in as economical a manner as possible and at the earliest stage consistent with the fair examination of the relevant matters. The Taoiseach has stated that provision of €4 million has been made for the 12 sitting days that remain this year. Is he satisfied these are soundly based costings? Rather than deferring the date when lower costings will come into place, should we not bring forward that date? The Taoiseach suggests 30 June is a definite end date [54]as opposed to one that may again be extended due to litigation or some other of the factors listed in his reply. Has he reason to believe this is a more definitive date than the other dates that were extended?
The Taoiseach: This extension was requested by the sole member and it his belief that the tribunal will end on that date. As the end approaches, he has a clearer picture of the work remaining to be done.
I have never asked the tribunal for interim reports because its terms of reference were devised by the Oireachtas and it would be inappropriate for me to do so.
Mr. Bruton: Was a first interim report presented?
The Taoiseach: Subject to correction, I understand no interim report was provided by the Moriarty tribunal.
In regard to fees, the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, believed the proposed system was fair, based on the workload and commitment of those working at the various tribunals. The Attorney General, on behalf of the Government, consulted them in agreeing a date on which the new fee structure would come into operation, provided there was not some extension of the terms of reference or some additional work to be undertaken. Such dates were agreed with all the tribunals, some now in the past and others still to come, with a view to ending the current fee system.
The instigation of a new system of committees of investigation will be the new way of dealing with what has been dealt with by tribunals. The new tribunals of inquiry legislation, which will come before the House shortly, will provide a new framework for tribunals of inquiry and require the chairperson to conduct an inquiry in a cost effective and efficient manner. It will also provide the Oireachtas with a more flexible mechanism for such inquiries, one that will focus on taking evidence in public. Some elements of the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 relating to the efficient management of investigations, provision of interim reports and requirements to prepare an estimate of the timeframe and cost of an investigation will be incorporated into the forthcoming tribunals of inquiry Bill. These two items of legislation reflect our experience of these issues over the last eight years or more. There will be a new process in the future.
Mr. Sargent: It is becoming increasingly clear that the Taoiseach must not simply come into the House and say he is pushing back the date on which the new rates kick in. On 22 June, he said that if there was to be any change in the coming into force of the new fees by 11 January 2006, he [55]would bring the matter back before the House. This is something that cannot be passed off with the reply that the date has been shifted. This House must consider whether it is right to put back the date of the new rates. Will the Taoiseach bring a more substantial motion before the House so Members can decide whether the new date is to be applied or whether the new rates are to become effective later than was arranged? Where is the legislation that was promised? The tribunals of inquiry Bill has been promised in the last two sessions. Is it not the case that the Taoiseach finds himself on the back foot due to the delay in introducing this legislation and that the solicitors are, essentially, calling the shots——
An Ceann Comhairle: That question does not arise under these questions.
Mr. Sargent: ——at an expensive rate? A sum of €213,000 is the new rate and that is a reduced, bargain rate given the new rates being proposed for a senior counsel. Much money has still to be paid out.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: What lobby was employed to get the Taoiseach and his colleagues to concede the extension of the old rates from 12 January to the suggested date of the end of June? Who ultimately took the decision to concede? Was any consideration given to, and what is the Taoiseach’s view of, the consequences of this decision on the Moriarty tribunal applying to the other tribunals that have set dates for the new fees to become effective? There are many questions about this and I urge the Taoiseach to be as open as possible in the House.
The Taoiseach: This issue does not arise directly from the question. I raised it in the reply because it was appropriate to do so. The Government only made the decision on this today. There was no lobbying on this issue. The original dates were fixed by conversation between the Attorney General and the ten chairmen of the tribunals on dates of completion. If there is some new work under the terms of reference, something comes to light, there are delays because of litigation or some other difficulty arises, the work cannot be completed. All these matters arose in this case and the chairman stated that to complete the work efficiently and to retain the team, that time was required.
Mr. Sargent: Blackmail, in other words.
The Taoiseach: That would be entirely unfair both to the legal team and to Mr. Justice Moriarty. I have my own views about the tribunals and trying to get them all to the date but where there is additional work, litigation or other [56]issues to hold up a tribunal, particularly if this tribunal is to be finished next summer, that would be an unfair interpretation to put on it.
Mr. Sargent: The Taoiseach has given in to it.
The Taoiseach: With regard to the legislation, the new tribunals of inquiry Bill will be passed, which will mean that when work comes to an end they should be able to move on this. All the other tribunals are still working to that deadline. It is not a question that this is just being rolled over but the chairman has given a fixed date to end the tribunal and to deal with all aspects. If that does not happen, it is a problem but at least the plan to complete it has been outlined. Based on that, the Attorney General brought the matter to the Cabinet and the Cabinet approved it. Obviously, the Minister for Finance——
Mr. Sargent: The House has not approved it. The Taoiseach said he would bring the decision to the House.
An Ceann Comhairle: I call Question No. 6.
Mr. Sargent: The Taoiseach said it would come before the House. The House has not approved——
An Ceann Comhairle: I ask Deputy Sargent to resume his seat. I have called Question No. 6.
Mr. Sargent: I am simply calling for order in the House.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has been given much latitude on this question today.
Mr. Sargent: The Taoiseach said he would bring that decision before the House. The House has not approved moving that date back.
An Ceann Comhairle: I call the Taoiseach on Question No. 6.
Mr. Sargent: It is taxpayers’ money.
Mr. Rabbitte: Representations from the Law Library could not be described as lobbying.
The Taoiseach: Definitely not.
Mr. Sargent: They have something on him.
6. Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department since January 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24247/05]
7. Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the total amount in fees relating to freedom of information requests received by his Department since January 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24522/05]
8. Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests made to his Department to date in 2005; the number acceded to; the way in which this compares to a comparable period in 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25211/05]
9. Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of applications received under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 in the first nine months of 2005; the way in which this compares with the figures for the same period in 2002, 2003 and 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26562/05]
10. Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests acceded to by his Department since January 2005; the number for the period January to end of September 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27688/05]
The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive, together.
I propose to circulate in the Official Report the information requested by the Deputies on the figures regarding freedom of information applications received in my Department. From 1 January 2005, €825 was received in respect of application fees and €35 was received in respect of search and retrieval fees. All freedom of information applications to my Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the 1997 and 2003 Acts and, in accordance with those statutes, I have no role in the processing of individual applications.
[58]Mr. Sargent: Will the Taoiseach consider renaming the freedom of information legislation the tax on information legislation?
An Ceann Comhairle: That is a matter for the Minister for Finance.
Mr. Sargent: The Taoiseach can convey the sentiment. Is the Taoiseach aware of the response to the downgrading of the freedom of information legislation as is seen in fewer requests? This was expressed by the Democracy Commission which recently published its report.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s question refers specifically to freedom of information requests made to the Taoiseach’s Department in 2005. General questions on the Freedom of Information Act, as the Deputy knows, are a matter for the Minister for Finance, and the Deputy should submit questions to that Minister.
Mr. Sargent: I will comply rigorously with the Ceann Comhairle’s guidance. Does the Taoiseach accept that the information being sought, perhaps by a journalist, at a cost of €150 per request could well cost a great deal if a number of requests must be made to pursue a line of inquiry? Does he accept that if it costs €450 for three requests or, perhaps, €600 for a further request, that is excessive?
An Ceann Comhairle: That is a matter for the Minister for Finance.
Mr. Sargent: The Taoiseach has to deal with this given that requests are made to his Department.
An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to obey the Chair’s ruling on the matter.
Mr. Sargent: I am endeavouring to, a Cheann Comhairle.
An Ceann Comhairle: You are not, Deputy. You are going well outside the question. This question refers specifically to requests to the Taoiseach’s Department.
Mr. Sargent: That is exactly what I am discussing, a Cheann Comhairle.
An Ceann Comhairle: It has nothing to do with the general rules governing freedom of information requests.
Mr. Sargent: I am talking about requests to the Taoiseach’s Department and it may well cost €600 to secure the information.
[59]An Ceann Comhairle: That is a matter for the Minister for Finance.
Mr. Sargent: I ask that question in the public interest. It applies to the Taoiseach’s Department.
The Taoiseach: With regard to my Department, the fees for the year to date are €825 and €35 in respect of search and retrieval fees. I cannot answer for other Departments, although I do not believe they are different from mine, but in my Department there is no cost for personal information, follow up on personal information or appeal on personal information. The cost is €15 with regard to anybody else. I do not know what line of questioning the Deputy is following because that is not the cost of a freedom of information request.
Mr. Rabbitte: Are there any bodies under the aegis of the Taoiseach’s Department to which the Act has not yet been extended? Does the Government plan to extend it to the Garda Síochána?
The Taoiseach: It has been extended to a number of organisations but I cannot recall them now. It is a long list. With regard to my Department, to the best of my knowledge all the agencies are covered. If not, I will let the Deputy know which ones are not.
Mr. Rabbitte: What about the Garda Síochána?
An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise under the Taoiseach’s Department. There are other ways of raising that.
Mr. Rabbitte: You have almost made the Taoiseach redundant in this House, a Cheann Comhairle.
An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Mr. Rabbitte: And me along with him.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I wonder how far I will get. Is the National Treatment Purchase Fund to be included, before the Ceann Comhairle rules me out of order?
An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I know. I saved you saying it, a Cheann Comhairle.
An Ceann Comhairle: If the Deputies are not happy with the Standing Orders as they apply, they know how to change them.
[60]Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: With regard to the statistics, what is the Taoiseach’s response to the Information Commissioner, who has stated that the decline in usage of the Act has gone far beyond what the Government envisaged when it decided to introduce fees? These are statistical questions. Does the Taoiseach agree with the Information Commissioner? Will he, therefore, strengthen the Act——
An Ceann Comhairle: That is a matter for the Minister for Finance. The Deputy is well aware of the fact that this issue refers specifically to the Taoiseach’s Department.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I am trying to work within the restrictions.
An Ceann Comhairle: I suggest that the Deputy submit a question to the Minister for Finance and then there would be ample opportunity to raise these questions.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: On the Taoiseach’s position and that of his Department, does he hold with the Information Commissioner’s view as to why there has been a steady decline in the use of the Freedom of Information Act to access information from his Department? Surely that applies.
The Taoiseach: I noted the points which the Information Commissioner highlighted in her report of last year on the operation of the Act. My understanding was that she was more concerned about the costs of appeal to her office than about the €15 application fee, which is generally not seen as a large amount. It is important to point out there is no charge for the time undertaken in making a decision on a freedom of information request and most other jurisdictions impose such a charge in addition to the application fee.
It is important to note that a person who appeals to the commissioner receives a preliminary decision, which is a good indication of the likely final decision. Even at that stage of the process, the requester can withdraw the appeal and obtain a full refund of the fees.
With regard to the cost of appeal to the Information Commissioner, practice differs internationally. For example, while a fee of approximately €360 is charged by the Australian Government, regional states in Australia do not charge for an appeal to the commissioner.
In the case of my Department, the reality is that the main change has occurred at the application stage. It is unclear whether that is due to the introduction of an application fee or a working through of pent-up demand in the early years, which I believe is the reason. No doubt fees have had an impact but I do not believe that in the [61]case of my Department the size of an application fee of €15 is the reason for that. As I have outlined, not many of these from my Department go to appeal. A small number of applications go to appeal. I do not believe the fee is the difficulty. No doubt the Minister for Finance will look carefully at any points that the commissioner makes.
Mr. Bruton: I note that prior to the date when the fees were introduced, the rate of requests to the Taoiseach’s Department was running at 17 per month and, since that date, the rate has dropped to four per month. Less than a quarter of the earlier number of requests is being made. Were those other 13 requests per month frivolous? Did the Taoiseach’s Secretary General advise that there were many frivolous requests for information that were extremely costly? When the Taoiseach went to consider this issue at Cabinet, as he undoubtedly did, was he armed with a great deal of information about the frivolity with which people were treating this in his Department? I note he stated in his reply that his Department does not charge the €75 internal review fee.
The Taoiseach: No, we do if there is an internal review. The upfront fee is €15. Not many requests go to appeal. There are not many requests for an internal review. We give the information and then one does not get into that process.
Mr. Bruton: What is the Taoiseach’s policy on the €75 review fee? In how many instances has the decision gone the whole way, where the person has had to go to the Information Commissioner to appeal his Department’s decisions? In such cases, €230, which is non-refundable, becomes the total cost of the request. Is that a frequent occurrence in the Taoiseach’s Department?
The Taoiseach: In my Department, out of a total of 1,143 freedom of information requests received to date, 94 were received for internal review. As I stated earlier, the personal cases, which many of these would be, would not be covered. In my Department, since the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act seven and a half years ago, a total of 13 requests have been investigated by the Information Commissioner. We are talking about 1% or thereabouts.
In case I confused the Deputy, we charge for the internal review of non-personal cases. There is not a high number of such cases. We try to satisfy the respondents in the first case to avoid that decision.
On the Deputy’s first question, there were definitely a small number of individuals, either acting for themselves or acting as agents and trying to make a business out of this, who were submitting a significant number of freedom of information requests in the early years. Many requests [62]arose because this was the first time freedom of information was available and people wanted to know details about the past, about process and about systems. There are only so many such questions. People wanted to find out about internal reviews for promotion and what happened in various internal circumstances relating to human resource issues. Once answered, such requests are answered. There is no great change or difference about those. People wanted information on circulars and what circulars governed procurement issues, contract issues and so on. Requests for such information are not repeated once the requests are fulfilled.
On the changes made to the Act in 2003, the status quo was maintained on the ten-year rule for release of Cabinet records. No Secretary General certificates have been issued and no designated Cabinet working papers have been certified. In the case of protection for inter-ministerial communications relating to Cabinet discussions, it can reasonably be said to have had a significant impact on the volume of freedom of information requests. None of the other areas saw changes. Therefore, it cannot be any of these areas. It is hardly due to the initial cost. That is my view of it.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
Mr. P. Breen: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to debate the following urgent matter: that the Minister for Health and Children meet a deputation to discuss the absence of a 24-hour ambulance service in the Scarriff-east Clare area and that the Department and the Health Service Executive provide the necessary funding for 24-hour cover in the area.
Mr. Durkan: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to debate the following urgent matter: the imminent danger of industrial action in An Post arising from unresolved difficulties with the distinct possibility of the termination of services with obvious negative consequences for consumers, the economy and postal workers, and the urgent need for the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to report to the House on his discussions to date with either or both parties with a view to ensuring the continuity of services and lasting resolution to the underlying issues.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to debate the following urgent matter: the report of the Police Ombudsman in the Six Counties which implicates six members of the RUC special branch in six sectarian murders between 1993 and [63]2000 and in the attempted bombing of the Sinn Féin office in Monaghan town in 1997.
Mr. Broughan: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to debate the following urgent matter: the grave importance for the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to address the serious difficulties at An Post in the light of imminent strike action arising from the failure of An Post management to pay Sustaining Progress arrears to An Post workers and pensioners and other outstanding industrial relations matters at the company, and to discuss what action the Minister is undertaking to resolve this dispute in the run-up to the busy Christmas period.
Mr. Crowe: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to debate the following urgent matter: the need to allow the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, to address the Dáil concerning her failure to include The Morning Star mother and baby unit as an institution for consideration by the Residential Institutions Redress Board which has lead to a woman feeling she has no other option but to go on hunger strike outside the Dáil to have her suffering recognised. This is a matter of some urgency as the woman is approaching two weeks of protest in all weathers.
Mr. Healy: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to debate the following urgent matter: the need for the Government to designate south Tipperary and the south-east region for category one status under European Union regional aid for the period 2007 to 2013 given that south Tipperary and the south east have lost out economically and socially over the last period.
Dr. Cowley: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, the failure to develop the Mayo-Sligo end of the western rail corridor which is essential for balanced regional development and which could be done very easily by incorporating the existing Mayo-Dublin mainline rail service into an inter-town local train commuter service. It could be opened almost immediately, like the western rail corridor, and not in nine and a half years, considering that the rail and trains are already in existence and all that is lacking is a will to proceed to develop Mayo services and to address regional development.
An Ceann Comhairle: Having consider the matters raised, they are not in order under Standing Order 31.
The Taoiseach: It is proposed to take No. 9, motion re Social Welfare Consolidation Bill 2005; and No. 13, Health and Social Care Professionals Bill 2004 [Seanad] — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 9 shall be decided without debate; and Private Members’ Business, which shall be No. 40, motion re Irish unity, shall also take place tomorrow immediately after the Order of Business and shall be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes on that day.
An Ceann Comhairle: There are two proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 9, motion re Social Welfare Consolidation Bill 2005, agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for the taking of Private Members’ Business tomorrow agreed?
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: In the event that the Health and Social Care Professionals Bill would impact on Private Members’ time, I propose that we would allow for the full 90 minutes this evening, following on the conclusion of——
An Ceann Comhairle: There is no proposal before the House so the debate will commence at 7 p.m.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: If a vote is called, that will impact on the time. I ask for agreement that in the event that a vote is called, we would allow the full time. This has been accommodated in such a manner in the past.
Mr. Stagg: I propose that the House agrees to this.
An Ceann Comhairle: The House can agree to it or time can be added on tomorrow, whichever——
Mr. Boyle: This refers to tonight’s business.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: My suggestion is only in anticipation. The problem might not present itself.
An Ceann Comhairle: Have we a proposal?
The Taoiseach: The proposal is that we would not lose time if there is a vote at 7 p.m.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We would continue on.
An Ceann Comhairle: Go raibh maith agat.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Thank you.
An Ceann Comhairle: On the Order of Business, I call Deputy Bruton.
[65]Mr. Bruton: I am not sure whether it is three, four or five years since the Planning and Development (Strategic National Infrastructure) Bill was initiated as a high priority Bill. As we come to the end of the national development plan, we have not seen the Bill and most likely will not see it before the national development plan expires. In the context of the new transport plan, is this Bill regarded as a high priority or is it taking a back seat?
The greater Dublin area land use and transport authority Bill, a Bill that was close to the heart of a former Minister, Senator O’Rourke, was on the list of proposed legislation for a long period but was then dropped. Was I correct in hearing the Minister state yesterday that it was back on again? It must be five years since the former Minister, Senator O’Rourke, presented the proposal as a red paper and a blue paper but it then fell by the wayside. Is it now finding its way back?
Perhaps I am mistaken but I understand a proposal was made that responsibility for ports might move to the Department of Transport. Perhaps this comes under the slogan “Dempsey delivers”— he delivers things out of his Department to other Departments. Will we have legislation or an order rearranging ministerial responsibilities in that context?
Mr. Rabbitte: To be fair, he delivered the e-voting machines to the Minister, Deputy Cullen.
The Taoiseach: The heads of the Planning and Development (Strategic National Infrastructure) Bill were approved in the early part of the summer. The Bill is due in the spring session. The greater Dublin area land use and transport authority Bill, which was only for the Dublin area, was dropped some time ago. The Minister announced yesterday that his Department and the relevant agencies are considering the issue of better co-ordination. Whether that means legislation or some other way——
Mr. Bruton: The Bill is half way back.
The Taoiseach: The Bill is to bring coherence to half a dozen organisations, working together.
Mr. Bruton: Bring back Senator O’Rourke. She did the work on this ages ago.
The Taoiseach: It is needed not for the Dublin area but nationally.
An examination is under way with regard to having the ports under the Department of Transport. The two relevant Ministers are to bring forward proposals on this issue.
Mr. Rabbitte: I was about to say that Deputy Bruton had left me deprived of any questions to ask. However, on hearing the Taoiseach’s answer, [66]he clearly has not. Will the Dublin transport authority be on a statutory basis? If so, when will the proposals be introduced? What does the Taoiseach mean when he says it will be a national authority for Dublin? We had enough problems when it was confined to Dublin.
Mr. Boyle: Dublin is the nation.
Mr. Rabbitte: I thought the Minister made a definite commitment on this matter yesterday.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: It sounds like Dublin will make a UDI.
Mr. Stagg: It is a rural solution to a Dublin problem.
Mary Coughlan: That is what we need.
The Taoiseach: The Bill that was listed for some years will not go ahead. The proposals in the Bill are not sufficient, and it is not considered to be useful or workable. The Minister stated yesterday that changes will be required to get all of the transport organisations working together to implement a plan of the scale proposed based on what has been happening for the past five or six years. Whether these changes are administrative, legal or otherwise, the Minister will bring them forward with the intention of getting the transport organisations to work more effectively together.
Mr. Rabbitte: Not even the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, would be able to explain that on television.
Mr. Sargent: I am not sure whether the Taoiseach is talking about a can of oil or legislation to get all the agencies to work together. Can we have clarity with regard to the promised legislation required for the implementation of the Transport 21 plan announced yesterday? Is a new Bill planned that will not be called the greater Dublin area land use and transport authority Bill? The Minister referred to a high powered organisation required to co-ordinate 17 public bodies dealing with Dublin alone, never mind the rest of the country. When will the relevant legislation be published?
I have tried previously to get an answer on a fundamental question for the House. The tribunal of inquiries Bill has been promised “this session” for some years. If it is not published soon, the House must have a motion to agree, or otherwise, the rowing back of the date for fees——
An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise. I call the Taoiseach to respond on the legislation.
[67]Mr. Sargent: The matter of fees for solicitors and senior counsel does arise in the House. The Taoiseach stated the matter will have to be brought to the House.
An Ceann Comhairle: Only promised legislation arises.
Mr. Sargent: The spending of public money and a promise by the Taoiseach to bring a matter to the House is a matter for the Order of Business. He promised to bring it to the House.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Chair has ruled on the matter.
Mr. Sargent: I ask the Taoiseach to comply with his promise.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to answer his legitimate question.
The Taoiseach: The legislation is due this session.
Mr. Sargent: Which legislation?
The Taoiseach: The tribunal of inquiries Bill is due this session. To respond to the Deputy’s other point, if I state that a matter will be brought to the House and then, in a parliamentary question unrelated to what I was asked, I actually bring the information to the House——
Mr. Sargent: It was the Taoiseach’s decision.
The Taoiseach: The House agreed motions and the terms of reference. We are not talking about changing those terms of reference; that is where the House would be consulted. However, I brought the information to the House, which was the proper way to proceed.
Mr. O’Dowd: Given that the heads of the Planning and Development (Strategic National Infrastructure) Bill passed before Government in June last, what is the reason for its delay?
An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Bruton received an answer to that question.
Mr. O’Dowd: My question is whether the Taoiseach is satisfied that adequate and full parliamentary resources are available in terms of parliamentary draftsmen.
An Ceann Comhairle: This does not arise. I call Deputy McManus.
[68]An Ceann Comhairle: It does not arise on the Order of Business. I suggest the Deputy submits a question to the appropriate Minister.
Mr. O’Dowd: The question is if there is no one to deal with the legislation——
An Ceann Comhairle: The question has already been dealt with by Deputy Bruton. It is now 5.20 p.m. and we still have not finished the Order of Business.
Mr. Kitt: It will be dealt with early next year.
Ms McManus: Now that Hallowe’en is out of the way, people are looking forward to Christmas. However, many of our elderly are still owed much money by the Government. Will the Taoiseach inform the House as to when precisely legislation will be introduced to ensure they get their money back? Will there be a Supplementary Estimate, as promised by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, to provide those moneys?
The Taoiseach: The repayment scheme for charges for publicly funded residential long stay care Bill is due at the end of this year.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: On a recent Order of Business, I objected to a motion being taken without debate regarding the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. The Taoiseach responded that I would have the opportunity to address this matter in the debate on the Estimates. Today, I was advised by the Taoiseach’s Department that it transpires that is not the case. Given the serious concerns I expressed, including that there is no direct representation from the Technical Group on the commission, will he now afford a special opportunity to debate both the moneys for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission and other salient points?
The Taoiseach: I have clarified for the Deputy the procedures involved. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission is not provided for in the Book of Estimates. When the debate takes place on the Estimates, it will be excluded from it. If the House wishes to find a way to have a debate on that matter, it will have to be through some separate process. It could occur if the Whips examined it.
Mr. Durkan: All Members will be grateful for the intervention of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in the dispute at An Post. Hopefully, everything will proceed according to plan. Given the last ditch fire brigade nature of the action, is it not advisable to restore the postal miscellaneous services Bill to [69]the Order Paper, with a view to encouraging the broadest possible debate on the issues involved?
The Taoiseach: The legislation was removed from the Order Paper.
Mr. Durkan: Will the Taoiseach return it to the Order Paper?
An Ceann Comhairle: Only promised legislation can be raised on the Order of Business. I suggest the Deputy submit a question to the relevant Minister.
Ms O’Sullivan: Has the Taoiseach had an opportunity to re-examine the Bill relating to the register of persons who are considered unsafe to work with children? I have raised this matter many times. However, each time the same answer is given, that it is not possible to indicate when it will be published. In light of the Ferns report, has the Government been able to move the legislation forward?
The Taoiseach: I have requested that it be examined. The reason it was held up was that the Departments of Education and Science and Health and Children were examining the establishment of a pre-employment consultancy service on this matter. However, it has not been possible to do this due to the North-South Ministerial Council not operating. I have requested that some other way of setting it up be examined.
Ms Cooper-Flynn: No. 46 relates to the western rail corridor. In light of yesterday’s announcements in Transport 21, we welcome the decision to open the corridor——
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should raise a question on legislation.
Ms Cooper-Flynn: My question relates to No. 46 on the Order Paper. Are the dates outlined in Transport 21 set in stone or is it possible, after the commitment given in the House last year to address the imbalance of underspend in the BMW region, for the project to be fast-tracked sooner than the nine year period indicated?
An Ceann Comhairle: This does not arise on the Order of Business. I suggest the Deputy submits a question to the appropriate Minister.
Ms Cooper-Flynn: My question relates to No. 46 on the Order Paper.
An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot discuss the content of No. 46.
[70]Ms Cooper-Flynn: I asked a question on No. 46 and as I understand from Standing Orders it is appropriate.
An Ceann Comhairle: It is a question more appropriate to the Minister concerned who would be in a position to answer the Deputy. I call Deputy Gay Mitchell.
Ms Cooper-Flynn: Under Standing Orders, if the Taoiseach can answer my question, it will save much time. The question is in order.
An Ceann Comhairle: No. 46 relates to a Private Members’ motion. The only question is whether Government time will be provided for it.
Ms Cooper-Flynn: I can raise it on the Order of Business, given that it is a Private Members’ motion on the Order Paper.
An Ceann Comhairle: Yes, but not its content. I call Deputy Gay Mitchell.
Ms Cooper-Flynn: I believe the Taoiseach would like to answer the question. It is a “yes or no” answer. Can it be fast-tracked?
The Taoiseach: I will bring the Deputy’s views to the Minister’s attention.
Mr. G. Mitchell: The Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture and Food will be aware of the debate on the possibility of an avian flu pandemic. Will the Taoiseach consider bringing forward the animal health Bill before Christmas so that a rational debate can take place in the House?
The Taoiseach: The legislation in question is very extensive. I do not believe it will be ready before the Christmas break. Heads were approved some time ago but it is a large Bill.
Mr. Broughan: It is proposed to take the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005 in the coming weeks. Will the text be the same as that published some weeks ago, which was the subject of a heated Fianna Fáil parliamentary meeting?
Regarding the Taoiseach’s reply to Deputy Ó Caoláin on flags of convenience, the Taoiseach outlined that the Attorney General’s advice on trade unions——
An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise on the Order of Business.
Mr. Broughan: It does arise. It concerns upcoming legislation. Is it possible that Members be given copies of the Attorney General’s advice on the unconstitutionality of the——
[71]An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise on the Order of Business.
Mr. Broughan: He keeps saying it is unconstitutional. He is a helpless Taoiseach.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Taoiseach to respond on the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005, questions which were answered last Tuesday and Thursday.
The Taoiseach: The legislation is nearly ready. However, I cannot say if it will be ready for Christmas.
Mr. Boyle: The Law Reform Commission has released a report on corporate killings. Has the Government any proposals to introduce legislation in this area?
The Taoiseach: No legislation is promised at this stage.
Dr. Cowley: A review of public safety was commissioned by the Tánaiste and published in 2000, which recommended the establishment of an office for public safety regulation to monitor regulations. However, due to the difficulty of public safety being policed by public authorities, will legislation be introduced to ensure the office of public safety regulation is established? This was recommended in 2000 and there are major deficiencies in safety at work and the like.
The Taoiseach: There is no legislation listed for this area.
Mr. Costello: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform recently stated he was bringing proposals to Cabinet on the establishment of an inquiry, under the Commissions of Investigation Act, into child sexual abuse in the Dublin diocese. Has this taken place? When will legislation on the matter be introduced in the House? Does the Taoiseach intend to follow up with legislation on his proposed audit of other dioceses?
The Taoiseach: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will bring forward proposals in the coming weeks on an inquiry into child abuse in the Dublin diocese. We have already stated a national audit must take place in other dioceses. The Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is writing to diocesan authorities on this matter.
Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Kitt): I move:
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O’Malley): I move: “That Report Stage be taken now.”
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I move amendment No.1:
This amendment seeks to amend section 4 on page 9 of the Bill as presented by inserting in the alphabetical list of designated health or social care professions chiropractor, immediately before clinical biochemist, dietitian and medical scientist. Professions following chiropractor would be designated by the following letter so that, for example, speech and language therapist would become designated profession (m).
In making the case for the inclusion of chiropracty as a designated profession I have to inform the House that I visited a chiropractor in the early years of my election to this House and acknowledge the professional service and advice I was given. It is important that chiropracty is properly regulated in this jurisdiction. The situation on the island of Ireland whereby chiropracty is regulated north of the Border, as it is in the neighbouring island, but not south of the Border is unacceptable. We may be the only country in western Europe that has not moved to have chiropracty registered as a profession in the sense and context of this legislation. As this legislation is primarily geared toward public protection, it is important that chiropracty is included. Open borders in Europe allow people to practice here as chiropractors without the qualifications required in another jurisdiction. I have been informed, as other Deputies have, that there is concern within the profession that those struck off in other jurisdictions where registration is a requirement, find no difficulty setting up in this [73]jurisdiction and advertising as practising chiropractors, leaving the public vulnerable to people with dubious records. In order to protect our communities and citizens it is incumbent on us to ensure that the highest standards not only apply but are enforceable. If the Bill passes without the inclusion of chiropracty we will have failed in the fundamental objective of the legislation.
We must aim for best practice and the highest standards. The only way to achieve that is to give those involved in chiropracty the recognition and public confidence that a common standard provides by adopting this amendment. I note from correspondence that there are some 150,000 registered chiropractors globally. I do not know the number practising in Ireland but it is growing. In small rural locations such as my own there are now practitioners in the high street. It is important to ensure this large number of practitioners is recognised. There is a duty on Government, on the Minister of State and the Minister for Health and Children to adopt the amendment.
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O’Malley): The wider issues raised by the Deputy are hugely important. The Bill shows the way forward by establishing a framework for the statutory registration of health and social care professionals. However, the 12 professions listed in section 4 (1) were selected because they are long-established providers of health and social care within the health service and have in most cases experience of self-regulation. In addition the qualifications of the majority of these professions are currently regulated within the public health service by being declared by the Minister under the Health Act 1970. This is not the case for chiropractors as they are not a public health service grade.
As Deputies are aware section 4 also provides for the inclusion, by regulation, of additional professions in the proposed system of statutory registration. This section sets out the criteria to which the Minister shall have regard in considering the designation of further professions under this legislation. These include the degree of risk to health, safety or welfare from the incompetent, mythical or impaired practice of the professions. They also include the extent to which a profession has a defined scope of practice and applies a distinct body of knowledge, and the extent to which the profession has established itself, requiring at least one professional body representing a significant proportion of the profession’s practitioners. In addition, it includes the existence of defined routes of entry into the profession and of independently assessed entry qualifications. The future inclusion of any profession is dependent on its meeting these criteria.
The framework established by this Bill offers greatly enhanced protection for the public. The [74]Tánaiste has made it clear she favours the programmed and orderly inclusion of additional health and social care professionals in the new statutory framework and she will consider the case for chiropractors in this light. I cannot accept this amendment.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I am disappointed the Minister of State cannot do so. I speak not only as somebody who has been lobbied by people personally interested but as somebody who has used the services of a chiropractor and who knows many others who have done so. The numbers who gravitate to the services of chiropractors in Ireland must be significant because chiropractors are mushrooming all over the country. I welcome that fact but they must be encouraged to develop in an environment of best regulation and highest standards. Public confidence is hugely important and it is not satisfactory that the public must base its judgment as to the appropriateness of a service on the latest report, be it a good report or, God forbid, a damaging report. We must ensure those who present themselves as chiropractors offer the highest standards of qualification applying within the profession in terms of the services provided.
I have noted section 4(2) of the legislation which was referred to by the Minister of State. It states: “After consulting the Council, the Minister may, by regulation, designate for the purposes of this Act any health or social care profession not already designated under subsection (1)”. This is the area that has been specified by the Minister of State.
I am a resident living close to the Border which in reality is open to me and my fellow community members who traverse back and forth for commerce, social life and cultural activities and a variety of services, including chiropractic services. Perhaps people will not travel greater distances, but this is unfair and unacceptable for residents in Border communities. To us, the Border is not so much an impediment in going back and forth but a reality in many other ways. Those who choose to go to a chiropractor north of the Border do so with greater guarantees and assurance in respect of the service received, as opposed to those of us who may choose to avail of the service offered by a practitioner on this side of the Border, simply because of the registration requirement, the due recognition given and the setting of the highest possible standards for a health or social care profession.
Health is one of the areas designated for co-operation. There is already in place a raft of co-operative initiatives on health care delivery with the six Northern counties. Surely anomalies such as this should not continue. One would expect this issue to be addressed more effectively. While I have heard the Minister of State’s comments, I press him to confirm that chiropracty will come [75]under section 4(2) of the Bill. The House deserves this assurance at least, but I still urge the Minister of State to reconsider the inclusion of chiropractors in the list of designated professions in section 4(1).
Mr. T. O’Malley: I take on board Deputy Ó Caoláin’s comments. It is unfortunate that he represents a constituency adjacent to the northern section of the country. We must, however, be mindful of the position in the whole country. We considered all professions and the 12 to be included initially are the ones it is agreed should be registered. The Deputy will realise from what I have stated that there will be an opportunity for chiropractors to be included under section 4(2) of the Bill. I remind him that many chiropractors are already registered doctors in the State, although I do not know the percentage or actual number. These registered medical practitioners specialise in chiropracty. I am aware of what the Deputy described, that is, that chiropractors are registered in the United Kingdom. This causes a dilemma but I hope the matter will be sorted out in the near future when the legislation is passed.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I do not view myself as unfortunate in representing the people of Cavan and Monaghan.
Mr. T. O’Malley: I did not mean it in that fashion.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: As the Minister of State’s own colleague, Deputy Devins, might state, I am very proud to represent the Border constituency of Cavan and Monaghan.
Mr. T. O’Malley: The Deputy is taking my statement out of context.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I wanted to reassure the Minister of State should the Official Report be read out of context.
The Minister of State commented that one had to be mindful of the entire jurisdiction. As a Border resident, I argue that our reality must therefore be taken into account. I made a point about the special circumstances in which we live, but in taking the interests of everyone in this jurisdiction into account one must point to the need for greater regulation and the official designation of chiropracty which is in the interests of every citizen. If the Minister of State is not in the position to accede to my request today, I hope the arguments will be taken on board and that chiropracty will be designated under section 4(2) of the Bill following the Government’s acceptance of the sound arguments for why it should be so.
[76]Mr. Gormley: I support Deputy Ó Caoláin’s comments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Dr. Twomey: I move amendment No. 2:
With regard to the previous amendment, will the Minister of State and the Department prepare packs in plain English for those professions which wish to be included under this legislation? The required criteria under section 4 might be outlined. This is a matter for the future and need not be dealt with now.
Amendment No. 2 deals with the issue of physiotherapists and physical therapists. When it was discussed on Committee Stage, we were made aware towards the end of our deliberations that there had been ongoing contacts between the Department of Health and Children and organisations representing physiotherapists and physical therapists. We were told at the time that the issue would be resolved by the time the Bill was taken on Report Stage in the Dáil. Rather than revisiting the arguments made on Committee Stage, I give the Minister of State the opportunity to tell us how the negotiations have fared and if the issue can now be dealt with before further remarks are made.
Ms McManus: I ask the Minister of State what has occurred with regard to this knotty issue. I have much sympathy with physical therapists whose concerns are valid. Nonetheless, there is a difficulty in terms of the international nomenclature of physical therapists. This matter could have been dealt with before the Bill was published rather than at this late stage, but I see no indication that it has been resolved. Will the Minister of State clear up the mystery?
Mr. T. O’Malley: With regard to resolving the issue between physiotherapists and physical therapists, it was thought that there was a possibility of a resolution. Discussions have taken place between the Department and both professional bodies. My understanding is that it is highly unlikely there will be agreement between both parties.
Mr. Gormley: I spoke to Deputy Twomey earlier about this matter. I have been a Member of this House longer than him but he appears to have adopted a wiser approach on this issue. He did not meet either side. It appears to be an intractable problem or a zero sum game.
On Committee Stage the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, stated negotiations would take place and a compromise could be reached. It [77]appears to me, from discussions with physiotherapists, that they are not trying to play down physical therapists. The great loser could be the school of physical therapy. If negotiations continue, I hope a solution can be found because clearly the terms “physiotherapy” and “physical therapy” are interchangeable in other countries. However, there is a distinction in this country. I hope the Minister of State will continue to seek a solution, although I do not know whether that is possible. I had hoped one would have been reached before this evening’s debate. While I understand the Minister of State’s position and I am quite sympathetic, given that these difficulties continue, I will support the Opposition amendment. At this point it would probably be the clearest way to proceed.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I support amendment No. 2 in the names of Deputies Twomey and McManus. In the absence of a resolution of this long-standing dispute in respect of descriptions, the difficulties are only deepened by not recognising physical therapists and only making reference to physiotherapists. I appreciate the difference. In the absence of a resolution it is imperative not to proceed with legislation which excludes one group. I support the amendment as it would offer, at least for now, a position where both would be recorded. I hope this would allow for a level playing field in the further and future redress of the outstanding difficulties which clearly must be resolved, preferably sooner rather than later.
Dr. Twomey: I find it unusual that this legislation has found its way back before the House because this was the most significant issue with which I was obliged to deal in the lead up to its passage. A massive amount of correspondence arose from it and I am sure it was the same for every other Member. I am surprised the Bill has returned to the House on Report Stage as on Committee Stage it was made quite clear that the Department would do all in its power to try to resolve this issue before it reached this point. We will be left with a situation where no side will be happy with the outcome. This is unusual.
Mr. T. O’Malley: When we come to the next amendment, Members will find this is not the only section of which this is true. As far as physical therapists and physiotherapists are concerned, Members will be aware that the issue which has consistently attracted attention during the passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas is that of the protection of title “physical therapist”. The Bill specifies a single primary title by which each designated profession will be known under the Bill. This is in line with the drafting advice received. In view of the debate on Committee [78]Stage, it will be helpful to elaborate on the reasons this approach has been taken.
There is more than one sound reason for avoiding the use of alternative expressions in the Bill for the same profession. For example, certain presumptions apply when courts interpret legislation, one of which is the presumption of consistent expression whereby the Legislature is presumed to have avoided stylistic variation, that is, the same words have the same meaning and different words have different meaning. The courts also presume that the Legislature avoids superfluous or meaningless words and does not repeat itself. Every word is presumed to have a specific role to play in advancing the purpose of a statute. Superfluous words can lead to problems of interpretation and to courts striving, in unforeseen circumstances, to give a meaning that was never anticipated when a statute was enacted.
A third reason for avoiding the use of more than one term for any profession is consistency of approach, or parallelism with the treatment of other professions designated under the Bill. If more than one title was to be protected under the primary legislation for any profession, it would be necessary to take the same approach with every other profession. As far as the professions included in the Bill are concerned, there are a number of alternative or variant titles reflecting, for example, specialisms within them. Thus, the title “radiographer” encompasses both diagnostic radiographers and radiation therapists. Variants also encompass titles used in other countries such as speech and language pathologist rather than speech and language therapist or clinical nutritionist rather than dietician. The word “dietician” can be spelled in two ways. Undoubtedly, it would be confusing for everyone if the primary legislation was used to specify several titles for individual professions, not least the public. That is why the issue of multiple titles is tackled in the legislation through empowering the Minister to protect by regulation variants of the primary title by which those practitioners registered with a registration board of a designated profession are known. As Members are aware, it will be an offence for an unregistered practitioner to use a title protected either under the primary legislation or by regulation.
Under section 95(3), the Minister can protect variants of the primary title for all of the professions following consultation with the relevant registration board and any organisations that he or she considers appropriate. An important feature of this process is set out in section 95(7) which provides that a draft of a regulation to be made by the Minister protecting additional titles must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and that a resolution approving the draft must be passed by each House. This allows each case to be examined on its merits, balancing such factors as protection of the public and the promotion of [79]competition. This is the best and most appropriate way to protect any title that warrants protection.
As far as the physiotherapy profession is concerned, the title protected under the Bill is “physiotherapist”. However, the Irish Society of Chartered Physiotherapists also wishes to have the title “physical therapist” protected for the exclusive use of those professionals registered with the physiotherapists registration board to be established under the Bill. The society considers both titles to be interchangeable in an international context and believes there is a risk of confusion among the public if the title “physical therapist” is not protected for use by physiotherapists. However, members of the Irish Association of Physical Therapists who currently use the title in this country have argued against such protection and wish to retain the title for their own use.
Clearly, this is a complex issue to which Members have given considerable attention. The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children is of the view that matters must be resolved in a timely way. The way forward is to deal with protection of title issues by regulation as provided for in the Bill. In line with the provisions of section 95(3), the Tánaiste intends to consult the proposed physiotherapists registration board on its establishment and any organisations she considers appropriate on prescribing the title “physical therapist” for use by registrants of the physiotherapy profession. She expects to make an early decision in the matter. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Dr. Devins: I welcome the Minister of State’s statement. As previous speakers noted, this issue was discussed ad nauseam on Committee Stage and obviously there are many strongly held views on the matter. It is most important that the public is protected. What timespan after the Bill’s passage does the Minister of State envisage before the Tánaiste will be in a position to make a decision on this important issue?
Mr. T. O’Malley: I do not have——
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Minister of State has already spoken twice on this amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Ms McManus: I move amendment No. 3:
[80]Will the Minister of State accept this amendment? I am sure he is aware that thousands of people attend counsellors, therapists and psychotherapists for a range of issues and needs. Some people have been in therapy for many years. Many are vulnerable, perhaps going through crises in their lives and need expert and professional support, for which they turn to counsellors or therapists. Regrettably, it is easy for a person to set up as a counsellor in Ireland. There is a wide range of standards in terms of the type of counsellors people go to.
When the Ferns report was published, I was struck by the fact that one of the criticisms made of the health board was that it did not provide counselling for the little girls of Monageer national school. The board should have provided it but the question in the context of this Bill is what guarantee have we that counselling to such a vulnerable group of children is of the proper standard if there is no formal regulation? This question must be answered. People may have degrees in psychology, which is at least some level of professional standard, but not every psychologist is a good or appropriate therapist while there are many excellent therapists who are not psychologists. We need regulation of this area.
We could argue about people with bad feet or bunions getting professional treatment, which should be the case, but we have a duty to protect an abuse victim with a damaged psyche from meddling by people who guide and direct in a way they believe is appropriate simply because they have set themselves up as counsellors and therapists, done courses or may have strange ideas about what a counsellor or therapist is. It is a central and essential discipline. If we ignore it, we are leaving many people at risk. I would have believed that the Minister of State, who is not listening to a word I am saying, would consider this a primary duty.
It is interesting that the Minister for State at the Department of Education and Science with special responsibility for children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is also here tonight, for is this not a matter for him? I will not start all over again. In terms of counselling and therapy for young people and adults and when we are dealing with emotional needs as opposed to physical needs, do we not need to ensure standards are set and regulations are in place for this area of treatment and professionalism or absent professionalism?
Mr. Neville: I second the amendment and echo Deputy McManus’s comments. The amendment recognises the difficulties surrounding the area of regulating counsellors and therapists in that it allows a period of 12 months to elapse before the present and totally unacceptable situation is regularised. It gives space to do so and does not insist the situation should be corrected as of now. I [81]have been of the opinion for some time that there is a need to establish a national competent authority to regulate the area of psychotherapy and counselling. The State must ensure that those who offer a service for a fee and have the trust of service users have recognised competencies coming from approved training programmes. I further believe that those who do not have such training should not be allowed to operate.
Psychotherapy and counselling have important roles to play in many areas of life. In respect of mental illness, it is repeatedly highlighted that multidisciplinary community based psychiatric teams, including psychoanalysts and counsellors, is the accepted formula for delivering services but such teams are sadly lacking. There is ignorance and not a little confusion among the general public as to what psychotherapy and counselling are and what the difference is. This is compounded by the fact that there are over an estimated 400 different named therapies, which are used to tackle many medical and social problems, including marriage and family difficulties, anxiety, depression, addiction, sexual abuse, rape, psycho-sexual difficulties, eating disorders, bereavement, adolescent difficulties, AIDS, HIV and many more. In other medical professions, there is a requirement for a basic qualification in medicine and professionals continue to specialise.
A rhetorical question is are there 400 specialist qualifications in psychotherapy or counselling? The absence of clear roles and dedicated skills for those roles fuels confusion and the absence of regulation allows for a situation where many calling themselves counsellors in the community and private practice do not warrant professional recognition. One does not need a recognised qualification or skill base to call oneself a psychoanalyst or counsellor. All that is required are premises, a gold plaque outside the door and the neck to charge a fee.
There are no means to monitor the present unregulated situation and the opportunity for untrained people acting as psychotherapists or counsellors to do damage is frightening. Vulnerable people in crises who need professional help can be destroyed. This situation has been exposed by some practising alternative medicines where people have been duped out of life savings. Is the same happening in the area of psychotherapy and counselling? It is not alarmist to assume there are instances of it. How much is there and what damage is being done? The stigma that persists in respect of mental, emotional and personal problems prevent the exposure of these issues. Those damaged in such a way may not be in a position to recognise their abuse. Do those who are severely damaged die by suicide? There are no psychological autopsies on those who die by suicide. I am convinced of the need to do such autopsies to determine the psychological difficulties and where the services failed. Such information made [82]available without identifying the victim is vital for research into why so many take their lives and is invaluable in formulating suicide prevention programmes.
Clients, often in severe distress, make major investments in therapy and have a right to know that the therapy they are engaged in is safe and effective. For this reason, the development of practice standards for accreditation and training is essential. The recent report of the working group on the role of psychotherapy within the health service states the requirements of the various accrediting bodies can differ significantly. The situation is problematic as, given the lack of clarity regarding agreed criteria for training and qualifications, both the health service as an employer and the general public have difficulty in making judgments as to the equivalence of one qualification against another. This is why confusion arises and Deputy McManus’s amendment, which would give 12 months and space to all those concerned, including the Government, aims to correct the situation. The professional group strengthened its regulation arrangements. The Government’s position, through not accepting this amendment, is to stay on the fence until the various professional groups strengthen their regulation arrangements. I accept they have an onus to do so as a matter of urgency and appreciate that is the Minister of State’s difficulty. However, they should have 12 months to do so. If there is no will to do so within that time, the Government must move towards statutory regulation. Only five professions are subject to this, medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry and pharmacy. As the Minister of State pointed out, there can be only one registration board per professional grouping. A difficulty arises in conferring powers of statutory registration on a professional body where more than one body represents the profession, as is the position in the case of counselling and therapy.
We should strongly urge the groups to come to a consensus, which is lacking, on basic definitions, training and accreditation. The professional bodies have a responsibility to ensure the public can have the same confidence in the professionalism of psychotherapists and counsellors as they do in doctors, dentists and pharmacists. This would enable them to supervise the delivery of a safe, high quality service to clients. The role of supervision is becoming increasingly valuable as it enables professionals to maintain good standards of practice and to develop responsive services to meet the needs of clients. Supervision also has a key function in fulfilling an employer’s duty of care to staff under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989, as employers may not be covered under the Act if employees are not qualified.
By accepting Deputy McManus’s amendment the Minister of State would accept that there is a [83]difficulty and challenge for the four bodies to come to an agreement within the next 12 months on the criteria for membership of their organisations. The ideal way to do so would be through amalgamating the organisations. If that cannot occur, the organisations should come to an understanding on the criteria, training and qualifications required to ensure those who provide counselling and psychotherapy services have the necessary skills and qualifications. That would also ensure those whom we and medical professionals advise to go to counsellors and those whom psychiatric professionals advise to go to psychotherapists can be confident that persons calling themselves psychotherapists and counsellors are at a level and standard to meet the criteria acceptable under the Bill.
Mr. T. O’Malley: I listened intently to what Deputies McManus and Neville stated. I met organisations representing counsellors and psychotherapists. Four groups are involved and they hope to meet in the near future to see if they can come to a general consensus on entry criteria. I do not know whether they will be able to do so. The concern of Deputies for the inclusion of counsellors and psychotherapists in the system of statutory registration being established has been made clear throughout the passage of the Bill. We are all conscious that the provision of counselling and psychotherapy services has increased in recent years and agreed on the need for people to be confident that a counsellor or psychotherapist is qualified, competent and fit to practice.
I have already mentioned that section 4 of the Bill provides for the inclusion by regulation of additional professions in the proposed system of statutory registration. This section also sets out the criteria to which the Minister shall have regard in considering the designation of further professions under the legislation. These criteria include the extent to which the profession has a defined scope of practice and applies a distinct body of knowledge; the extent to which the profession is established, including whether at least one professional body represents a significant proportion of the profession’s practitioners; and the existence of defined routes of entry into the profession and of independently assessed entry qualifications. The various professional groups representing psychotherapists and counsellors have been encouraged to prepare for statutory registration by working to explore a common understanding on baseline qualifications and scope of practice. I also hope to see a further strengthening of their voluntary regulation arrangements.
As indicated on Committee Stage, a working group was established to examine the role of psychotherapy in the health service in order to assess requirements for the future. The working [84]group’s report has been finalised and I expect the next step will be to put in place an action plan for progressing the issues. This will include a further exploration of issues relating to the development of an appropriate model of service. The outcome of this work, together with the work that must be done by the representative professional groups, will form part of the formal process required in line with the provisions for the designation of further professions as set out under section 4. For the reasons outlined, I cannot accept the amendment.
Ms McManus: It is clear there is no disagreement between the Government and ourselves on the principle. What is at issue is the timeframe which the Minister of State must consider further. Seven or eight years, or perhaps longer, have passed since the proposal was made to designate these professions. That length of time should inform us of the need to set down a certain framework. Deputy Neville expressed more comprehensively than I the concerns about the influence counsellors and therapists have. Many have a benign influence and it is beneficial and healthy. However, there is great concern about the fact that the influence of poorly trained individuals or persons with an agenda can be malign. I do not want to exaggerate in any way. One must consider that those seeking this help are often extremely vulnerable. They have emotional needs, trauma and distress in their lives and are seeking help. At the very least, the Government owes a duty of care to recognise the mushrooming in the provision of therapy services and ensure certain accreditation and standards apply. However, it should not be left open-ended.
If I have a sore neck and go to somebody who is not good at his or her job, all that will happen is that I will continue to have a sore neck. Going with a damaged psyche to somebody who is not good at his or her job can have a far more problematic outcome in terms of trust and dealing with the client’s problems in a way that is healthy and appropriate. I am not at all comforted by the approach of the Government which involves stating there is a problem, not putting in place a timeframe, hoping the hundreds of people of varying standards and training will come forward with the solution and leaving the matter open-ended. Of course, we must consult them and ensure they play a role. However, I ask the Minister of State to accept that he is required to set a timeframe as otherwise it may take another eight or ten years to do so. At least, there is a professional body for psychotherapy, although it took this length of time to reach that point.
How much longer will it take to arrive at the point where anyone attending a therapist or a counsellor can be secure in the knowledge that the State has ensured the standard of that per[85]son’s training is appropriate to a client’s needs, at the very least?
Mr. T. O’Malley: I do not wish to delay the House but I understand exactly what Ms McManus means. I will meet all the groups. The expert group examining the whole mental health area will also have a view on this issue. I share the concerns expressed by both Deputies about the lack of standardisation of qualifications. I assure the House that as the Minister of State with responsibility for mental health I foresee a significantly enhanced role for both counsellors and psychotherapists in the area of mental health. I assure the Deputies it will not take years but it would be preferable if base line criteria could be assembled on a voluntary basis by those involved. If voluntary agreement among the various organisations is not possible, I assure the House that the Tánaiste and I will expedite this process.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Ms McManus: I move amendment No. 4:
This issue was raised by the body being abolished under this Act. The university social work education providers have pointed out that with the abolition of the NSWQB under Part 8 of the Bill there is no provision to continue the existing power to award the national social work qualification award.
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. B. Lenihan): The amendment tabled by Deputy McManus proposes to allow the council to make professional awards at certificate level of qualifications for health and social care professionals. I believe the Deputy is referring to the awards currently granted by the National Social Work Qualifications Board. Deputies will be aware that this board is being subsumed into the council under the legislation. It should be noted that under the Bill the registration boards generally will have the responsibility for education and training issues and will accredit courses appropriately. Accordingly, the matter is already dealt with in the legislation.
The continuity of the work and contribution of the National Social Work and Qualifications Board to professional development will be maintained and the experience and knowledge of the board in addressing many of the responsibilities that will in future fall to the council will be fully transferred.
[86]Ms McManus: I am very impressed that the Minister of State has such intimate knowledge of this board but I cannot say I share it. I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 22, are related and may be discussed together.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I move amendment No. 5:
I calculate from the text of the legislation as presented that the council will have 24 or 25 members. It is unclear to me whether the Chair will be one of the 24 members to be appointed, 12 from the designated professions and 12 from a variety of other sources, three of whom will represent management of the public health sector, management of a voluntary or private sector organisation and representative of third level educational establishments involved in the education and training of persons in the practice of the designated professions. Nine others will be appointed by the Minister. Representatives of the interests of the general public are to be appointed with the consent of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
In 1991, Government guidelines were put in place to implement the recommendations of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. These guidelines require that Ministers and Departments ensure that 40% of those nominated to State boards and State-appointed bodies should be women.
My amendment seeks to ensure this is lived up to or at least, worked towards. Women are clearly under-represented on State bodies. The Taoiseach and other members of the current Government have acknowledged this on many occasions. Nothing will ever be done about it unless the intent is enshrined in the specific legislation regarding these bodies. The health and social care professionals council provides another opportunity. My appeal to the Minister of State is to recognise that women are under-represented on State bodies. I ask him to accept this amendment and ensure at least 40% participation by women on this important council. I would wish to [87]see more women than that number involved but as that is the position already agreed to by Government in 1991 as the guideline to be met, I hope the Minister of State will accede to its inclusion in the Bill.
Women are even less well represented on private boards and bodies and in senior management. The responsibility on the State to give the lead and to demonstrate what society wishes to see is therefore all the greater. This is one area in which Government can impact and facilitate.
The second part of my amendment deals with the method of appointment of the members to the health and social care professions council. The basis of this argument is to ensure greater transparency in the appointment. I have raised this matter with the Taoiseach many times and I cannot explain the reluctance to open up access to State boards and other State-appointed bodies to the wider public. Why must it be that somebody must know somebody else which leaves the Government open to accusation of jobs for the boys and fewer jobs for the girls? We want every citizen to have a right of access if they have the required expertise, experience and that they meet the criteria and have the qualifications laid down.
Mr. B. Lenihan: This is exactly what the Government is doing. The Deputy has walked into this one.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: If the Minister of State can prove to me ——
Mr. B. Lenihan: The single transferable speech does not work on this one. The Deputy should read the Bill.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Order, please. The Minister of State will have an opportunity to reply.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: ——that what I have argued for in amendment No. 5 is provided for in the Bill, I will be most happy. However, this does not appear to be the case. In order to ensure it is open to every citizen, the position should be publicly advertised so that the most suitable people can compete and be considered. There should be a clear understanding of the requirements regarding qualification. This is a very reasonable proposition. I look forward to the Minister of State’s response because he is biting at the bit to get going like a greyhound at Shelbourne Park. I will listen to what he has to say in reply and if he satisfies what I am trying to achieve, I will be the first to welcome it.
Ms O’Sullivan: On behalf of Deputy McManus, I express support for Deputy Ó Caoláin’s position on gender balance, a concept the Labour Party [88]also proposes to introduce in amendments Nos. 6 and 22, one of which relates to the registration boards while the other relates to the council. My party’s position on gender balance has been well known for a long time.
I hope the Minister of State will accept the amendments, particularly given that other Ministers have accepted similar amendments seeking gender balance in other legislation. It is particularly important that we ensure an appropriate balance between men and women on the registration boards. I note from section 9(3)(b)(iv) that nine members of the board will be representative of the interests of the general public, while the other three members will represent other interests. Ensuring that at least 40% of members will be women and 40% men should, therefore, present no logistical difficulties.
When my Limerick East constituency colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy O’Dea, served as Minister of State with responsibility for equality, he suggested that gender balance on boards could be made a statutory requirement if it was not achieved voluntarily by Government Ministers and Departments. Unfortunately, he did not implement this suggestion even though the statistics show that a large majority of members of boards and councils established by Ministers do not have a reasonable gender balance. I assume the Minister will have no difficulty providing for gender balance in the legislation given that it is supposed to be Government policy.
Mr. Neville: I support the amendments. The Minister of State indicated that the provisions of the Bill, as drafted, are satisfactory in this regard. Since I entered the House, the need for gender balance has been discussed ad nauseam but progress on the issue has been minimal. The Minister of State has an opportunity to make his mark. I hope his indication that the Bill includes positive provisions which would satisfy the requirement for gender balance will be borne out when he responds.
Mr. B. Lenihan: The Government fully supports the thinking behind the amendments which are consistent with its general policy. While it is desirable that membership of both the council and the different registration boards be gender balanced, the Minister cannot accept the amendments. Deputy Ó Caoláin walked into the trap when he made the single transferable part of his speech concerning jobs for the boys because there is no question of jobs for the boys or girls under the legislation which envisages appointment by the Minister following election by members of individual professions.
The amendments purport to require the Minister to direct the course of an election and individual voters’ preferences. Perhaps this issue [89]should be addressed in the House but we would first have to give a good example by requiring that two seats in every four seat constituency, one seat in every three seat constituency or two or three seats in every five seat constituency be reserved for females. If the Deputy were willing to advance that proposition, the House could lead by example, after which it could legislate accordingly for the various professions covered by this Bill.
As Deputies are well aware, the Fianna Fáil Party has taken an initiative on gender balance by providing in its internal constitution at the recent Ard-Fheis that there be full balance. No doubt, having given the lead, other parties will follow Fianna Fáil.
Mr. Gormley: The Green Party introduced gender balance years ago. Fianna Fáil is 15 years behind the times.
Mr. B. Lenihan: I appeal to Deputies to examine the precise terms of section 9 which provides that the council will comprise a chairperson and ordinary members appointed by the Minister. The concept of appointment by the Minister which the amendments tabled by Deputies Ó Caoláin and McManus seek to change is highly qualified by the subsequent provisions of the section. For example, subsection (3) provides that in the case of the council one person is to be appointed for each designated profession and he or she must be “an elected member of the registration board of the designated profession” and be “nominated by that board for appointment to the Council”. The Minister cannot direct the registration boards to appoint a particular person or prescribe gender quotas for them, as the Deputies opposite have urged. This would be a far-reaching intervention by the Minister into the proceedings of a board which will enjoy some measure of autonomy as well as statutory guidance under this legislation.
It is true, however, that a further 12 persons must be appointed by the Minister under subsection (3)(b). Again, however, great care is taken in the legislation to designate exactly the qualification of the persons in question. Deputy Ó Caoláin referred to jobs for the boys and argued that every citizen should have the right to be considered for such appointment. Under the legislation, it is the right of every qualified citizen to be considered for appointment to the council.
The council contains the representatives of the boards as well as the other appointees of the Minister appointed under exact statutory standards. Section 28 includes basic provisions on the registration boards which will perform a fundamental role with regard to each profession. The section also provides that the Minister shall appoint members to the boards. Deputy McManus has been consistent and tabled an [90]amendment seeking to amend the provisions on membership of the registration boards, whereas Deputy Ó Caoláin has not tabled such an amendment. Deputy McManus, in the spirit of amendments Nos. 5 and 6, is procedurally correct to table an amendment to section 28. Her amendment proposes to prescribe a female quota of 40% for ministerial appointees. However, as an examination of the section reveals, the Minister’s discretion is quickly exhausted by the detailed provisions regarding the appointment. Six persons are appointed by the Minister on their election by the registrants of the professions. For the House to amend the section in the manner proposed by Deputy McManus would empower the Minister to direct voters, described in the legislation as registrants or members of the profession, to elect a 40% female quota, irrespective of their preferences. Deputies on the other side are advancing a far-reaching proposition, as is their right, but this Bill is not the context in which this question should be raised. If an example is to be given in a matter of this nature, it must be done through the Constitution.
With regard to the board, although seven particular appointments are left to the Minister, again these are carefully designated. Four of them are to be representative of the public interest, while the other three are to be representative of particular disciplines and possess particular expertise. Again, there is no question that these provisions amount to some kind of charter for discretionary ministerial appointments and, in fact, the legislation is carefully circumscribed. It should be noted that many of the professions to be regulated under the Bill are predominately female. It could be argued, therefore, that the composition of the council and registration boards must reflect to some extent the gender composition of the professions represented. An issue may arise regarding male representation in the context of several of the registration boards.
I assure the House that in the general making of appointments to bodies the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children will have close cognisance of Government policy in regard to the need for gender balance. On the issue of appointing persons to the council it should be noted that 12 members of the council will be elected representatives of the respective registration boards who have been nominated by the board for appointment. The Minister’s power of appointment is, therefore, purely a formality in this context and cannot be burdened with a statutory duty to insist upon a particular gender qualification.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Minister of State has hardly satisfied his earlier claim by interruption. If anything, he has spent his time telling us why the Minister cannot accede to the thrust of the amendment. With all respect to the Minister of State, if you had paid a little more attention to [91]the detail of the legislation before being deputised this evening, you would have known that the Minister is in charge of 12 further appointments, nine of which are drawn from the general public. They will be picked as the Minister decides. My point is absolutely valid.
Mr. B. Lenihan: I am sorry, but you did not seek to amend that provision, so I do not need to take that kind of cheek from you.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I beg your pardon, but——
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Order, please. Members should direct their comments through the Chair.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The reason was clearly his facility to espouse——
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I did not interrupt you once, and you should at least have the manners to be quiet——
Mr. B. Lenihan: You need not patronise me in this House.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: ——when I am responding to you.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Through the Chair, please.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:
You can call it
“patronising” or whatever you like. Quite frankly, I am not the least bit intimidated by the Minister of State or any of his colleagues.
Mr. B. Lenihan: No one is seeking to intimidate the Deputy.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I use my right to speak here——
Mr. B. Lenihan: He has an absolute right to do so.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Order, please.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: ——and the Minister of State can either sit there and listen or leave, whichever is his desire. I am sure that it will not matter one way or the other.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Let us return to the amendment.
Mr. B. Lenihan: It does matter.
[92]Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Minister of State has already determined his responses in this regard. The fact is that the Minister has the opportunity to appoint nine representatives to represent the interests of the general public, quite apart from the other three, something that I pointed out when I originally moved the amendment. These are the words I used very carefully and clearly in proposing the amendment. This allows the Minister to try to ensure that we achieve a guaranteed quota of 40% women on this council. I would be delighted if it proved the case, as the Minister of State suggests it might, that a greater number of women were appointed; I also stated that when I introduced this amendment. Therefore, we are making the point that at least 40% should be men. It is balanced regarding what can — and, one hopes, will — be achieved.
There is more to the situation than just that, and that is the reason my amendment goes further. Let us make no mistake. I did not make the accusation of jobs for the boys, or girls, regarding State boards. I said that it left the Government open to that accusation, although I have not subscribed to it. However, the guilt complex is there, and it is bound to present itself.
The Minister of State cannot have it both ways. The point is that I wish to see a fair and transparent appointments process. The Taoiseach has said in this House that his greatest difficulty in getting people with the necessary skills, professional experience and so on to come forward is that they are already far too busy to give of their valuable time in serving on State boards and State-appointed bodies. The way to address that is to open the doors to every citizen and not simply the names nominated by those with access to an ear. That has been the practice, but we do society and the State boards a disservice if we cut out ordinary, decent men and women the length and breadth of this country, who, from their experience in their professions or in retirement, can bring expertise and knowledge to bear in the service of the State, which is there to serve every citizen.
The second part of my amendment is as crucial and important as the first.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I remind Deputy Ó Caoláin that this is his second time to speak, so he has only two minutes.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Have I exhausted it?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: You have a right to reply.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I suppose the two minutes are over. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for his patience and the Minister of State for listening at last. If he does not accept the amendment on this occasion, I look forward [93]to his doing so in due course. These arguments will continue to present themselves.
Ms O’Sullivan: I reiterate what I said before. It is Government policy that there be gender balance on State boards, and I do not know why the Minister of State cannot accept the amendment. I do not see why it cannot be done. Section 28 deals with membership of the individual boards for the various professions. Three are to be engaged in the practice of the profession, two in management services and so on, so there is no reason the Minister of State cannot say that one must choose at least one man and at least one woman in situations where there is to be more than one nomination. I accept that when only one is chosen, one cannot stipulate that one should have a man or a woman. However, where there is more than one, there is no reason that the Minister cannot do so. It has been done before by many Ministers. I do not accept that it cannot be done. There are extras to be appointed by the Minister both to the boards and to the council.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and I have no problem saying that, in the very few cases where men are in the minority and one must discriminate in their favour rather than in favour of women, we should do so. We need gender balance on boards. In the vast majority of cases in Ireland, the discrimination must be in favour of women to ensure that they be properly represented. However, if in the case of certain professions it must benefit men, that is fine, since that is what it is all about. We must ensure that this goes into all legislation and that Government policy and that of all parties in this House is implemented. That will not be done by wishful thinking.
That is why I raised the fact that the Minister for Defence, Deputy O’Dea, threatened to do it but never did so. He said that he would do it within six months of being appointed as Minister if it did not happen automatically. It did not happen, but he did not do that. If this is the attitude of Ministers, it will not happen. Perhaps it must be enshrined in legislation that Ministers do so regarding Government-appointed councils and boards. In this case, I see no reason that it cannot be done, and I urge the Minister of State to accept the amendment.
Mr. Gormley: I have listened carefully to what the Minister of State had to say. He started by stating that his own party had recently introduced a form of gender balance. In my party, we tried to do so many years ago, and I confess that it has not been too successful, even after putting the structures in place. We have six Deputies, all of whom are men. Sinn Féin has five, and all five are men. The Labour Party——
Ms O’Sullivan: Some 33% of us are female.
[94]Dr. Devins: Watch Fianna Fáil. We do it.
Mr. Gormley: Good for them. However, the point I was trying to make is that, despite setting up structures, many societal factors militate against female participation. Therefore, a quota system such as this is the best way forward. Deputy Devins was not present, but I recently met Danish parliamentarians. It was quite remarkable, since most were women. There was only one man. They had managed it, and Nordic countries always manage to be far ahead of us when it comes to such issues. To my mind, this amendment makes perfect sense. It is a way of giving legislative effect to the theory, but it must be more than that. It must now become a reality. If we had a list system here, we would have a very different approach. We could have 40% female representation. It is difficult to achieve that with the present system. For many reasons, into which I do not wish to go, there are certain advantages in politics if one is a man; that is the long and the short of it.
I support these amendments. I understand that Deputy Ó Caoláin is vexed enough to put the matter to a vote. We shall see.
Mr. B. Lenihan: I assure Deputy Ó Caoláin that I always listen to his every word with the greatest of care. I was commenting on his amendments since they do not seek — neither do those tabled by Deputy McManus — to prescribe how the Minister should make his own appointments. They purport to describe how all the appointments to the council, which is the overarching body regulating such professions, and the individual registration boards should be made. I reiterate my original point that it is Government policy to secure gender equality in the composition of such boards. However, to provide so in the context of such boards is for the Minister to dictate the consequence of a nomination from a professional body or the course of an election.
Deputy Gormley put it rather well when he said that the problem may lie in the electoral system that we habitually use in Ireland, generally the spot vote or a single transferable vote. For example, if a list system was to be employed in such elections that might be a way of securing a particular outcome. However, that would require a proposal of much greater detail than that before us. What is before the House this evening is a simple direction to the Minister to ensure that 40% of the appointments should belong to a particular gender. Were we to so legislate, the Minister would then, in effect, have to tell a particular professional body that he cannot accept the freely chosen representative of its registration board, as per its electoral mandate and that it must reballot until such time as the necessary number of acceptable appointees of a particular gender is [95]reached. I do not believe that is a tenable proposition.
Equally, in the case of the overall council the nominations come from the individual registration boards representing the particular boards. The Minister would have to give a direction to those boards that he cannot accept their nominations unless they belong to a particular gender. The question would arise as to which particular boards would have to be given such a direction. When all of those issues are looked at one can see the problems which this House may well have to address, though in a different context, as to how gender equality may be ensured. To provide for it in this legislation would require legal architecture of considerably greater sophistication than that which has been put before the House this evening by Deputies Ó Caoláin and McManus, although I accept the spirit in which the amendments were tabled. If I have given Deputy Ó Caoláin the impression otherwise, I am sorry for so doing. I accept it is an issue that must be attended to, but this legislation illustrates very well that it is not as simple a matter as it often seems. Very few Bills, nowadays, provide that a Minister appoints, say, ten persons at his or her discretion, to a particular board. The trend, in statutory draftsmanship, has been towards restricting the scope of the discretion of the Minister and trying to insist that members of particular boards have appropriate qualifications. That is evident in this legislation and it makes the task of gender balance all the more difficult.
Add to this the fact that here we are providing representative machinery for professions and [96]there is very great difficulty. As regards the public interest appointment, in the case of a profession where there is a substantial female or male composition, it can be difficult to identify persons who have the type of public interest knowledge of the given professional activity, as distinct from being a member of the profession, and who meet the gender requirements. These are difficulties that Ministers have to grapple with. I am happy to reiterate what the Tánaiste said, which will certainly warrant what has been said in the House this evening being taken into consideration in the making of any appointments that are at our discretion.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I acknowledge the Minister of State’s change of tone. I hope, irrespective of what action is now taken, he will raise this matter with the Tánaiste, as indicated, and the Government will adhere to the spirit of this amendment, at least. I acknowledge, too, the Minister of State’s point on the legal architecture necessary in this regard, but it must be started somewhere. I may not have the resources in terms of the exactitude required in drafting legislation, but we have some small experience. I assure the Minister of State that it is experience that we will continue to gain. The spirit of it is strongly held by me and clearly, by other Opposition voices. The Minister of State has reflected good intent in this regard and I acknowledge this. However, I advise the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that I will press my amendment.
Question put: “That the words proposed to be deleted stand.”
[95]The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 55.
| Tá | |
| Ahern, Michael. | Ahern, Noel. |
| Andrews, Barry. | Ardagh, Seán. |
| Blaney, Niall. | Brady, Johnny. |
| Brady, Martin. | Browne, John. |
| Callanan, Joe. | Callely, Ivor. |
| Carey, Pat. | Carty, John. |
| Cassidy, Donie. | Collins, Michael. |
| Coughlan, Mary. | Cregan, John. |
| Cullen, Martin. | Curran, John. |
| Davern, Noel. | de Valera, Síle. |
| Dennehy, John. | Devins, Jimmy. |
| Ellis, John. | Finneran, Michael. |
| Fitzpatrick, Dermot. | Fleming, Seán. |
| Gallagher, Pat The Cope. | Glennon, Jim. |
| Grealish, Noel. | Hanafin, Mary. |
| Haughey, Seán. | Jacob, Joe. |
| Keaveney, Cecilia. | Kelleher, Billy. |
| Kelly, Peter. | Killeen, Tony. |
| Kirk, Seamus. | Kitt, Tom. |
| Lenihan, Brian. | Lenihan, Conor. |
| McDowell, Michael. | McEllistrim, Thomas. |
| McGuinness, John. | Moloney, John. |
| Moynihan, Donal. | Moynihan, Michael. |
| Mulcahy, Michael. | Ó Cuív, Éamon. |
| Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. | O’Connor, Charlie. |
| O’Dea, Willie. | O’Donnell, Liz. |
| O’Donovan, Denis. | O’Flynn, Noel. |
| [97]O’Keeffe, Batt. | O’Keeffe, Ned. |
| O’Malley, Fiona. | O’Malley, Tim. |
| Parlon, Tom. | Power, Peter. |
| Power, Seán. | Sexton, Mae. |
| Smith, Brendan. | Smith, Michael. |
| Treacy, Noel. | Wallace, Dan. |
| Wallace, Mary. | Wilkinson, Ollie. |
| Woods, Michael. | |
| [97]Níl | |
| Allen, Bernard. | Boyle, Dan. |
| Breen, James. | Breen, Pat. |
| Broughan, Thomas P. | Bruton, Richard. |
| Burton, Joan. | Connaughton, Paul. |
| Connolly, Paudge. | Costello, Joe. |
| Cowley, Jerry. | Crawford, Seymour. |
| Crowe, Seán. | Deenihan, Jimmy. |
| Durkan, Bernard J. | Enright, Olwyn. |
| Ferris, Martin. | Gilmore, Eamon. |
| Gormley, John. | Gregory, Tony. |
| Hayes, Tom. | Healy, Seamus. |
| Higgins, Joe. | Higgins, Michael D. |
| Howlin, Brendan. | Lynch, Kathleen. |
| McCormack, Padraic. | McEntee, Shane. |
| McGinley, Dinny. | McGrath, Finian. |
| McGrath, Paul. | McManus, Liz. |
| Mitchell, Gay. | Morgan, Arthur. |
| Murphy, Catherine. | Murphy, Gerard. |
| Naughten, Denis. | Neville, Dan. |
| Noonan, Michael. | Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. |
| Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. | O’Keeffe, Jim. |
| O’Shea, Brian. | O’Sullivan, Jan. |
| Pattison, Seamus. | Penrose, Willie. |
| Rabbitte, Pat. | Ryan, Seán. |
| Sargent, Trevor. | Sherlock, Joe. |
| Stagg, Emmet. | Timmins, Billy. |
| Twomey, Liam. | Upton, Mary. |
| Wall, Jack. | |
[97]Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Stagg.
[97]Question declared carried.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I propose to share time with Deputies Ó Snodaigh, Ferris, Sargent, Finian McGrath and Joe Higgins.
An Ceann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.
—re-affirming its support for the Good Friday Agreement as endorsed in referendums by the people of Ireland North and South;
[98]—recognising the political progress brought about by the peace process and the Agreement, benefiting all the people of Ireland; and
—reiterating its appreciation of the work undertaken to date by the North-South Ministerial Council and the North-South bodies;
—work for the full implementation of the Agreement in all its aspects and for the re-establishment of the institutions of the Agreement at the earliest date;
—promote all-Ireland policies and strategies, benefiting all parts of the island;
—actively seek to persuade Unionists, through dialogue, of the advantages of unification for all the people who share this island, in their diversity; and
—prepare politically, economically, socially and culturally for Irish unifi[99]cation, identifying steps and measures, including a Green Paper, which can assist a successful transition to a united Ireland.
Cuirim fáilte roimh Theachtaí Shinn Féin ón Tuaisceart, ón taobh eile den Teorainn. I welcome to the Visitors Gallery Sinn Féin MPs, including our party president Gerry Adams, and members of the Northern Assembly.
Molaim an rún seo ar son Theachtaí Shinn Féin. Is annamh a bhí deis ag an Dáil aontú na hÉireann a phlé. Ní cuimhin liom díospóireacht ar an gceist seo ónar toghadh mé i 1997. Cé gur phléamar próiseas na síochána go minic, ní raibh deis againn díriú ar an ghá a bheith ag obair i dtreo aontú na hÉireann. Mar sin, cuireann séáthas orainn, mar Theachtaí Shinn Féin, an rún seo a chur os comhair na Dála agus iarraidh ar gach Teachta tacú leis.
Ní rún amháin atá ann seo, áfach. Seo fógra chomh maith go bhfuilimid chun dul ar aghaidh go dtí an cuspóir sin i gcuideachta gach duine sa tír a bhfuil an cuspóir daonlathach sin aige nó aici.
It is an honour to present this motion on behalf of the Sinn Féin Deputies. The motion encapsulates the central aim of our party and, more importantly, the sincerely held objective of the vast majority of the people of Ireland. The democratic objective of the reunification of Ireland is reflected, to one degree or another, in all political parties represented in the Oireachtas. All the principal political parties state that Irish unity is one of their aims but it must be more than an aspiration and an objective, however sincerely held. If we are serious and sincere we must work together towards Irish unity. This motion is an invitation to do just that.
We have debated the peace process many times but we have not taken the opportunity to address the issue of Irish unity itself. Our motion presents such an opportunity. This debate comes in the wake of the momentous decision of the IRA to end its armed campaign and to put its weapons beyond use. I do not believe any of us yet appreciates the enormity of this development. It will take time for it to be seen in its proper historical context. It marked a crossroads not only in the peace process but in the development of politics on this island. It confirmed what the peace process had established — that Irish republicans are totally committed to the peaceful and democratic way forward to our objective of Irish unity and national sovereignty.
The immediate task before us is the reinstatement of the structures established under the Good Friday Agreement. That is the responsibility first and foremost of the British and Irish [100]Governments. On the part of the DUP there can be no more possible excuses for non-engagement with Sinn Féin. The excuse of IRA weapons is no longer tenable; indeed, the hollowness of that excuse as used so often in the past has been exposed since the IRA’s announcement and its putting of weapons beyond use.
Those who seek to minimise the significance of developments this past summer and the potential for progress which they offer, are doing a grave disservice to their constituents. However, I believe the DUP will enter negotiations with Sinn Féin. One thing is certain — whittling down the Agreement, failing to implement it or abandoning the legitimate political objective of Irish unity will not encourage dialogue. On the contrary, it will reinforce intransigence.
Sinn Féin has tabled this motion and we urge the Irish Government to publish a Green Paper on Irish unity because we believe that the practical planning for a United Ireland should begin now. It is a moderate motion and I am disappointed at the Government amendment which does not reflect in full the essence of the proposition before us. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to abandon its amendment and to support the Sinn Féin motion.
Throughout the peace process we have consistently urged an island wide approach in key policy areas, including the economy, health, education, employment, agriculture and tourism. We have given practical expression to this through the work of our Ministers in the Executive and the all-Ireland Ministerial Council. In the Assembly and in the Dáil, Sinn Féin representatives have continuously pressed the need to sustain and develop the all-island approach enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement. By planning for Irish unity and by demonstrating that unification can lead to a better society for all the people of this island, Nationalists will go far towards persuading many Unionists that they can have a secure future in a new, united Ireland.
We should be strengthening and building upon the all-Ireland aspects of the Agreement. The Irish Government should be initiating and sustaining a planned programme of all-Ireland social and economic development which aims to remove the obstacles created by partition, strengthen the links between the people in all parts of the island and integrate the economy and society. Such work should proceed at all levels and the Irish Government should not be dependent upon the active co-operation of any British Administration, although such co-operation is not only desirable but an obligation of the British Government under the Agreement.
Central to the Good Friday Agreement is an equality agenda which seeks to address many injustices. It cannot be stressed enough that [101]equality applies to everyone. It will benefit all sections of the community. The attempt to portray the equality agenda as meaning privilege for Nationalists is the latest manifestation of the sectarian scare tactic designed to prevent Unionists making common cause at any level with Nationalists. Unionists need to embrace the equality agenda. There is no other way forward for their community. Refusal to do so can slow down but cannot halt the process of change. Participation now in the process of change is the best guarantee that their interests will be represented most effectively.
Many in the unionist community already privately admit that Irish unity is inevitable. Recognition that this process of change is leading to Irish unity will be a very painful but ultimately liberating development for Unionists. Nationalists throughout Ireland also need to come to terms with the reality that the achievement of their aim of Irish reunification will mean profound change. The political landscape will be transformed. New political alignments will evolve. New island wide economics will develop. There will be new demands on the economy to meet the needs of a reunited island and people. There will be many challenges but also many opportunities.
Every Deputy and Senator has received a copy of Sinn Féin’s discussion document, A Green Paper on Irish Unity. In summary it sets out the following programme. There is a national responsibility on the Irish Government to formulate and implement a strategy to achieve the democratic objectives of national self-determination, Irish reunification, political independence and national reconciliation. Consultation, engagement, persuasion and negotiation, with a view to securing active support for a united Ireland, must be the means towards these ends. It must involve a negotiation with the British Government and must be underpinned by a meaningful and substantial peace dividend from both Governments.
Such a strategy needs to have an international dimension which includes seeking specific forms of support from popular and political opinion in Britain, the Irish diaspora and the international community. The Taoiseach should commission a Green Paper on Irish unity to be completed within one year. The aim should be to identify steps and measures which can promote and assist a successful transition to a united Ireland and to develop detailed planning for a new state and a new society that all Irish people can share. All stakeholders in society on this island must be given an opportunity to take ownership of the debate and be part of the process this initiates.
The Green Paper should be referred to a specially dedicated joint all-party committee of the Oireachtas on Irish unity to monitor, assess [102]and report progress on implementation. A Minister of State should be appointed by the Government with the dedicated and specific responsibility of driving forward and developing policy options and strategies to advance the outcomes of the Green Paper and to direct and co-ordinate the Government’s all-Ireland policies. Participation by people resident in the Six Counties in the democratic life of the nation should be facilitated and include Northern representation in the Houses of the Oireachtas. Citizens in the Six Counties should have voting rights in presidential elections and for a reformed Seanad elected on a national list system.
Finally, the Irish Government, in consultation with the social partners, the community and NGO sector, the business and agricultural sectors and the trade unions, must begin the process of co-ordinating economic planning on an all-Ireland basis.
I look forward to a serious debate on these proposals. I call on the Taoiseach to proceed with his invitation to the 18 MPs in the Six Counties to participate in a committee of the Dáil, beginning in early 2006 and to be held at least twice a year. The knee jerk and partitionist reactions to this reasonable and modest proposal from the leaders of Fine Gael and Labour surely raise profound questions for the members of these two parties, one of which subtitles itself “the United Ireland Party” and the other which claims the mantle of James Connolly. I ask Fianna Fáil Deputies and Senators, and indeed their party’s members, if they will allow this proposal that we have put forward to be vetoed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, who has called for Irish republican MPs, elected on the basis of non-participation in Westminster, to take their seats there and to swear an oath of allegiance to the English Queen. These nay-sayers have misrepresented the Irish people. We are mandated by them to work together for the benefit of this country, and that includes working together towards Irish national reunification.
The type of society we will have in a united Ireland is already being shaped. We must ensure that it is not a cold house for any section of our community. What Dr. Martin Luther King said about the world in 1967 applies equally to Ireland and the world in this new century:
[103]I put the motion to the House and recommend it to all Deputies.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Ar dtús báire ba mhaith liom an deis seo a ghlacadh chun fáiltiú arís roimh an chéim chróga a ghlac Óglaigh na hÉireann i mí Mheán Fómhair, ag léiriú arís go bhfuil siad dáiríre faoi Éire a athaontú go síochánta. In aineoinn nár sínitheoirí Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta iad, táid tar éis na dualgaisí a bhí curtha orthu a chomhlíonadh, rud nach bhfuil fíor maidir le sínitheoirí na cáipéise úd, Rialtas an Stáit seo ina measc.
Chonaic mé leasú an Rialtas níos luaithe inniu agus tá sé tragóideach. Meatacháin atá iontu. Nach bhfuil aon chnámh droma acu? Nach bhfuil siad sásta seasamh leis an idéal a bhí ag bunaitheoirí a bpáirtí agus obair chun Éire a aontú, seachas an tseafóid seo atá acu, “ná cuir as do na hAontachtóirí”? Cad faoi na náisiúntóirí? Cad faoi na poblachtánaigh? Nár fhógair Bertie féin le déanaí gur phoblachtánach é? Níl aon ról ag aon phoblachtánach suí ar an chlaí ag fanacht le Éire í féin a athaontu.
Tá sé de dhánacht ag an Rialtas a rá linne ina leasú go bhfuil dualgais fós le comhlíonadh ag poblachtánaigh. B’fhiú dóibh féachaint ina stábla féin ar dtús, más ag lorg teist an chomhaontaithe a theip ortáid. B’fhiú dóibh féachaint air sin.
Mary Coughlan: An focal a úsáid gan ómós a thabhairt don Teach seo, ní Bertie rud ar bith ach an Taoiseach.
Mr. Treacy: Gan ómós a thabhairt don Teach.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Ag casadh ar an méid atá le rá agam mar gheall ar dhualgais an Rialtais, tá freagracht áirithe acu maidir le sraith a trí de Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta a chomhlíonadh, is é sin “cinntiú go mbeidh ar a laghad léibhéal cosanta ar chomhchéim”ó thaobh cearta daonna agus forálacha cothromais sna 26 Chontae is atá sna Sé Chontae.
Creidim dá réir go bhfuil dualgas ar an Rialtas treorú don Aire Dlí agus Cirt, Comhionannais agus Athchóirithe Dlí, an Teachta McDowell, múnla Patten i dtaobh póilínteachta a ghlacadh don Gharda Síochána, Fear an Phobail nó Ombudsman an Gharda ina measc.
Theip ar an Stát arís teist an chomhchéimeacha's a ghlanadh nuair a deineadh Coinbhinsiún na hEorpa um Chearta Daonna a chorprú anuraidh. Ba chéim chun tosaigh bunú Choimisiún Chearta Daonna na hÉireann, ach má tá sé chun an teist atá luaite agam a chomhlíonadh agus a ghlanadh is gá déileál leis an easpa maoine a choscann éó bheith ag obair agus ag gníomhú gan stró. Is gá chomh maith a rá leis an Aire Dlí agus Cirt, [104]Comhionannais agus Athchóirithe Dlí gur gá dóéisteacht agus aird a thabhairt ar mholtaí a thagann ón choimisiún sin. Arís agus arís eile, tá tar éis teip ar an Rialtas ó thaobh an Chomhaontaithe de sa chás seo. Feictear é sin ar an tslí a bhfuil sé ag caitheamh leis an lucht siúil, na dídeanaithe agus imircigh, agus an dá leibhéal de shaoránacht a bhunaigh sé anuraidh. Féach ar an phraiseach a dhein sé maidir leis an Acht míchumais níos luaithe i mbliana. Nuair a chaith daoine vóta ar son an Chomhaontaithe i 1998, bhí siad ag tnúth go mbeidh tairbhe le baint acu as an chosaint ar chearta a bhuaigh poblachtánaigh san idirbheartaíocht roimhe sin. Ach níl le feiscint acu ó shin ach go bhfuil an chosaint sin á laghdú de réir chlár polaitiúl na heite deise.
Ar cheist na slándála bhí an méid seo le rá ins an Chomhaontú: “gur féidir agus gur chóir gurb ionann forbairt timpeallachta síochána ar bhonn an Chomhaontaithe seo agus gnáthshocruithe agus gnáthchleachtais slándála a thabhairt isteach”. Bhí sé i gceist, dar ndóigh, go scarfaí leis na hAchtanna um Chiontaí in aghaidh an Stáit 1939-85 mar a ligeann na coinníollacha síos. De thairbhe na forála seo, thuaraiscigh Binse Morris, mar shampla, moltaí Hederman, agus go háirithe conclúidí an Choiste um Chearta Daonna sna Náisiúin Aontaithe, a dúirt go lom díreach “Nach gcreideann siad go bhfuil aon bhonn cirt leis — An Chúirt Speisialta — bheith ann san lá inniú”. Tá tionchar creimneach ag reachtaíocht éigeandála ar nós na hAchtanna um Chiontaí in aghaidh an Stáit agus na Cúirte Speisialta agus níl aon áit in aon stát lena leithéid de reachtaíocht.
Tá fís ag Sinn Féin i leith Éireann ann aontaithe lonnaithe i bhForógra 1916 agus i gClár Daonlathach na Chéad Dála. Tá sé sin ár mbun luachanna agus ár mbun prionsabal.
D’fháiltigh mé an tseachtain seo caite nuair a d’fógair an Taoiseach go raibh sé chun comóradh Stáit a dhéanamh athuair ar Éirí Amach 1916, ach impím air machnamh dáirire a dhéanamh ar luachanna agus spriocanna na sínitheoirí agus cé chomh difriúil is atá séó thaifead Rialtas eile thar na blianta ins an Stát seo. Sin an aidhm agus féachaint amach anseo chun tosaigh.
Mr. Ferris: As this motion states, there is a clear and pressing need for the case for Irish unity to be actively promoted. Not to do so will condemn the north-eastern counties of this country to another prolonged period of crisis. There are those like Deputy Rabbitte who argue the opposite. In his speech here on 28 September, Deputy Rabbitte spoke about the Six Counties as though it was some exotic country on the other side of the world, and its inhabitants a strange band of beings whose actions and motivations are a constant puzzle to all of us in this part of our country.
[105]I wonder to what extent the leader of the Labour Party speaks for all his members when he adopts that attitude. The vast majority of Labour members and supporters who I know see themselves in the tradition of James Connolly and strongly support the demand for a united Ireland. Perhaps Deputy Rabbitte is speaking more from the perspective of the anti-republican ideology that dominated Democratic Left.
Deputy Rabbitte and others contend that the solution to their problem is to engineer a permanent settlement in which the Six Counties remain forever under British sovereignty. Republicans who argue to the contrary are accused of going beyond the Good Friday Agreement and of deepening divisions.
Republicans have never made any secret of the fact that we do not regard a devolved administration as the final settlement. What we have done, with others who do not include Deputy Rabbitte, is bring about a situation in which advocates of Irish unity and defenders of the union can argue their respective positions in something approaching a normal political environment.
However, we do not believe that political normality can ever be achieved while the British claim and exercise jurisdiction over that part of our country. Far from that jurisdiction being “bedded down”, as hoped for by Deputy Rabbitte and others, the period since 1998 has proven that it is the ultimate and ongoing cause of tension and instability. Therefore, the logical solution to that is to bring about a situation in which all the people of Ireland can create a state in which all our cultural identities and interests are accommodated. It is our belief that this can be best achieved in an all-Ireland republic.
Deputy Rabbitte also accused republicans of failing to recognise or to address what he terms inter-communal divisions. That is patronising nonsense. How could republicans in the Six Counties fail to recognise differences that govern every aspect of their life there?
As for failing to do anything to address those divisions, I assure Deputy Rabbitte that my party has far closer and more genuine links with members of the Unionist community than he or anyone else in this State. Those links are extensive and ongoing and sometimes, in the light of sensitivities, of necessity, low-key. They are something we take very seriously and not to be used as occasional publicity stunts.
Over the course of our dialogue with unionism we have come to recognise deeply held beliefs and fears, and have sought in various ways to address them. We have no wish to oppress or dominate those with different belief systems and cultures but we are nonetheless convinced that the best way in which to protect all differences is through the creation of a genuinely republican [106]society, as envisaged by the founders of Irish republicanism and the framers of the 1916 Proclamation and Democratic Programme. It was not Irish republicans who allowed this State to be turned into a narrow clerical dominated society in which the sort of horrors we read about in the Ferns Report were allowed take place — a society of mass poverty and emigration. Those responsible for that were successive Fianna Fáil Governments and coalitions that included Fine Gael and the Labour Party. Republicans did not create that society and we have no wish to recreate it and foist it on our fellow Irish men and women in the Six Counties.
I must also refer to the positive role played by the Irish Republican Army in attempting to bring about a settlement. The IRA helped to initiate the peace process and the ceasefires declared by the organisation were crucial steps on the way to the Good Friday Agreement. Unfortunately, the goodwill displayed by the IRA and the risks taken by that organisation have not always been reciprocated. Nonetheless, the IRA has continued to take bold initiatives. In September it took an unprecedented step in regard to its structures and arms. This was done despite considerable unease among republicans conscious of the dangers inherent in a situation where Unionism retains the physical means to attack Nationalists. While I know that there has been a generally positive reaction from members of the Unionist community, there is little leadership among its political representatives, who are either unwilling or afraid to reciprocate in a way that would lead to the re-establishment of the political institutions. Of course, it is also the responsibility of the two Governments, particularly the British Government, to ensure that this takes place as soon as possible. Once that is done there can be some semblance of normal democratic politics. Unionists will be free to argue their position and Sinn Féin will certainly not be found wanting in promoting the need for an all-island settlement.
Mr. Sargent: I move amendment No. 3:
“—promote the full development of strands one, two and three of the Agreement so that decisions in relation to North-South as well as East-West and Northern concerns are taken on a sustainable basis at the lowest effective level and in a way that respects diverse political aspirations and devolved decision making as provided for in the Good Friday Agreement.”
[107]Is oth liom a rá nach féidir liom aontú go hiomlán le rún Shinn Féin, cé go dtugaimid tacaíocht do cheithre as seacht gcuid den rún atá os ár gcomhair anocht. Tá an Comhaontas Glas ar bun ó 1981 ag obair ar sheacht bprionsabal. Those principles include a sustainable quality of life, maximising self-reliance for communities and encouraging grassroots democracy which prioritises consensus based decision-making principles. Like all parties in the House, we have campaigned for the Good Friday Agreement and continue to work for its full implementation. However, we are unique among Dáil parties in that we do not trace our origins back to violent revolution, which I acknowledge resulted in the formation of the State, represented by Deputies in Dáil Éireann while the Northern province was represented by Northern MPs, some of whom we welcome to the audience for this debate.
For many Greens, the nation state has a useful role in forging identity and in addressing many needs but it is not by any means sufficient to deal with the major global and international problems we discuss on occasion in the House, although not often enough, such as climate change, drug trafficking, the exploitation of workers and so on. For this reason, our amendment recognises the importance of the Good Friday Agreement in its totality, including the importance of strand one. Much work remains to be done and we must focus on this, for example, with regard to policing. Sinn Féin has an important role in moving forward that agenda, which I hope it will help by joining the policing authorities as soon as possible.
Strand two is vital and needs to be further developed. The Ceann Comhairle will know that on the Order of Business we regularly ask, particularly in the context of the Ferns report, when we will have a register of people considered unsafe to work with children. We are repeatedly told that the hold-up is due to the lack of progress in the peace process and the lack of an Assembly in the North. For many, this is ironic because rather than doing away with all forms of terror, we seem to be replacing one form of terror, paramilitarism, with another form involving children being exposed to danger.
The Sinn Féin amendment should focus more on strand three, which concerns the east-west dimension of the Good Friday Agreement. We know of the threat of bird flu, the ongoing threat of rabies, fisheries issues and, given the Rossport five controversy, the importance of gas supplies for this country. Gas will not be supplied from the Corrib gas field in anything like the quantity needed so we must ensure good working relations and co-operation between Ireland, Britain and mainland Europe as far as Siberia if we are to [108]take for granted the supply of energy at current levels. The east-west dimension is not simply a political aspiration; it is vital for our day-to-day needs.
The Sinn Féin motion, while valid in terms of the aspirations of that party and many other people of a Nationalist background is, unfortunately, another example of putting the cart before the horse. As one who sees a rationale behind an all-island organisation which takes into account the co-operation of people of diverse political opinions, I believe it is more likely to frighten Unionists than to persuade them down the road to joining a united Ireland. For example, if we all support the Good Friday Agreement, we should acknowledge that Northern Ireland exists. I repeatedly ask why we must listen to constant references to the Six Counties. I accept that the term is a numerically correct statement of fact but Northern Ireland exists. The Good Friday Agreement acknowledged this fact and we all supported the Agreement on the basis that we accepted it. It is time we were mature enough to recognise it. That said, this is not to agree that Northern Ireland must always exist or that we wish to deny anyone’s valid political aspirations.
I agree with the motion that we need to maximise North-South developments, whether in regard to REPS, an island-wide environmental protection agency, transport issues that relate to both sides of the Border, or energy issues. I do not blame Sinn Féin for rushing the fence at this point given that Fianna Fáil has demonstrated it is quite happy to make political footballs out of serious issues such as the commemoration of 1916.
Mr. Treacy: That is a disgraceful statement.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: It is a coincidence, no doubt.
Mr. Sargent: It is a political football, as the Minister of State well knows. Everybody in this country has particular regard for the sacrifice that took place in 1916 and its important effect on our history. My family would have known the Pearse brothers from 1912 and many in this Chamber would have a particular wish to be involved in 1916 commemoration ceremonies.
Mr. Treacy: Why does the Deputy not do so?
Mr. Sargent: Because Fianna Fáil has decided the ceremonies are an Ard-Fheis device to rally its troops and try to out-do the Sinn Féin Party. People will see it for what it is. If Fianna Fáil was serious about the 1916 commemoration, rather than turning it into a political football it would have established a cross-party forum to establish a consensus on how all parties and Independents [109]in the House, and civic society, would wish to commemorate the 1916 Rising centenary.
Mr. F. McGrath: It is not too late.
Mary Coughlan: Someone must make a decision.
Mr. Sargent: While the peace process cannot be a cold house for Unionists, neither should it be for Opposition parties. As Dublin Castle no longer hosts the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, it is in effect a cold house for Opposition parties. This must be resolved if the Government is serious about inclusiveness and bringing Unionists on board in future governance. How can the Dáil agree to this motion when all parties have different views on what a united Ireland means? We must set down the different options and hold a referendum to avoid the pitfall of majority rule which gave us so much grief in the North.
The issue of Northern Irish MPs having speaking rights in this House must be discussed. There are several options to ensure there is an outreach north of the Border and that the door is not closed to those voices in the North which can be examined through the precedent when the late Gordon Wilson was appointed to the Seanad. We need to reform the Dáil. How can we persuade Unionists if smaller political parties are denied party recognition in the Dáil? This would not be acceptable in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Parity of esteem is needed on both sides of the Border.
Mr. F. McGrath: I welcome and support this important and excellent motion which concerns the peace process, the Good Friday Agreement and clearly maps out the way forward for all people on the island of Ireland. It is clear and straight, meriting Members’ support. This motion is above party politics. We all need to unite around these positive principles of democracy, equality and Irish independence. Sadly, there are many in the House who do not have the courage of their convictions and constantly throw out their two-nation rants in regular debates.
I am pushing for the implementation of this motion, along with the principles of Tone and Connolly. I commend and thank all those who worked hard in the peace process and who, over the years, held their nerve against doubt, cynicism and suspicion. I pay tribute to those Members involved in the process. I challenge those Members who are trying to wreck this beautiful project. I will use this occasion to defend the integrity and vision of Fr. Alec Reid, particularly in light of recent criticisms and attacks against [110]him. I stand by Fr. Reid, one of the main architects of the peace process.
I challenge the hypocrisy of those who claim to follow in the tradition of Collins, Connolly and Pearse and yet have a problem with having Northern Irish representatives speaking in this House. Statements on this matter over recent days were a disgrace. I want to see Nationalist and Unionist representatives speaking frequently in the Houses of the Oireachtas. The House should not be a cold house for any community or religion. The door must always be open for Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew or dissenter, and particularly for those with a democratic mandate.
I support the recent calls for all elected representatives in the North to participate in the House. It is particularly relevant with the talk of commemorating the ideals of the 1916 Rising which preach independence, sovereignty, equality, justice and respect for diversity. I find it astonishing that some parties have tried to hinder the principles and ideals of 1916 by preventing representatives from the North speaking in the House. It is a shameful disgrace, showing a lack of political vision and making a mockery of political and social inclusion. The majority of the people on the island of Ireland want this to happen. I urge all Members to support the motion.
The motion resolves to work for the full implementation of the Agreement in all its aspects and for the re-establishment of the institutions of the Agreement at the earliest date. It seeks to promote all-Ireland policies and strategies, benefiting all parts of the island. It actively seeks to persuade Unionists, through dialogue, of the advantages of Irish unity for all the people, in their diversity, who share this island. It resolves to prepare politically, economically, socially and culturally for Irish unification, identifying steps and measures, including a Green Paper, which can assist a successful transition to a united Ireland.
These are sensible proposals that deserve all Members’ support. I recognise the political progress brought about by the peace process and how it has benefited the people of the island of Ireland. I had my doubts about losing Articles 2 and 3 and other matters. In the end I went with those who took the risk for peace, justice and equality. It is up to all of us to move the process forward. Not talking to political opponents must never be an option in any conflict resolution scenario. Politicians must be brave with vision. We must try all options in leading our people. We now have a wealthy island but a divided people. We need to unite the people and the island of Ireland. This strategy is clearly set out in this motion. This motion is about Irish independence, justice, equality and peace but also a progressive [111]future for all our people on the island of Ireland. I urge all Members to support the motion.
Mr. J. Higgins: Both the Sinn Féin motion and the Government amendment are predicated on the belief that the Good Friday Agreement is a template for a resolution to the political crisis in Northern Ireland. That is a fundamental fallacy. The Good Friday Agreement has provided for the institutionalisation of sectarian division, not for its overcoming. Since the IRA ceasefire halted its disastrous paramilitary campaign, the polarisation of the communities in Northern Ireland has widened horrifically. It has been a process not of coming together, but unfortunately of the separation of communities. Sectarian-based political parties are part of this polarisation. They contribute to it and, in many cases, lead it.
The Provisional IRA correctly realised at the end of the 1980s that its paramilitary campaign was not winnable. In a modern industrialised society, the methods of paramilitarism or individual terrorism cannot defeat state imperialism. The end of the Provisional IRA’s campaign was also predicated on the belated acceptance by republicans that the British establishment had no vested interest in holding on to Northern Ireland as a colony. It would be quite happy to see unification of this island on the basis of the present establishments, North and South, and why not? The Twenty-six Counties is a mecca for profits for British, US and other companies without the costs of an army, administration, etc.
Opposition to a united Ireland within the context of the present set-up comes from within the Protestant population. What is sought by Sinn Féin is unification on the basis of the present system, in reality the coming together of the capitalist states, North and South. The Protestant working class in particular will simply not agree to this. If pushed in that direction, it will resist. Any delusion that a demographic change in the North will solve the problem is wrong-headed. Just as the Catholic population, a minority, never reconciled itself to the Unionist state, neither will the Protestant population ever accept a united Ireland on the basis of the present system. Sinn Féin’s attempt to rally Fianna Fáil, a right-wing party of neoliberal capitalism, behind its Green Paper for a capitalist united Ireland will copperfasten the rejection of the Protestant population. If pushed, it will not lead to a united Ireland but to a Balkanisation of Northern Ireland. A dangerous vacuum exists in the Protestant population which Love Ulster and other sectarian groups are seeking to fill.
[112]Sinn Féin aspires to coalition with Fianna Fáil. It has a similar formulation to the Labour Party of the past in that it will decide after the general election. Coalition with Fianna Fáil would mean acquiescence in the new liberal agenda dominating European capitalism at present, just as Sinn Féin Ministers in the North implemented private finance initiatives and other right wing policies of the Blair Government. That which was true in the days when James Connolly and Jim Larkin organised working class people in Belfast is true today. Only the unity of working people can overcome sectarian divisions, and that can only be achieved by working class people struggling together on the issues that confront them both at the time, such as the horrific poverty that still exists in both communities.
By opposing the economic attacks of the Blair Government such as the attempted imposition of water charges and the attack on public services they will find in the struggle the way to a democratic and socialist resolution to the national question and a future where there is no risk of one community being discriminated against by the other. The only unity achievable on this island is a socialist Ireland jointly achieved by working people, Protestant and Catholic, North and South, on the basis of a socialist economic and political transformation of society.
Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): Tá mé ag caint thar ceann an Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha, an Teachta Dermot Ahern, atá thar lear sna Stáit Aontaithe ar obair oifigiúil. Chomh maith leis sin, ba mhaith liom am a thabhairt sa díospóireacht seo don Aire Stáit, an Teachta Tracey, agus do na Teachtaí Glennon agus O’Connor. An bhfuil sé sin i gceart?
An Ceann Comhairle: Aontaithe.
Mary Coughlan: I move amendment No. 1——
An Ceann Comhairle: It is not appropriate to move the amendment at this time. The Minister may speak to the amendment.
Mary Coughlan: Níl gá ar bith dul ar aghaidh leis an leasú ag an bhomaite. Dá mbeadh cead agam, b’fhéidir go n-éireoinn as an mhéid atá le rá agam agus atá scríofa síos, mar tá sé an-deacair a bheith ag éisteacht lena bhfuil le rá ag go leor daoine anseo, ní amháin ó mhuintir Shinn Féin ach ón Teachta os mo chomhair chomh maith. I am delighted to see he is the last bastion of the socialist point of view in the House.
I welcome the opportunity to address the House this evening and to reiterate the Government’s strong commitment to the Good Friday Agreement as the template for a peaceful demo[113]cratic society in Northern Ireland and for political agreement on the island as a whole.
In 1998 the people of Ireland, North and South, voted by an overwhelming majority to support the Good Friday Agreement. In the first Thirty-two County act of self-determination since 1918, the Irish people gave the two Governments a strong, clear and unambiguous mandate for our ongoing work with the political parties to restore partnership Government to Northern Ireland. The Government’s resolve to fulfil the people’s mandate, to implement the Good Friday Agreement in full and to restore the institutions established under the Agreement has never wavered and will not waver now.
Devolved Government on an inclusive basis is clearly in the best interests of all communities in Northern Ireland. All political parties and politicians want to serve their communities and deliver for their communities. All Members of this House know this as fact. That is why we are here. Our democratic tradition, embodied and practised in this Chamber, is a strong one. We are elected to exercise responsibility on behalf of the communities we serve and we are directly accountable for the decisions we take. There is no substitute for democratic Government, linking communities with the decision-making process and those who represent their interests. We should not lose sight of the fact that our main objective is the consolidation of truly democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. That means the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It means the restoration of partnership government with locally elected Ministers working in partnership for the benefit of all. This is the fundamental purpose of our ongoing efforts.
The Government’s motion this evening underlines the simple fact that to rebuild the institutions of Government we must first rebuild confidence and momentum in the political process. When political parties North and South commended the Good Friday Agreement to the people of Ireland and when the Irish people overwhelmingly endorsed that Agreement they did so in the firm belief that it represented the definitive path to peace. We will not betray the people’s trust or undermine their confidence by settling for anything less than full implementation of the Agreement.
The constitutional balance struck in the Agreement is a careful and sensitive one. It underlines the legitimacy of seeking a united Ireland. It also recognises, however, that it is the current wish of a majority of people in Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. Most importantly, it clearly and unequivocally enshrines the principle of consent. Article 1 clearly states:
The Agreement also puts in place a mechanism through which, when the time is right, support for a united Ireland can be measured and through which effect can be given to any resulting vote in favour of change. Many in this House, including the members of this party in Government, are firmly committed to creating a climate in which unity can be achieved, a unity of people as much as of territory. Indeed our programme for Government clearly commits us to securing “lasting peace in Ireland through the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement”. It further states that the efforts to this end will be “without prejudice to the ultimate goal of achieving a united Ireland in peace and agreement”.
That aim will not be realised through the rather simplistic formula of persuasion and preparation proposed in the motion tabled by Sinn Féin this evening. Neither will it be realised through bringing forward a Green Paper on Irish unity. These proposals simply ignore the urgent and primary need to restore trust and confidence in the political process itself and to re-establish the institutions of devolved Government in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement is the Government’s clear mandate in this regard. We have no other. Any other approach to the question of unity would serve as a distraction from our immediate priority of restoring the institutions and would act as a damaging and destabilising influence on a process that can only thrive where there is trust and confidence.
I am glad to say that through the tenacity and perseverance of both Governments, in challenging circumstances, there have been significant developments in the past few months which represent a promising start towards the rehabilitation of that trust. The date on which the IRA leadership issued a statement formally announcing an end to its armed campaign, 28 July, was described by the Taoiseach as heralding a new era for all the people of the island of Ireland. He said he hoped it would mark the day when the tradition of using violence to advance political objectives in Ireland would finally come to an end. The unprecedented commitment by the IRA to end its armed campaign, to complete the process of decommissioning and to use exclusively peaceful means was welcomed here in Ireland and across the world. At that time, the Govern[115]ment said we would judge that statement based on actions. We said that independent verification would be vitally important to enable trust and confidence to be restored.
The confirmation on Monday, 26 September by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning that the IRA had put all its weapons beyond use was acknowledged and welcomed in this House as a momentous development. We received a comprehensive and unambiguous statement from General de Chastelain and his team that “the totality of the IRA’s arsenal” had been decommissioned. We also had a statement from two independent clergymen, who witnessed every stage of the process and confirmed that they were “certain, utterly certain, about the exactitude of this report”. Many will still need some time to reflect on these developments. They will need assurance that the IRA is true to its commitment of 28 July to use exclusively peaceful means. They will want to check against delivery on decommissioning and on the ending of all IRA paramilitary and criminal activity. We should be clear that there must be an end to all IRA paramilitary and criminal activity.
The seventh report of the Independent Monitoring Commission was published on 19 October. While the IMC could only make a limited assessment at that stage of the effect of the IRA statement of 28 July, the Government welcomed its findings that the initial signs are encouraging. We now look forward to the IMC reporting more fully in its next report in January 2006. We hope that the report will allow us to move forward. However, it is clearly incumbent on all parties in Northern Ireland, including those represented in this House, to co-operate and engage constructively with the IMC.
Both Governments have consistently stated that there is no place for any illegally held weapons in the new society that is emerging in Northern Ireland. We need an end also to loyalist paramilitary activity and a start to the decommissioning of loyalist arms. In that context, let me echo the words of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, when he welcomed the announcement at the weekend that the LVF is to stand down. This move is an important and necessary step towards decommissioning by all loyalist paramilitary groups and we are hopeful that it can lead to further positive developments. We urge and encourage other loyalist paramilitary groups or organisations to build on this opportunity to bring a speedy end to all paramilitary activities.
In order for us to turn the potential of recent developments into real progress for the people of Northern Ireland we will need courageous political leadership from both communities. The [116]Government motion explicitly condemns sectarian attacks on both communities. Political leaders cannot and should not show any toleration of the street violence, sectarian attacks and intimidation we have seen directed towards both communities in parts of Northern Ireland this summer.
Over the course of the past few weeks, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has made frequent visits to Northern Ireland and met with community representatives and victims of sectarian violence. He assured them of the Government’s commitment to challenging sectarianism at every opportunity. Sectarianism eats away at the fabric of society. It strangles the economy and inhibits investment, saps business confidence and costs jobs. It traps people in a cycle of poverty and hopelessness. If we are to see the new beginning for the people of Northern Ireland envisioned in the Good Friday Agreement, we need to tackle sectarianism, from any quarter, once and for all.
The full rigour of the law must be used by the authorities on both sides of the Border to counter the destructive agenda of those who engage in sectarianism and paramilitarism. At this juncture I commend the PSNI for its work in dealing with public order incidents during the marching season. I also call on Sinn Féin, in the interests of peace and political stability, to take their place in the governance of policing. No police force is perfect.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The police force in Donegal is not.
Mary Coughlan: However, the PSNI has clearly staked a claim to the trust of all communities. If it is held back, that is due in no small measure to want of support in the communities it seeks to serve. It has earned that support. A vacuum in policing is in nobody’s interest. It is certainly not in the interest of the communities most affected by the violence we have seen in recent months.
The Government is committed to a fully inclusive peace process that leaves no one behind. We support efforts to reach out to all communities in Northern Ireland and we fully accept that there is an onus on the Governments to instill confidence so that both communities find their political voice. The Taoiseach has made it clear that those in the loyalist community who seek genuine efforts at transformation will receive a genuine, open and positive response. The Government is ready and willing to work with those leaders within loyalism who are seeking to address the real needs of their communities through peaceful means.
We are under no illusions that notwithstanding the major improvements in economic and social [117]conditions in Northern Ireland over the past 15 years, there are also serious issues of deprivation and inequality across both communities. As we work towards the restoration of the institutions, we are committed to engaging with the British Government to ensure that disadvantage and inequality is tackled wherever it exists and that resources are targeted at those in greatest objective need. Ultimately, it is the restoration of devolved government that is the best way to address these issues for all sides of the community. There is simply no substitute for a locally elected executive, accountable to a locally elected assembly and working for the social and economic development of Northern Ireland.
Social and economic development North and South is inextricably linked. It is sound policy for us to address common challenges and opportunities on the island on a shared basis. This is particularly apparent to me, coming as I do from a Border constituency. Our motion is explicit in commending the excellent ongoing work of our North-South bodies in this regard. A recent Government announcement is an example of the type of North-South strategic thinking in which we believe. The Government launched a massive ten year transport investment plan yesterday to transform our transport infrastructure.
Mary Coughlan: The plan will complement the extensive infrastructure investment programme in Northern Ireland and both the British and Irish Governments are committed to working together on this investment. The people of Northern Ireland will particularly benefit from the investments in the inter-urban routes between Dublin and Belfast and Dublin and Derry.
Mr. Allen: Whenever they have it.
Mary Coughlan: Derry and the north west will also benefit from the substantial investment along the Atlantic corridor. Business throughout the island will benefit from improved journey times and enhanced access to key transport hubs such as ports and airports.
Apart from the transport agenda there are huge challenges and opportunities to boost the island economy and quality of life through infrastructure improvements in areas such as energy, telecommunications, waste management and spatial planning. This is why the Government believes in pooling thinking, planning and resources to boost the island economy.
We are conscious of the challenges that still remain to be resolved. We are also conscious of the real opportunity to fulfil the promise of the Good Friday Agreement. The Government is [118]determined to seize that opportunity. We have been lucky in our friends. From the earliest days of the peace process, our efforts have been enriched by the talent, support, patience and encouragement of many in the international community, individuals and governments alike. The Government’s amendment recognises in particular the continued and valued support of the President of the United States. President Bush and his envoy are unfailing in their personal commitment to the peace process.
Mary Coughlan: The United States Administration and members on both sides of the aisle in Congress have been with us when we needed them, every step of the way. The Deputy should know much about that in his constituency.
Mr. J. Breen: We will be okay if they do as good a job as they did in Iraq.
Mary Coughlan: I would like to conclude by remembering the victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, those on all sides who have suffered at the hands of paramilitaries.
Mr. Ferris: What about the British army and the British Government?
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: What of the UDR?
Mr. Morgan: The Minister knows we know all about that.
Mary Coughlan: We owe it to the victims of violence on both sides, to their children and their grandchildren, to persevere and press ahead to implement the Good Friday Agreement.
Mr. Morgan: The Minister is very single minded.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Order in the House.
Mary Coughlan: Some Deputies are not here as long as I am.
Mr. Morgan: Thank God. At least we have some free thinking. The Minister is badly shackled.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Order in the House.
Mary Coughlan: One attribute, respect for others, has always been the basis of this House.
[119]Aengus Ó Snodaigh: There was not much of it when I was speaking.
Mr. Ferris: The Minister should practise it herself.
Mary Coughlan: The Deputy is the right man to be criticising me. When I speak about remembering——
Mr. Morgan: It is not the Minister personally, she should know that.
Mary Coughlan: I have spoken about an issue on which this House has been at one, the remembrance of the victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Morgan: How can the Minister just name paramilitary violence?
Mary Coughlan: I take umbrage that parties in this House would show such disregard——
Mr. Morgan: The Minister should include all victims.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Order, please.
Mary Coughlan: ——when I speak of all Members——
Mr. Morgan: That is an improvement.
Mary Coughlan: ——and when I speak of all sides who have suffered at the hands of paramilitarism. I thought that maturity——
Mr. Morgan: The Minister should work away and speak on her territory.
Mary Coughlan: ——might at long last be found on certain sides of the House.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: That will take some time.
Mary Coughlan: The Government will not be found wanting. We are committed, together with the British Government, to intensifying our dialogue with the political parties to restore momentum in the process and to build a peaceful democratic society in Northern Ireland and political agreement on the island as a whole.
I commend the Government amendment to the House.
[120]Mr. Treacy: Is cúis áthais dom an deis seo a bheith agam páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht seo faoi aontú na tíre agus na daoine uilig atá ina gcónaí i dTuaisceart ár dtíre. Fáiltím roimh ár gcuairteoirí— na hionadaithe atá anseo —ó Thuaisceart an oileáin seo. Tá mé ag cuidiú ar son an Rialtais leis an leasú oifigiúil ar an rún atá os ár gcomhair. The Government amendment to this Private Members’ motion is a comprehensive one that seeks to address some glaring deficiencies in the motion as tabled by Sinn Féin.
The Good Friday Agreement offers a new beginning for all the people of Northern Ireland. It is also a challenge to leaders in both communities to take up the responsibility of building a new and shared future together. In our time, unprecedented strides have been taken in breaking what seemed to be an endless cycle of violence. However, for this cycle to be left behind forever, it will take unflagging commitment by both political and community leaders on both sides to prevent violence and foster positive relationships.
One deficiency in the motion is the absence of any reference to the sectarian attacks which in recent months have posed a very real threat to the peace process. This summer, we have seen a worrying pattern of sectarian attacks, particularly in north Antrim and in Belfast. Petrol bombs, vandalism, arson, harassment and intimidation have spread fear and reinforced segregation. These attacks have not been restricted to one side of the community. The Government has condemned these attacks and my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has visited the communities affected and has had discussions with representatives of these communities to hear their concerns directly.
Another deficiency relates to the need to avoid moves which can increase tension between the two main traditions on this island. We have also seen a demonstration of the ongoing potential for violence and disorder following the rerouting of the Whiterock parade last September. While the Government welcomes the fact that the majority of parades pass off peacefully, where they are contentious, they must be resolved through dialogue and positive engagement with the Parades Commission. The main Orange Order march in Derry on 12 July this year demonstrated what can be achieved. For the first time in 13 years, cross-community agreement was sought and reached for a route that included the city side of the Foyle. This shows that it is possible, through leadership and genuine commitment to constructive negotiation, to end destructive patterns of confrontation and begin new traditions of mutual respect.
By way of contrast, a single day of violence can undermine months of patient work to build trust between communities. Such violence must be condemned, not just by one voice but by all. If [121]the people of Northern Ireland are to be free of fear and the threat of violence, all those who claim to lead must do all in their power to prevent sectarian violence continually and without exception. The right of everyone to be free from sectarian harassment, as affirmed in the Good Friday Agreement, is unconditional.
However, we must do more than condemn those who act against this right. We must all support those who work to make its promise a reality. We must work to reduce the feelings of insecurity that go with times of change.
Another deficiency relates to the lack of any clear definition or recognition of the need to reach out in a practical and concrete way to all communities so that none is left behind by the current tide of opportunity. As the Taoiseach made clear in his speech in Bodenstown last month, the Unionist community can be sure that this part of the island holds no constitutional threat to the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. The Irish people have rejected violence and sectarianism and those who used violence to bring about a united Ireland by force have stopped their war and decommissioned the means by which they waged it.
Progress from this point must be balanced or it will sow the seeds of future instability. The Good Friday Agreement is the basis for a peaceful, more prosperous and open society. As such it must be a springboard for all the people of Northern Ireland and not be treated as a framework for separate and competitive development between communities there.
Therefore, I fully support the Taoiseach in his pledge to meet genuine, constructive loyalist leadership with an open and positive response. I also welcome the commitment by both Governments at the last British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference to enhanced engagement with the representatives of the loyalist community.
Another deficiency in the Sinn Féin motion concerns the lack of any call for an end to all paramilitary and criminal activities. This is surely central to future progress and cannot be avoided or evaded.
Mr. Morgan: Fianna Fáil Ministers have a great record with criminality.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Order, please.
Mr. Treacy: The last year has seen momentous change in the political landscape of Northern Ireland. Some time is needed for those changes to be absorbed. I reassure those who are uncertain at this time of change that these developments can work to the very real benefit of their communities.
[122]Mary Coughlan: Deputy Morgan should be careful.
Mr. Treacy: The Government will not seek to sideline any people who raise their voice constructively and peacefully on behalf of their community. No one needs a gun in his or her hand to have his or her concerns and those of his or her community listened to. Any leaders who stay on the path of confrontation and violence should note it is the surest way to hold back the development of the community they claim to represent. I therefore reiterate the call for all remaining paramilitary groups to engage with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning with a view to decommissioning their weapons along with standing down as paramilitary organisations. In that regard, I welcome this week’s announcement by the LVF.
Those committed to violence on either side and in either jurisdiction must be met with the full force of the law. The eradication of paramilitarism is a priority concern of the Government. It is an easy and contemptible thing to exert power over one’s neighbours through anxiety and fear or to intimidate people from their homes.
All the decent people of Northern Ireland have been held hostage long enough by the cowardly and criminal thuggery of the few on both sides. The Good Friday Agreement gives the framework that allows leaders on both sides to be courageous. We have already seen acts of considerable political bravery in the cause of peace. However, until we see the normalisation of society in Northern Ireland, we need political courage to be normal. We need condemnations of violence to be consistent and not selective. We must be proactive in challenging all the forms that sectarianism takes and must be consistently supportive of progressive political voices from all sectors of society in Northern Ireland.
As the Taoiseach has noted, this does not require anyone to give up his or her culture, identity or political ideals. It simply requires the peaceful expression of one’s own culture, identity and political ideas as well as tolerance in both word and deed for those of others. The Government believes that if this challenge is taken up, the Good Friday Agreement can be the basis of a true fresh start for all the people of Northern Ireland in which no one is left behind, be they Protestant or Catholic, Nationalist or Unionist, in all parts of Northern Ireland.
Mr. O’Connor: I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for providing me with the opportunity to contribute briefly to this debate and thank the Sinn Féin Members for tabling the motion. I wish to be associated with the welcome extended to their colleagues in the Visitors Gallery. It is very [123]important that politicians on both sides of the Border should have an opportunity to meet one another to share ideas on a regular basis.
It is interesting to note that on a day when Sinn Féin talked about being ready to be in Government, it has managed to divide the Opposition in a manner that is not always achieved by Members on this side of the House. I commend the Sinn Féin Members in this respect.
I will not rise to any point made except to state that I will not take lectures from Green Party Members about our commitment to 1916. My family is no different from any other in this regard. My father’s uncle was a legendary figure named Holy Joe O’Connor who was with Éamon de Valera in 1916.
Mr. Morgan: Good man. The Deputy is one of us.
Mr. O’Connor: Hence, if I wish to celebrate the 1916 Rising next year, I will not be stopped by the Green Party or by anyone else. If that can be done through the streets of Tallaght, all the better.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The Deputy has gone back to basics.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I did not know how the Deputy would manage to include Tallaght in his contribution.
Mr. O’Connor: While Members may not be aware of this, Tallaght has a very rich republican tradition and Deputy Crowe could tell many stories in that regard.
It is good to have an opportunity to express full support for the Government amendment. The Sinn Féin Deputies should examine the Government amendment, as it does less harm to the motion than what some of their close colleagues are trying to do. The amendment highlights the Government’s strong commitment to the Good Friday Agreement, as endorsed by the people of Ireland, North and South, in the 1998 referendums. As we know, the historic Agreement provides the basis for permanent peace and a lasting settlement in Northern Ireland. It is essential that we continue to work towards its full implementation.
There have been some significant developments in the peace process in recent months which we should strongly welcome. As efforts by the two Governments continue to rebuild political momentum and confidence in the process, I recall the role of the international community in supporting the Good Friday Agreement as the basis of a lasting settlement in Northern Ireland.
[124]While it is regrettable that this is not acknowledged by some of the other amendments before the House, I am pleased that the Government’s amendment includes an explicit acknowledgement of the valuable support provided by the United States of America and successive American presidents. On the long and often difficult path to peace in Northern Ireland, America has been with us every step of the way. The importance of bipartisan US support cannot be overestimated. Its contribution to the efforts to secure a lasting peace and stability in Northern Ireland has been immeasurable. We cannot overstate the political importance of this solidarity in bringing us so far on the road to peace. It is crystal clear to the people of Northern Ireland that the US is committed to their future.
This is a worthwhile debate and I look forward to listening to other contributions, particularly tomorrow night.
Mr. Allen: I wish to share time with Deputies Jim O’Keeffe and Crawford. During the recent Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, the Taoiseach announced that the traditional 1916 Easter parade would be reinstated. An announcement of this type should have come about following extensive consultation with all political parties and not as part of a political party jamboree. However, the announcement was made without any consultation with my party or with some other parties in this House.
It is very telling to note that, following this announcement, Sinn Féin has tabled a motion calling for Ireland to prepare politically, economically, socially and culturally for unification. It seems to me that what we are witnessing is a type of power play between Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin where each party is more concerned with consolidating its respective position with certain elements of the electorate rather than concentrating on the real work that must be done to ensure that the Good Friday Agreement is implemented in full and that peace and stability is fully embedded in Northern Ireland.
The Sinn Féin motion as presented to this House is, therefore, opportunistic and premature. The goal of unification is valid but failing to recognise the work that must be done here and now will do nothing to achieve it. Instead of putting forward motions extolling the virtues of unification, Sinn Féin would be much better employed working in all possible ways towards meeting its responsibilities to the communities it represents. Sinn Féin representatives should take their places on the Northern Ireland Policing Board and at the district policing partnerships. Policing in Northern Ireland has been revolutionised with the establishment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI.
[125]At the time of the murder of Mr. Robert McCartney, Sinn Féin found it impossible for many weeks to call for witnesses to go to the PSNI with any information they may have had regarding that dreadful crime. This failure to recognise the rule of law and order and the role of the PSNI in Northern Ireland was unacceptable, as was the party’s entire response to the murder of that unfortunate individual.
Sinn Féin calls for the establishment of restorative justice schemes in Northern Ireland which it describes as a viable alternative to the PSNI. Alternatives to the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces in this State would not be tolerated by Fine Gael. Similarly, members of Sinn Féin should no longer seek to undermine the new structures of the PSNI but should take their places on the Northern Ireland policing board and work with other parties in Northern Ireland to build the best possible policing for the communities they represent.
Sinn Féin also has a clear obligation to co-operate fully with the Independent Monitoring Commission, IMC. IRA decommissioning is welcome but we must see an end to punishment beatings, the exiling of individuals and criminality perpetrated under the veneer of political activity. The recently published seventh report of the IMC noted that the Provisional IRA was responsible for a number of attacks over the period under review, including a shooting and ten assaults. In May, the Provisional IRA forced the removal of one family from its home and attempted to do the same to another last June. The IMC has frequently noted that the leadership of the republican movement has the capacity to turn on and off the tap of violence. We want this tap to be turned off for good and disconnected at the mains. All Members of this House will await the next set of findings of the IMC with considerable interest.
I am not in favour of any move that could be seen to inflame tensions on any part of this island. There are two main communities in Northern Ireland and a myriad of other people who are uncomfortable in aligning themselves with either grouping. The role of this House is not to alienate one community over another or to move in a direction that will clearly, overtly or deliberately antagonise or frighten others. Our role is not to frustrate the peace process or progress in Northern Ireland but to support it and the best way to do so is to focus all our energies towards the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.
In this regard, the recent proposals from the Government to allow Northern Ireland’s Members of Parliament access to the Oireachtas are deeply unhelpful. These proposals will damage the prospects for political progress because they clearly follow the demands of one [126]party alone, as is also the case in this motion presented by Sinn Féin.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: That is not true. With respect, it is factually incorrect.
Mr. Allen: Fine Gael will not endorse any side deals made by the Taoiseach with the leadership of Sinn Féin, whether these relate to Oireachtas speaking rights for Northern MPs or the possible release of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe.
Fine Gael established the democratic institutions of this State and we will not allow them to be undermined in any way. Sinn Féin’s Deputies have speaking rights in line with their democratic mandate at the previous general election.
Mr. Morgan: We would not get them from Deputy Allen.
Mr. Allen: The Good Friday Agreement envisages the future establishment of a parliamentary forum between the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly at which issues of mutual interest could be discussed. Fine Gael supports the establishment of such a forum as part of the full implementation of the Agreement.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: I speak on behalf of Fine Gael, the united Ireland party. I notice this raises mirth on the part of some of the Johnny come lately patriot representatives of Sinn Féin and the IRA.
Mr. Morgan: In one minute, the Deputy has transformed the Fine Gael policies of 80 years.
Mr. Ferris: The Deputy should visit Ballyseedy.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Speaking on behalf of the united Ireland party——
Mr. Morgan: The Deputy is welcome aboard.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: ——when I speak about uniting the country I do not refer to a Government in Dublin, rather a healing of the divisions between the people on this island. Now that the murderous campaigns of the IRA and other paramilitaries have ended, we have a real opportunity to advance towards this objective and of which we can avail in the fullness of time. What must be clear is that the opportunity will not be realised by those who believe unity can be achieved by force or sleight of hand. Neither can this unity be achieved by those blind to the reality of the situation in so far as they are stubbornly opposed to progress that is acceptable to normal and reasonable people on this island.
[127]Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The Deputy is talking about himself.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Fine Gael has always had a bipartisan approach to matters relating to Northern Ireland. Essentially, this has involved not making political capital out of such matters and, while in Opposition, broadly supporting the thrust of Government policy in dealing with the issue without giving a blank cheque. Fianna Fáil has mainly followed the same approach. I recollect the bizarre exception concerning the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 20 years ago, which laid the foundation for this country’s present progress and the Good Friday Agreement.
Apart from that bizarre exception, Fianna Fáil has followed that bipartisan approach during its time in Opposition. That bipartisan approach helped to bring about results in determined opposition to terrorism and paramilitarism, in advancing the peace process and eventually contributed to the development of the Good Friday Agreement. I commend this bipartisan approach, in particular resisting the temptation to make political capital from the national issue, to others in the House, in particular Sinn Féin.
I examined the Government amendment and I state genuinely that I support and endorse every phrase in it, no doubt delicately crafted by those in Iveagh House in the Department of Foreign Affairs. It would be in the national interest to have a unanimous vote in support of those sentiments tomorrow.
I mentioned the full support of the courts for the Good Friday Agreement and bipartisan support for the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland. However, let me make clear that Fine Gael does not give the Government a blank cheque. The leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Enda Kenny, made it clear that Fine Gael would not support issues outside of the Good Friday Agreement, such as arose in the case of the release of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. Deputy Kenny stoutly stood up and defended the position of Detective Garda McCabe’s family and widow and members of the Garda Síochána. We did not and will not support anything other than that. Whether or not it was a side deal to the Good Friday Agreement, it was not part of the Agreement.
In the same way, it is not in the Good Friday Agreement to extend either representation or speaking rights in this House to people from Northern Ireland. I was vice-chairman of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution which examined this issue two days after the conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement. The views and decisions of that committee have been misrepresented. The decision of that committee was to endorse the proposal in paragraph 18 of [128]strand two of the Good Friday Agreement that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Oireachtas should consider developing a joint parliamentary forum bringing together equal numbers from both institutions to discuss matters of mutual interest and concern.
The committee also supported the establishment of an independent consultative forum as mooted in paragraph 19 of the Agreement. It examined the issue of representation in this House and the unanimous recommendation of the committee was that no change should be made in the franchise for Dáil elections. The committee also examined the issue of speaking rights, teased out all the aspects and its final view was, “that any such participation should take place on a cross-community basis with parity of esteem for the different communities in Northern Ireland”.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We fully agree.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: That is why I consider it utterly ridiculous that the Taoiseach should write to party leaders recommending such a course of action in the situation that exists at this stage. In his letter he envisages that a committee of this House would meet at least every six months, with the first meeting to be held in early 2006. Is there the slightest opportunity that we would have cross-party representation from Northern Ireland in this House in early 2006? Is the Taoiseach living in another world or does he have another agenda as far as Sinn Féin is concerned?
Mr. Morgan: We have enough Unionists here at the moment.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: That is a matter for him to explain to this House and to the Irish people. What must we do about Northern Ireland? We must ensure this House unanimously supports an end to criminality in this country and on this island. It would be helpful if that support were there.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Of course the Deputy will not see an end to criminality.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: This House should also unanimously support the police on this island——
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We will not see an end to criminality until the rights of all political expression, including Deputy O’Keeffe’s——
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: ——including the Garda Síochána and the PSNI. It would be helpful to the development of the peace process on this island if that unanimous support were forthcoming. I do not see it as yet. I would like to see that followed [129]by the re-establishment of the institutions in Northern Ireland, as those provided for by the Good Friday Agreement are part of the peace process. I am running out of time.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We know that.
Mr. Morgan: I am sure Deputy O’Keeffe is running out of time.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: I am running out of time on this motion.
Mr. Morgan: It is a bit late to correct that.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The Fine Gael Party and its predecessor, Cumman na nGaedheal dealt with the issue——
Mr. Morgan: And its predecessor the Blueshirts.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: ——long before Deputy Morgan’s Johnny come lately party was founded in 1969.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The Deputy should cop on to himself. He does not understand his own history.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: I genuinely believe it would be in the national interest to have an all-party bipartisan approach to the national issue. No party in this House should try to make political capital from the national issue and the problem of Northern Ireland. Fianna Fáil did it in the past and Sinn Féin is doing it now.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The Deputy should listen to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and conclude.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: We should have a unanimous vote in the House in favour of the Government’s amendment.
Mr. Crawford: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion asking Dáil Éireann to reaffirm its support for the Good Friday Agreement. I recognise more than most the benefits that permanent peace can bring to this island home of ours. I am old enough to clearly remember the 30 year period, from the late 1960s to the end of the last century, when more than 3,000 people died and thousands of others took injuries to their graves or still bear the burden of injuries on both sides of the religious and political divide. Fine Gael has a proud record, being the first party to clearly see that this issue could be dealt with through democratic political means. Unfortunately, when the Sunningdale Agreement was signed by the then [130]Taoiseach, Mr. Liam Cosgrave, and the late Mr. Brian Faulkner, other so-called democrats went out of their way to make it unworkable.
In the 1980s Fine Gael, led by the then Taoiseach, Mr. Garret FitzGerald, followed through with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. At that time, the main Opposition party went out of its way to condemn that agreement, to the extent of sending people to the United States to undermine it. Of course, records will show that 12 months later, while in Government, the same party fully operated the agreement which brought about a new and workable structure on this island. IFI funding came about because of that agreement and the European funding for peace that came from the Good Friday Agreement has also been of benefit. I sought IRA decommissioning, which recently occurred, since the Good Friday Agreement was signed. I wish to make it clear to the people in the Public Gallery that I did not seek it for the sake of decommissioning. They are welcome here and I would be happy to see them in this House rather than at the activities in which they were previously involved.
It is equally important to finalise policing structures. It is clear that many young Catholic men and women are prepared and eager to join the ranks of the PSNI. It is vital that personnel come from all areas and backgrounds because without proper policing and control of racketeering it would be difficult to have constructive peace. To this end, I believe a strong policing presence should be along the Border, both North and South. It is unacceptable to me and most right-thinking people that robbery with the use of balaclavas, knives and iron bars should happen in broad daylight, or at any other time of day for that matter.
I sought to recall the Dáil on 10 August, without apology, because I was extremely anxious that deals were being done that far exceeded what people voted on in the Good Friday Agreement referenda. My request is more justified now than ever, when we read correspondence sent from the Taoiseach’s office and hear what has been stated by the leadership of Sinn Féin regarding special rights. They claim to have agreement on speaking rights in the Dáil Chamber under the guise of a committee. My party has worked with the British Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body and all other agreed structures. It is vital that we finalise the aspects of the Good Friday Agreement and get the Assembly up and running and ensure that structures used are inclusive rather than perhaps aggravating some sections of the Northern Ireland community solely for the benefit of one party rather than for the common good.
Fine Gael has given total support to Government negotiations through the normal and proper structures and will continue to do so. However, [131]there must be no side deals and no effort to jump ahead until what was agreed in the Good Friday Agreement is brought to full fruition. The full working of the Assembly and the cross-Border bodies brings tremendous benefits to all the people of the island. That is what we voted for in the referenda and that is what was agreed in the Good Friday Agreement, that we would accept that in the short term we would work within the current structure in Northern Ireland. Now some people wish to ignore that and jump ahead.
I will support the Government amendment tomorrow night.
Dr. Cowley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment, namely, the situation in An Post. The sins of An Post against its workers are gross. The Sustaining Progress agreement has not been honoured and that is unforgivable. A basic cost of living increase, which has been outstanding since 3 November 2003, is being denied to those workers. The workers received 5% this year but that payment was not back-dated. It is unacceptable that An Post workers are still owed the remainder of that money. The total amount is 12.5%.
The Minister has treated An Post workers very badly. They are public servants but they are not paid like other civil servants. The company claims it cannot afford to pay them. It wants changes in the collection and delivery service before it will pay, which is a separate issue. The company is denying just payment to post office workers and that is a cost of living issue.
An Post staff and pensioners are owed money by that semi-State company dating back to November 2003. The Communications Workers Union has exhausted all the procedures outlined in Sustaining Progress but has not been able to resolve the matter despite its best intentions. Some 90% of staff have voted in favour of industrial action, which is their democratic right and which is provided for under Sustaining Progress.
As a result of this vote, An Post staff have rejected the Labour Court recommendation. I hope for successful talks because unless that happens, there will be a strike, and nobody wants a strike, particularly the long-suffering public.
The management of An Post is the worst ever. It launched many serious and unsubstantiated allegations against the workers and argued that [132]overtime working is required to maintain the service, yet it has increased the levels of overtime in the past two years and staff have been threatened with disciplinary action or accused of unofficial industrial action if they refuse to perform overtime. Those are low paid postal workers and it is not fair they should be expected or allowed to bear the burden of serious mismanagement and neglect by Government.
I have great sympathy for the postal workers. Rationalisation is the thin end of the wedge. The United States has decided on a policy of keeping its public service, yet we are running towards privatisation which is not in the interests of the people, particularly in rural Ireland. The public service obligation has worked well.
I know of a case of a man who sends a letter by post to his mother every day, which is delivered by the postman. This ensures his mother is being looked after. Such a service cannot be costed other than with reference to a social service. The country is all the richer for having postmen who know their locality and have a wonderful relationship with the people.
I hope the postal service will be retained but the postal staff must be respected. I hope the Minister of State will have some news to give the House tonight to show this situation is being taken seriously before regrettable action occurs.
Mr. Broughan: The failure of An Post management to fulfil one of the key objectives it was mandated with, to successfully manage change and renewal at the company in the context of market deregulation and liberalisation, has been a hallmark of its performance in recent years. The management style has been by diktat rather than by facilitating a transformation in a climate of consultation, co-operation and harmony with the workforce. The results of the failure of An Post management are an indictment of the paucity of its style of management in recent years.
Industrial relations at the company are at an all time low; they are now at a poisonous level. Workers’ deep concerns about the deterioration of the postal service have not been taken on board by management. Management has long implemented a ban on recruitment of new staff members, whether in a temporary or permanent capacity, and this has had a serious effect on the universal service obligation, as was the case in the summer. Many districts around the country have not been receiving their due post on a daily basis, rather there is a delay of ten or 15 days. An incredible situation has been allowed to develop. The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, may think that people easily agree to go out on strike but I assure him that is not the case. Over 90% of a workforce voting 90% in favour of strike action illustrates serious disharmony at the company.
[133]Postal workers and their families have been in contact with my office to alert me to the dire circumstances that often exist in families due to the current pay and conditions at An Post, and that is not including what is being withheld from staff.
Since November 2003, An Post workers and pensioners have been denied the 8% cost of living increase to which they were entitled under Sustaining Progress partnership agreement, which all Members of this House received. Postal employees have been extremely tolerant in enduring this wage freeze for so long when all other groups covered by the Sustaining Progress agreement have received their increases.
An Post made a €7 million profit last year on the basis of a number of years of serious decline. It has built up a considerable war chest from the sale of a number of overseas companies. As the Irish Congress of Trade Unions conference held in Belfast was told, the burden of resolving the difficulties at An Post cannot be exclusively borne by An Post staff, but that seems to have been the case. The staff have been denied their Sustaining Progress increases while at the same time the management received significant bonus payments such as the €12,000 Christmas pay-out last year and the €50,000 received by the part-time chairperson, Ms Margaret McGinley.
If greater efficiencies, productivity and cost-cutting measures are being demanded of the workforce, why is the same not being expected of management, given that it has managed the company so badly?
One of the most outrageous aspects of this whole saga has been that An Post pensioners have been left for so long without receiving their agreed increases. I was informed today that 78 An Post pensioners have passed away in the interim period without ever receiving the increases they were guaranteed under Sustaining Progress. That is an astonishing figure and it a shocking indictment of the way industrial relations have deteriorated at the company.
The Minister has been extensively quoted in the media during the last week and at the Fianna Fáil ard fheis as rubbishing the concerns of postal workers and implying that they are a highly paid and over-indulged group of employees in this State, but the opposite is the case. He referred to a postman who is working for just three and a half hours a day yet being paid for seven and a half hours. The Minister has, as yet, been unable to produce any evidence that this postman, with a seemingly Stakhanovite productivity rate, actually exists.
At such a critical juncture in this dispute it would be outrageous if it were to emerge that the Minister has been acting as a mouthpiece for An Post management, with not a shred of evidence to back up his claim. We have subsequently heard [134]from An Post workers that the new delivery arrangements will result in a significant deterioration in the service to the public. For example, no weekend collections would take place and none would be scheduled after 6 p.m.
For all these reasons postal workers are, correctly, concerned about the effect of current collection and delivery proposals on take home pay and conditions. Given that the universal postal service has been on the verge of collapse under the current management in what is classically a people business, it is clear management has signally failed to manage the company or the change and transformation processes which, as we are all aware, are necessary in this era of deregulation and electronic substitution.
The Minister must give a lead and try to ensure the looming action, which is set to take place at midnight on Thursday, does not take place. I urge the Minister of State to indicate to the House the way forward and how the matter can be resolved.
Mr. Durkan: Sadly, it is almost a year since Deputies discussed the issue of An Post in the House and on Molesworth Street. At that time, everybody agreed that the sad state of industrial relations was of deep concern to An Post workers. The increments to which my colleague, Deputy Broughan, referred were not paid on time during a period when, according to the economic experts on the Government side, the country was awash with money. For some unknown reason, An Post was able to plead inability to pay as a result of which its workers were not paid their entitlements. Worse still, An Post pensioners were given a commitment in legislation passed in 1982 that, notwithstanding the changes being introduced, they would continue to be treated as civil servants, only to find that once the company became a commercial entity, it decided it could not afford to pay them their entitlements.
The Minister’s recent intervention, when he suggested he might bring forward competition legislation to speed up privatisation, was not helpful. He should have taken a more positive approach and used his influence, as I hope he is now doing, to bring about a resolution of the underlying issues which have caused the current problems in the company.
Everybody wants and is entitled to a good postal service and people should be able to expect one day delivery in the modern world. There is, however, no point blaming post office workers when this expectation is not realised. Instead, we should ask why An Post workers are discontent. Until the reasons as set out by Deputy Broughan are addressed, the Minister has no right to accuse workers at the company of sabotage or anything else.
[135]The workforce of An Post, from postmen to postmasters, agree that improvements and modernisation are required and that the public must be given a good service. The problem is that nothing is being done to encourage them to take this route and, instead, they are being threatened that increments will be withheld, pension entitlements will not be paid and the company will be privatised if they do not knuckle under.
Is the current fixation with privatisation the answer to everything? While it appears to resolve some problems, any consideration of the privatisation of Telecom Éireann — the classic case of Eircom — raises the question as to whether consumers benefited. Does Eircom deliver better service? Are we better served now in terms of the international league on the provision of modern telephonic services? The answer to both questions is “No”.
Would it not be better to modernise An Post and ensure the company has a future by providing a space for it in the modern Ireland? Instead of depriving workers of that to which they have been entitled for the past ten or 15 years, we should recognise the company’s pensioners. As Deputy Broughan noted, it is a sad reflection on society that at a time when the country is allegedly awash with money, much of which has been lost and frequently not found, we refuse to recognise the existence of An Post pensioners, many of whom have passed on, by giving them what is theirs by right.
I realise the sensitivity of the negotiations and discussions taking place. As I noted, this is not a time for the Minister to use threats but one for compromise and negotiation. Ultimately, however, we must recognise that if we do not utilise the assets of the postal network, that is, its post offices, sub-post offices and the company’s workers, in a manner which delivers an improved, more extensive and efficient service, the current negotiations will go nowhere.
Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher): I apologise to Deputies Broughan, Cowley and Durkan and other Members present on behalf of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, who is unable to come before the House. I thank the Deputies for raising these important issues and giving me an opportunity to respond on behalf of the Minister.
The Government recognises the invaluable contribution made by An Post and its staff down through the years in terms of their input to the overall business climate and the role played by rural post offices and postmen in maintaining the social fabric of rural society. The strong contri[136]bution by An Post was possible in the context of a slow moving operational environment. However, the company has not been immune to the seismic changes in the communications sector. The move to e-mail and electronic fund transfers has impacted on postal volumes and post office users. To be relevant in the new environment, therefore, the company must modernise.
The basic building block for any company is financial stability and An Post has not yet met this basic requirement. As the Minister stated previously in the House, the company has suffered significant losses in recent years, starting with €6.7 million in 2001, rising to €17.4 million in 2002 before reaching an unsustainable level of €42.9 million in 2003. Between 2001 and 2002, payroll costs alone increased by €50 million. This financial performance, if allowed to continue unchecked, would have bankrupted the company.
An Post needs to introduce modern work practices if it is to thrive in a competitive environment. The company will face more rather than less competition in coming years and it needs to be geared to address this challenge. Large international companies such as Royal Mail and the German post office are already operating in the Irish market. If An Post cannot meet consumer needs and deliver a high quality of service, these companies will be more than happy to ramp up their operations here to fill the gap.
Mr. Durkan: They will not ramp them up.
Mr. Gallagher: Time is not on the side of An Post and its workers. I will outline the lengthy background to current industrial relations at An Post and impress upon the Deputies that the current circumstances have not arisen overnight. An Post has been through one of the most intensive industrial relations processes imaginable. The process started when, following the disclosure of serious losses for 2003, the Government asked the board and management of the company to prepare a recovery strategy to return An Post to financial solvency. The plan involved changes in work practices and voluntary job losses. This strategy, in setting the way forward for the company, has assumed significant changes in work practices, tariff increases and the payment of wage increases.
The plan was presented to An Post trade unions in late 2003. The Communications Workers Union withdrew from negotiations in December 2003. In recognition of the dire financial position facing the company, An Post invoked the inability to pay clause available under Sustaining Progress. This was followed by industrial action in the Dublin Mail Centre in March 2004. The Labour Relations Commission brokered settlement proposals which involved negotiations on [137]collection and delivery and, in the event of failure to reach agreement in the LRC, referral to the Labour Court. The LRC proposals stated that the outcome of any LRC or Labour Court negotiations should be put to the respective sides, including a ballot of members.
The two parties spent from April 2004 to November 2004 in the LRC. The proposals arising out of the LRC were put to the Communications Workers Union membership and turned down by the union. The outstanding issues were then referred to the Labour Court for resolution. On foot of union concerns that An Post management had no real experience of the postal sector, the Labour Court appointed a three-person expert group to come up with a workable proposal on collection and delivery that would be acceptable to members of the CWU. That group spent six months working on a comprehensive proposal regarding collection and delivery, which was published in July 2005.
In the early part of 2005, the An Post group of unions referred the non-payment of Sustaining Progress to the LRC, as provided for under the Sustaining Progress agreement. The LRC appointed assessors to examine the claim. The assessors’ report recommended that, having regard to An Post financials, 5% should be paid to employees, backdated to 1 January this year. That recommendation was accepted by An Post management and rejected by the CWU.
The Labour Court issued a comprehensive recommendation which outlined that the acceptance of the deal on collection and delivery would trigger payment of the bulk of Sustaining Progress. The Labour Court deal would have allowed a postman to obtain a 9% pay increase this year on top of a 5% Sustaining Progress pay increase already made, giving a total increase of 14%.
The Labour Court recommendation was considered by the executive of the CWU but was not put to a ballot of members. Instead, the union decided to ballot for strike action on the non-payment of Sustaining Progress. The membership has voted for strike action and the union has given two weeks’ strike notice, with action possibly to commence on 4 November. It is still not clear at this stage what type of action that will be.
On the other hand, a recent and very positive development in the payment of Sustaining Progress to An Post staff and pensioners occurred yesterday when An Post accepted the Labour Court recommendations on the claims by the other unions in An Post, the AHCPS, CPSU and PSEU, for payment of Sustaining Progress. The rejection by the CWU in September of the Labour Court recommendations issued to the An Post group of unions regarding the payment of Sustaining Progress effectively blocked payment to the AHCPS, CPSU and PSEU.
[138]The three unions then decided to pursue separate claims for payment of Sustaining Progress on behalf of their members. The Labour Court decided yesterday that, as the members of both the AHCPS and CPSU have agreed and implemented change agreements, they are entitled to Sustaining Progress as set out in the Labour Court recommendation issued last July. The PSEU has agreed in advance to accept an imminent Labour Court decision on a programme of change for its members. The Labour Court, having examined those issues, recommended that PSEU members receive the same Sustaining Progress payments as the other two unions on acceptance of its decision by both parties.
Following acceptance by the three unions of the Labour Court recommendation, I understand that arrangements are being made by the company to proceed with the outstanding payments as soon as possible. I am particularly pleased that the increases will also be paid to all pensioners who retired from positions represented by the three unions as it is an unfortunate side effect of the dispute that payments to pensioners have also been affected.
The recent Labour Court decision clearly shows that, where unions agree and implement change agreements, outstanding payments will be made. It is a reality that change is imperative in An Post as almost 70% of costs are payroll related. To provide Deputies with an example, every 1% increase in the payroll costs the company €5 million, and the cost of Sustaining Progress alone this year is estimated at €38 million. To enable the company to pay the large wage bill, the cost-saving measures outlined in the recovery strategy must be implemented.
The Labour Court would not have tied payment of Sustaining Progress to a deal on collection and delivery if it had not recognised the imperative to begin restructuring now. There is no doubt that the decision by the CWU to take industrial action will have an impact on both personal and business customers. An Post is preparing contingency and communications plans to deal with the forthcoming industrial action which will address, in particular, the needs of social welfare recipients and provide information to customers regarding postal services.
No interest is advanced by a descent into industrial relations chaos in An Post. Unlike with the postal strike 25 years ago, alternatives to the postal service now exist. Customers who leave An Post may not return, a fact which everyone should bear in mind. As the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, have both outlined, the blueprint for the settlement of this dispute is the Labour Court recommendation. That is necessary to bring about the essential modernis[139]ation of the company, which is the best way of securing long-term sustainable jobs for An Post workers and ensuring the continuation of a high quality nationwide postal delivery and post office service. The earlier that the CWU recognises that, the better for the public, social welfare clients and its own membership.
With that in mind, both parties accepted an invitation to meet the national implementation body separately for talks aimed at resolving the dispute and averting strike action. Those talks took place this afternoon and the outcome should be known shortly. However, it is hoped that both parties availed of this opportunity to resolve their difficulties and agree a road map for the implementation of the recommendations of the Labour Court. It is important that all players realise that globalisation, liberalisation and developments in technology are changing the way that people communicate. All national postal operators, including An Post, must change very rapidly to stay competitive and commercial in the European postal market.
In light of the recent announcement by the CWU that it had rejected the Labour Court recommendation on collection and delivery and that it had balloted its members on taking industrial action which may lead to a serious disruption to postal services, the Minister announced that he was considering all options open to him, up to and including early liberalisation of the sector, to limit the disruption caused to the sector and the economy at large as a result of any prolonged period of industrial action.
The unresolved difficulties in An Post cannot remain unresolved into the future. The momentum for liberalisation already exists and if An Post does not start to restructure, it will not be in a position to meet the competitive challenges of a fully liberalised postal market. For that reason, I urge all parties to reconsider the terms of the Labour Court settlement as time is not on the side of An Post.
Ms McManus: On 22 May 2003, a young woman, Georgina Eager, was brutally murdered in Dublin. Her family was devastated by the loss of a lovely and gentle daughter and sister. Their anguish was compounded by an ordeal resulting from a decision by the Irish authorities to let the case be heard in a British court. For the first time, a person accused of such a crime committed in Ireland did not have his extradition sought by the Irish Director of Public Prosecutions to stand trial here. It was an unprecedented and, for the family, inexplicable decision.
[140]To this day, they have received no clear explanation why the decision was made. I raised this matter by way of a parliamentary question and got no explanation either. The family was eventually advised to contact the DPP’s office. When they did so, their calls were not returned. Finally, an approach was made by the family to the Garda Síochána and a letter issued from the DPP on 14 September. The DPP’s explanation is in direct conflict with the statement made to the family by the British police who expressed both frustration and puzzlement with the Irish authorities for failing to seek the extradition of the accused.
In January 2005, the accused began a fitness-to-plead challenge, which was heard in London. One family member attended court, but there was no Garda or legal presence representing the Irish State at that hearing. The DPP stated in his letter that he was satisfied with the efficient way in which the murder case had been handled by the Crown Prosecution Service and so did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell. However, how do they know to make that judgment when they received no legal advice? The DPP and the Minister would no doubt claim that the verdict proves that they were right, but that is disingenuous. If the next time a family is put in this position and the verdict goes against them, what will the Minister and DPP say?
The trial began on 8 August 2005 and the family travelled to London at its own expense and without support. It sought to have a legal representative of the Irish State present in the court, but that was denied. It sought assistance for help with the costs. That too was denied, in stark contrast to the decision by the Irish Government to send a legal representative to the inquest into the deaths of three Irish people in Gibraltar and to have diplomatic representation at the trial of the Columbia Three, together with the loan of money for bail. In the case of the Eager family, however, no support was provided. Any diplomatic presence in the court was a result of my independent representations. With the exception of help given by the Garda, it is shameful that members of an Irish family forced to depend on British justice found themselves effectively abandoned by their own State.
After intense lobbying we were informed that funds were available through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal Board. The circumstance of the trial, however, had no bearing on eligibility for this funding. Anyway the funds have run out so it will be next year before the family has a chance of getting anything.
It is bad enough for a family to have to travel abroad for a trial of this nature without consular or legal assistance from the State, but what marks this case was that the Irish authorities had an [141]option to hear the case in Ireland and chose not to. The family have three different accounts about why that choice was made, one from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, one from the DPP and one from the British police. Is it not time that they were told the truth?
Mr. Gallagher: I thank Deputy McManus for raising this important issue and apologise for the absence of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I express my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of the late Georgina Eager on her tragic and untimely death. The facts that I have to outline, in answer to the assertions made by Deputy McManus, concerning the assistance provided by a number of State agencies are not meant to detract in any way from the loss suffered by them. Nothing could compensate for that.
Deputy McManus will be aware that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform does not have a role in providing assistance to the family of a victim of a crime in attending a trial abroad. There are, however, other supports available which were availed of by the family of Georgina Eager during the trial of Christopher Newman.
Christopher Newman was arrested in London having fled Ireland following the murder of Georgina Eager. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform had no function or role in the decision to charge him here with her murder. The role of the Minister and his Department, in so far as they had any role, was confined to the provision of mutual legal assistance to the UK authorities. In this case a request for assistance was made by the British authorities. This request, which was complied with, consisted of interviews with certain witnesses, including the victim’s father, as well as the provision of other evidence. Without the provision of this assistance it is doubtful that Christopher Newman would have been found guilty of the murder of Georgina Eager.
Significant assistance was provided to the family by the Garda before and during the trial. From an early stage a Garda liaison officer was appointed and he was in regular contact with members of the family. The liaison garda also met the family each day during the trial. This was in addition to the assistance provided by the Garda with the arrangements for the attendance of witnesses at the trial, including family members who gave evidence.
The Irish Embassy in London provided all possible consular assistance to the Eager family members during the time they spent in London attending the trial. The Irish Ambassador, who met them during their stay in London, assigned a diplomatic officer to members of the Eager [142]family on the opening day of the trial on 8 August 2005, who assured them that she would be available to provide consular assistance throughout their stay in London. She ensured that they had her direct contact details and suggested that they could contact her at any time.
This officer attended the trial for the opening and closing weeks and approximately twice a week in the intervening period. She provided information and advice to family members on a number of issues of concern to them, including compensation available towards the financial costs of attending the trial in London. This was provided on advice from the Minister’s Department. She also liaised with the UK witness service victims support unit on their behalf to ensure that transport to and from the family’s hotel would be provided throughout the trial. She arranged for the typing of printed statements for the family, including the victim impact statement which was presented to the judge before sentencing.
Furthermore, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform indicated that the financial burden suffered by the Eager family in attending the trial could be alleviated through the criminal injuries compensation scheme. This scheme, to which the family can apply, is administered by an independent tribunal. Its purpose is to compensate victims for expenses and losses borne as a result of personal injuries inflicted in a crime. The tribunal is entirely responsible for deciding whether compensation is payable in any particular case but if an applicant is unhappy with the initial decision of a single tribunal member, the case can then be appealed to a three-member oral hearing.
Under the scheme, the family of a person who has died as a result of a criminal injury is entitled to apply for actual loss of earnings or expenses that have arisen due to the person’s death as well as for funeral expenses. Although the scheme does not cover compensation for pain and suffering, a payment can be made in respect of mental distress for the immediate family members, as defined in the Civil Liability Acts. The total amount available under this heading is just over €25,000.
I understand that, with Deputy McManus’s assistance, the Eager family has applied to the tribunal for compensation. As is normal practice, the secretariat is endeavouring to assemble sufficient information so as to enable the tribunal make a properly informed determination on the case. For that reason, the secretariat is following up a number of queries with the family, again via Deputy McManus. Of necessity a certain amount of detail will be required to support the claim but the documentation sought is not particularly onerous or unusual. Expenditure incurred can generally be vouched using receipts or credit card [143]accounts, for example, while loss of earnings are normally certified by an employer. Details of expenses met from any other sources, such as the UK authorities in this instance, will also be followed up by the secretariat.
The tribunal secretariat will offer any assistance to the family or the Deputy in clarifying the requirements so as to enable the claim to be advanced as soon as possible. As soon as the necessary detail is assembled, the case will be [144]referred to a tribunal member for a decision. Depending on the complexity of the case and the other claims on hand, the processing time may take a number of months but I am sure that the tribunal will deal with the claim as quickly as possible in the circumstances.
I hope that what I have said will serve to put the record straight on the support provided to the family by the various State agencies.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 3 November 2005.
The following are questions tabled by Members for written response and the ministerial replies received from the Departments. [unrevised].Questions Nos. 1 to 10, inclusive, answered orally.
Questions Nos. 11 to 99, inclusive, resubmitted.
Questions Nos. 100 to 109, inclusive, answered orally.
110. Cecilia Keaveney asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will consider altering the current community employment scheme or social economy programme to provide opportunities for communities to employ youth officers to co-ordinate events in local areas for young persons in view of the rise in anti-social behaviour and the significant investment that is occurring in capital rather than social infrastructure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30551/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The main purpose of the community employment programme operated by FÁS is to provide work experience and training for the long term unemployed and disadvantaged groups and thereby enable participants to advance successfully to employment in the open labour market.
Following a review of FÁS employment schemes — community employment, job initiative and social economy programmes — on 10 November 2004 I announced that the three year cap for participants on community employment was raised to six years for those over 55 to ensure the maintenance of essential community services, particularly in rural areas where it had been found that difficulties existed in finding replacement participants. I have no plans to make any further changes of this type to the community employment scheme.
A review of the social economy programme, SEP, highlighted the valuable role it plays in the delivery of community services throughout the country. In light of this, discussions are taking place between my Department and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs about the transfer to that Department.
There is nothing to prevent projects of the type to which the Deputy refers being funded under the community employment or social economy programme. I would point out, however, that to be eligible for funding under the SEP, enterprises are required to be established as legal entities.
[146]Question No. 111 answered with Question
No. 109.
112. Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if additional funding will be provided to efficient county enterprise boards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31342/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): In determining the allocations for individual city and county enterprise boards, CEBs, in 2005, my Department adopted a systematic approach to ensure the maximum degree of objectivity and equity of treatment. This approach involved the provision of funding calculated on the basis of a standard allocation to each board as well as an additional allocation that was determined mainly by population but which also took account of issues such as unemployment, capacity to spend, existing commitments and regional spread.
My Department is at present engaged in reallocating additional funding to individual boards that have identified a capacity to utilise such additional funds in the current year in accordance with normal practice. This additional funding has been made available from boards that have indicated that they are not in a position to spend their full original 2005 allocation.
In addition, my Department, in conjunction with the CEBs, monitors on an ongoing basis the level of service provided by the boards to their client base. There is both a formal procedures manual and operating agreement in place between the Department and the boards which aim to provide a standardised delivery of services by CEBs across the country.
113. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the measures he has taken to meet the €15 million reduction from the European Social Fund; and the steps he has taken to redress the departmental irregularities that led to the decrease. [31597/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): As a consequence of a Commission audit decision in the year 2000, €15.6 million of European Social Fund moneys were withheld from Ireland. The sum involved represents less than 1% of the amount allocated to the three operational programmes for the period 1994-99. The Commission decision was contested by my Department and this resulted in a hearing before the European Court of Justice this year. On 15 September 2005 the European Court of Justice agreed with the European Commission’s [147]opinion that Ireland had over-claimed the contribution due from the ESF. This was due to a technical issue in the manner in which Ireland presented ESF claims.
It should be noted that the Commission accepts that all expenditure incurred under the programmes in question was eligible and that no allegation of fraud was made.
Of the €15.6 million withheld after the Commission decision in 2000, €7.2 million was withheld from the funding allocated to my Department and the following Departments — Education and Science, Health and Children, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The remaining €8.4 million of funding was paid from Exchequer resources to what was then the National Training Development Institute, which was a non-governmental organisation. The action required to be taken in respect of these funds is under consideration, in consultation with the relevant Departments.
Irregularities of the type that have caused this clawback are very unlikely to recur in relation to the current operational programmes period because of the additional management and financial controls implemented within the funding cascade structure as a result of the expertise gained from the previous period of funding, 1994-99.
114. Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the measures he intends to take in response to the 27% increase in workplace fatalities in 2005, the disproportionate representation of non-nationals therein; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31591/05]
120. Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the measures he intends to take to reduce the high and rising incidence of workplace fatalities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31623/05]
162. Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the action he intends to take on foot of the rise in workplace fatalities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31628/05]
169. Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of deaths and injuries reported arising from industrial accidents in each year from 2000 to 2004 and to date in 2005; the further steps he intends to take to reduce the level of such accidents; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31610/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): I propose to take Questions Nos. 114, 120, 162 and 169 together.
I would first like to extend my sympathy to the families of those involved and affected by the workplace fatalities so far this year. The Government’s commitment to ensuring high standards of safety, health and welfare in Irish workplaces is illustrated in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, which came into force on 1 September last. The Act updates, repeals and replaces the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989 and provides a modern legal framework to guarantee best international practice in regard to safety, health and welfare in Irish workplaces.
The Act aims at striking an appropriate balance between imposing duties, encouraging better consultation at workplace level on occupational safety and health matters, providing for an improved focus on better prevention systems and practices and the possible application of increased fines and penalties, where warranted.
Overall trends in absences from work due to workplace accidents are best described by reference to the data from the occupational injury benefit claims published by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Although the statistics show an increase in the number of claims in recent years, this has to be read in the context of the expansion of activities and the number in employment over the period. The number of occupational injury benefit claims per 100,000 employees has shown a steady decline in Ireland. In fact, these rates have declined from one in 885 in 2000 to one in 638 in 2004, as the following tables show.
The number of fatalities at work has also declined from a total of 70 in 2000 to 49 last year. Nonetheless, the rate of deaths and injuries in Irish workplaces is unacceptable.
I am very concerned at the total of 61 workplace deaths that have occurred so far this year. The Health and Safety Authority has also expressed concern over the number of workplace deaths, particularly of non-nationals. Provisional figures indicate that ten non-nationals have died this year in work-related accidents. The Health and Safety Authority has called on all employers to ensure that they are adequately communicating the risks and providing appropriate safety training for all employees, including those who are non-English speaking.
Of the ten fatalities involving non-nationals at the workplace this year, four have occurred in construction, three in manufacturing, one in agriculture and two in the wholesale and retail trade. The Health and Safety Authority has been working on a programme of information resources aimed at non-English speakers and specific provisions relating to such workers are now included [149]in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.
That authority has also recognised the new challenges that the growth of non-English speaking people within the workforce brings. Earlier this year the authority launched a new initiative, entitled the safe system of work plan, which is aimed at reducing injuries and deaths on construction sites. This initiative relies heavily on pictograms to explain and clarify hazards and controls, thereby creating a wordless document where safety can be communicated to all workers regardless of literacy or language skills. The plan aims to focus on those who are most at risk and empowering them to ensure that all necessary safety controls are in place prior to the commencement of work.
In addition, the authority has work under way to produce the safe system of work plan in a number of different languages. The plan has been translated into Turkish and Polish and shortly a seven-language training DVD will be available. I would also like to say that the authority’s safe system of work plan, SSWP, for construction was recently awarded the innovation prize for good prevention practices in the construction industry by the International Social Security Association, [150]ISSA, during the recent World Congress on Safety.
In 2004, the authority, in conjunction with Bord Glas, recognised the multicultural nature of the horticultural workforce, with the launch of the essential health and safety guide for horticulture, which aims to promote health and safety awareness and accident prevention in this sector. As a labour intensive industry, horticulture is an established employer of migrant workers and 30% of these originate from the recent accession states to the EU. The guide is available in four different foreign languages, that is, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish and Russian.
There are huge responsibilities on all parties in the workplace and the issue of safety can only be corrected by dedicated efforts by all those involved in day to day operations.
Health and Safety Authority evidence is that up to one half of the small employers in this country do little or certainly not enough to ensure a safe workplace and that the most common causes of accidents are slips, trips and falls at work and bad lifting habits resulting in injury.
I appeal to all parties to do more work to promote awareness of the need for a safe work environment which has benefits for workers, employers and society generally and which will engender a safety culture.
| Year | Number of Fatalities |
|---|---|
| 2000 | 70 |
| 2001 | 64 |
| 2002 | 61 |
| 2003 | 67 |
| 2004 | 49 |
| 2005 | 61 |
| (to 26 October) |
115. Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if, arising from the report of the Consumer Strategy Group, it is intended to implement the recommendation that consumer considerations should be incorpor[150]ated into all regulatory analysis procedures and the consumer proofing of all relevant Government decisions, which the group indicated was specifically the responsibility of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31584/05]
146. Ms Burton asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if, arising from the report of the Consumer Strategy Group, it is intended to implement the recommendation to introduce standardised statutory codes of practice across all public sector bodies, which the group indicated was the responsibility of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31585/05]
174. Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if, arising from the report of the Consumer Strategy Group, [151]it is intended to implement the recommendation to expand social partnership to include consumer representatives on both the Government and voluntary sides, which the group indicated was the responsibility of his Department. [31583/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): I propose to take Questions Nos. 115, 146 and 174 together.
The Consumer Strategy Group was established in March 2004 to advise and make recommendations on the development of a national consumer strategy. The group’s final report, Make Consumers Count, was published in May this year. The report contains over 30 separate recommendations, including the recommendations mentioned in the Deputies’ questions, covering a variety of different Departments and agencies whose activities directly impact upon the interests of consumers.
The scope and breadth of the group’s recommendations required a co-ordinated response. For that reason a high level interdepartmental committee was established to examine the CSG’s recommendations and to report back to Government with a detailed implementation plan.
It is expected that the committee’s report in relation to the implementation of the CSG’s recommendations, including the recommendations referred to in the Deputies’ questions, will be submitted to Government shortly. The implementation of all the CSG’s recommendations will then be considered by Government in the light of the high level committee’s report.
116. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if, in view of the ongoing Irish Ferries dispute, the practice of disemploying existing workers to replace them with lower paid, agency-employed workers qualifies the workers for statutory redundancy payments. [31595/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): Statutory redundancy payments are the responsibility of the employer in the first instance, and should be paid in accordance with the relevant legislation.
The Redundancy Payments Act 1967, as amended by the 1971 Act, contains the definition of redundancy in section 7(2). This definition has withstood the test of time. The redundancy payments scheme was examined by the redundancy review group in 2002. The review group consisted of representatives of the social partners and Government Departments. The review group [152]agreed several changes to the redundancy payments scheme which were implemented in the Redundancy Payments Act 2003. However, the group saw no reason to change the statutory definition of redundancy.
As my Department has not received any communication from Irish Ferries regarding the proposed redundancies, which were announced to the media on 19 September 2005, it is not in a position to give a definitive opinion on whether or not redundancies at this company, should they occur, fall within the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2003. Based on media reportage of the proposed redundancies I sought and obtained preliminary advice from the Attorney General’s office which is to the effect that redundancies as proposed by the company may not fall within the definition of the legislation. However, clarity can only be established if and when the company makes a formal application to the Department for a statutory redundancy rebate. The company and the unions are involved with the State’s industrial relations machinery in attempts to seek a solution to the issues involved.
117. Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views on the failure of the employment services policy unit to address the problem of long-term unemployment over the past number of years, which is at the same level now as it was in 2000, and represents over one third of the overall unemployment rate. [31589/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): Since 1997 over 450,000 new jobs have been created. There has also been a significant fall in unemployment from 10.4% to 4.2% at present.
Long-term unemployment fell from 5.5% in 1997 to 1.6% in 2000 and this very low level has been maintained; it is now at 1.4%. This long-term unemployment rate compares very favourably with the EU average of 4% and ranks fourth lowest among the 25 EU member states. However, we are not complacent about this level of long-term unemployment and in order to reduce it a range of new initiatives has been introduced.
In addition to the FÁS and local employment services and the community employment, social economy and job initiative programmes, the most significant measure has been the national employment action plan referral process. This involves early intervention by FÁS with unemployed people. It seeks to help the unemployed to reintegrate into the labour market as quickly [153]as possible by providing them with the necessary skills and supports to improve their employability.
Under this process, since 2003 anyone who has been on the live register for six months, and all persons were not previously referred and who were more than six months on the live register, were referred to FÁS for interview. The majority of such referrals were long-term unemployed. Since June 2003, approximately 27,000 long term unemployed clients were referred to FÁS. Since the introduction of the NEAP in September 1998, a total of 247,000 clients have been referred to FÁS for assistance. An external evaluation of the NEAP preventive strategy, which is due to be released shortly, concludes “that the NEAP process has been a success”.
Other innovative responses developed by my Department and FÁS to assist unemployed persons have included: the Pathways programme, which identifies the most appropriate development pathway to assist clients to obtain employment; the high supports process, which assists clients on a multi-agency basis to address personal barriers to employment; and the customised training fund to flexibly meet training needs of the unemployed. We are therefore continuing to engage with those in long-term unemployment through a wide range of labour market measures and activities to help them return to the labour market.
118. Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he is satisfied with the level of compliance by employers in relation to payment of contributions to the CIF sick pay and pensions fund on behalf of construction workers; his views on whether independent monitoring of employer compliance may be necessary; his proposals regarding same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31617/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): A registered employment agreement provides for the establishment of the construction federation operatives pension scheme, generally referred to as CFOPS.
A registered employment agreement is an agreement that is negotiated between two parties, for example, a body representative of employers and a similar group representative of employees, who are all engaged in the same sector of activity in the economy. The agreement, once finalised between the contracting parties, is then registered with the Labour Court. Having completed that process the terms of the agreement are binding nationally for all employers and all workers [154]covered by the categories of work included in the agreement.
A board of trustees comprising an independent chair together with five members, each nominated by the CIF and the union side respectively, administers CFOPS. Broadly speaking, monitoring of compliance with the CFOPS is a matter for signatories to the agreement. To assist them in this task they established the Construction Industry Monitoring Agency, known as CIMA, for that purpose. CIMA is independent of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. In processing a case of non-compliance CIMA ultimately refers matters to the Labour Court, which will hold a hearing and, if satisfied as to non-compliance, issues an order against the employer concerned. The court may ask the labour inspectorate for assistance in checking records.
There are also provisions in legislation whereby a trade union, an association of employers or an individual employer may complain to the Labour Court that a particular employer is not complying with a registered employment agreement. If, after investigating a complaint, the court is satisfied that the employer is in breach it may by order direct compliance with the agreement. Failure to comply with such an order is an offence punishable by a fine.
Compliance with CFOPS has been an issue of concern for some while and it prompted the Pensions Board to engage Mercer Consultants to carry out a review. Mercer’s report was recently published and it sets out a range of proposals that focus on a range of issues including compliance. The proposals in the Mercer report are being considered by the parties to the registered employment agreement.
Those recommendations of the Mercer report that may impinge on the activities of the labour inspectorate will be considered by the Department, together with the social partners, in the context of ongoing work concerning the mandate and resourcing of the labour inspectorate.
119. Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the costs incurred by the State, at the latest date for which figures are available, arising from the various inquiries instigated by or on behalf of his Department; the element of these costs which have been recovered from any of the other parties involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31609/05]
149. Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the position regarding each of the inquiries being carried out by or on behalf of his Department; [155]the projected date for the conclusion of each such investigation; the inquiries in respect of which reports have been referred to the DPP; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31608/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): I propose to take Questions Nos. 119 and 149 together.
Sixteen investigations into company law matters were initiated by my predecessor in the period since 1997. In three cases, the High Court appointed, on an application by the Minister, inspectors under section 8 of the Companies Act 1990. The inspectors appointed to Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited presented their report to the High Court on 10 June 2002. The report was subsequently published and referred to the DPP.
The inspectors appointed to National Irish Bank Limited and National Irish Bank Financial Services Limited presented their report to the High Court on 12 July 2004. The report was subsequently published. The court ordered that a copy of the report be referred to several relevant authorities, including the DPP. Earlier this year, the Director of Corporate Enforcement initiated proceedings in the High Court under section 160(2) of the Companies Act 1990, as amended, seeking the disqualification of nine persons against whom adverse comment was made by the inspectors. I welcomed the director’s action in this case. I note that last week the High Court granted a disqualification order against one of the nine persons. The proceedings against the other eight remain before the court.
One investigation under section 14 of the Companies Act 1990 was completed in 1998. The report on this was referred to the DPP. One investigation was undertaken under section 59 of the Insurance Act 1989. The report on this was referred to the DPP as well as to the inspectors who undertook the section 8 investigation into that company.
Eleven investigations were initiated by the Minister under section 19 of the Companies Act 1990. Six of these have been concluded. Of the six investigations completed, two of the reports were referred to the DPP. A number of summary prosecutions have since been successfully concluded in one case. One report provided an input into the successful application to the High Court for the appointment of inspectors under section 8 while the fourth report was passed to the relevant High Court inspectors. One report was completed in September 2002 and a further report was completed in March 2003. Both reports have been referred to the Director of Corporate Enforcement.
Two of the eleven section 19 investigations were held up in legal appeals. These inquiries are [156]now the responsibility of the Director of Corporate Enforcement.
In relation to the three remaining section 19 investigations, the current position is that following the completion of the review to which I referred in response to a previous question on 31 May 2005, I directed the authorised officer to place at the disposal of relevant public authorities, including tribunals, whatever information arising from his investigative work was required for the purpose of the performance by those authorities of their statutory functions. This process is progressing and I hope that it will be completed shortly. My objective in giving this direction is to achieve the earliest possible pursuit by the appropriate authorities of any matter which may require action by them.
The costs incurred since 1997 on company investigations initiated by or on behalf of my Department amount to approximately €10.9 million. This amount does not include the salary costs of Civil Service staff working on a number of these investigations or the legal costs which are primarily being borne by the Vote of the Chief State Solicitor. Of the €10.9 million expended, €1.6 million relates to section 19 investigations by authorised officers and the remaining €9.3 million was incurred by High Court inspectors appointed under section 8 —€5.8 million in the case of National Irish Bank Limited-National Irish Bank Financial Services Limited and €3.5 million in the case of Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited.
The question of recovering costs from the section 8 investigations does not arise until such time as the inspectors complete their investigations. In the case of the Ansbacher inquiry, the High Court proceedings taken by the State to recover the costs of the inquiry were settled out of court for the sum of €1.25 million in favour of the State.
In the case of National Irish Bank Limited-National Irish Bank Financial Services Limited, the court ordered that National Irish Bank pay the full costs of the investigation. I understand that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which had borne the costs of the investigation, has received payment of those costs from National Irish Bank.
Section 19 as originally enacted did not provide for the recoupment of costs. This has now changed with the enactment of the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001.
Question No. 120 answered with Question
No. 114.
121. Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views on [157]the need for a new regulatory framework here with the creation of a single regulator under the auspices of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31630/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The enterprise strategy group recommended that the existing regulators for networked sectors, for example, electricity, gas, telecommunications and broadcasting, should be replaced by a new regulatory body covering all networked sectors.
The Government considered this recommendation and decided not to implement it. In looking at international experience the Government remains to be convinced that regulatory amalgamation on the scale proposed would be an efficient model. Indeed, there is a danger that a single regulator could give rise to slower decision making and less focus on smaller sectors compared with more dominant ones. Any further action in this area is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources whose remit covers these networked sectors.
122. Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason the Government has not acted on the main recommendation of the report, A Review of Public Safety in Ireland, which was commissioned by the Tánaiste and published in 2000, namely, the establishment of a statutory body, called the office of public safety regulation; his views on whether such an overall statutory authority, which would monitor and assess the lack, appropriateness and adequacy of regulations, Acts and guidelines to protect the public, is long overdue in view of the failure of any public authority to take responsibility for public safety, with resulting human consequences in the meantime; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31574/05]
351. Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason the Government has not acted on the main recommendation of the report, A Review of Public Safety in Ireland, which was commissioned by the Tánaiste and published in 2000, namely the establishment of a statutory body called the office of public safety regulation; his views on whether such an overall statutory authority, which would monitor and assess the lack, appropriateness and adequacy of regulations, Acts and guidelines to protect the public is long overdue, in view of the failure of any public authority to take responsibility for public safety, with resulting human con[158]sequences in the meantime; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31720/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): I propose to take Questions Nos. 122 and 351 together.
The review group on public safety was established in November 1999. The group comprised representatives from Departments, various agencies and bodies. Its report entitled A Review of Public Safety in Ireland was published in 2000.
One of the recommendations of the review group was that an office of public safety regulation should be considered, which would not itself be responsible for public safety issues but would have some form of overseeing role of all the agencies and bodies involved. The review group also proposed that the functioning, appropriateness and continuing need for such an office should be reviewed within a five-year period.
The group was not in full agreement on its proposal due to issues relating to duplication of existing services and additional cost. Some members of the group expressed reservations about the need for such an office and the extra burden on State finances. In my view, this in itself questions the need for such an office of public safety regulation in the first instance and the establishment of yet another State agency, whose function is merely to oversee public safety matters, is not the right way forward.
The review group’s recommendation was quite clearly inconclusive and a clear-cut case has not been made for the establishment of a new agency. Another State agency, whose function is merely to oversee other agencies on public safety matters, is not the right way forward. As outlined previously, it is not intended to act on the recommendation.
123. Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of meetings held by the Small Business Forum; when it is likely to report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31636/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The Small Business Forum, which I have set up to consider the current environment for conducting small business in Ireland, has held two plenary sessions to date. In addition, the forum has held a number of thematic workshops covering various areas of interest identified by the initial plenary meetings. I should also mention that the forum has been very proactive in seeking to obtain the views of the small business community. The forum published a public invi[159]tation for submissions and has received some 60 submissions from interested parties to date. Furthermore, the forum has held a number of meetings with small businesses around the country recently to discuss their concerns and to identify any suggestions they might have for improvements in the environment for small business. Some 80 businesses have been involved in these meetings. I have asked the forum to report back to me, with its findings, by 31 March 2006.
124. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the way in which insurance costs here compare with insurance costs in other European and European Union member states; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31542/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The National Competitiveness Council, NCC, in its annual competitiveness report 2005, found that of the 16 countries benchmarked, Irish expenditure on non-life insurance was the fourth highest. However, the NCC also found that the rate of growth in the cost of insurance has slowed down substantially in recent years. This can be attributed to the series of initiatives the Government has pushed through to reform the insurance sector. The action taken by Government to ensure healthy competition in the insurance sector had already seen benefits for consumers.
Sub-indices calculated from the all items consumer price index at mid-September 2005 show that since the insurance reform programme began in October 2002, there has been a reduction of 23.5% in car insurance. My Department has no data in relation to public liability insurance.
The Personal Injuries Assessment Board, PIAB, which was one of the key initiatives of the Government’s insurance reform programme, published it first annual report on 13 September 2005. This shows that PIAB assessments to date have been delivered approximately three times faster and at a delivery charge four times cheaper than under the litigation system. As well as being a major benefit to victims of accidents this is a significant reduction in the cost to insurance companies for the delivery of compensation and hence facilitates reductions in liability premia.
Supervision of insurance undertakings is the responsibility of the financial regulator, formerly known as the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority. The financial regulator has a wide regulatory remit covering consumer protection and prudential supervision of practically all of the financial services industry, including insurance, [160]and the services provided by it. The financial regulator comes under the aegis of my colleague the Minister for Finance.
125. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if, in view of recent revelations of rip-off Ireland, he will offer an explanation for the ongoing delay in the introduction of the consumer agency Bill; if he will provide a timeline for the new legislation. [31588/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): I would point out to the Deputy that on the occasion of the publication of the final report of the Consumer Strategy Group in May of this year, I clearly stated that notwithstanding my desire to have the national consumer agency up and running on a statutory basis as soon as possible, the preparation of the legislation to establish the new agency would take some time.
Given the importance of the national consumer agency to the development of future consumer protection policy, I am anxious that the legislation is framed so as to ensure that the NCA has sufficient powers and functions to enable it to carry out the role of being a forceful advocate on behalf of the consumer as recommended by the Consumer Strategy Group.
In addition to setting up the NCA, the new legislation will take the opportunity to update the existing code of consumer protection law, some of which is over 100 years old, something which was also recommended by the Consumer Strategy Group. Furthermore, it is intended that the legislation will also transpose the recently promulgated European directive on unfair business to consumer commercial practices, which is one of the most significant directives in the area of consumer protection, into national law. Given the scope of the legislation it will be appreciated, therefore, that its preparation will of necessity take some time. It is my expectation, however, that the legislation will be published in the latter half of next year.
I would point out to the Deputy that it was for the very reason that the establishment of the NCA would take time that I appointed a board to the new agency to act in an interim capacity until the NCA is established on a statutory footing. This appointment will ensure that in the interregnum until the NCA is formally established, the momentum built up by the Consumer Strategy Group’s report will be maintained and that the consumer’s case will be continue to be forcefully advocated.
126. Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of times vessels or other workplaces belonging to Irish Ferries have been inspected by the labour inspectorate. [31448/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): The labour inspectorate of my Department carried out two inspections of the records of Irish Ferries. The first inspection was carried out in 2000. This was a routine inspection which was carried out during the course of a major campaign to ensure compliance with the then recently enacted National Minimum Wage Act.
The second inspection of the company’s records was carried out in April this year, following media reports regarding rates of pay of employees of the company.
The labour inspectorate does not carry out inspections onboard shipping vessels. Surveyors from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources may inspect ships docked at Irish ports to ensure that foreign registered vessels are maintained and operated in compliance with international safety standards and to ensure that the living and working standards are in compliance with the relevant standards.
127. Ms Lynch asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of inspections carried out by the labour inspectorate of his Department to ensure payment of the national minimum wage in 2004 and to date in 2005; if his attention has been drawn to concerns expressed by labour inspectors that they do not have adequate resources to police the national minimum wage; if his attention has been drawn to calls by trade unions for additional resources to enable the labour inspectorate to deal with exploitation of non-national workers, particularly in the construction industry; the steps he is taking to address this situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31604/05]
131. Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views on whether the current complement of labour inspectors will be sufficient to ensure compliance with the legal duty on employers prescribed in the new Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, in addition to the range of duties already undertaken by the labour inspectorate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31620/05]
153. Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if his attention has been drawn to the fact that trade union [162]officials representing workers in the construction industry are of the view that there is at present no effective deterrent to the exploitation of non-nationals in relation to rates of pay and conditions of employment; if his attention has further been drawn to reports that the exploitation of foreign construction workers here is rampant; the way in which he proposes to deal with this specific issue in terms of effective deterrents; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31621/05]
161. Ms McManus asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if, in regard to his announcement of the recruitment of an additional 11 labour inspectors, the number that have been appointed to date in 2005; when he expects the full number to be appointed; if they will be concentrated on any particular area of work; the current ratio between the number of labour inspectors and the total numbers in the workforce; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31606/05]
164. Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views on whether the labour inspectorate has the number of inspectors necessary to carry out their duties in respect of the increased workforce and to inspect the treatment of the growing number of migrant workers here. [31454/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): I propose to take Questions Nos. 127, 131, 153, 161 and 164 together.
In January 2005 the complement of labour inspectors was 17 officers. When all sanctioned posts are filled there will be 31 officers assigned to labour inspector posts.
A selection interview process was undertaken following the announcement of additional labour inspectorate posts earlier this year. Arising from that process four officers were appointed. A second round of interviews to identify suitable personnel to fill the remaining vacancies has now been completed. The interviewing process commenced at the earliest opportunity following the summer annual leave cycle and was completed during the past month and a panel of officers has been established. It is intended that these assignments will be completed during November this year.
The Government is aware of the concern being expressed by public representatives, trade unions representing employees and others close to the issues with regard to the abuse of vulnerable workers by a small minority of unscrupulous employers. To enhance the efforts of the labour inspectorate in discharging its remit to enforce employment legislation, increases in staffing lev[163]els this year mean that, when all posts are filled, the complement of inspectors will have almost doubled.
The strengthened inspectorate will be concentrating on those sectors of the economy where workers tend to be more vulnerable to suffering the effects of non-compliance with employment legislation. It is these sectors also that appear to have high concentrations of non-national workers.
In addition to the labour inspectorate, it should be noted that there is a wide corpus of employment rights legislation administered by various State organisations and services. These include the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the redundancy and insolvency sections of this Department, the rights commissioner services provided by the Labour Relations Commission and the services provided by the Labour Court. The labour inspectorate is itself a unit within the employment rights compliance section, which also includes the employment rights information unit and a further separate unit that administers the referral of cases for prosecution and legal enforcement of orders. Between them, these various services have a complement of staff in excess of 140 people.
Work has also been progressing with regard to the discussion document prepared in connection with the mandate and resourcing of the labour inspectorate. The social partners, together with representatives from the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Finance, are members of the employment rights compliance group, ERCG, that is considering the discussion document. Among the issues being examined is the simplification and streamlining of employment rights compliance monitoring and the redress system. Those recommendations of the Mercer report that impinge on the activities of the labour inspectorate will be considered by the ERCG.
In 2004, labour inspectors of my Department undertook 462 inspections under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000. So far this year the inspectorate has undertaken 384 inspections under the legislation. Inspectors operate on the basis of achieving compliance. Where an inspection occurs leading to a detection of infringements the employer is required to rectify the infringements detected. Failure to do so to the satisfaction of the labour inspectorate within a specified period results in the initiation of legal proceedings.
In many sectors, including the construction industry, the pay and conditions of employment are governed by employment regulation orders and registered employment agreements. The orders and agreements regulate statutory mini[164]mum rates of pay and conditions of employment for workers employed in the various sectors where these apply. Ensuring compliance with the minimum pay amounts, terms and conditions forms a major element of the work of the inspectorate.
The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 is separate legislation dealing with occupational safety, health and welfare. The labour inspectorate has no role in relation to this Act. The Health and Safety Authority is the State body charged with overall responsibility for the administration, enforcement and promotion of workplace safety and health and therefore for the implementation of this legislation.
The authority has 100 staff specifically involved in inspection, investigation and enforcement of health and safety legislation and it has an ambitious work programme for 2005, which includes an increase in the level of inspections to be undertaken and the related enforcement. In the context of the overall allocation of resources I am confident the authority can achieve the objectives which are set out in its work programme for 2005.
128. Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the recommendations contained in the Enterprise Strategy Group’s Ahead of the Curve report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31639/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): Earlier this year the Government considered and endorsed the report of the high level committee that was asked to look at the most appropriate implementation arrangements for the enterprise strategy group’s, ESG, recommendations. The Government is broadly supportive of the policy directions recommended by the ESG as underlined by its intention to implement, either in full or with some modifications, most of the its recommendations. The Government's response to the ESG report can be found on my Department’s website.
The most important overall theme to emerge from the ESG’s analysis and policy recommendations is that we are broadly on the right track as regards the right mix and focus of enterprise support policies. These will also improve the competitiveness of the economy and sustain growth.
The central theme of the ESG recommendations concerns a strategic evolution to a more competitive, innovative and knowledge centred economy. To help create quality and sustainable employment we have to make sure Ireland continues to be an attractive place in [165]which to invest and from which to undertake increasingly profitable business. The ESG’s report makes a valuable contribution to embedding strategies appropriate to the new realities and challenges facing the Irish economy. The ESG policy prescriptions are particularly relevant to my Department and the enterprise support agencies that report to me.
As part of the ESG implementation process some significant progress has been made in making important strategic changes to enterprise support policies and how they will deliver real and tangible benefits to SMEs. Already I have agreed a fundamental reorganisation of Enterprise Ireland that will change its operational engagement with indigenous firms.
Many ESG’s recommendations involve new programmes that are either being designed for pilot testing or have been launched. Others will follow over the coming months so that each recommendation is carefully implemented to achieve measurable targets with a defined target group. For example, I recently launched the One Step Up programme that is an initial response to the ESG proposals about a continuous upgrading of our labour force skills.
I recently announced the business representatives of the enterprise advisory group. That group will advise me on progress in implementing the enterprise strategy group’s recommendations. The advisory group will also involve the Secretaries General from a number of Departments and I will listen carefully to the group in preparing a periodic report to Government on the pace and progress in implementing the ESG recommendations.
129. Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress of implementation of the National Competitiveness Council’s various recommendations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31640/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The recommendations and policy options highlighted by the NCC each year inform Government policy across a range of areas and have been implemented by a number of Departments. For example, in line with previous NCC recommendations the Government has introduced two consecutive non-inflationary budgets, a 20% research and development tax credit and has extended the business expansion and seed capital schemes until the end of 2006. The Government has also established a system of competitive funding for research developed under the programme for research in third level institutions, PRTLI, and has put in place procedures for the roll-out of national broadband infrastructure.
[166]My Department is preparing a report to Government outlining progress to date in relation to the implementation of the council’s most recent recommendations. It is intended that this report will be presented to Government for its consideration before the end of the year.
130. Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress made regarding the Government’s proposals to provide legal protection on a sectoral basis for whistleblowers who may wish to expose illegalities or wrongdoing on the part of their employers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31612/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): The Whistleblowers Protection Bill 1999 is still retained on the Government legislative programme. However, as previously stated on a number of occasions in the House, it is now considered, on reflection, that the provision of statutory protection for whistleblowers on a sectoral basis might provide a better and more focused approach to dealing with this issue. Recent legislative initiatives in this regard are: section 27 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, which came into effect from 1 September 2005 and provides for protection against dismissal and penalisation of employees who, in good faith, take steps to protect themselves or others in a workplace situation; and section 124 of the Garda Síochána Bill 2004. This section of the Bill provides for regulations relating to the reporting of corruption and malpractice in the Garda Síochána.
Question No. 131 answered with Question
No. 127.
132. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will amend the Industrial Relations Act 1990, in relation to the definition of “employee” in order to rectify this situation. [31455/05]
148. Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views on whether freelance workers including actors, musicians, film crews and freelance journalists should be entitled to be collectively represented. [31449/05]
159. Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if his attention has been drawn to the fact that competition law is being mischievously used to attack the [167]rights of certain workers, especially actors, musicians, film crews and freelance journalists, to be collectively represented; and his views on whether, when this legislation was discussed in Dáil Éireann, it was stated by the Government that the laws being introduced could not be used against freelance workers in this way. [31447/05]
163. Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the actions he will take to address the fact that competition law is being mischievously used to attack the rights of certain workers, especially actors, musicians, film crews and freelance journalists, to be collectively represented. [31445/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): I propose to take Questions Nos. 132, 148, 159 and 163 together.
I take it that these questions relate to a view expressed by the Competition Authority in a recent investigation into alleged price fixing involving the Equity trade union and the Institute of Advertising Practitioners in Ireland.
The aim of the Competition Act is to prohibit anti-competitive practices by “undertakings” such as price fixing and-or the abuse of a dominant position. The Act applies to all sectors of the economy in the State.
An “undertaking” is defined as “a person being an individual, a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons engaged for gain in the production, supply, or distribution of goods or the provision of a service”. This definition has been in use in Irish competition law for some time and is supported by EU case law.
I understand that the view expressed by the authority in its investigation was in respect of that particular case only and the parties to that investigation do not appear to have taken issue with the authority’s view as they entered into undertakings with the authority in settlement of the case, thereby avoiding the necessity of going to court. It is only the courts that can interpret the law.
The authority’s decision, which describes how it came to its view in the matter, is published on its website, tca.ie. It states, however, that while it is perfectly legal for a trade union to represent employees in collective bargaining with their employers, its trade union mantle cannot exempt its conduct when it acts as a trade association for self-employed contractors.
In considering the question of whether a legislative exemption should be provided for actors, musicians and freelance journalists, therefore, we need to bear in mind that a similar argument could be made for almost any group of self-employed contractors such as barristers, farmers, publicans, doctors, pharmacists etc, who, by coming together, adding union to their name and get[168]ting a negotiating licence, could circumvent the protections afforded to consumers by the Oireachtas in the Competition Act. Accordingly, I have no plans to amend current legislation in relation to this matter.
Question No. 133 answered with Question
No. 107.
134. Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the action he intends to take to bring employment to Youghal following job losses there; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31637/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): I am concerned about the recent job losses in the Youghal area, particularly the loss of 38 jobs in Seafield Technical Textiles Limited that has ceased operations due to adverse trading conditions. However, I am also aware that the relevant development agencies in my Department, namely, IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, FÁS and the county enterprise board, are responding to such job losses in the area in a co-ordinated way in order to attract new investment, grow existing business and employment and provide training and assistance to those seeking employment. While I may give general policy directives to the agencies I am precluded under the Industrial Development Acts from giving directives regarding individual undertakings or from giving preference to one area over others.
IDA Ireland has assured me it is actively marketing and promoting Youghal for new overseas investment and every effort is being made to secure further advanced knowledge-based industry for the east Cork area. Over recent years, in terms of new foreign investment in east Cork, pharmaceuticals, medical technologies and internationally traded services are among the area’s strongest performers. Direct employment in IDA supported companies in Cork city and county has grown from 10,345 in 1993 to 18,500 in 2004.
Enterprise Ireland is working closely with community groups in the towns of east Cork, including Youghal and Midleton, to foster further embryonic enterprise and to encourage young graduates to set up businesses in their own localities. The agency supported the setting up of the Knockgriffin Community Enterprise Centre in Midleton which is full and supports 24 full-time jobs in six companies as well as approving feasibility study funding to explore the possibility of a centre in Youghal under its CEC 2002 programme.
FÁS is running a number of training initiatives in Youghal at present. The programmes on offer are Pathways to Employment, which commenced [169]on 24 October, and Return to Work and Care of the Elderly, Midleton. In March of this year, FÁS commenced a free daily bus service from Youghal to the FÁS training centre in Bishopstown, Cork. The full range of FÁS services are also available to all companies in the Youghal area. The South Cork County Enterprise Board is also available to develop indigenous enterprise potential and to stimulate economic activity throughout the area.
Under the Government’s decentralisation programme 200 jobs will be relocated to Youghal. It is intended that the Civil Service Commission will relocate 100 jobs and the Valuation Office will relocate 100 jobs to the town.
I am confident that the strategies and policies being pursued by the development agencies, together with the ongoing commitment of Government to regional development, will bear fruit in terms of additional sustainable investment and jobs for the people of the east Cork, including Youghal.
135. Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the measures he intends to take to create a more inclusive labour market with particular reference to areas of disadvantage where unemployment levels are up to three times the national average; if he has specific proposals for upskilling and training where redundancies and vulnerability of jobs in the manufacturing sector have decimated employment levels in certain areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31614/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): In pursuit of the objectives of the national spatial strategy, the efforts of IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and the city-county enterprise boards are directed towards the promotion of employment and investment in all areas of the country.
As regards helping those who are unemployed to enter the labour market, under the national employment action plan, FÁS engages intensively those who have been unemployed for six months. They are referred automatically by the Department of Social and Family Affairs to FÁS for advice and assistance.
Particular emphasis is placed on the identification of training needs and on the provision of tailored responses. There is also a customised training fund to enable unemployed persons access training that is not readily available through FÁS or other State providers.
The local employment service, LES, which is funded by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment through FÁS, also provides an intensive guidance and placement service to persons who are most distant from the labour market.
[170]The National and Economic Social Forum, NESF, on which FÁS and DETE are represented, has completed a final report, Creating a More Inclusive Labour Market, which will be presented to Government. Its conclusions and recommendations should make a significant contribution towards influencing and informing future policy in this area.
In relation to redundancies, FÁS has a policy of early intervention whereby they offer a range of customised services to companies which are facing closure or to employees who have been notified of impending redundancy. Responses range from the establishment and co-ordination of multi-agency teams to specifically address the needs of the employees affected and the provision on site of the full range of FÁS employment services. FÁS makes contact with the companies concerned as soon as they are notified of proposed redundancies. This pro-active approach has been very successful to date. As part of the new FÁS strategy, a review of the FÁS response to company closures is under way. The outcome of this review will inform future developments in this area.
136. Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if his attention has been drawn to the recent findings of an EU survey published by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions which found that Irish workers had among the lowest number of days of annual leave and public holidays; his plans to provide for additional holiday entitlements or to create an additional public holiday; if these issues are likely to be addressed in any discussions on a new national agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31611/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): The Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, which implemented EU Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, provides for an annual leave entitlement of four working weeks for full-time employees and pro-rata entitlements for part-time employees. The Act also provides for an entitlement to nine public holidays per annum.
Notwithstanding these provisions, it is possible for employers and employees to negotiate a longer annual leave entitlement between themselves if they so wish. The average public holiday entitlement in the EU at present is approximately 11 days per annum.
I have no proposals at the moment to increase either annual leave or public holiday entitlements. However, should these issues arise in the [171]context of discussions on a new social partnership agreement, they will be considered at that stage.
137. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the criteria by which a person (details supplied) was appointed to the board of the new National Consumer Agency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31545/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The person concerned was appointed to the interim board of the National Consumer Agency on the basis of considerable experience both in the public sector in terms of work experience and in the private sector in terms of establishing and operating a business. I am satisfied that the person is well qualified for the task and will make an important contribution to the work of the interim board.
138. Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if women who are claiming deserted wife’s benefit are disqualified from participating in a community employment scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30971/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The main purpose of the community employment programme administered by FÁS is to provide work experience and training for the long-term unemployed and disadvantaged groups and thereby enable participants to advance successfully to employment in the open labour market.
I am informed by FÁS that with effect from 5 October 2000 persons aged 25 or over and in receipt of deserted wife’s benefit for 12 months or more are eligible to participate in community employment. There are 234 participants in this category on community employment.
139. Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views on the possibility of a two-tier system of immigration, with wealthier employment visa holders awarded greater rights than poorer employment permit holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31629/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): Economic migration policy is formulated within a context where the focus on meeting our skills needs is: first, on upskilling our resident workforce; second, on maximising the [172]potential of EEA nationals to fill our skills deficits; and third, with a new green card and revised work permit system, to meet those skill needs which cannot otherwise be addressed.
I announced my proposals for employment permits policy on 12 October 2005. The new employment permits system will have three pillars: pillar one is the establishment for the first time in Ireland of a green card for occupations where there are skills shortages, which will be for a restricted list of occupations in the annual salary range from €30,000 to €60,000 and for a more extensive list of occupations in the annual salary range above €60,000; pillar two is a re-established intra-company transfer scheme for temporary trans-national management transfers, and pillar three is a work permit scheme for a very restricted list of occupations up to €30,000. These new arrangements will be implemented next year.
The Employment Permits Bill 2005, which is being considered by the Dáil, will put in place a statutory framework to allow the implementation of an active, managed economic migration policy. These proposals are fair and reasonable and will support our economic development into the future.
140. Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if his attention has been drawn to the fact that abuses in the construction industry have been referred to in a recent report by the Comptroller and Auditor General and in remarks by the Pensions Ombudsman; his proposals to deal with these concerns; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31618/05]
143. Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the proportion of the 230,000 strong construction industry workforce which is covered under the CIF pensions registered agreement; if he intends to take measures to ensure that employers fulfil their legal obligation to register and make pension contributions for all employees; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31624/05]
171. Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if his attention has been drawn to reports that some employers in the construction industry are withholding employees’ subscriptions to the CIF sick pay and pensions fund; if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that such practices jeopardise the entitlements of construction workers; the steps he proposes to take to remedy this situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31626/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): I propose take Questions Nos. 140, 143 and 171 together.
The construction federation operatives pension scheme, generally referred to as CFOPS, has been established on foot of a registered employment agreement for the construction industry. A separate registered employment agreement in the construction sector provides for the establishment of statutory rates of pay and related working conditions of employment. The terms of both agreements apply to a range of categories of workers in the industry.
Compliance with CFOPS has been an issue of concern for some while and it prompted the Pensions Board to engage Mercer Consultants to carry out a review. The terms of reference for the consultants were formulated by a steering committee that included representatives of the social partners.
The report was recently published and it sets out a range of recommendations that focus on the issues highlighted above. The recommendations have policy and operational implications for various Departments that are being examined at present.
In the meantime work has also been progressing with regard to the discussion document prepared in connection with the mandate and resourcing the labour inspectorate. The social partners, together with representatives from the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Finance, are members of the Employment Rights Compliance Group, ERCG, that is considering the discussion document. Among the issues being examined is the simplification and streamlining of employment rights compliance monitoring and the redress system. Those recommendations of the Mercer report that impinge on the activities of the labour inspectorate will be considered by the ERCG.
A board of trustees comprising an independent chair together with five members, each nominated by the CIF and the union side respectively, administers CFOPS. Broadly speaking, responsibility for compliance with the registered employment agreement rests with the signatories to the agreement and to assist them in this task they established the Construction Industry Monitoring Agency, known as CIMA, to monitor compliance on their behalf. In processing a case of non-compliance CIMA ultimately refers matters to the Labour Court which will hold a hearing and, if satisfied as to non-compliance, issues an order against the employer concerned. The court may ask the labour inspectorate for assistance in checking records.
There are also provisions in legislation whereby a trade union, an association of employers or an individual employer may complain to the Labour Court that a particular [174]employer is not complying with a registered employment agreement. If, after investigating a complaint, the court is satisfied that the employer is in breach it may by order direct compliance with the agreement. Failure to comply with such an order is an offence punishable by a fine.
141. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his plans to counteract job leakage to lower wage economies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31543/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): Ireland no longer operates as a low cost location for investment; our strengths and competitive advantages have inexorably changed. High output and productivity together with high returns to labour in the form of wages, salaries and better living standards now typify Ireland’s economy. The low technology production that characterised our economic output in the past is being replaced by higher technology and services enterprises. A more attractive cost environment abroad will inevitably entice some firms that are unable to generate their required return from the modern enterprise economy into which we are transforming ourselves. A continuing structural evolution of our economy is both unavoidable and necessary to maintain present levels of growth and low unemployment. Part of this evolution entails some inevitable plant transfers and other adjustments, but where relocation has occurred to date, it has largely been limited to relatively low-technology, labour-intensive activities.
We have become a more sophisticated and developed economy where the application of technology and intellectual endeavour is becoming more important than simple cost competitiveness as the foundation for growth and prosperity. We now have one of the most open economies in the world where trends in world trade, global business investment and consumer decisions directly influence the pattern of economic growth, company development and job prospects in Ireland more so than probably in other developed economies. Pro-enterprise policies have helped propel economic growth and employment expansion and these have encouraged deeper and stronger links to both the enlarging EU markets and internationally. The consequent ability of entrepreneurs to operate more profitably in and from Ireland has seen both Irish enterprise and Irish society grow prosperous.
To circumvent the competitive threat from lower cost competitor economies, our policy is to encourage a move to higher levels of competitiveness and value added products and services. [175]Our focus is on the creation of sustainable employment. Such employment will be driven by companies with higher profitability that are more technologically advanced and prove a better fit with the competitive characteristics of our economy and that are consequently less likely to move on the basis of simple cost influences. We are continuing to develop those infrastructures, both physical and intellectual, to create and maintain an attractive environment for investment and expansion in Ireland. Such investment will be sourced by a combination of developing existing clients and new investors in existing or new activities or sectors. Given the critical mass of FDI in Ireland and its linkages with indigenous companies, one of the greatest potential contributions will come from developing companies already operating here. The enterprise development agencies are continuing to encourage companies into more sophisticated activities, reducing the likelihood of our competitive advantage being eroded by cost based competition.
142. Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress made to date in 2005 with regard to consideration of the discussion document covering the operation of the labour inspectorate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31602/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): Work has been progressing with regard to the discussion document prepared in connection with the mandate and resourcing of the labour inspectorate. The social partners, together with representatives from the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Finance, are members of the Employment Rights Compliance Group, ERCG, that is considering the discussion document.
The group first met on 12 September this year and has met four times since. Arising from the discussion document, and additional social partner inputs, the group commenced its work with an agenda that exceeded 40 topics embracing a range of issues including the implementation of a campaign of employment rights information dissemination that will be delivered in a very focused and strategic fashion. The discussions are now well advanced. Possible future models of employment rights enforcement are next to be considered. It is anticipated that ERCG’s deliberations will be concluded within the next three weeks.
Question No. 143 answered with Question
No. 140.
144. Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if his attention has been drawn to reports that some non-national workers were paid less than Irish workers on at least two projects being funded by the Government; that underpaid workers were afraid to query lower pay rates for fear of losing their jobs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31622/05
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): In the absence of specific information in respect of the employments concerned I am not in a position to comment on the detail. However, if it is the case that non-national workers were paid less than Irish workers for comparable work and there are no other relevant differentiating features it may be appropriate to refer the matter to the Equality Authority for consideration under equality legislation.
Furthermore, in the event that there is information provided to the effect that the workers concerned were not in receipt of the statutory minimum rates of pay set out in legislation, for the particular economic sector in which they were employed, the labour inspectorate will investigate the matter, in confidence.
145. Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will make a statement on the recently published annual competitiveness report; the steps he intends to take to address the issues raised in the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31613/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The National Competitiveness Council’s, NCC, annual competitiveness report 2005 was published on 7 September. This report benchmarks Ireland’s competitiveness relative to our 15 main trading partners and competitors using a compendium of 170 indicators. The indicators contained in the report are published by a wide variety of international sources.
The NCC expects to publish its annual competitiveness challenge later in the autumn. That document, which will draw on the findings of the annual competitiveness report, will highlight the main issues facing the Irish economy and will identify policy options to address them.
The NCC provides a valuable input to the formation of Government policies through its work on competitiveness benchmarking as it highlights where the economy is strong in competitiveness terms but also warns us emerging or potential challenges. Upon publication of the competitiveness challenge the Government will give care[177]ful consideration to the policy options identified by the council.
Question No. 146 answered with Question
No. 115.
147. Ms Lynch asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the position regarding the investigation by the labour inspectorate into allegations of very serious irregularities in regard to the treatment of employees of a Turkish company, Gama, which has been operating here; if all the workers have been given access to money held in accounts in a bank in Holland; his views on requesting the Garda to conduct an investigation into allegations that money had been diverted into accounts to which the workers previously had no access; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31603/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): Allegations of non-compliance with labour legislation in respect of a major construction firm were raised in the House on 8 February last by Deputy Joe Higgins. Those allegations were that certain non-national construction workers were required to work excessive hours and that such workers were in receipt of pay of between €2 and €3 per hour in contravention of the statutory minimums applicable.
The labour inspectorate of my Department undertook an investigation of these allegations. That investigation was completed within six weeks and required the exclusive attention of three labour inspectors under the direction of two senior members of staff. A report on the investigation was prepared and circulated to relevant parties, including the construction firm involved.
Subsequently, the Department was informed that the firm proposed seeking a judicial review with regard to the investigation and inspector’s report. At an interlocutory hearing a judgement was given whereby the Department was restrained from publication of the inspector’s report but permitted to forward the document to relevant prosecutorial bodies. On foot of this outcome a copy of the inspector’s report was sent to the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Revenue Commissioners, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Competition Authority, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement and the Garda Commissioner.
The inspector’s report was quashed in the judgement that followed the full High Court hearing of the case. That decision is being appealed to the Supreme Court. Accordingly, I am unable to elaborate any further on the content of the inspector’s report or offer any observations [178]on the actions that the prosecutorial bodies, mentioned above, may be considering.
I was concerned that all Turkish workers would have access to the money that had been transferred to their bank accounts in Finansbank in Amsterdam. To that end, I and my officials met with senior management from Gama Turkey and Gama Ireland, the legal advisers to Gama Turkey, and a human resources consultant, retained by Gama. At that meeting, I was assured by these senior managers, their legal adviser and the human resources consultant that all Gama workers in Ireland, past and present, would have full access to the money that had been transferred to their bank accounts in Finansbank.
I contacted the president of Finansbank. He assured me that, provided the consent of the workers was forthcoming, his bank would co-operate in ensuring that my officials would have sight of relevant bank records in his bank so that they could be satisfied that all workers would have access to the money in their bank accounts. Officials from my Department travelled to Finansbank on 14 April last.
Following these meetings and contacts which my officials had with SIPTU and Deputy Higgins, I am satisfied that a substantial number of Turkish workers, who were in Ireland around last April, received value for the funds that had been transferred to their personal bank accounts in Finansbank.
My Department wrote to Gama Turkey’s legal advisers on 29 April seeking certain details on each current and former Gama employee, including the money transferred to Finansbank and the money transferred from Finansbank to their personal bank account in Isbank in Turkey. Despite reminders to Gama Turkey’s legal advisers, and engagement with a PR company engaged by Gama, this information has not been supplied to date. Accordingly, I cannot assure the Deputy that all Gama workers in Ireland, both past and present, have received value for the amounts that were transferred into their personal accounts in Finansbank.
In the meantime, there were ongoing contacts between officials of my Department and the company. Matters were brought before the Labour Relations Commission and then the Labour Court. Arising from these actions substantial transfers of money were secured for workers in lieu of overtime worked.
In addition, certain professional Gama workers, in respect of whom transfers were not made into Dutch bank accounts, were also awarded sums of money by the Labour Court. Many of these Turkish workers have now returned home.
Question No. 148 answered with Question
No. 132.
[179]Question No. 149 answered with Question
No. 119.
150. Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his plans to break up a company (details supplied) and the future role that the company will have in the mid-west region; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31615/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): I have no plans to break up Shannon Development. On 28 July last, following detailed consultations with the board of the company, other stakeholders and regional interests, I announced a decision on a future mandate for Shannon Development. This new mandate envisages an active, focused role for the company, complementary to that of the national agencies, in the best interests of the economic development of the mid-west region.
As I have indicated in response to previous similar Dáil questions, there have been a number of recent developments that impact on the future role of Shannon Development, the most significant of which are: the proposed relocation of the headquarters of Enterprise Ireland to Shannon as part of the decentralisation programme; the Enterprise Strategy Group recommendation that Shannon Development should disengage from industrial development functions; and the establishment of an independent Shannon Airport Authority.
Discussions commenced with Shannon Development early last year and, in March 2005, the company submitted proposals for a revised strategy for the company. These proposals provided that the company would exit certain tourism and enterprise support activities and they would focus on strategic value added activities that would contribute to the economic development of the region. Following an examination of these proposals and after consultation with the company and other stakeholders, I decided on the revised mandate for the company. The main features of the new mandate are: the company will place an increased focus on the regional development aspects of its mandate and special emphasis will be placed on addressing the needs of the less-developed parts of the mid-west region; the company will retain ownership of industrial property in the Shannon region and responsibility for managing the Shannon free zone and will have responsibility for providing appropriate property solutions for both indigenous and overseas enterprises; the support functions in relation to indigenous enterprises in the Shannon region that are carried out by Shannon Development on behalf of EI will revert to EI; the IDA will assume responsibility for promoting [180]investment in, and supporting, FDI companies in the Shannon free zone; and the company will produce a new three year corporate plan to reflect the new mandate and this will be reviewed annually.
All of the interested parties in the region agree that Shannon Airport is vital to its economic well-being and that Shannon Development is ideally placed to support the new Airport Authority and to complement its activities. How this should be done will, however, have to await consideration by the Minister for Transport of the authority’s business plan. Similarly, any changes to Shannon Development’s tourism remit will be decided by the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism in consultation with the company.
The Enterprise Strategy Group recommendation, which is now Government policy, that the company disengage from industrial development activities, which should be left to the national agencies, Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland, was central to my consideration of this issue. Shannon Development supported this recommendation and other regional interests also favoured the streamlining of industrial development functions in the region.
I recently met members of the board and I believe there is both support for the new mandate and energy present to implement it. Discussions between departmental officials and the executive have also commenced in this regard. I am also facilitating clarification of specific elements of the new mandate between my departmental officials and the main trade union, SIPTU.
Question No. 151 answered with Question
No. 109.
152. Ms Enright asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the status of the liquidation of IFI; when its creditors will be paid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31634/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The determination of any payments due to creditors of IFI is a matter solely for the liquidator. The position of unsecured creditors can only be determined by the liquidator when all the assets of the company have been realised and all liabilities established. In this regard, I understand the liquidator has made considerable progress in realising the assets of the company and establishing the full extent of its liabilities.
At this stage, the main production sites at Arklow and Cork remain the principal assets yet to be realised. Contracts have been signed for the sale of both these sites and I understand that it is hoped to close the sales in the near future. The [181]main liability to be established at this stage relates to a claim made by the trustees of the Richardsons superannuation scheme, covering the employees in Belfast. The liquidator has accepted, in principle, that there is an admissible claim on the liquidation but the quantum of that claim remains to be established. The liquidator is engaged in discussions with the trustees of the scheme with a view to agreeing the quantum of the claim and hopes to do so in the near future.
While it may take some more time to finalise all outstanding matters, I understand the liquidator hopes to be in a position to make at least an interim payment to creditors before the end of the year.
Question No. 153 answered with Question
No. 127.
154. Ms Burton asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress made to date with regard to his consultations regarding the possible establishment of a joint labour committee to protect the interests of domestic workers, especially in view of evidence of exploitation of domestic workers from abroad; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31586/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): Legislation provides that an application for the establishment of a joint labour committee can be made to the Labour Court by me, as Minister, a trade union or any organisation or group of persons claiming to be representative of such workers or of such employers. In consultation with the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission my Department is considering the practicalities of establishing a new JLC for domestic workers.
The Labour Relations Commission commissioned the University of Limerick to carry out a review of the JLC system in 2005. My Department has held bilateral discussions with relevant stakeholders regarding implementation of the recommendations in the review. The issue of a JLC for domestic workers is being considered in this context also.
155. Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, further to Parliamentary Question No. 301 of 15 February 2005, if he will review this policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31341/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The reduction of 5,000 in [182]staffing levels as announced by the Government in 2002 applies to all sectors of the public service. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and its agencies, including FÁS, are expected to contribute to this reduction. In the case of FÁS a reduction of 150 from a staffing level of almost 2,400 over several years is considered appropriate and I do not propose to review the situation.
156. Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the steps he has taken and the proposals he has formulated to address concerns in relation to the protection of workers’ jobs, pay and conditions of employment from displacement in favour of cheap labour involving the exploitation of non-national workers in view of trade union reluctance to enter talks on a new social partnership agreement. [31619/05]
167. Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the action he intends to take on employment standards arising from the decision by Irish Ferries to outsource its workforce; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31633/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): I propose to take Questions Nos. 156 and 167 together.
There is already a comprehensive body of employment rights legislation which has as its objective the protection of employees against arbitrary behaviour by employers, provision for the safety and health of workers and to foster labour market harmony by promoting policies that minimise conflict and maximise fairness.
While recognising the exceptional situation that has arisen in the maritime sector, it is important to remember that the full panoply of Irish employment law and social protection still applies to persons employed in Ireland regardless of nationality. This body of law is, and will continue to be, enforced by my Department.
Following the announcement on 12 April last there are now 31 inspector posts sanctioned for the labour inspectorate. This represents almost a doubling of the complement of inspectors in the past 12 months and is indicative of my determination to ensure compliance with employment rights legislation.
Apart from the strengthening of staff resources, other initiatives are under way also. Arising from a commitment in Sustaining Progress, and to assist in the preparation of proposals for consideration by Government, a discussion document was prepared by the labour inspectorate in relation to its mandate and resourcing. The [183]discussion document covered the full dimension of issues that impact on the operation of the labour inspectorate ranging from the legislative framework right through to the operational aspects and staff development. The discussion document has been well received among the social partners and the parties are well advanced in their consideration of the proposals that exceed 40. The objective is to formulate a set of recommendations for Government. It is intended that this process would feed into and complement any future partnership discussions.
On 24 May last, I announced a programme of action in response to the report and recommendations of the review group on the role and functions of the employment rights bodies and following consultations with the various interested parties. This included the establishment of an employment rights group, ERG, comprising representatives of my Department, the employment rights bodies and the social partners. The ERG is to consider how best to simplify and streamline the complaint, appeal and enforcement procedures and documentation across all the various employment rights bodies. The ERG will also examine the extent to which common procedures and a simplified approach to the conduct of hearings-investigations can be adopted across all the bodies, leading to procedural simplification and improved customer service. Its work should be completed by the end of next year.
The concerns in relation to the protection of workers’ jobs, pay and conditions of employment to which the Deputies refer raise complex legal and policy issues. The Government is committed, however, to taking whatever steps are feasible, through legislation or otherwise, to develop in partnership with congress and employers, a meaningful package in the area of enhanced employment standards generally. These issues can best be advanced through dialogue in the context of the partnership process.
157. Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the proportion of the Labour Court’s increased case load in 2004 which consisted of complaints concerning the construction industry pension and sick pay schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31625/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): The Labour Court is an independent statutory body that acts independently in carrying out its functions. The Deputy’s question relates to an issue concerning the day-to-day operation of the court, and is one in which I have no direct function.
[184]There are two employment agreements relating to the construction sector registered with the Labour Court: (1) pensions assurance and sick pay; and (2) wages and conditions. Alleged breaches of registered employment agreements are considered by the Labour Court under procedures provided for under section 32 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946.
According to the Labour Court Annual Report for 2004, the increase in referrals to the court in 2004 was mainly attributable to an increase of more than 75% in the number of complaints alleging non-compliance with the registered employment agreements for the construction industry on pension, assurance and sick pay. This has resulted from increased monitoring of the level of adherence to the agreement by both union and employer bodies in that industry.
158. Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if it is his intention to introduce legislation to provide for the creation of a new offence of corporate manslaughter as suggested by the Law Reform Commission in October 2003 and recommended by the commission in its recent report to which a draft Bill is appended; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31582/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The issue of whether legislation to provide for the creation of a new offence of corporate manslaughter as suggested by the Law Reform Commission in its recent report is not a matter for me as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
The main thrust of the recommendations are at a much wider area of responsibility than that covered by my Department and consequently I do not have a primary function in the matter.
I launched the report at the request of the Law Reform Commission and at the time I made it clear that consideration of the report will now take place primarily at Government level by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the context of his main responsibilities for the criminal law system.
Question No. 159 answered with Question
No. 132.
160. Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views on whether the level of investment in research and development here is compatible with economic goals and the goals set out in the Lisbon Agenda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31641/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The process of comprehensively addressing the research and development agenda was commenced by this Government under the current National Development Plan, NDP, 2000-2006. Within the current NDP, STI has become a major plank of this Government’s policy, underpinned by very significant resources. The importance of ensuring greater coherence in the development of the overall national system of innovation and the value of a whole of Government approach has also been recognised by this Government. A cabinet sub-committee for STI, serviced by an interdepartmental committee, is fully operational and active.
Achievements have been made. Ireland is now in a period of catching up. Real annual average growth in gross expenditure on research and development, GERD, for Ireland was 4.5% for 2001-03 rising to 4.8% for 2003-05. In GNP terms the ratio for GERD to GNP has risen from 1.3% in 2001 to 1.45% in 2005.
However, this is not yet commensurate with our ambitions to develop as a knowledge-based economy. The publication of Building Ireland’s Knowledge Economy last year set out the challenges. The response to that document is being prepared by my Department, in association with other relevant Departments in the interdepartmental committee on STI, and I will shortly be bringing forward a strategy on STI to 2013, which will drive this agenda forward.
As the Deputy will be aware, the Lisbon Agenda is aimed at making Europe more competitive and innovative on the world stage. There are very significant challenges ahead. Science, technology and innovation in Ireland is still under developed by comparison with our key global competitors and challenges are increasing from locations such as China, Singapore and South Korea. Recent work by the EU Commission has provided a timely review of progress towards achieving the Lisbon objectives and provides a sobering reminder of the challenge that faces us all in our efforts to drive investment in research and development and innovation.
We need to make the next quantum leap forward. Making that vision a reality requires strategic investment. We will continue to work to ensure that, within the next decade, Ireland becomes internationally renowned for our research, generating and using new knowledge for economic and social progress to the benefit of all.
Question No. 161 answered with Question
No. 127.
Question No. 162 answered with Question
No. 114.
[186]Question No. 163 answered with Question
No. 132.
Question No. 164 answered with Question
No. 127.
165. Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress made to date with regard to the establishment of the new National Consumer Agency; if the membership of the board of the agency has been finalised; the number of meetings held by the board to date in 2005; the number of full-time staff the agency will have and the numbers appointed to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31601/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): As I advised the House in my reply to a previous question, the core recommendation of the Consumer Strategy Group is that a new statutory body, the national consumer agency, be established to be an advocate on behalf of consumers. The Government fully approved this recommendation and has agreed to establish the new agency as soon as practicable.
The establishment of the NCA will require primary legislation. My Department has already commenced the necessary preliminary legislative and organisational work to ensure that the NCA is established as soon as possible. I am conscious, however, that establishing the new agency may take some time. For that reason, with the approval of the Government, I recently appointed a board to the national consumer agency to act in an interim capacity until such time as the agency is established on a statutory footing. The board, which is comprised of a chairperson and 12 other members, has held three meetings to date.
Given its non-statutory status, the interim board does not have any staff itself. It does, however, have the assistance of Forfás in carrying out its activities. Forfás has assigned 4.5 staff to assist the interim board in this regard. This number will increase considerably in 2006 to cater for the significant increase in activities which the interim board intends to undertake in the course of next year.
With regard to the numbers of staff that the NCA might have when formally established, it is not possible to give a precise estimate of that number at this stage. It is the case, however, that one of the interim board’s priority tasks is to prepare a detailed estimate of staffing, resource and budget requirements of a fully operational and statutory based national consumer agency.
I very much welcome the Government’s decision to approve the establishment of a national consumer agency. I am certain the [187]agency will have a key role in advocating the consumer case and in the development of future consumer policy. I am also of the view that the appointment of an interim board until the NCA is formally established is most important. The interim board will ensure that the momentum of the Consumer Strategy Group’s report is maintained, that the consumer’s voice will be heard and that the construction of a fully operational NCA can begin.
166. Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the action he intends to take to reverse the continuing trend of job losses in the manufacturing sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31627/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): Job losses in the manufacturing sector are of ongoing concern and the Government is doing all in its power to create structures through its enterprise development and training agencies, which will facilitate those who have lost jobs to gain new ones, particularly ones that offer more opportunity both in terms of skills and permanence.
Ireland has a predominantly modern manufacturing base which competes in a range of growth sectors. However, as with most other European countries, there are areas of activity in which Ireland’s competitiveness is seriously challenged. In the main, these are in areas where the availability of lower cost locations is making cost the primary driver behind business decision making. It is inevitable that the investment decisions of some companies will be influenced by the competitive attractions of alternative geographic locations. Our focus is firmly concentrated on managing the current transition with the best possible blend of policies to strengthen both national and firm level competitiveness.
Manufacturing has been a key driver of prosperity across the economy for many years and enterprise policies will continue to emphasise the strategic importance of the sector to future economic growth. The Enterprise Strategy Group, ESG, recognised the importance of the sector in providing a foundation of skills and technologies on which to build a high performance, high value added and technologically orientated manufacturing sector into the future.
My objective and that of the Government is to ensure that our economy remains a globally competitive, profitable and secure location for business. We can best help enterprise, including the manufacturing sector, by continuing to implement policies that are pro business and by implementing the right balance of enterprise supports and at the right time to help business. When [188]provided with the best supporting and competitive environment, business and industry will develop to capitalise on investment and growth opportunities. It is the Government’s intention to enable enterprise growth by policies tailored to address the competitive pressures transforming the global economy.
A key element of the Government’s strategy to help enterprise is to encourage increased levels of investment in research, business related technological development and innovation across all enterprise sectors. These increased levels will assist firms to produce improved products and services with added value. In the longer term, this approach will provide both more sustainable and higher quality jobs.
While there has been a decrease in the number of jobs in manufacturing in recent times, there is consistent growth in job numbers in other areas. The most recent quarterly national household survey published by the Central Statistics Office on 14 September 2005 shows that there were 2,014,800 persons in the labour force, which represents an annual increase of 94,500 or 4.9%. This is the highest year on year increase since the survey began.
Question No. 167 answered with Question
No. 156.
168. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views on the fact that the additional 93,000 jobs created this year have not led to a pro-rata increase in the expected tax take; if this is further indicative of increased casualisation of the Irish workforce; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31587/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): The growth in employment by 93,000 in the year to the second quarter of 2005 is the highest annual growth rate recorded in five years. Full-time employment increased by 72,500 — males, 39,200 and females, 33,300. Part-time employment increased by 20,600 — males, 5,800 and females, 14,800 — compared with 6,000 in the same period last year. Overall, since 1997, full-time employment has increased from 1,215,000 to 1,597,500 while part-time employment has increased from 252,700 to 331,700.
The construction and financial-business services sectors accounted for more than 50% of the employment growth. Across all sectors, practically every occupational category experienced an increase in employment with the largest increases in the craft, clerical and secretarial occupations.
[189]The latest quarterly economic commentary from the ESRI has indicated that the growth rates in employment, as well as sustained economic growth, have had a significant positive impact on incomes. The reporting of tax receipts is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance.
Question No. 169 answered with Question
No. 114.
170. Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will arrange a visit to County Kerry in the near future to discuss the job losses in IDA supported industries over the past five years with the local chambers of commerce, SIPTU and other organisations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31616/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): I visited Kerry on 21 July 2005 with officials from my Department and the State development agencies. During the course of this visit I met the Kenmare Chamber of Commerce, and representative organisations and businesses in Caherciveen, Killorglin and Killarney. Wide-ranging discussions were held concerning economic development in the region.
IDA’s strategy for Kerry is to win high value investments in the international services, engineering and ICT sectors. IDA Ireland is pursuing this strategy within the NSS, which has designated Tralee and Killarney as linked hubs. While I may give general policy directives to the agency under the Industrial Development Acts, I am precluded from giving directives regarding individual undertakings or from giving preference to one area over others.
However, I am informed that IDA Ireland is actively marketing the region. At the end of 2004, there were 2,022 people in permanent employment in 21 IDA supported companies in the county. The agency has now completed site development works on its business and technology park at Tiernaboul in Killarney. The site area totals 4.66 hectares and the work involved significant landscaping, access development and site clearance. This work has cost in the region of €1 million. A local group of business people have completed a new building of 14,716 sq.ft. on a site acquired from IDA on the this park. IDA is also actively marketing the Kerry technology park adjacent to the institute of technology in Tralee and the Listowel development centre.
In addition to targeting potential new projects, the agency is also working with its existing portfolio of companies in the region, with a view to supporting such companies with potential expansions and diversification of activities.
[190]It is my intention to visit the Tralee and north Kerry area as soon as my departmental and parliamentary commitments permit and I look forward to discussion with the local chambers of commerce and other interested groups about employment prospects specifically and economic development generally in the region.
Question No. 171 answered with Question
No. 140.
172. Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress made regarding his examination of the issues that have arisen in relation to the academic qualifications of the person recently appointed as chief science adviser; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31599/05]
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): I am continuing to examine the issues raised in the House and in the media in relation to the academic qualifications of the chief science adviser. I have raised the specific issues identified in the previous questions and representations from members of the House with the chief science adviser and have sought his response. I have met the chief science adviser to discuss the issues in question and following that meeting I have asked the chief science adviser to submit additional information. The issues raised are significant and it is vital that a full and diligent examination and consideration of them is undertaken and that a determination is made only when all of the issues are fully considered.
173. Ms McManus asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of inspections carried out by the labour inspectorate and the number of prosecutions initiated by the inspectorate in respect of the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31605/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): The number of workplace inspections-visits undertaken by the labour inspectorate, during and after normal business hours, and prosecutions initiated in respect of the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and to date is set out in the following tabular statement.
The primary function of the labour inspectorate is to seek compliance and rectification of any breaches identified, including payment of any arrears due to employees. Inspectors pursue allegations of worker mistreatment and seek redress for the individual/s concerned and, if appropriate, [191]a prosecution is initiated. Successful prosecution can be dependent on adequate support from witnesses.
| Year | Inspections/Visits | Prosecutions Initiated |
|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 8,323 | 25 |
| 2003 | 7,168 | 20 |
| 2004 | 5,160 | 14 |
| 2005 | 3,811 | 24 |
Question No. 174 answered with Question
No. 115.
175. Mr. Lowry asked the Taoiseach the number of work-days lost to the economy as a result of medical appointments in each year since 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31934/05]
Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Kitt): The exact information requested by the Deputy is not available. The only information of this nature compiled is statistics on working days lost due to work-related accidents and work-related illnesses.
Statistics on days lost from work due to work-related accidents and illnesses are available for 2002 to 2004 from the quarterly national household survey and are set out in the following table:
176. Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the number of EU directives within his Department’s competency which have not been transposed into law; the number of warning letters received by his Department from the Commission or other EU bodies relating to non-transposed directives in each of the years from 1997 and to date; the legislation in each case; if that legislation has since been transposed into Irish law or if it is still outstanding; if still outstanding, the date by which it was meant to have been transposed; the title of the directive which has been waiting transposition for the longest period in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31334/05]
The Taoiseach: There are no EU directives which come within my Department’s area of competency which have not yet been transposed into law.
177. Mr. Boyle asked the Taoiseach the costs involved to the office of the Attorney General in [192]having to defend actions against the Government in relation to the non-compliance or non-application of European Union directives (details supplied). [30023/05]
The Taoiseach: The information set out as follows shows the fees paid to counsel in regard to each case. No other fees were paid out by the office of the Chief State Solicitor which carries out this function under the aegis of the office of the Attorney General.
| Case | Amount |
|---|---|
| € | |
| C-67/99 | 19,538.96 |
| C-117/00 | 5,400.00 |
| C-316/00 | No fees paid* |
| C- 67/02 | No fees paid* |
| C-494/01 | 30,120.90 |
| C-257/03 | 1,261.17 |
| C-120/01 | No fees paid* |
178. Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of private rental properties and landlords in the county of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, the four Dublin counties, in the State in the figures available from Central Statistics Office from the most recent period for which figures are available. [31411/05]
179. Mr. Cuffe asked the Taoiseach the number of private rental properties and landlords in the areas of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Dublin City Council and in the State in the last census from which figures are available. [31412/05]
Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Kitt): I propose to take Questions Nos. 178 and 179 together.
The most recent information is in respect of the 2002 census and the relevant information is contained in the following table:
180. Mr. Costello asked the Taoiseach when he received the third report by Judge Barron into the murder of Mr. Seamus Ludlow; the reason for the continued delay in referring the report to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights; when he proposes to make the report available for publication; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31467/05]
The Taoiseach: Judge Barron’s third report relates specifically to the murder of Seamus Ludlow and it was presented to the Government in October 2004. The Government wishes to see the report published in the form that it was received from Judge Barron.
In that context, certain aspects of the report have required careful consideration and were the subject of legal advice, including on the protection of the rights of persons named in the report. The Government has now concluded its consideration of this matter. The report will be brought before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights this week.
181. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Taoiseach the number and value of contracts awarded for public relations projects by his Department since December 2004. [31743/05]
The Taoiseach: No contracts have been awarded by my Department in respect of public relations in the period December 2004 to October 2005.
182. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Taoiseach the number of civil servants and other staff employed in his constituency office; and the grade and remuneration of each. [31758/05]
The Taoiseach: The number of civil servants and other staff employed in the Taoiseach’s constituency office, their grade and remuneration is set out in the following table.
183. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Taoiseach the number and value of contracts awarded to outside consultants by his Department in each of the [196]past five years; the details of the contracts involved; and if these projects have reached fruition. [31773/05]
The Taoiseach: The number and value of contracts awarded to outside consultants by my Department in each of the last five years is given in Table 1. Details of the contracts and the current status are shown in table 2.
| Year | Number of Contracts | Total Value of Contracts |
|---|---|---|
| € | ||
| 2001 | 12 | 1,113,547 |
| 2002 | 5 | 143,065 |
| 2003 | 10 | 281,707 |
| 2004 | 20 | 430,886 |
| 2005 | 6 | 108,588 |
184. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Taoiseach the number of civil servants and other staff in his press office; and the grade and remuneration of each staff member. [31788/05]
The Taoiseach: The number of civil servants and other staff employed in the Government press office, their grade and remuneration is set out in the following table.
Each press officer is normally required to be on call one week in four, for which they receive an on-call allowance equivalent to five hours overtime at double time rates per week.
185. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Taoiseach the population of each parish and district electoral division in counties Longford and Westmeath in each of the past 20 years. [31814/05]
Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Kitt): The information requested by the Deputy is contained in the following table which is based on the results of censuses of population from 1981 to 2002. Electoral divisions are the smallest geographical area for which information is published from the census.
186. Mr. Ferris asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if she will ensure that voluntary sector groups working in the area of domestic and sexual violence are adequately provided for in the upcoming estimates; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31502/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): My Department [206]does not directly fund or co-ordinate health and personal social services to victims of abuse. Moneys are made available each year, formerly through the health boards, and now through the Health Service Executive, for the provision of services to women victims of violence. In recent years there has been a substantial increase in funding so that now more than €12 million is provided annually for the provision of such services. [207]The distribution of this funding is a matter for the Health Service Executive.
The determination as to whether services should be provided by Health Service Executive employees or by the voluntary sector is also a matter for the Health Service Executive.
My Department has requested that the parliamentary affairs division of Health Service Executive reply directly to the Deputy on the matters raised in his question.
187. Mr. Ferris asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if she will ensure that a centre (details supplied) in County Kerry is adequately provided for in the upcoming estimates; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31503/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
188. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her views on the charging of student nurses by certain Dublin hospitals for vaccinations which are obligatory for that profession. [31318/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): When the negotiations regarding the transfer of undergraduate nursing education to the third level sector were concluded it was agreed that health screening and vaccinations were issues for local health service agencies and should be dealt with accordingly.
The Deputy’s question therefore, relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act, 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have the matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
189. Mr. Ring asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if the 13 new specialist graduates in orthodontics are all contracted to a three year commitment to their respective Health Service Executive; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31319/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
190. Mr. Ring asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the locations in which the 13 new specialist graduates in orthodontics will be working within the Health Service Executive; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31320/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
191. Mr. Ring asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number of children under treatment in each regional orthodontic department here. [31321/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
192. Mr. F. McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the reason there is no occupational therapy service available for a person (details supplied) in Dublin 9; and if she will work with the Health Service Executive on this matter. [31323/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O’Malley): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
193. Mr. Perry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number of persons in County Sligo who hold medical cards; the number of persons who held cards in County Sligo in 1995; and the number of medical card holders in the county for the years 1995 and to date in 2005. [31348/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
194. Dr. Cowley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the reason a person (details supplied) in County Mayo must travel to Merlin Park Hospital, Galway three times per week for kidney dialysis; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31354/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this case investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
195. Mr. Perry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if she will intervene on behalf of a person (details supplied) in County Sligo and have a public bed made available for them; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31356/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
196. Mr. Fleming asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when a nationwide cervical cancer screening programme will be in operation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31359/05]
197. Cecilia Keaveney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the efforts being made to roll out a nationwide cervical cancer screening service on a systematic call or recall programme; the timescale involved; and if she will make a statement on the concept of early detection being better than surgery. [31363/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): I propose to take Questions Nos. 196 and 197 together.
National population based screening programmes for cancer are only considered where clear evidence exists of the benefit to the whole population to be screened. Population based screening programmes for cervical screening have demonstrated their efficacy internationally. A pilot cervical screening programme commenced in October 2000 and is available to eligible women resident in the HSE mid-western region. Under the programme, cervical screening is being offered, free of charge, to approximately 74,000 women in these three counties in the 25 to 60 age group, at five year intervals. I am committed to the national roll out of the cervical screening programme in line with international best practice.
An international expert examined the feasibility and implications of a national roll out of a cervical screening programme. The examination included an evaluation of the current pilot programme, quality assurance, laboratory capacity and organisation and the establishment of national governance arrangements. Following the publication of this report my Department undertook a consultative process with relevant professional and advocacy stakeholders. The consultative process is completed and my Department will now discuss options for the roll out of the programme with the Health Service Executive, including indicative timeliness.
198. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if new legislation relating to nursing homes is being contemplated by her Department; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31377/05]
199. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if a review of nursing homes legislation has been carried out by her Department; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31378/05]
200. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the person or organisations who participated in any such departmental review of existing legislation which governs the nursing homes sector; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31379/05]
201. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if the preparation of new nursing homes legislation was preceded by a departmental review of existing legislation which governs that sector; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31380/05]
202. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the stage at which the preparation of new nursing homes legislation is; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31381/05]
203. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the aims and core objectives of planned new legislation governing nursing homes; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31384/05]
204. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when new and substantive legislation governing nursing homes will be enacted; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31385/05]
208. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if a set of standards designed to be applicable to all nursing homes has been developed; if not, the stage the development of such standards is presently at; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31407/05]
209. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the way in which it is envisaged that any new legislation in this area will interact with a set of standards to be applicable to all nursing homes; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31408/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): I propose to take Questions Nos. 198 to 204, inclusive, and 208 and 209 together.
It is the intention of the Department to put in place a more robust regulatory system as quickly as possible to protect vulnerable older people and to provide for the highest possible standards of care for older people in long-stay facilities.
It is intended that the Health Bill 2005 will establish both the HIQA and the SSI on a statutory basis and will contain provisions to underpin a more robust inspectorial system. The Nursing Homes (Care and Welfare) Regulations 1993, made under the Health (Nursing Homes) Act [212]1990, set out the standards to which private nursing homes must adhere. The Health Service Executive carries out inspections in private nursing homes. In the context of the Health Bill 2005, the process has begun to review the current system with a view to strengthening the powers available to those involved in inspecting facilities and to extend a strengthened inspection system to public facilities.
It is also intended that the Bill will provide for the setting and monitoring of standards for residential facilities for older people. To this end, the Department has commenced a review of the Nursing Homes (Care and Welfare) Regulations 1993, and will be working in conjunction with the HSE, the SSI and other relevant bodies, with the intention of developing a new set of standards that would apply to all residential services for older people.
The Department is also working on primary legislation to expand the policies and principles of the subvention scheme to facilitate implementation of the scheme by the HSE throughout the country, and it is the intention to bring this legislation before the Oireachtas in the near future. It is also intended to increase the thresholds contained in the Nursing Homes (Subvention) Regulations 1993. These thresholds have not been updated since being set in 1993 and increasing them will render an increased number of people eligible for subvention.
205. Mr. Ring asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the resources which are available to help persons, especially elderly persons, in rural areas with the provision of transport to hospital for outpatient appointments or admissions especially those who have no means of transport, insufficient resources to hire transport and cannot avail of the public transport system due to a lack of service in their areas; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31404/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
206. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children what plans she has under way to develop specialist mental health services, especially for eating disorders at a com[213]munity and primary care level for young persons here; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31405/05]
207. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if, in view of the fact that eating disorders are disabling conditions which have a higher mortality rate than any other psychiatric illness; her views on whether an eating disorder will be covered under the Disability Bill 2004 (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31406/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O’Malley): I propose to take Questions Nos. 206 and 207 together.
Responsibility for the management and treatment of a person with an eating disorder rests with the individual patient’s clinician. However, persons presenting with eating disorders are generally treated through the local psychiatric services. Outpatient psychiatric services are provided from a network of hospitals, health centres, day hospitals and day centres.
Under the new Disability Act, the definition of disability is based on the degree of disability and not on the type of illness. This means that all severe and enduring, or chronic, mental illnesses would be covered. It is most likely therefore that the severity of the eating disorder and the patient’s prognosis would determine eligibility for services under the Act.
An expert group on mental health policy is preparing a new national framework for the further modernisation of the mental health services, updating the 1984 policy document Planning for the Future. The expert group has a number of sub-groups looking at specialist issues in mental health services, including the development of services and facilities for the treatment of eating disorders. The report of the expert group is expected to be published early in 2006.
Questions Nos. 208 and 209 answered with Question No. 198.
210. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if, in view of the fact that efforts are being made to encourage former nurses to return to the profession and some of these nurses may be required to participate in refresher courses and that in some instances there is limited availability of places on the courses, the number of courses available nationwide; the number of places available each year; the take-up and the numbers waiting to participate in such courses; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31414/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have the matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
211. Mr. P. Breen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when a person (details supplied) in County Clare will receive an ear and throat appointment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31417/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this case investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
212. Mr. Stanton asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if the Health Service Executive will pay for special footwear for children who are prescribed same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31420/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
213. Ms Lynch asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the position regarding the promised blood transfusion centre for the Munster area; if the design team has been appointed; if the capital funding is in place; the start date for the project; when the project will be completed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31424/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): In 2004 the Irish Blood Transfusion Service invested more than €3 million in the [215]refurbishment of its Cork centre to ensure compliance with good manufacturing practice standards. As the House was informed last April, there is provision in the Capital Investment Framework 2005 — 2009 for the appointment of a design team and commencement of the planning process for a new Cork centre. This project is the subject of ongoing consultations between the IBTS and my Department.
214. Mr. Connolly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if her attention has been drawn to the fact that her Department’s minimum requirements for the practise of psychology as set out in her 2002 declaration and as recommended by the Psychological Society of Ireland are seriously undermined by the current Health and Social Care Professionals Bill 2004, which stipulates that a recognised university degree or diploma obtained with first or second class honours in which psychology was taken as a major subject, and honours obtained in that subject is sufficient to be included on the register of psychologists with no reference to a postgraduate qualification in psychology; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31425/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Health and Social Care Professionals Bill 2004 provides for the establishment of a system of statutory registration for certain health and social care professionals, including psychologists, whether they are employed in the public service, the private health sector or are self employed. Under section 38, responsibility for the approval of qualifications attesting to the standard of proficiency required for registration will rest with the psychologists’ registration board to be established under the Bill.
The qualifications referred to by the Deputy are those listed for existing practitioners as part of the transitional arrangements set out in the Bill for their registration. These arrangements will apply for a period of two years from the establishment of a register and include the provision that practitioners who hold a stated qualification and who have been in practice at any time during a period of five years before the establishment of a register shall be granted registration. A practitioner must also satisfy the registration board that he or she is a fit and proper person to engage in the practice of that profession.
The stated qualification for psychologists under the transitional arrangements for the registration of existing practitioners is a recognised university degree or diploma obtained with first or second class honours in which psychology was taken as a major subject and honours obtained in that subject. As indicated by the Deputy, this does not [216]reflect the current qualifications required of persons recruited as psychologists within the public health service as, since 2002, psychologists recruited to the public health service have been required to hold a post graduate qualification.
The qualification set out in the Bill for psychologists under the transitional arrangements is instead designed to take proper account of those practitioners previously recruited to the public health service and also those who are practising elsewhere who may not hold a post graduate qualification.
The current provisions in the Bill for the registration of practising psychologists are appropriate in the context of a transitional period and having regard to arrangements in the public health service prior to 2002. I am conscious that any registrant — whether registered under the transitional provisions or otherwise — who does not meet the standard of proficiency and competence expected of registered professionals will be subject to the complaints, inquiries and disciplinary procedures set out in the Bill. The Bill represents a significant step forward in the protection of the public.
215. Mr. Connolly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the locations of facilities for the fitting of prostheses for patients who have undergone mastectomy surgery; her proposals to provide such facilities in the Health Service Executive north east region; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31426/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to reply directly to the Deputy.
216. Mr. Wall asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the reason a person (details supplied) in County Kildare in receipt of a medical card has to pay for a doctor to complete an application form for a driver’s licence; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31466/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): Under the terms of the general medical services scheme contract, participating general practitioners undertake to provide a range of treatments and general practitioner services for the patients on their GMS panel. [217]Their GMS contract obliges them to provide the first and last certificates to explain work absence for their patients. All other requested certificates in respect of requirements for driving licences or life or assurance policies may incur charges.
217. Mr. J. Higgins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if her attention has been drawn to the fact that Beaumont Hospital has discontinued enhanced external counter pulsation treatment. [31479/05]
218. Mr. J. Higgins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the reason enhanced external counter pulsation treatment has been discontinued at Beaumont Hospital. [31480/05]
219. Mr. J. Higgins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the location at which angina sufferers can avail of enhanced external counter pulsation treatment due to the fact that this service has been discontinued at Beaumont Hospital. [31481/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): I propose to take Questions Nos. 217 to 219, inclusive, together.
The Deputy’s questions relate to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
220. Mr. Morgan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if a consultant surgeon (details supplied) who has been suspended on full pay from Louth County Hospital, Dundalk and whom a rights commissioner decided is entitled to a permanent position, will be re-instated at the Louth County Hospital; if so, when; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31505/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
221. Mr. Morgan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when she will honour a commitment she made to Dundalk town councillors on 18 May 2005 to visit the Louth County Hospital, Dundalk. [31506/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): As the Deputy will be aware, I met a delegation from Dundalk Town Council and local Oireachtas Members last May at which a number of service issues relating to Louth County Hospital were discussed. I indicated to the delegation my intention of visiting the hospital and hope to be in a position to do so shortly.
222. Mr. Morgan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if a similar financial proposition will be offered to Louth County Hospital, Dundalk, as was offered to Bantry Hospital, wherein she would match each euro raised through voluntary subscription towards the purchase of a CT scanner; and the further assistance she will offer in support of provision of necessary services at Louth County Hospital. [31507/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
223. Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when a reply will issue from the Health Service Executive to Parliamentary Question No. 78 of 29 September 2005. [31514/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): I have been advised by the Health Service Executive that a reply dated 28 October 2005 issued directly to the Deputy.
224. Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when a reply will issue from the Health Service Executive to Parliamentary Question No. 79 of 29 September 2005. [31515/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): My Department is advised by the Health Service Executive that a reply to Question No. 79 of 29 September 2005, concerning [219]Monaghan General Hospital, was issued to the Deputy on 28 October 2005.
225. Mr. Haughey asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the reason 10 December 1998 was selected as the cut off point for claims for refunds arising out of illegal charges collected from nursing home residents; if she will review this date; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31520/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Government has agreed the key elements of a scheme for the repayment of long stay charges for publicly funded residential care. On the basis of advice from the office of the Attorney General, my Department instructed the former health boards to immediately cease charging all fully eligible persons in receipt of in-patient services in publicly funded long stay institutions with effect from 9 December 2004.
The decision to limit repayments to the estates of those who died in the past six years reflects the reference in the Supreme Court judgment to the Statute of Limitations, “the State has available to it a defence of the Statue of Limitations, i.e. a 6 year limit”. The Government has had regard to what the Supreme Court said about the Statute of Limitations in order to limit the scale of total repayments which today’s taxpayer must fund and I am satisfied the scheme strikes a fair balance. The date 10 December 1998 is six years prior to 9 December 2004.
226. Mr. Haughey asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if she will mainstream the services provided through community employment schemes in centres run by the Irish Wheelchair Association; the consideration which has been given to this issue to date; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31521/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O’Malley): The mainstreaming of community employment schemes providing services for people with disabilities will be considered by my Department in the context of the Estimates process for 2006.
227. Mr. Quinn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if she has received representations from persons seeking to ensure that adequate financial resources are given to the weight management clinic at Loughlinstown Hospital; if her attention has been drawn to the fact that many people are seeking essential help [220]from the clinic; the steps she has taken to ensure that the extra financial resources requested by the clinic are allocated through the channels for which she has ultimate responsibility; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31526/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Services Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
228. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her views regarding a patient who has requested an ENT appointment with a consultant at Beaumont Hospital and received a letter confirming that at the present time there is an average waiting time of approximately four years; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31528/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
229. Mr. Lowry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if her attention has been drawn to the crisis in speech therapy and psychological services in the mid-western region; her proposals to improve the speech therapy and psychological services in the mid-western region; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31558/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O’Malley): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
[221]230. Mr. Lowry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number of nursing staff employed in each hospital in the mid-western region and nationally, each month from January 2002 to date in 2005; and the total monthly salary bill for same. [31559/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have the matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
231. Mr. Lowry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number of agency nursing staff employed in each hospital in the mid-western region and nationally, each month from January 2002 to date; and the total monthly salary bill for same. [31560/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have the matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
232. Mr. Lowry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number of management staff employed in the mid-western region each month from January 2002 to date; and the total monthly salary bill for same. [31561/05]
233. Mr. Lowry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number of administrative staff employed in the mid-western region each month from January 2002 to date; and the total monthly salary bill for same. [31562/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): I propose to take Questions Nos. 232 and 233 together.
The Deputy’s questions relate to human resource management issues within the Health Service Executive. As these are a matter for the executive under the Health Act 2004, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have these matters investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
[222]234. Mr. Lowry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number of ambulance patient transfers from St. Joseph’s Hospital, Nenagh, County Tipperary, to other hospitals in each month from January 2002 to date; and the hospitals to which transfers were made; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31563/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
235. Mr. Lowry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the average number of beds reserved at the Mid-Western Regional Hospital, Limerick, for patients transferring from St. Joseph’s Hospital, Nenagh, County Tipperary; the number reserved per month from January 2002 to date in 2005; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31564/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
236. Mr. Lowry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number of ambulances reserved for patient transfers only in the mid-western region; the number of emergency ambulances at each base in the region; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31565/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
237. Mr. Ring asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will be called for physiotherapy in Ballina. [31642/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
238. Mr. Ring asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will be called for an urgent MRI scan. [31643/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
239. Ms O’Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her plans to progress the appointment of a neurologist and associated resources for the mid-west region; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31644/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): Under the Health Act 2004, which established the Health Service Executive on 1 January 2005, the HSE is responsible for managing and delivering, or arranging to be delivered on its behalf, health and personal social services. Therefore, it is responsible for the provision of neurology services.
The Comhairle report on neurology and neurophysiology, which was published in April 2003, recommended significant enhancement of such services, including the appointment of consultants in Limerick. Following the publication of the report, my predecessor, Deputy Martin, endorsed the report’s recommendations and wrote to the health boards to urge them to progress the recommendations as the funding available permitted. Additional revenue funding was made available in 2005 to support the development of neurology and neurophysiology services in a [224]number of regions, including the mid-west, having regard to agreed priorities. As the continuing development of such services is a matter for the HSE, having regard to available funding, accordingly, the Department of Health and Children will ask the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
240. Ms O’Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if she will publish details including demographic profiles of all those waiting for orthodontic treatment in Limerick city and county; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31645/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
241. Ms Harkin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her plans to locate a satellite radiation oncology unit in Sligo; and if this unit will be in place by 2011. [31646/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The national radiation oncology plan, which I announced last July, provides for an integrated network of radiation oncology services that will ensure equitable access for patients throughout the country. Patients in the north west, including Sligo, are being referred for radiation oncology treatment to the recently commissioned radiation oncology department at University College Hospital Galway and to St. Luke’s Hospital in Dublin. The new radiation oncology centre, which is being provided at Beaumont Hospital on the north side of Dublin city as part of the national radiation oncology services network, will cater for the needs of patients in the north-west, including Sligo. The precise patient referral pattern, which will be a matter for the Health Service Executive, will be factored into the planning of the national network.
The Government is considering the option of facilitating access for patients in the north-west, mainly County Donegal, to radiation oncology services as part of North-South co-operation on cancer. I have met the Minister for Health for Northern Ireland, Mr. Shaun Woodward MP, to discuss access by patients mainly in the north-[225]west to radiation oncology services in Belfast City Hospital. A state-of-the-art facility is scheduled to open in Belfast in March 2006. I will meet the Northern Ireland Minister, Mr. Woodward, again to make further progress on the Government’s position on radiation oncology. Officials from the Department of Health and Children will soon meet officials from the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
242. Mr. P. Breen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when a person (details supplied) in County Clare will be facilitated with a lift; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31647/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
243. Mr. Ferris asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her views on the statement made by a person (details supplied) at Kerry General Hospital regarding their frustration at the lack of adequate staffing and resources in the hospital. [31648/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
244. Mr. Hogan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when an operation will be carried out for a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny at Waterford Regional Hospital; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31649/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health [226]and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
245. Dr. Upton asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if the entitlement of a person (details supplied) in County Dublin to be included in their parents’ entitlement to the drugs refund scheme will be reviewed. [31650/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The statutory basis for the drug payment scheme is section 59(2) of the Health Act 1970, which states that the HSE will make arrangements to meet the balance of the cost, or a portion thereof, for expenditure on drugs, medicines and medical and surgical appliances for the treatment of a person or his or her dependants. Family expenditure covers the nominated adult, his or her spouse, including a person with whom he or she is living as husband or wife, and children under the age of 18. Dependants over the age of 18 and under the age of 23 who are in full-time education may also be included. A dependant with a physical disability or a mental handicap or illness who cannot maintain himself or herself fully and does not hold a current medical card may be included in the family expenditure under the scheme. I have no plans to amend the conditions of the scheme.
246. Mr. Timmins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the position regarding labelling requirements for country markets; and if additional requirements, similar to those imposed on big commercial enterprises, are not imposed on these market suppliers. [31705/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): The general labelling of foodstuffs in this country is controlled under the European Communities (Labelling, Presentation and Advertising of Foodstuffs) Regulations 2002 to 2005. The regulations apply to the labelling of pre-packaged foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer or for supply to mass caterers. The principle underlying food labelling is that the purchaser must not be misled. Therefore, pre-packaged food sold at markets is not exempt from the labelling requirements which apply to such food sold by other means. However, foodstuffs sold loose — without pre-packaging — such as olives sold from drums or cheese sliced at the request of the consumer need only indicate the name of the food, either on the label or displayed on a notice near the food.
247. Mr. Fleming asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when a person (details supplied) in County Laois will undergo surgery. [31712/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
248. Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the steps she is taking to have the long promised and much needed senior citizen day care service established at a centre (details supplied) in County Cavan; if proposals are under active consideration within the Health Service Executive to have the service in place within a short period of time; if the service being considered is a five-day Monday to Friday service; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31727/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
249. Mr. Stagg asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the reason for the delay in supplying a new wheelchair to a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31739/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O’Malley): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
250. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number and value of contracts awarded for public relations projects by her Department since December 2004. [31744/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The information requested is being collated in the Department of Health and Children and will be forwarded directly to the Deputy as soon as possible.
251. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number of civil servants and other staff employed in her constituency office; and the grade and remuneration of each. [31759/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): Three civil servants and two officers who are not civil servants are employed in my constituency office. The personal assistant employed in the office is paid €52,921 per annum. The personal secretary employed in the office is paid €47,561 per annum. The three clerical officers employed in the office are paid €33,436, €30,168 and €29,177 per annum, respectively.
252. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number and value of contracts awarded to outside consultants by her Department in each of the past five years; the details of the contracts involved; and if these projects have reached fruition. [31774/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The information requested is being collated in the Department of Health and Children and will be forwarded directly to the Deputy as soon as possible.
253. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number of civil servants and other staff in her press office; and the grade and remuneration of each staff member. [31789/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): Five civil servants and one officer who is not a civil servant are employed in my press office. The press officer in the office is paid €106,575 per annum. The higher executive officer in the office is paid €46,558 per annum. The two executive officers in the office are paid €43,897 and €30,067 per annum, respectively. The two [229]clerical officers in the office are paid €30,168 and €29,594 per annum, respectively.
254. Mr. Ring asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the names of the persons employed as drivers for Westdoc; the numbers that are employed at present; the location of the advertisements for this work; if they were placed in newspapers; the number of persons who submitted applications for this work; the number of persons who were interviewed for these positions; the number who were successful in securing such work; if it was a criterion that a person had to be retired from another job to be recruited as a driver for Westdoc; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31809/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
255. Ms O. Mitchell asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if she will increase the resources of the weight management clinic in Loughlinstown Hospital to ensure more suitable premises and an ability to treat more patients. [31810/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
256. Mr. Timmins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the position in relation to repayments to residents of publicly funded long stay care homes for a person (details supplied) in County Wicklow; if payment will be made; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31812/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Government has agreed the key elements of a scheme for the repayment of [230]long stay charges for publicly funded residential care. The full details of the scheme have yet to be finalised. Those who were charged and are still alive and the estates of all those who were charged and died in the six years prior to 9 December 2004 will have the charges repaid in full. The scheme will not allow for repayments to be made to the estates of those who died more than six years before that date. The repayments will include the actual charge paid and an amount to take account of inflation, using the consumer price index, in the time since the person in question was charged.
The HSE has informed the Department of Health and Children that an outside company with experience in handling mass claims will be engaged by the end of the month to provide an independent input into the design and administration of the scheme. I intend to bring legislation before the Oireachtas in the next parliamentary session. Repayments should commence shortly after the Bill is approved and signed into law.
257. Mr. Kehoe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when a facility (details supplied) in County Wexford will be considered for funding; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31866/05]
271. Mr. Kehoe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when a facility (details supplied) in County Wexford will be granted funding for new accommodation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31984/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): I propose to take Questions Nos. 257 and 271 together.
The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
258. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the status of ratification with regard to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; the reason for the delays in ratifying this convention; her plans for ratification going forward; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31867/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): I intend to bring a motion before the Oireachtas tomorrow seeking approval for the ratification by Ireland of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The convention is an initiative of the World Health Organisation in response to the global epidemic of tobacco addiction. The treaty, which was adopted unanimously by the World Health Assembly in May 2003 and signed by Ireland in September 2003, provides an agreed approach to tobacco control at a global level. It will be the first binding international treaty that addresses all aspects of tobacco control, including the traditional health interventions such as advertising and sponsorship bans, passive smoking and retail licensing, economic and trade issues such as taxation policy, international trade and smuggling and other areas such as product specification and issues of compensation and liability.
Ireland, which is a strong advocate of effective tobacco control policies and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, has consistently pressed certain policies nationally and internationally to protect public health and reduce deaths from tobacco related illnesses. Ratification by 40 states is necessary to enable the treaty to come into force. This figure was achieved at the end of last year. Ireland is committed to effective tobacco control policies. Its smoke-free workplace initiative, which commenced in March 2004, has drawn favourable comment from public health authorities throughout the world as an effective public health instrument in tackling the negative health effects of tobacco smoking. A number of other jurisdictions are using the Irish experience as a basis for health interventions of a similar nature.
259. Mr. Gormley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children further to Question No. 129 of 22 June 2005, if her attention has been drawn to the fact that this Deputy has received no reply from the Health Service Executive; her views on whether the parliamentary affairs division of the executive is not operating effectively; and if a reply to the question will issue; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31868/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Department of Health and Children is working closely with the Health Service Executive to develop a parliamentary affairs division, under the chief executive, to distribute parliamentary questions and to track them within the HSE to the point of reply. The HSE’s parliamentary affairs division, which commenced operations at the beginning of April when a central office was established, has done a great deal of good work to date in devising and imple[232]menting the arrangements for dealing with parliamentary questions within the wider HSE. I am satisfied that the HSE is continuing to develop its structures and its capacity for dealing with parliamentary affairs as a matter of priority. It is fully committed to enhancing its performance in providing timely replies to Members of the Oireachtas. I have been advised by the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE that a reply was recently issued in respect of the question referred to by the Deputy. I regret that the HSE did not reply, in this instance, at an earlier date. The Department will be bringing this delay to the attention of the HSE.
260. Mr. Gormley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if her attention has been drawn to the fact that ambulance drivers in the Dublin area must fill out a patient care report; her views on whether the information required on this report is too comprehensive and imposes a huge burden on ambulance drivers; and if she will raise this matter with the Health Service Executive or other relevant bodies; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31869/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Department of Health and Children has been advised that following wide consultation, and with support from the chief ambulance officers of the former health boards, the patient report form that is in use by the ambulance sector in the Dublin area was produced by the chief fire officer of Dublin Fire Brigade, SIPTU, ATGWU and the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council, which is the association of ambulance personnel. The council’s principal remit is the development of standards in pre-hospital emergency care and the accreditation of institutions which provide training to ambulance personnel.
The purpose of the form is to provide accurate, robust and timely data on the continuum of care to the patient between the pre-hospital emergency care provider and the receiving health care professionals in hospitals. The Department has been advised by the council that the information collected is similar to that collected by other pre-hospital emergency care services around the world, including those in the UK, USA and Australia. The Department has referred the Deputy’s question to the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council for a more detailed reply.
261. Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the status of the sub-committee to deliver transport solutions to ensure equal access to cancer treatment for [233]patients nationwide; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31870/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): As I have previously indicated in the House, appropriate transport arrangements for patients requiring radiotherapy should be made available, where necessary, by the Health Service Executive. The Department of Health and Children asked the HSE last May to ensure that appropriate transport arrangements are put in place on a national basis for patients who are required to travel to obtain radiotherapy. Transport solutions are a feature of the current provision of radiation oncology services. The Department has asked the HSE to advise the Deputy directly about current and proposed transport arrangements for radiation oncology patients throughout the country.
Last July, I announced the Government’s plan for a national network of radiation oncology services to be put in place by 2011 and commencing in 2008. The network will consist of four large centres in Dublin, Cork and Galway and two integrated satellite centres at Waterford Regional Hospital and Limerick Regional Hospital. The Government considers that the best option in terms of improving geographic access for patients in the north-western area is to facilitate access for those patients to radiation oncology services as part of North-South co-operation on cancer. Appropriate transport arrangements will form part of the planning and implementation of this plan, given the significant increase in capacity involved. The national radiation oncology co-ordinating group advises the Department and the HSE on radiotherapy. In that light and given that under the Health Act 2004, the HSE is responsible for the management and delivery of health and personal social services, the group does not intend to prepare a specific report on transport. The group, which has met three times this year, is finalising quality standards for the provision of radiation oncology services for public patients. I expect the standards to be submitted to me shortly.
262. Mr. Crawford asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her views on the fact that persons who provide home help and home care have to wait over a year to receive payment of their travel expenses; if she will take the action necessary to ensure that persons who carry out this service are given their allowance in a reasonable and proper time; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31895/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to human resource management issues within the [234]Health Service Executive. As the HSE is responsible for such issues under the Health Act 2004, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
263. Dr. Twomey asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if Question No. 66 of 29 June 2005 was sent to the Health Service Executive parliamentary affairs division for reply as stated in her reply to same; the reason the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE has no record of receiving the parliamentary question; if she will answer this parliamentary question directly; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31899/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): It appears that the normal procedure for the referral by the Department of Health and Children to the Health Service Executive of the original question raised by the Deputy was not followed through in this case. I regret that such a failure occurred. I propose that the question will be answered directly, as requested by the Deputy. Unfortunately, the Department does not routinely collect the information requested and it is not possible to provide the information sought within the timeframe for this reply. I will write to the Deputy in the near future to give him my response to his request for information.
264.
Mr. Carey
asked the
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children
if there is any source of funding within her Department which would assist CASA to have a secure funding stream to support the running of its two break houses as only 2.3% of the organisation’s income comes from public funds (details supplied); and if
she will make a statement on the matter.
[31920/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O’Malley): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
265. Mr. McGuinness asked the Tánaiste and [235]Minister for Health and Children if an application form for a medical card in the name of persons (details supplied) will be expedited; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31928/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
266. Mr. Lowry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the status of an application; and when a payment will be made to a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [31930/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
267. Mr. Lowry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the legal definition of the term general hospital. [31931/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Health Acts define the term “institution” as meaning a hospital, sanatorium, maternity home, convalescent home, preventorium, laboratory, clinic, health centre, first aid station, dispensary or any similar institution. However, the terms “hospital” and “general hospital” are not themselves defined in the Acts.
268. Mr. Lowry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number and cost of each type of operation carried out from 2004 to date in 2005 under the National Treatment Purchase Fund; the amount spent by the National Treatment Purchase Fund on operations in the same period; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31932/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): As the Deputy’s question relates to the operation of the National Treatment Purchase Fund, the Department of Health and Children has asked the chief executive of the fund to respond to the Deputy in respect of the information requested.
269. Mr. P. Breen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children further to Question No. 269 of 28 September 2005, when a person (details supplied) in County Clare will be facilitated with a designed bed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31951/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O’Malley): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. As the Deputy is aware, the specially designed bed was ordered by the HSE on behalf of the person in question. The Department of Health and Children has asked the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE to arrange to have the matter investigated and for a reply to issue directly to the Deputy.
270. Mr. P. Breen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children further to Parliamentary Question No. 342 of 28 September 2005, when a person (details supplied) in County Clare will be facilitated with a special chair; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31952/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, the Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
Question No. 271 answered with Question
No. 257.
272. Mr. Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the cost of providing doctor only medical cards to 200,000 persons; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31985/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The estimated cost of providing 200,000 GP visit cards is in the region of €50 million in a full year. GP visit cards will be granted to individuals and families based on income [237]guidelines 25% over the medical card income guidelines. However, the Health Service Executive, HSE, has discretion to grant a GP visit card to persons whose income is in excess of the guidelines but for whom, in the opinion of the HSE, it would be unduly burdensome to meet the cost of general practitioner services.
273. Mr. Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number of persons with intellectual and physical disabilities with a medical card; the estimated number of persons with intellectual and physical disabilities without a medical card; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31986/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
274. Ms C. Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the position regarding the relocation of the Lombard House based civil registration research facility; if she intends to provide an on-line research facility when the records are fully computerised; if consideration has been given to such a facility being self-financing; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31987/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The administration of the system of civil registration, including research, is statutorily a matter for an tArd-Chláraitheoir, Registrar General, of births, marriages and deaths. I have made inquiries with an tArd-Chláraitheoir and he informs me that discussions with the Office of Public Works, OPW, are ongoing in [238]relation to a new location for the General Registrar Office, GRO, research facility. A suitable location has been identified in Dublin city centre and a draft feasibility study was recently completed. Further discussions are required between GRO and OPW to progress the matter. It is hoped to eventually provide an on-line research facility and the financing options for such a facility will be considered in due course.
275. Mr. McGinley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the position regarding home helps employed by the Health Service Executive who, when going on their holidays, do not receive any holiday pay; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [32010/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to human resource management issues within the Health Service Executive. As this is a matter for the executive under the Health Act 2004, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
276. Ms C. Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number of speech therapists, occupational therapists and physiotherapists employed by the Health Service Executive and the areas in which they are located. [32011/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The information requested by the Deputy is set out in the following table. The table reflects the numbers employed at end-June 2005 and figures are expressed as wholetime equivalents. The Deputy may wish to note, however, that these grades are also employed by other agencies in the public health service. Information on the numbers employed by these agencies is also shown.
277. Ms C. Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the amount spent each year since the Government took office on modernising facilities including residential for those with an intellectual disability who require residential care; the extent of applications for places in such facilities; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [32012/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O’Malley): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to arrange to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
278. Mr. O’Shea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if it is in order for a [240]person in the at risk group for influenza to be charged a consultant fee where the vaccine is administered by a nurse attached to a family doctor’s practice and the person does not have a medical card; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [32035/05]
279. Mr. O’Shea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her proposals to waive the consultation fee for patients who are in the at risk groups relating to influenza and who do not have a medical card on the basis that this consultation fee can prove to be a deterrent for those who would otherwise avail of the free vaccine; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [32036/05]
280. Mr. O’Shea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if her views on whether the Health Service Executive leaflet on the influenza vaccine is misleading in that it indicates that the vaccine is free to all persons in the at risk groups when this is effectively only the case for medical card holders; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [32037/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): I propose to take Questions Nos. 278 to 280, inclusive, together.
The vaccine is available free of charge from general practitioners to medical cardholders who are deemed to be at risk of serious illness as a result of contracting the disease. Persons in the at risk group who do not have a medical card can obtain the vaccine free of charge but the fee for administering the vaccine in such cases is a matter between the general practitioner and the patient. The at risk groups include persons aged 65 years or older, those with specific chronic illness such as chronic heart, lung or kidney disease, and those with a suppressed immune system. For persons in the at risk groups, complications arising from influenza such as pneumonia are common and can be fatal particularly in the elderly.
Private patients who request flu vaccine and are not in the at risk group receive a prescription from their general practitioner and purchase the vaccine from a pharmacy for administration by the general practitioner. All flu vaccinations should be given either by a general practitioner or under their supervision. It is the decision of the general practitioner to determine what administration fee will be charged when a person does not have a medical card. I expect the new GP visit cards to benefit, among others, older people on modest incomes who have not yet reached 70, at which age they are automatically entitled to a medical card. People in the 65 to 69 year age bracket, and who are therefore at risk from influenza, and holding a medical card or a GP visit card, will in future be able to receive the influenza vaccine free of charge from general practitioners who hold a contract under the general medical services scheme.
281. Mr. McGinley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if her attention has been drawn to the medical condition known as lymph oedema; the estimated number of patients here who are suffering from that condition; if there are trained personnel to treat patients with the condition; the benefits that are available to these patients; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [32051/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The Deputy’s question relates to the management and delivery of health and personal social services, which are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. Accordingly, my Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the executive to have this matter investigated and to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy.
282. Ms O’Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the categories of persons working in a paid or voluntary capacity under the aegis of her Department or for agencies or organisations funded by her Department who are subject to Garda vetting to protect against possible child abuse; the timeframe to introduce vetting for all such persons who work with children and are currently not vetted; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [32063/05]
Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): Garda vetting services are available in respect of public health service employees with substantial unsupervised access to children and vulnerable adults, including employees of agencies funded by the Health Service Executive. In line with the recommendations of the working group on Garda vetting, it is planned that all organisations that recruit and select persons who would have substantial unsupervised access to children should avail — and should be entitled to avail — of the vetting services of the Garda central vetting unit. To this end, the number of staff employed in the central vetting unit run by the Garda Síochána is being doubled to ensure that they can handle a greater volume of requests from employers. The further expansion of the service will allow the vetting of volunteers. The unit will commence the augmentation of its existing vetting arrangements upon its decentralisation which is targeted from mid-November this year.
Ensuring the protection, health and welfare of children and other vulnerable people is a key concern for the Government and I think it is important in that context to make one further point. While criminal record checking of people with substantial unsupervised access to children is a vital component of a well developed child protection system, there are other elements. Good recruitment and employment practices and the checking of references are also an integral part of such a system.
283. Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance the situation in relation to the acquisition by his Department of the old Allied Irish Bank on Main Street, Blanchardstown; if the premises has been sold by his Department; if so, the value realised or are the premises to be used for some other purpose, if so, the purpose of same; and the cost of the acquisition of the premises including all legal fees and any security maintenance or other charges involved in holding the premises. [31368/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Parlon): I can confirm that the former Allied Irish Bank, Main Street, Blanchardstown was acquired by the Office of Public Works on behalf of the Probation and Welfare Service on 15 April 2002. The total cost of the purchase was €1.5 million, including VAT. The premises has not been sold and is being considered for alternative Government use. There are no charges involved in holding the premises, however since the purchase, minimal works have been carried out to ensure the maintenance and security of the premises while it is unoccupied.
284. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the developments which have been made on the decentralisation programme with specific reference to Mullingar; if planning permission has been applied for in this case; the costs of accommodation for his Department which have been agreed; and the projected timeframe for the transfer of the civil servants to Mullingar. [31741/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Parlon): The Office of Public Works has identified a suitable site in Mullingar town centre and negotiations to acquire it are under way. Planning permission will be applied for when a site has been formally acquired. A firm estimate of the cost of constructing the decentralised office for the Department of Education and Science will only become available when the construction tendering process has been completed. At this point in time, the latest decentralisation implementation group report of June 2005 specifies an indicative timeframe of building completion to be second quarter 2008.
285. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if a site has been procured for a Garda station in Athlone; if so, the location of this site; the details of the design; the timeframe for the completion of this project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31822/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Parlon): The Commissioners of Public Works will acquire a suitable site for a new Garda Station in Athlone in accordance with the priority list supplied by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and taking into consideration the particular requirements of the Garda Síochána at this location.
286. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number of car parking spaces that are on site at Mullingar Garda station; the number [244]following the proposed expansion of the Garda station; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31824/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Parlon): The Commissioners of Public Works can confirm that there are 37 official car spaces at Mullingar Garda station. On completion of the proposed extension the official number of car spaces will be 34 of which one will be designated for disabled persons.
287. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Finance his views on whether delays for solicitors and others who have had a deed stamped in Dublin Castle are becoming intolerable; his plans to deal with this problem; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31872/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that three stamping services are provided in the stamp office in Dublin Castle — two dealing with personal callers and the third a postal service. Instruments presented by personal callers for over-the-counter stamping are, subject to the documentation being correct, processed immediately at the time of presentation. For those personal callers who do not require immediate processing, a drop-in service is provided with a five day turnaround. A postal stamping service is also available to deal with instruments originating within the geographic areas for which the Dublin stamping district has responsibility. I am also informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the operation of the Dublin Castle stamping service is constantly monitored and reviewed by the Dublin stamping district management at regular periods throughout each day. This is an extremely busy and highly pressurised office as staff deal with increasing volumes of often very complex legal instruments. For example, the volume of such instruments processed by this office in the first nine months of 2005 was up by 27% over the equivalent period last year.
Every attempt is made to provide an efficient service to solicitors, their agents and the public, having regard to the number of available stamping machines and staff resources, and delays are kept to an absolute minimum. However, delays can sometimes occur, particularly when a large number of personal callers attend the office — all seeking to have their instruments stamped over the counter. In such instances, callers are encouraged to use the five day drop-in service in order to avoid waiting, but many choose to wait for same day stamping. I am assured that the Revenue Commissioners will continue to monitor their Dublin stamp office customer service per[245]formance to ensure it consistently achieves its service standards.
288. Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Finance if he will intervene in the case of the long delay in accessing temporary accommodation for the Ballymun Garda station; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that this delay is jeopardising the complete redevelopment of the Ballymun shopping centre because the existing station is on the site of the proposed redevelopment; if his attention has further been drawn to the availability of a suitable premises for a temporary station while a new station is being built; and if he will provide the necessary approvals for these premises. [31885/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Parlon): Terms have been agreed between the Commissioners of Public Works and Ballymun Regeneration Limited in relation to acquisition of a site at Main Street, Ballymun for a new Garda station and Government offices. The temporary relocation of the Garda station will not proceed as the costs involved cannot be justified due to the prohibitive level of State expenditure required for a short-term relocation. In the meantime, preparations for the planning and procurement of the replacement station are at an advanced stage.
289. Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding the former customs house in Swanlibar, County Cavan; if it is for sale; if it will be made available for community purposes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31889/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Parlon): The former customs house in Swanlinbar adjoins the existing Garda station and married quarters. When the future accommodation requirements of the gardaí in the town have been established, a decision on the future of the former customs house will be taken.
290. Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for Finance if funding will be made available to carry out the flood protection work on the River Dargle in Bray (details supplied). [31989/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Parlon): The OPW had no involvement in the implementation of flood relief works in Bray in 1986 and therefore has no maintenance responsibility for the Dargle river. OPW normally requires a local authority wishing to advance a flood protection scheme to, at a minimum, [246]provide detailed information on the flooding risk and its impacts with an engineering assessment of the most likely causes and possible solutions, before it decides whether it should be further involved with the matter.
291. Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to the plight of civil servants working on the north side of Dublin in locations such as Garda headquarters in Dublin 7 and the Department of Defence, Dublin 9; if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that many of the civil servants who are opting for family, personal and work reasons to remain in the north Dublin area are being threatened to be moved to city centre areas, usually on the south side of Dublin; if his attention has further been drawn to the traffic and access problems for persons commuting from the north side to the south side especially persons working part-time or job share; his proposals to provide decentralised offices on the north side of Dublin which would allow civil servants on the north side to continue working on the north side. [31351/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): The Office of Public Works is responsible for both property procurement and disposal. The overall objective is to ensure that property being acquired at a regional level is matched as closely as possible, both in time and in cost terms, by the disposal of property held in the Dublin region, whether held on lease or otherwise. No decisions have been made yet on the disposal, retention or re-allocation of office buildings in Dublin, post decentralisation. The Office of Public Works will bear in mind the particular requirements of Departments remaining in Dublin and the need to ensure that all office space remaining in Dublin is utilised in the most cost effective manner possible.
Civil and public servants who do not wish to transfer to a decentralised location will be assigned to an alternative public service post in Dublin. Each individual will be able to indicate via his or her personnel section the organisations remaining in Dublin which would interest them. As people are appointed from the central applications facility to decentralising locations, vacancies become available in Dublin and these posts will be available to be filled by people who wish to remain in Dublin. Consultations will be held with the public service unions on an ongoing basis to address the concerns of all staff affected by the programme.
292. Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Finance [247]if he will waive the interest charges imposed on a person (details supplied) in County Sligo in view of extenuating medical circumstances; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31353/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): While I appreciate the circumstances surrounding the Deputy’s request, this is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners. In this regard, I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that they will be in contact with the person concerned to discuss a timescale for payment that will have due regard to all the circumstances of the case.
293. Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Finance when a decision will be made on an appointment as driver tester for a person (details supplied) in County Sligo. [31355/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): A competition for posts of contract driver tester was recently advertised in the media and on the Public Appointments Service, PAS, website with a closing date of 13 October 2005. All applicants will be invited to sit a written test scheduled for early-mid December 2005. Applicants who qualify in the written test will be placed in an order of merit based on their qualifying marks. Interviews will be held in January 2006 confined to a group of the highest qualifiers, and successful candidates will undergo a six week training process in the February-March period before taking up their posts with the Department of Transport as contract driver testers. In view of the statutorily independent role of the Public Appointments Service, I am not in a position to comment on cases of applicants.
294. Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Finance the offices of his Department which are situated on the northside of Dublin; the locations where each of them are scheduled to relocate to under decentralisation and when; those that are not yet assigned a location; and those that will be retained in their present location. [31366/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): There is no section of my Department situated on the northside of Dublin.
295. Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Finance if he will reconsider his decision not to extend the six year limit for lodging complaints with the financial regulator regarding the failure of endowment mortgages to meet the obligations outstanding in relation to the sum of money bor[248]rowed with the commencement of the mortgage; if the financial regulator will make available the survey of the market which has been undertaken to ascertain the number of policies which are in the position of not being able to pay off mortgages; if persons will be invited who have concerns regarding the under performance of their endowment mortgage to register same with the financial regulator and the financial institution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31383/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): The Deputy may wish to note that my Department has been informed by the financial regulator that the financial regulator has conducted a survey of the endowment mortgage market with a view to ascertaining the likely number of policies that may experience a shortfall on maturity. It is understood that the main findings of the survey will be made available to my Department and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service shortly.
As the Deputy is aware, the financial regulator’s consumer director has encouraged people to come forward if they are concerned about the possibility of having been mis-sold an endowment mortgage. The financial regulator has emphasised the importance of bringing complaints, in the first instance, to the financial institution from which the policy was purchased to seek to resolve the matter.
As I stated in my reply to the Deputy on 28 September last, there are no plans at present to amend the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act 2004, with regard to the time limit for making complaints to the Financial Services Ombudsman. The retrospection limit of six years was put in place following careful examination in the context of the consideration of the 2004 Act. It is consistent with best practice standards, including the approach adopted for the Pensions Ombudsman Scheme.
296. Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Information Commissioner, in her annual report 2004 published on 9 June 2005, called for a review of the fees introduced by the Government regarding the Freedom of Information Act 1997; if he has instituted such a review; when this review will be completed; and if he has not instituted such a review, his reasons for refusing same. [31386/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): I am aware of the views expressed by the Information Commissioner in relation to charges that apply under the Freedom of Information Acts.
[249]I am satisfied that the charges in operation strike the correct balance between the burden and cost to the taxpayer of administering the FOI Act, and the need to allow people to continue to have access to information. I have no plans to initiate a general review of these charges.
297. Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Finance the status of the national lottery monitoring committee on community and voluntary sector engagement; and if he will report on its activities to date in 2005. [31410/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): The national lottery beneficiary fund monitoring committee was established by my Department to oversee implementation of the recommendations of the 1997 report of the national lottery review group. The monitoring committee ceased to exist when it was subsequently decided that the recommendations of the review group could better be pursued within the broader context of the then Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs on the White Paper on a Framework for Supporting Voluntary Activity and for Developing the Relationship between the State and the Community and Voluntary sector, rather than via a separate committee. The White Paper was published in 2000; responsibility for its implementation now rests with the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.
298. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Finance if the tax affairs of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare is up to date; if tax arrears are owed to this person; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31465/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): The Revenue Commissioners have confirmed to me that, based on all information available to them at this time, the tax affairs of the taxpayer are up to date and that no tax arrears are owed.
299. Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Finance his proposals in respect of the introduction of fixed price contracts for infrastructure developments; and his target date for their introduction. [29073/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): The Government decided in May 2004 to reform construction procurement to help ensure that taxpayers are protected from the financial consequences of unnecessary delays and, in turn, cost over runs on capital projects. At the heart of the reforms is an attempt to ensure cost effective and [250]timely delivery of capital projects. The aim of the new contracts is to help ensure that there is a fair sharing of risks and that contractors take on those risks that they are able to manage and control. New conditions for the employment of construction consultants are designed to ensure that professional fees do not escalate with project costs.
A suite of four new standard forms of construction contract and new conditions for the engagement of construction consultants have been drafted with input from the Government contracts committee for construction and technical support from legal drafters and external technical expertise. A process of consultation with the construction industry on the draft contracts and related material is in train and, following final completion of this process, my intention is to have the new contracts available for use in early 2006.
300. Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Finance his views on the suggestion from child seat retailers (details supplied) that a reduction in VAT would allow parents from poorer backgrounds to purchase new seats instead of buying them second hand; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29063/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): The position is that the VAT rating of goods and services is subject to the requirements of EU VAT law with which Irish VAT law must comply. Under the sixth VAT directive, member states may retain the zero rates on goods and services which were in place on 1 January 1991, but cannot extend the zero rate to new goods and services. As children’s car seats were not subject to the zero rate on 1 January 1991 it is not possible to apply the zero rate to the supply of such products. However, member states are permitted to apply a reduced rate to those goods and services, which are set out in annex H of the EU sixth VAT directive. Children’s car seats are listed under category 4 in annex H. It would therefore be possible to apply a reduced rate of VAT to children’s car seats. Ireland operates a single reduced rate of 13.5%.
In relation to the benefit of a VAT reduction being passed on to the consumer which is normally the main reason given for VAT reductions or refunds, experience shows that there is no guarantee that moving products to the reduced rate would necessarily be reflected in the retail price of products. In addition, a reduction along the lines suggested would only bring about a reduction of approximately €6 for every €100 spent on a child car seat. Therefore such a reduction, even if passed on, would not necessarily bring about an increase in the sales of new car seats.
[251]Finally, it is not customary for me to comment on any possible changes to the VAT rate applied to such products which may, or may not, arise in the context of the forthcoming budget.
301. Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Finance if a P21 will be issued to a person (details supplied) in County Wicklow. [31517/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that a P21 in respect of the year 2004 issued to the named person on 6 September 2005. A duplicate copy was issued on 26 October 2005.
302. Mr. Haughey asked the Minister for Finance the procedures in place for the recruitment of all types of staff to the Civil Service on a temporary or permanent basis; the provisions in relation to canvassing by public representatives; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31522/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): Recruitment to the Civil Service is governed by the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 which applies to the recruitment of non-industrial civil servants to established and unestablished posts.
Recruitment of State industrial employees is carried out by individual Departments by way of competitive interview depending on specific needs and the nature of the employment position on offer. Applications are received from individuals, and on behalf of individuals from, for instance, FÁS and public representatives.
In respect of the recruitment of civil servants to established and unestablished posts, the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 provides for the establishment of the Commission for Public Service Appointments, CPSA, and of the Public Appointments Service, PAS.
Among its functions, the CPSA establishes the standards of probity, equity, fairness, selection on the basis of merit, protection of the public interest, implementation of best practice and good governance and other principles as it considers appropriate, to be followed, in the selection and recruitment of persons for positions in the Civil Service and other public bodies. The standards are set out in codes of practice to be followed in recruitment to positions in the Civil Service. The CPSA also has responsibility for the issuing of recruitment licences to the Secretaries General of Departments of State and to other designated officers in the public service.
The PAS provides a centralised recruitment, assessment and selection body for the Civil Service and provides a similar service, where [252]requested, to the local authorities and health boards, the Garda Síochána and any other public service body.
Recruitment competitions run by the PAS are advertised in one or more of the national papers and on its website at www.publicjobs.ie. Application forms, together with all relevant details, are only available when competitions are announced. Potential candidates can register their interest in a position on the PAS website and will be notified by e-mail when the competition is announced. Anyone can apply for a position in the Civil Service but candidates must fulfil the eligibility requirements and criteria of the grade or post being filled.
Under the Act, recruitment to the Civil Service is to established posts, unestablished posts and to posts covered by Schedule 1 of the Act. Recruitment to established posts is carried out under licence as set out above. All temporary posts in the Civil Service are filled on an unestablished basis. Recruitment to unestablished posts takes place under licence but may also be the subject of an excluding order. The Act provides for the issuing to Departments by the CPSA of an excluding order for a limited period, for the filling of certain positions on a temporary basis, on conditions other than those set out in the codes of practice.
Schedule 1 of the Act — Scheduled Occupations — covers appointments to posts such as services officer, services attendant, night-watchman, cleaner or analogous employment in the Civil Service. The Schedule also covers employment outside the State in a clerical or ancillary capacity in offices of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Recruitment under Schedule 1 is carried out by individual Departments by way of competitive process. Applications may be made directly by individuals, through registration with FÁS or as result of communications from public representatives.
As regards provisions in relation to canvassing, section 34(2) of the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 stipulates that the Public Appointments Service is independent in the exercise of its functions. The Act also provides that, inter alia, canvassing is an offence attracting penalties including fines of up to €10,000 and-or imprisonment for up to two years. Anti-canvassing provisions are also expressly set out in section 4 of the CPSA code of practice on external recruitment for appointment to positions in the Civil Service.
303. Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Finance the cost to the Exchequer of introducing a refundable child care tax credit of €150 per month for parents of children up to three years and €100 per month for those aged four to 12, who are in the 20% tax band. [31537/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): I assume that what the Deputy has in mind are refundable tax credits of €150 per month per child for children up to three years and €100 per month per child for those aged four to 12 years. On the basis of this assumption, it is tentatively estimated that the full year cost of refundable tax credits to income earners who are charged tax at or below the standard rate, including those who are exempt, would be in the region of €461 million.
304. Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Finance the cost to the Exchequer of the introduction of two weeks’ paid paternity leave. [31538/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): This is a matter for the Departments directly concerned in the first instance — variously the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Social and Family Affairs and Health and Children. The cost to the Exchequer of two weeks’ paternity leave would depend on the model involved, for example, whether it would be PRSI based, the take-up and whether it would be at full pay or whether there would be a contribution.
There is no statutory entitlement to paid paternity leave in this country. The Civil Service provides three days’ paid paternity leave on the birth or adoption of a child. In 2003 approximately 300 fathers in the Civil Service availed of paternity leave. Based on these figures the cost of two weeks’ paid paternity leave on full pay in the Civil Service would be in the region of €1million per year. Additional costs would arise if the officers concerned were replaced.
305. Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Finance the cost to the Exchequer for the introduction of universal access to one year of pre-school. [31540/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): Depending on the details of the proposal, this is a matter for the Departments directly concerned — Health and Children, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Education and Science. The Deputy, in putting the relevant question down under this heading, should specify the type of model he has in mind in terms of duration, location, content of curriculum, staffing and other supports, including capital costs and state whether contribution arrangements would be applicable for parents.
306. Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance the amount of DIRT collected in the most recent year for which information is available; the trend in DIRT receipts since 1997 and the number of accounts involved. [31554/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): The following table sets out the net yield from DIRT collected from 1997 to 2004:
| Year | €m |
|---|---|
| 1997 | 187.6 |
| 1998 | 238.7 |
| 1999 | 161.2 |
| 2000 | 386.0* |
| 2001 | 228.0 |
| 2002 | 206.0 |
| 2003 | 153.0 |
| 2004 | 144.0 |
The amount of DIRT due to be paid each year is dependent on the amount of moneys on deposit and the rates of interest applying to such deposits rather than on the number of accounts involved. I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the statutory return of DIRT filed by the financial institutions requires details only of the relevant amount of interest paid in the year and the appropriate tax in relation to the payment of that interest. Such DIRT returns are subject to audit by the Revenue Commissioners.
307. Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance the number of cases in which refunds of DIRT have been claimed; and the aggregate amount of refunds made. [31555/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the most recent relevant information available is that the total amount of DIRT repaid in 2004 was €2.1 million and the number of such repayments was 1,003.
308. Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance the number of persons claiming the age exemption limit in their tax returns. [31556/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): I advised by the Revenue Commissioners that some 36,000 income earners are estimated to qualify for the age exemption or the associated marginal relief in 2005. This figure is provisional and likely to be revised. A married couple who has elected or has been deemed to have elected for joint assessment is counted as one tax unit.
309. Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance the effective tax rate paid by taxpayers in each decile by range of total income in 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002 and in the most recent years for which an estimate is available; and the aggregate tax paid by each decile in the respective years. [31557/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the most recent data available on incomes and tax by [255]income decile are in respect of the income tax year 2002.
The information requested is set out in the following tables for the income tax years 1997-98, 1998-99, 2001 “short” year and 2002.
The 2001 short income tax year was a short transitional tax “year” running from 6 April to 31 December 2001 which preceded the first full calendar tax year 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002. It should be noted that as PAYE taxpayers were charged to tax on their earnings in the period from 6 April to 31 December 2001 and self-employed taxpayers were assessed to tax for the short “year” on 74% of the profits earned in a 12 month accounting period, the income figures will not be directly comparable with those of earlier or later years.
To assemble the figures by decile the total number of income earners on the income tax record for each year was broken down into ten equal groups and distributed over ten income ranges in ascending order of gross income. The figures for effective tax rate and aggregate tax liability were then established for each decile group as appropriate. As both the income levels and the numbers of income earners changed each year the income tranches representing the different deciles also vary from year to year. It should be noted that the tax liability in any of the income deciles shown also includes a liability to DIRT. In the lower deciles, this is likely to be the only tax liability arising.
The income ranges referred to in this examination relate to gross income. Gross income is income which: is prior to deductions for capital allowances, interest paid, losses, allowable expenses, retirement annuities etc; is after deduction of superannuation contributions by [256]employees but not by the self-employed; includes income of individuals whose total income falls below the exemption limits; does not include certain other income which is not income for tax purposes or is exempt from tax such as profits or gains from stallion fees, profits from commercial forestry and certain income from patent royalties, certain investment income arising from personal injuries, child benefit, maternity benefit and unemployment assistance paid by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, certain earnings of writers, composers and artists, bonus or interest paid under instalment savings schemes operated by An Post, interest on certain Government securities, certain foreign pensions which are exempt from tax in the foreign paying country, portion of certain lump sums received by employees on cessation of their employment, statutory redundancy payments and certain military pensions; and does not include or not fully include other income sources such as interest income that does not need to be declared or is not recorded, but from which tax has been deducted, unemployment benefit and disability benefit, non-recording of non-taxable amounts and of amounts taxed by restriction of repayments or indirectly through employers in the PAYE system, and the incomes of certain self-employed persons, including some farmers, as well as some individuals in receipt of pensions, who are not processed annually on tax records because their incomes are below the income tax thresholds. The information on incomes is based on income returns on Revenue records at the time the data were compiled for analytical purposes, representing 90% or more of all returns expected.
A married couple who has elected or has been deemed to have elected for joint assessment is counted as one tax unit.
310. Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Finance the amount of moneys taken in since 2002 by his Department from capital gains tax and stamp duty from transfers of farm property; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31703/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the precise information requested by the Deputy is not available.
311. Ms McManus asked the Minister for Finance if, in view of the waste of public money and the problems some Departments have had with regard to contracting in information communication technology consultants from the private sector, it is still the policy of the Civil Service Commission not to recruit staff who have qualifications and expertise to do this work at the appropriate grade with recognition of their qualifications, as are other professions in the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31737/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): The Public Appointments Service, PAS, acts as the centralised recruitment, assessment and selection body for the Civil Service, acting at the behest of individual Departments and offices.
Civil servants assigned to ICT work in the Civil Service are in general service grades. Staff in these grades can be directly assigned to ICT work or as a result of specially organised competitions, at either departmental or interdepartmental level. Such competitions are held at clerical officer, executive officer and higher executive officer levels respectively. Subsequent to an assignment, whether direct or by competition, specialised training is provided.
Other than recruitment of a small number of administrative officers for ICT work a number of years ago, it has not been the practice to specifically recruit ICT staff from outside the Civil Service. However, officers recruited from open competitions have regularly been assigned by Departments or offices to ICT work as a result of their having significant prior experience in ICT or an ICT qualification.
The Sustaining Progress agreement includes a provision to directly recruit staff where it is identified that certain skills and expertise are in short supply. Departments or offices were surveyed and skills shortages were identified for a number of posts in the ICT area. The posts in question were at the levels of executive officer, higher executive officer and assistant principal officer.
The implementation of this provision was subject to consultation and agreement was reached with all Civil Service unions on recruitment, by [258]open competition, to a number of ICT posts at executive officer level in various Departments. These posts will be filled from a Public Appointments Service competition advertised in mid-October 2005.
Agreement was not reached on number of other posts identified in the survey, at the levels of higher executive officer and assistant principal officer. These posts were the subject of an arbitration finding, as result of which further discussions are required to identify the best method of progressing recruitment to these posts as provided for under the Sustaining Progress provisions.
Apart from the foregoing, in the context of supporting the needs of decentralising Departments or offices, consideration is also being given to centralised arrangements for recruiting and training ICT staff, including the possible need to recruit ICT staff from outside the Civil Service. Recruitment of information and communication technology, ICT, staff for the Civil Service and the appropriate level at which such posts should be filled is kept under review in the light of business needs of Departments and offices.
The Deputy may wish to note that, from time to time, open recruitment has taken place to fill individual ICT posts at management level in certain offices. Examples include posts filled at the Garda Headquaters and Ordnance Survey Ireland.
312. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number and value of contracts awarded for public relations projects by his Department since December 2004. [31745/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): My Department has not awarded any contracts for public relations projects since December 2004.
313. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number of civil servants and other staff employed in his constituency office; and the grade and remuneration of each. [31760/05]
315. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number of civil servants and other staff in his press office; and the grade and remuneration of each staff member. [31790/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): I propose to take Questions Nos. 313 and 315 together.
The staffing, grade and remuneration of my constituency office and press office is set out as follows. The actual pay of individuals is not given as this is deemed to be personal information.
| Grade / Title | Number | Salary Range |
|---|---|---|
| € | ||
| Executive Officer | 1 | 26,618-42,238 |
| Staff Officer | 1 | 30,428-40,628 |
| Grade / Title | Number | Salary Range |
|---|---|---|
| € | ||
| Personal Secretary | 1 | 20,187-38,948 |
| Personal Assistant | 1 | 40,543-51,463 |
In addition to the above there are four clerical officers, salary range €21,245-€34,448, who provide typing and administrative support services to my private office, the constituency office and to the Department of Finance press office. Two of these clerical officers work-share.
314. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number and value of contracts awarded to outside consultants by his Department in each of the past five years; the details of the contracts involved; and if these projects have reached fruition. [31775/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): I would refer the Deputy to replies to two previous parliamentary questions about this topic, copies of which are being forwarded to him. These are of 17 February 2004 and 28 June 2005, and together they give details of the purpose and recipient of my Departments consultancies in the years he mentions, along with the payments made in each year. As the Deputy will appreciate, given the amount of information they contain it has not been possible, in the time available for answering the present question, to compile the information in the format sought by him, that is, showing the cost by contract rather than by year and showing also which contracts have reached fruition. [260]However, my Department is compiling the information in that format and it will be forwarded to the Deputy shortly.
Question No. 315 answered with Question
No. 313.
316. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance his views on allegations that the road haulage sector generally is operating in the black economy; the number of haulage companies registered with the Revenue Commissioners; the number of these that are tax compliant; the amount of arrears of tax and PRSI contributions outstanding in the sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31815/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that there are approximately 5,000 road hauliers registered with them — this figure includes both companies and individuals.
Revenue have advised me that it is not possible, in the time available, to get detailed information on the amount of arrears of tax and PRSI contributions outstanding from cases in this sector. However, I am informed that during 2004, 198 Revenue audits were carried out on road hauliers resulting in additional tax, interest and penalties of €1.36 million being recovered from 73 of those cases, 125 audits were non-yielding. Also in 2004, Revenue detected 250 hauliers using marked gas oil and 26 hauliers using “laundered” diesel.
The Deputy will be aware that where a haulier is carrying goods for hire or reward, a road freight carrier’s licence is required from the Department of Transport. In order to obtain or renew such a licence, evidence of compliance in the form of a tax clearance certificate must be produced to the Department of Transport. This tax clearance requirement helps considerably in improving compliance in this sector.
While the haulage sector poses some special tax compliance risks — as already indicated, these include the illegal use by some operators of laundered or marked diesel — I am advised that Revenue are vigorously pursuing non-compliance in this sector and remain alert to the emergence of any increasing risks.
317. Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for Finance the issues which have arisen following the risk analysis being conducted on his Department’s decentralisation programme; the way in which it is intended to address these issues; the projected cost of resolving these issues; the overall cost of his Department’s decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31971/05]
Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): Risk analysis and ameliorating measures are addressed in my Department’s decentralisation implementation plan and I have arranged for a copy to be forwarded to the Deputy.
In relation to non-property aspects of the decentralisation programme, a report was prepared at the request of the decentralisation implementation group and is available on my Department’s decentralisation website at www.decentralisation.gov.ie. This report provided a model for identifying non-property costs and savings that might arise both during the relocation phase and in the context of a post-decentralised Civil Service. While my Department is making arrangements to identify costs in accordance with this model, expenditure to date has been limited. The costs associated with the provision of accommodation in Tullamore and Kildare will be met from the Office of Public Works Vote.
318. Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the position regarding health implications for residential areas and schools near mobile phone antennas; if schools are excluded from the schedule of public buildings on which mobile phone masts may be installed; and to make a statement on this public safety issue. [31485/05]
Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): My Department’s involvement in matters concerning the health effects of non-ionising radiation, which includes radio frequency emissions from mobile phone base stations is guided by advice from national and international health authorities which include the World Health Organisation of the United Nations. I am advised that there is to date, no scientific evidence which shows a direct causal link between non-ionising radiation and ill health.
The erection of masts on Government property is a matter for the Minister for Finance together with the public sector organisation which is the direct owner of the property concerned.
319. Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if, in view of the example of the Norwegian Government, he will consider establishing an oil and gas exploration company here; if his attention has been drawn to the benefit this would have on the economy and the effect it could have on other Departments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31731/05]
Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): This question is almost identical to one I answered from [262]the Deputy recently, No. 541 of 28 September. I would draw the Deputy’s attention to the reply I gave to that question and would add that the facts and conclusions given in that reply remain unchanged.
320. Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources when a decision will be made on whether the findings of the report on the three-year experiment into monofilament nets in Cork Harbour will be taken on board for the 2006 season (details supplied); when a final decision will be issued; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31349/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher): I have recently received a report from the South Western Regional Fisheries Board on the final year of a three-year experiment carried out since 2003 to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of alternative methods of draft net fishing, in particular the use of monofilament netting, for wild salmon in Cork Harbour. In forwarding this report to me the chief executive officer advised that the South Western Regional Fisheries Board has, by majority decision, decided to endorse the findings in the report and to recommend that monofilament and other operational changes be legalised for draft net fishing within the harbour.
I am examining the report submitted to me and assure the Deputy that I will make a decision, having considered all relevant issues involved and bearing in mind that any legislative changes which may be required will need to be put in place in good time before the commencement of the next draft net fishing season in Cork Harbour in May 2006.
321. Mr. McHugh asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if funding will be made available for a project (details supplied) in County Galway; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31409/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher): Parkmore Pier, Kinvara, is owned by Galway County Council and responsibility for its maintenance and development is a matter for the owner in the first instance. The county council forwarded proposals in December 2001 and again in 2003 to the Department for Exchequer funding under the national fishery harbour development programme for improvement works to the pier, estimated to cost €88,300. No funding was available for these works. The question of providing funding for works at Parkmore Pier will depend on the amount of [263]Exchequer funding available for works at fishery harbours generally and overall national priorities. The Department has not received a proposal from Galway County Council regarding the construction of a breakwater at Parkmore Pier.
322. Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the position regarding efforts to decentralise his Department to Cavan town; if a site has been purchased to provide office accommodation; the number of persons who have applied to move to Cavan; when staff will be in place and operational; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31475/05]
Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): The acquisition of sites and procurement of property for decentralisation are matters dealt with by the Office of Public Works. Interaction with the OPW on these elements is well established in my Department, informed by site visits and a thorough ongoing consultative process. The latest report from the OPW indicated that negotiations on the purchase of a suitable site in Cavan are progressing. My Department has already provided an outline specification of our accommodation requirements to the Office of Public Works and will provide a detailed brief when required by the OPW.
The latest information from the Public Appointments Service is that 171 expressions of interest have been received for 378 Department posts in Cavan. The process of reassigning Department staff who made a CAF application to relocate with the Department to Clonakilty, Drogheda or Cavan is under way. In addition, in line with the centrally agreed protocols contact has been made by my Department with relevant Departments regarding their staff who wish to move with the Department to these decentralised locations. The Department’s move to Cavan is scheduled to take place at the end of 2009. Arrangements to have staff in place and operational in line with that schedule will continue to be progressed.
323. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the programmes in place or planned for the use of methane from landfill for energy generation purposes here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31500/05]
Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): Biomass landfill gas is one of the technology categories for which support was available under the alternative energy requirement — AER — programme. Nine [264]projects with a combined capacity of 21.5 MW have so far been constructed under this programme. A further two projects with a combined capacity of 2 MW are also proceeding having been successful in the AER VI competition. Biomass landfill gas projects will be eligible to enter in the renewable energy feed in tariff — REFIT — programme which I put out to public consultation recently.
324. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the title and role of all officers of his Department who accepted corporate hospitality by attending sporting events during the past two years as guests of parties engaged in the development of the Corrib gas field; the date of attendance of each officer at such events and the title of such events. [31510/05]
Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): Public servants are required to complete a return under the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001 each year and this is a matter of public record. There has never been sufficient corporate hospitality by any licensee involved in offshore exploration to warrant the necessity for a declaration under the Acts.
325. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the person who briefed his press officer to inform a person (details supplied) that his Department would not answer questions concerning corporate hospitality, if any, accepted by staff of the petroleum administration division from developers of the Corrib gas field; and if the named person wanted such information it should be sought under the Freedom of Information Act 1997. [31511/05]
Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): In this instance my Department was endeavouring to advise the inquirer of the rights available under the Freedom of Information Acts which might be of assistance. This advice is not attributable to any particular individual within my Department.
326. Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the assessment which has been made of erosion of the coastline between Killiney and Woodbrook, County Dublin; the plans that exist for coastal protection works along this stretch of coastline; the funding which has been or is being made available to the local authority for coastal protec[265]tion works; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31516/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher): Funding was made available to Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council for the commissioning of consultancy studies of coastal erosion on the stretch of coast at Killiney, County Dublin, in the years 1995 to 1996 amounting to a total of €219,030. Arising from these studies, coast protection works were funded in the years 1999 to 2004 amounting to a total of €321,763. In the current year an amount of €303,750 has been offered to Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council for coastal protection works in the Killiney area.
The stretch of coast between Killiney, County Dublin, and Carnsore Point, County Wexford, is the subject of a detailed pilot study as part of the national coastal protection strategy study. Vulnerability of the coastline to erosion is one of the matters being examined. It is expected the results of the pilot study will be available in 2006. The question of funding coast protection works in the Killiney area in 2006 will depend on the amount of Exchequer funding available for coast protection works and overall national priorities.
327. Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he proposes to introduce changes to the licensing regime covering mussel dredging vessels; if so, if such changes will distinguish between sea-going vessels and inshore vessels; the expected impact of such changes in terms of the number of vessels affected; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31536/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher): There are no proposals to make any changes to the licensing regime covering mussel dredging vessels in so far as it relates to the mussel seed resource.
328. Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the reason stark distinctions were allowed to be made between the treatment of a vessel (details supplied) and other Irish vessels, which had to provide full replacement capacity; the reason this vessel is allowed to fish in EU waters; if, at the time this vessel was seeking a licence, there was an overhang in Ireland’s pelagic replacement capacity and kilowatts became an issue between Ireland and the EU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31700/05]
Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher): The licensing and registration of the vessel referred to was facilitated by a decision [266]of the European Commission in January 2002 to grant additional capacity of 14,055 gross tonnes and 14,400 kilowatts in respect of the Irish pelagic fleet segment to take account of fishing opportunities in Mauritanian and other west African waters. The European Commission’s decision followed negotiations with the Commission on a legitimate application by the company which owns the vessel, under EU legislation in place at that time, which provided for the introduction of additional capacity into the fleet where additional fishing opportunities were identified. The capacity allocated by the European Commission was additional capacity over and above the existing EU capacity limits for the Irish fleet.
As part of the overall agreement, the company which owns the vessel has permanently withdrawn its other vessel from the Irish-EU fishing fleet. The package agreed allowed the company to retain the annual quota and fishing entitlements in EU waters of the withdrawn vessel. It should be noted that the vessel is only allowed to fish in EU waters to the same degree, in terms of catch limits and fishing effort, as the withdrawn vessel was allowed. The withdrawal of this vessel also enabled Ireland to resolve long-standing engine power over-capacity in the pelagic segment.
329. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he intends to locate the Loran C mast on Loop Head or any other Irish location; the cost of purchasing the mast; the legal costs associated with the project; the cost of purchasing and leasing land at Loop Head; the amount of land involved; the costs of storage of the mast, giving a breakdown of the storage costs over the past five years as well as its location; and if there is any proposal to dispose of the mast. [31701/05]
Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): The Loran C mast will not be erected on Loop Head or any other Irish location. Ireland, along with Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, has denounced the North West Europe and North Atlantic Loran C System — NELS — Agreement. Denunciation takes legal effect from 31 December 2005.
The mast, consisting of the antenna and transmitter, cost €1.9 million and was purchased by France and the Netherlands as per the international agreement. The legal costs associated with the project amounted to €561,000, which includes legal fees for the planning appeal. The land at Loop Head, totalling 137 acres, was purchased for €479,000. Lease of the land for grazing rights has generated €13,530 in revenue over the past three years. Cost of storage for the mast amounted to €326,000. The mast was stored at Pacy-Sur-Eure, near Paris, France. A breakdown [267]of the storage costs over the past five years is as follows:
| Year | Amount |
|---|---|
| € | |
| 2001 | 59,909 |
| 2002 | 47,108 |
| 2004 | 47,476 |
| 2005 | 27,829 |
Ownership of the mast was transferred to France in April this year, with the agreement of the Netherlands. Ownership of the site remains with Ireland.
330. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources [268]the number and value of contracts awarded for public relations projects by his Department since December 2004. [31746/05]
Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): My Department has not awarded any contracts for public relations projects since December 2004.
331. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the number of civil servants and other staff employed in his constituency office; and the grade and remuneration of each. [31761/05]
Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): The number of civil servants and other staff employed in my constituency office and information on the grade and remuneration of these staff is set out in the following table.
332. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the number and value of contracts awarded to outside consultants by his Department in each of the past five years; the details of the contracts involved; and if these projects have reached fruition. [31776/05]
Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): In the time available, it has not been possible to identify and assemble the information requested. My Department is compiling the data sought by the Deputy [268]in this regard and I shall forward it to him as soon as possible.
333. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the number of civil servants and other staff in his press office; and the grade and remuneration of each staff member. [31791/05]
Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): The number of civil servants and other staff employed in the press office, which covers the Minister, Minister for State and Department generally, and information on the grade and remuneration of these staff is set out in the following table.
334. Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the issues which have arisen following the risk analysis being conducted on his Department’s decentralisation programme; the way in which it is intended to address these issues; the projected cost of resolving these issues; the overall cost of his Department’s decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31972/05]
Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): The risks identified and strategies to mitigate their impact are set out in my Department’s decentralisation implementation plan. These risks cover the major areas of business and service continuity, particularly significant staff turnover, financial management and control, customer service and the logistics of relocation. Plans for managing and mitigating the impacts of the process on the Department’s business and staff encompass a comprehensive knowledge management initiative, human resource strategies and training and development plans, ICT strategies aimed at enhancing the quality and benefits of automated systems and maintenance of mission critical business areas and service levels.
On the costs of implementing strategies to address the issues, the knowledge management initiative, ICT strategy and training and development strategies pre-date the decentralisation programme. These initiatives have been synchronised with the decentralisation programme as major planks of our risk mitigation plans and have not to date resulted in material [270]additional expenditure over and above that already planned for these initiatives. The Department has carried out a preliminary assessment of the possible costs associated with decentralisation in terms of both once off costs over the period of relocation and ongoing annual costs post relocation. Further comprehensive analysis is under way to underpin fully quantified estimates of these costs.
The major capital costs related to the decentralisation of my Department to Cavan, Clonakilty and Drogheda relate to the acquisition of sites and building of facilities. These costs are being borne centrally and my Department is liaising closely with the Office of Public Works to ensure quality facilities are delivered commensurate with the value for money imperative.
335. Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to reports emerging from a court case in the Bahamas that a person (details supplied) who received an Irish passport under the passports for investment scheme has six Irish passports; the date on which the original passport was issued; the date on which each subsequent passport was issued; the location from which it was issued; the circumstances in which it was issued; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31501/05]
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): It is important to state that the person in question holds only one valid Irish passport. His first passport was issued in 1995 following the granting of citizenship through naturalisation to him by the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Nora Owen. His passport history is set out as follows:
[269]The first three passports were each returned for cancellation and new passports issued in their place. The fourth passport was reported as lost and, as a result, a limited validity passport was issued in its place. This latter passport was returned in due course for cancellation and a replacement passport to full validity was issued.
336. Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his response to the A Shared Future document published by the Office of the First [270]Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland; if the document has the potential to provide the basis for a new policy and strategic framework for good relations between all communities in Northern Ireland; the Government’s view on the document; if he will act on its recommendations; if he has raised the document with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31344/05]
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The importance of building trust and improving [271]community relations, tackling sectarianism and addressing segregation in Northern Ireland was specifically acknowledged in the rights, identity and community section of the joint declaration published by the two Governments in 2003. Accordingly, the British Government was mandated to review good community relations and bring forward a strategic and integrated good relations policy.
The shared future document referred to by the Deputy, A Shared Future — Policy and Strategic Framework for Good Relations in Northern Ireland, was published by the then Minister of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. John Spellar, on 21 March 2005. It sets out practical steps and actions aimed at achieving a shared and inclusive society. The new policy was informed by an earlier report on community relations policy by Dr. Jeremy Harbison and drew on responses generated by a consultation document launched in January 2003. It includes such policy objectives as the elimination of sectarianism and racism, the reduction of tension at interface areas, integrated education, mixed housing, the promotion of cultural diversity, shared workplaces and community development and tackling disadvantage.
The document lays out a comprehensive approach to the promotion of good relations between all communities in Northern Ireland. The implementation of the strategy on the ground will be key in terms of ensuring this work is ultimately successful. In that context we understand that, arising from a comprehensive consultation process, the British Government is due to publish a triennial action plan associated with the shared future document in the coming months. This will further develop the aims and objectives set out in the document and specify detailed actions to be taken by public authorities in Northern Ireland to achieve them.
The new shared future document contains much that is welcome and timely. At the general level, we welcome the new policy’s recognition of the centrality of equality in creating the basis for good relations. At the more specific level, we also welcome, for example, the commitment in the document to tackling the visible manifestations of sectarianism and racism, in particular inappropriate and aggressive displays of flags and emblems. I had a useful discussion on this issue with Secretary of State Peter Hain at the most recent meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference on 19 October last. We are hopeful the new policy, as elaborated in the forthcoming action plan, could facilitate effective handling of this issue.
The recommendations contained in the document relate to actions to be taken by Departments, agencies and public authorities in Northern Ireland. They are, therefore, not directed at the Government. We continue, [272]however, to monitor progress in implementing commitments arising from the joint declaration in the area of improving community relations. We keep in touch with the position at community level through engagement with local representatives on the ground, members of the NGO and academic community and representatives of the relevant official bodies. During my own frequent visits to Northern Ireland, I make a point of meeting individuals and community representatives from both traditions to hear their concerns.
We will also maintain our dialogue with the British Government on improving community relations, including issues arising from the document, A Shared Future, and the forthcoming action plan within the framework of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and at official level.
337. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the recent appeal against the prison sentence of a person (details supplied) in Denmark regarding the leaking of confidential threat assessments regarding Iraq to a Danish newspaper, he has had talks with his counterpart in Denmark regarding same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31382/05]
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I understand the person concerned was found guilty by a Danish court in November 2004 of the unauthorised disclosure of confidential official information. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment, under the Danish penal code. On appeal to the High Court in Denmark in September this year, the sentence was reduced to four months. This is a matter for the Danish legal system, and I have not discussed it with the Foreign Minister of Denmark.
338. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number and value of contracts awarded for public relations projects by his Department since December 2004. [31747/05]
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): No public relations contracts have been awarded by my Department since December 2004. In the interest of completion, I mention that in November 2004, following an open tender process, Development Co-operation Ireland employed the Cork based company, Real Event Solutions, to design, organise and manage a primary school competition around the theme of international development and the UN millennium development goals. The competition had a public relations aspect aimed at encouraging [273]school participation, both at a regional and national level, and cost €17,204, including VAT.
339. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of civil servants and [274]other staff employed in his constituency office; and the grade and remuneration of each. [31762/05]
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The following table sets out the number of personnel in my constituency office, their positions and salary scales:
340. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number and value of contracts awarded to outside consultants by his Department in each of the past five years; the details of the contracts involved; and if these projects have reached fruition. [31777/05]
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The Department of Foreign Affairs is responsible for two Votes — Vote 28, foreign affairs, and Vote 29, international co-operation. The Department commissions consultancies where specialised knowledge and-or skills are not available within the Department and, particularly in the case of the Development Co-operation Ireland, DCI, programme, where an independent evaluation of programmes and projects is required. The awarding of the contracts referred to below is done at official level and I have had no personal involvement in the process.
The information requested by the Deputy for Vote 28 is set out in Table A. The majority of expenditure on consultancies during the period in question relates to the upgrading of the Depart[274]ment’s information technology infrastructure at headquarters and in our missions abroad and to the development of an automated passport production system, APS. The upgrading of the Department’s information technology infrastructure commenced in 2002 and covered a broad range of technologies which required specialised expertise in a number of areas. No fixed contract was agreed with a single supplier or contractor. Instead, rates were agreed for specialised expertise with several contractors and these were utilised on a draw-down basis, as and when required.
The information relating to Vote 29, development co-operation, is set out in Table B. The vast majority of these consultancies have been completed. Those with an asterisk (*) beside them represent ongoing assignments. Consultancies undertaken by Development Co-operation Ireland cover a wide range of sectors, including HIV-AIDS, education, health and rural development. A high proportion of these concern the monitoring, review and evaluation of development programmes and projects commissioned at headquarters to ensure quality and value for money. These consultancies are almost always based on a daily rate of payment with a maximum number of days stipulated in the contract.
