Dáil Eireann

2. Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach his Department’s Estimate for 2006; the way in which it differs from his Estimate for 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37776/05]

3. Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his Department’s 2006 Estimates. [37987/05]

4. Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the 2006 Estimates for his Department. [38704/05]

The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.

The total allocation for my Department for 2006 is €37.498 million. This is a decrease of 4% —€1.467 million — on the 2005 Revised Estimates allocation. Details of the Estimates are set out in the Abridged Estimates for the public service, which were presented to the Dáil on 17 November 2005.

I look forward to addressing specific issues relating to the Estimates provisions when they are considered in the usual way by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. I also look forward to responding to questions which Deputies may wish to table sep[763]arately on specific aspects of the work of my Department.

Mr. Rabbitte: Will the Taoiseach explain why the provision for commemorative initiatives has doubled for next year? Will he also say why the provision for consultancies in his Department has diminished somewhat? What is the provision for the independent commission of inquiry? Is that the Paddy MacEntee inquiry? Will he explain the heading “e-inclusion” to the House?

The Taoiseach: Consultancy fees are reduced because the e-Cabinet project has effectively been completed. The consultancies were related to work on that project. There are several applications under the e-inclusion scheme which is for elderly and disabled people, and organisations to get grants to help them use information technology. The Minister of State in my Department, Deputy Kitt, administers that scheme.

The overall consultancy service subhead shows a decrease of approximately 10%. It is planned to use consultancy services next year in a small number of projects. The total allocation of €243,000 is considered prudent in order to meet the requirements for the use of consulting services which may arise during the year. There are no big projects now that the e-Cabinet project is over. The MacEntee commission has sought the extension, to meet the cost of winding up the inquiry into the Dublin-Monaghan bombings, to the end of March 2006 and it should be finished during the year.

Mr. Rabbitte: I am not sure why this commission of investigation comes under the Taoiseach’s Department. Will the Taoiseach explain the increased provision for the Science Olympiad? I thought the knowledge of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, and his Department would be more appropriate to this area.

The Taoiseach: That was a once-off grant to support the Science Olympiad project held in Trinity College Dublin in 2005. It was an international conference that brought together an enormous number of scientists. As there was no suitable subhead, it was to assist in giving the project a grant. It will not occur again.

On the commemorative initiatives, these are the usual annual commemoration grants given for the 400 year celebration of particular events and the like. However, I am not sure which ones were given grants.

Mr. Rabbitte: What about the commission of investigation?

The Taoiseach: The commission of investigation subhead——

Mr. Kenny: It is headed by Sherlock Holmes.

[764]Mr. Rabbitte: Is the Taoiseach sending the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, abroad again?

The Taoiseach: He would be investigating something useful.

Ms McManus: It is not investigating the Centre for Public Inquiry.

Mr. Kenny: The Minister is probably writing internal reports.

The Taoiseach: I will have to get back to the Deputies on this subhead as I do not have the material at hand.

Mr. Kenny: The Taoiseach can send it by FedEx.

The Taoiseach: What is the actual subhead letter?

Mr. Rabbitte: It is subhead Q.

Mr. Kenny: “Q” as in James Bond.

Mr. Rabbitte: I am only concerned to know what it is as it is not a significant amount of money.

The Taoiseach: The independent commission of inquiry was the MacEntee commission. However, I cannot recall the full details. I will have to come back to the Deputy on it.

Mr. Kenny: This must be the first time in a long time the Taoiseach has not had an answer on an issue.

Regarding subhead N, the Newfoundland and Labrador business partnership, I know there has been a relationship between Ireland and there for some time. The subhead amounts to €337,000. What are the proposed initiatives in 2006 for the partnership?

I note the names of Messrs. C. J. Haughey and M. Lowry under heading J with a figure for €9.07 million. Does the Taoiseach expect the Moriarty tribunal to be wound up and, if so, will he give an indication of when it will be? Subhead R refers to the task force on active citizenship. The Taoiseach had his guru from America visit to discuss the issue and he has often referred to it as social capital. While there is no increase in funding for the task force in 2006, there are leaders in every townland and parish willing to participate in this important and critical activity. What programme is envisaged for the task force in 2006?

The Taoiseach: The task force is only beginning its work. In the social capital area, the community aspect of the arts grant has seen an 18% increase to reflect much of the good work being done in different areas. The active citizenship task force will make its recommendations and supports. I believe it will support community [765]initiatives and activities through local community work. While most of these resources will not come from my Department, we have provided for several other grants.

The increased provision for the commemorative initiatives subhead is to cover the 1916 Rising commemoration and the James Hoban initiative, which was the only sizeable grant.

The Newfoundland and Labrador business partnership was instigated by the EU ambassador, Mr. John Bruton. I had the opportunity of visiting the partnership’s office this year. It has moved from a cultural aspect into bursaries, scholarships and businesses. There are quite a number of Irish business people doing business with Labrador. Like many of these initiatives, it has taken several years to get running. Although it only has a small staff, it has made good headway and is moving into the economic sphere.

We have provided for the Moriarty tribunal this year, which should be the end year. The figures provide for publication of the tribunal’s reports. It is due to be finished mid-year and I hope that will be the end of it. The Haughey-Lowry and the Dunnes Stores provisions include fees that were not claimed. We hope that 2006 will see the end of them as subheads in the Estimates.

Mr. Sargent: Is there an explanation for the decrease of 67% in the Estimate for the information society, e-Cabinet and other initiatives, as it is larger than most decreases? I note an increase again this year for the provision for the National Forum on Europe. This decision was made at a time when a referendum was anticipated. Given that there will not be a referendum on Europe, is this increase a sign of denial of this or will the Estimate stand or be revised?

The Taoiseach: The provision of €1.49 million is included to fund the continuation of the forum as an arena for bringing matters on European debates to the public’s attention. One way or the other, whether a referendum is held, that provision is available for the work of the forum for the year.

The funding for the e-Cabinet project reflects the funding estimated in respect of the completion of its work. The additional work on the project has effectively been completed. A number of grants are available for e-inclusion. The money mainly goes to community organisations, particularly for the elderly and disabled, which may apply for grants. There may not be a huge number of grants, perhaps about 100 each year, but they are given out to these groups in small amounts to help them in the ICT area. This dates back to when the Information Society Commission was part of the Department. When it completed its mandate this programme was maintained as a useful way to give groups grants towards their work during the year.

[766]Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: A sum of €50,000 has been allocated for the National Forum on Peace and Reconciliation. What is the purpose of this allocation? Does the Taoiseach not consider it appropriate that the body be wound up because we are long past the time for the establishment of the all-Ireland civic forum provided for under the Good Friday Agreement? Will the Taoiseach clarify his intent in this regard?

Regarding the national centre for partnership and performance, which is to receive an 88% increase in funding, will the Taoiseach indicate what is the purpose of these moneys?

The Taoiseach: The allocation for the Forum on Peace and Reconciliation is purely in case a need arises and the money has been carried forward. We do not envisage such a need arising and the small amount of money is regarded as a provision should it become necessary. It is being held over until, I hope, we get the institutions up and functioning in 2006, when we would definitely see an end to the forum.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: What is the position regarding the all-Ireland civic forum?

The Taoiseach: I would certainly like to see us move towards a proper civic forum, as put forward in the Good Friday Agreement, as soon as possible.

On the National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO, the published Estimates for 2006 show an estimated allocation of €1.96 million, which represents a significant increase of 88% on the previous allocation. The Estimate is intended to reflect the significant agenda of the body and the importance of its work in promoting greater participation and innovation in the workplace, including development and implementation of the national workplace strategy. The forum on the workplace has issued its reports and it is for implementing these that the funding will be available. The resources for this were spelt out last year so this allocation is to allow the work of the forum on the workplace to be carried out during the year.

5. Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the November 2005 meeting of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36484/05]

6. Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the issues discussed at the November 2005 cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37990/05]

7. Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the most recent meeting of the cross-departmental team on housing, infra[767]structure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38705/05]

The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, together.

The discussion at the November meeting of the cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and public-private partnerships focused on Transport 21, the national spatial strategy gateways study and climate change strategy. The team’s discussion on Transport 21 focused mainly on implementation, including the arrangements for the national monitoring committee. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government made a presentation setting out the progress on the national spatial strategy gateways study. It also gave an overview presentation on the forthcoming developments relating to climate change strategy, including the associated linkages with other policy areas.

At its previous meeting on Thursday, 1 December, the team discussed housing and affordable housing and reviewed progress on Transport 21. The team continues to monitor progress and review priorities on infrastructure planning and delivery. This includes examining options to secure better value for money outcomes and assessing the scope for speedier delivery of outputs.

Mr. Kenny: I was reading a report the other evening about pike roads in 1787 in Dublin where a shilling and eightpence was charged for horses to travel on them. These were the original toll roads. Did the interdepartmental committee consider the question of opening the tolled Kilcock-Kinnegad motorway? This major piece of infrastructure will be the only section of motorway on which there will be two tolls. If one were travelling to the airport, one would pass three tolls. Did the interdepartmental committee consider this option? Does the Taoiseach have a view on whether the toll is equitable given that no toll is charged on the route from Dublin to Wexford, Waterford, Cork or Limerick?

An Ceann Comhairle: Detailed questions are a matter for the line Minister.

Mr. Kenny: I knew the Ceann Comhairle would stop me, which is the reason I am stopping myself on this matter.

Has the interdepartmental committee on housing and PPPs considered the recently launched Transport 21 programme given that a significant part of the programme will be funded by PPPs? Will the Taoiseach comment on an issue brought to my attention recently regarding the costly and complex nature of tendering for a PPP project? Those companies which do not qualify under the tender system obviously do not get the job. If the tendering process is costly and complex, one [768]could well find in respect of the elements of Transport 21 expected to be delivered by PPPs that a small number of well resourced companies will be eligible to tender for and win PPP projects. If the number of companies declines, this small group could well turn into a type of PPP cartel in which the members distribute jobs among themselves, thereby increasing costs.

Does the Taoiseach envisage circumstances in which, given the complexity and cost of the tendering system, companies which do not qualify will receive some form of recognition for submitting a tender or have some of the costs they incurred returned in order that they will be encouraged to continue to compete for PPP projects and to avoid the emergence of a costly, well resourced cartel capable of distributing these contracts among its members?

The Taoiseach: To return to an earlier question, the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, checked a detail for me and it appears subhead Q refers to the MacEntee commission. For some reason, this small provision must have been called “commission of investigation” before the other subhead was inserted. It is, however, the same subhead.

On the M50, the committee has been discussing the detail of the enhancement work on the M50. As the Deputy knows, an examination is taking place of what can be done about more modern tolling and is looking, in particular, to the Hong Kong model of tolling rather than barrier tolling. The committee has not come to a conclusion on the matter.

We will have a number of tolls, including a toll road in Cork, in the not too distant future. It is inevitable, as happens elsewhere, that tolling will make a contribution to the huge amount of resources which have been spent over the past decade and will be spent over the next decade. Having looked at some of the figures given to the committee recently on tolling in other countries, the cost of tolling here is low.

On PPPs, a great deal of progress is being made. In the early years the trouble was that only a handful of mainly British-based companies considered PPP projects. Obviously, if there are not enough PPP projects, it does not justify such companies setting up offices and schemes. Since then, the National Treasury Management Agency, through a body affiliated to it, the National Development Finance Agency, NDFA, has started to look at PPP projects and deals with them in a very different way. They have looked internationally at how this is done. We are increasingly finding that it is better to take PPP projects away from Departments and by operating them in a different way, we are getting much more competitive interest. There is no doubt, however, that it is costly. In some respects, it is good if there is an insufficient supply of projects because it would be ridiculous if much of our national wealth went into investment for PPPs in [769]other countries, which cannot put it into their own countries. That is what is happening because quite a lot of the investment money is going into large infrastructural projects outside Ireland, such as roads, tunnels and bypasses.

The PPP system has the benefit of being able to get that money into our system. We should do that increasingly because it makes great sense to do so. Obviously, one cannot share out the contracts because it must be a competitive position, but it is in our interest, as the Deputy said, not to have a cartel comprising just a handful of companies. The only way of doing that is to spread it among companies that do a lot of work internationally, which is what is happening. Our capital programme for PPPs may be small in international terms, but at least they can see that there are some sizeable projects. We can see the benefits of this, including the new road which was opened the other day. I do not wish to be critical of anybody, but we know that those huge savings would not have been achieved by taking the conventional route. As the National Roads Authority becomes more efficient in using the new systems it has introduced, there will be many mechanisms through which we can obtain better value for money and part of that can be done through the PPP system.

A section of the National Development Finance Agency is working on this matter, which is part of the National Treasury Management Agency. This year the staff have done a really good job in internationalising this to bring people together and generate far more interest in projects here. We have seen that happening recently in the development project at Fatima Mansions and a few other projects will come on stream in which there is considerable private sector interest. They concern projects which I did not think would attract private sector involvement. In this case, Dublin Corporation is involved in renewal projects at a significant cost and there are huge attractions in such projects.

Mr. Sargent: Will the Taoiseach revert to his reply concerning the issue of infrastructural PPPs at the interdepartmental committee? On 9 November, he said he would deal with wider energy policy issues, but does he agree that these matters are not treated seriously by the budget provisions, which seem to be sending money out of the country by way of a carbon fund? In light of that, will the Government become more seriously involved in implementing the EU energy performance of buildings directive through the interdepartmental committee? Will action on this directive be extended, given that we have a derogation of three years during which to implement it? Will the Taoiseach improve on that? Has the interdepartmental committee taken into account the reasons, which the Taoiseach mentioned, for a lack of technical ability in implementing the directive? How is the Government responding to that?

[770]As regards sending money out of the country, will the Taoiseach state what criteria are being used to award PPP contracts? I have been asked this question a number of times. Is there a need to re-examine and refine the criteria applied to PPPs, given the vast reliance on them? Some €27 million is to be spent on 17 PPP projects, including in the education sector, the arts, the National Concert Hall and the Abbey Theatre. One quarter of funding for the ten-year €34 billion national transport strategy is to be undertaken through PPPs.

I understand that Halliburton is doing the €372 million Shannon tunnel project, which is the largest infrastructural scheme outside Dublin. Will the Taoiseach clarify if that project warrants criteria concerning past performance, given the amount of overcharging that company has had to contend with? There are also ethical issues surrounding the company’s involvement in Iraq.

An Ceann Comhairle: Detailed questions are a matter for the line Minister.

Mr. Sargent: I am illustrating the need for criteria to be drawn up.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should confine himself to general questions.

Mr. Sargent: The interdepartmental committee would have an involvement in that, given that it has an overarching responsibility in that regard.

The Taoiseach: I can comment generally on some of the issues raised, although I do not have some of the details involved. The building control Bill is to strengthen the enforcement powers of local building authorities, as well as providing statutory protection to implement the EU directive on the energy performance of buildings. That energy element is in the Bill. As Deputy Quinn has spent most of this session asking about this, we finally cleared it yesterday so we will introduce it in the next session. The legislation deals with all the issues the Deputy raised.

Mr. Sargent: The three years' derogation.

The Taoiseach: I am not sure how that will be handled. As the Deputy is aware, there have been discussions on forthcoming developments on climate change and the wider energy policy, which is the broad issue with which the interdepartmental committee has been dealing. Discussions have taken place on the first phase of emissions trading and on the carbon tax.

Mr. Sargent: What carbon tax?

The Taoiseach: Two major policy initiatives next year will help to determine our wider energy policy strategy in the medium term. The review of national climate change and the energy policy review are going on within the Department, both [771]on the carbon credits and the EU emissions trading scheme. They are listed for discussion at the committee in the early part of the new year.

I will not go into detail on individual PPPs, but the role of the centre of expertise, which is located in the National Development Finance Agency, will be expanded to include the procurement function on behalf of Departments in addition to its existing role as adviser to Departments on PPP procurement. That strengthens the process considerably from where it was. The agency has commenced the new activity on an interim, non-statutory basis, pending the introduction of enabling legislation, which we will have in the new year. The centre will provide the skills and capacity required to support the procurement of key infrastructural projects by PPPs in the central Government area. By concentrating initially on the three key Departments — as the Deputy has mentioned, they are the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform — an improved deal flow of PPP projects will be generated and a resource focus will bring them to completion.

I do not know about the Shannon project, but 23 new post-primary schools and four new primary schools will be provided under public-private partnerships. Work has commenced on them. A number of other local government projects are also operating.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Mr. Sargent: The Taoiseach mentioned an energy tax, but I thought the Government was not proceeding with that.

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise from these questions.

Mr. Sargent: It is a major departure.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is a matter for the line Minister.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Has the cross-departmental team examined the issue of housing in the private rented sector? Is the Taoiseach aware that the number of households in receipt of rent supplements equates to 40% of the total in private rented accommodation? Does the Taoiseach agree that clearly these are people who should be accommodated within the social housing provision? Does he accept that the State has massively subsidised the private rented sector through——

An Ceann Comhairle: A detailed question is more appropriate to the line Minister, but the Chair will accept a general question.

[772]Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Very well. Will the Taoiseach advise the cross-departmental team to address the matter I have described? As regards the 10,000 promised so-called affordable houses under Sustaining Progress, will the Taoiseach advise whether the cross-departmental team has been or is intent on doing anything to speed up the delivery of this disgracefully slow commitment?

The Taoiseach: Regarding that general question, we recently spelled out the ongoing work on social and affordable housing. Great resources have been put into social housing. The Deputy is correct that the subsidy to the private sector in housing is extremely large.

Mr. Stagg: It is €370 million.

The Taoiseach: I recently said in the House and elsewhere that if one were doing this on a business project and wished to capitalise the amount being invested over time, which is what we would do were we not politicians——

Mr. Stagg: The Taoiseach should tell his brother that.

The Taoiseach: Perhaps it should be looked at in that way, but one is attacked as soon as one mentions it. If one took that sum, how many houses would one build on a ten-year strategy of capitalising the amount? Having said that, this year we have continued in the traditional manner and put significant increases into social housing and the affordable housing initiatives. However, it is a costly way to proceed.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: My question was whether they had addressed the issue of the subsidisation of 40% of all private rented accommodation.

The Taoiseach: They have examined what is happening, but I do not believe that there are any innovative methods on the horizon. What is on the horizon is that we must invest more resources in social housing. That is happening, but one will never achieve the speed that one might wish. Local authorities have been hard pressed this year. Questions were asked here the other day, and they were criticised for not spending their allocations. I know the Minister was very agitated at that both last year and this year. Voluntary housing put in a large amount of money, and we received a report from Mr. Des Geraghty and his colleagues on the affordable housing initiative. The State is still paying out large sums, and it might be looked at differently. That may not be possible, but the question of fresh thinking in this area arises.

An Ceann Comhairle: Before coming to the Order of Business, I propose to deal with several notices under Standing Order 31.

Mr. F. McGrath: I seek leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to discuss a matter of national importance and concern, namely, the urgent need for school premises for Gaelscoil Cholmcille, Whitehall, Dublin 9, and to make it a priority issue to assist pupils, teachers and parents in having a quality school providing education.

Dr. Cowley: I seek the Adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to discuss a matter of major national importance, namely, the disgraceful situation whereby only two ambulances are on call at night in Mayo for a population of over 120,000 in the third largest county. People’s lives are in jeopardy owing to the failure to institute an ambulance base in the Achill-Mulranny-Ballycroy area, in the face of recommended minimum standards of ambulance availability to a population.

An Ceann Comhairle: Having considered the matters raised, they are not in order under Standing Order 31.

The Taoiseach: It is proposed to take No. 19, the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005 — Second Stage (resumed); No. 12, the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005 — Financial Resolution; No. 13, motion re establishment of a commission of investigation into the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against members of the clergy operating under the aegis of the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin and related matters; No. 3, the Social Welfare Bill 2005 — Second Stage (Resumed) and Subsequent Stages; and No. 30, the Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2005 — Committee and Remaining Stages.

In accordance with the Order of the Dáil of 13 December 2005, it is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m., business being interrupted not later than 10.30 p.m. Proceedings of the resumed Second Stage of No. 19 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 4.30 p.m., No. 12 being taken immediately thereafter and decided without debate.

The proceedings of No. 13 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 45 minutes, and the following arrangements shall apply. The speech of a Minister or Minister of State, the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party, the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed ten minutes in each case, [774]Members may share time, and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply that shall not exceed five minutes.

The following arrangements shall apply regarding No. 3, the Social Welfare Bill 2005. The proceedings on the resumed Second Stage, if not previously concluded, are to be brought to a conclusion at 10 p.m. tonight. The proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. by one question, to be put from the Chair, which shall in relation to amendments include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs.

An Ceann Comhairle: There are four proposals to put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed? Agreed.

Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 19 and 12, conclusion of Second Stage of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005 and Financial Resolution for the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005, without debate agreed?

Mr. Kenny: We do not agree with the proposals for dealing with No. 19 or No. 12. The Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005 is a bureaucrats’ paradise. There has been no consultation with fisheries interests, and the Bill’s essence is that it criminalises fishermen and their families for the most minor indiscretion, which would have the practical outworking that throughout the west no one could go to America on holiday or business thereafter because of restrictions on travel. There has not been the same element of discussion with the industry or industry interests, and the Government’s backbenchers have opposed it seriously. The Bill is opposed in detail and principle, and it should be withdrawn, with clear discussions on the matter, after which it could return to the House in the spring. For that reason, I urge the Taoiseach to withdraw this. We oppose the taking of No. 19 and No. 12.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I wish to record my opposition, as I have done before, to the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005. The proposal that No. 12 be taken immediately after the Second Stage resumption and decided without debate is yet another slight on the workings of this House. On a matter of such importance, it is typical of the last days of any session of this House in my experience since 1997 that the Government seeks to railroad and ram-stam legislation through without the due care and consideration that it deserves. I am opposed to much that is proposed in this legislation, and I reflect the views of many people with interests in the maritime industry.

Mr. Broughan: On the same point, this is clearly major legislation, and many Deputies have [775]not yet had an opportunity to speak. Many maritime and coastal communities are concerned. Given the fact that a series of wide-ranging amendments is being prepared by the Minister and that the Bill, as presented, will not be that which emerges in February, it is incumbent on the House to have more time to discuss it.

Mr. Boyle: Can the Taoiseach give a full explanation of the Financial Resolution, No. 12? It seems somewhat out of order that the House be asked to decide on such a resolution after the Bill may have passed its Second Stage and before it goes to Committee Stage or is finally approved by the House, thus pre-empting a decision of the House. Does the Government intend for this resolution to pre-empt the Bill itself and that charges should apply from 1 January?

Mr. Broughan: I thought that we were discussing only No. 19. I echo the views of Deputy Boyle. It seems the resolution being brought forward pre-empts the views of the Dáil, the Seanad and the committee.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has made his point. There is no provision for two contri[776]butions on the Order of Business. We will hear the Taoiseach on it.

Mr. Broughan: Yes, but I did not realise that we were on No. 12 too. To some extent, the Taoiseach is attempting to pre-empt the debate by introducing the resolution now rather than in February.

12 o’clock

The Taoiseach: The Financial Resolution on the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005 is required; it must be brought in. We have given the legislation additional time. The reason we wanted to have it passed today was to allow the committee sit in January when the Minister is prepared to give a lot of time to deal with the Bill. He has already made provision for an extensive debate and detail on these issues. It is true that many issues have been highlighted that will amend the Bill but that is the purpose of Committee Stage. We will have plenty of time for an adequate debate on this issue in the second, third and fourth weeks of January.

Question put: “That the proposal for dealing with Nos. 19 and 12, conclusion of Second Stage of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005 and Financial Resolution for the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005, be agreed”.

[775]The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 53.

Tá
Ahern, Bertie.	Andrews, Barry.
Ardagh, Seán.	Blaney, Niall.
Brady, Johnny.	Brady, Martin.
Brennan, Seamus.	Browne, John.
Callely, Ivor.	Carey, Pat.
Carty, John.	Collins, Michael.
Cregan, John.	Cullen, Martin.
Curran, John.	Davern, Noel.
de Valera, Síle.	Dempsey, Tony.
Dennehy, John.	Devins, Jimmy.
Ellis, John.	Fahey, Frank.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.	Fleming, Seán.
Gallagher, Pat The Cope.	Glennon, Jim.
Grealish, Noel.	Haughey, Seán.
Hoctor, Máire.	Jacob, Joe.
Keaveney, Cecilia.	Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Peter.	Killeen, Tony.
Kirk, Seamus.	Kitt, Tom.
Lenihan, Brian.	McDowell, Michael.
McEllistrim, Thomas.	McGuinness, John.
Moloney, John.	Moynihan, Donal.
Moynihan, Michael.	Mulcahy, Michael.
Nolan, M. J.	Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.	O’Connor, Charlie.
O’Donnell, Liz.	O’Donoghue, John.
O’Donovan, Denis.	O’Flynn, Noel.
O’Keeffe, Batt.	O’Keeffe, Ned.
O’Malley, Fiona.	O’Malley, Tim.
Parlon, Tom.	Power, Peter.
Power, Seán.	Roche, Dick.
Sexton, Mae.	Smith, Brendan.
Smith, Michael.	Treacy, Noel.
Wallace, Dan.	Wallace, Mary.
Walsh, Joe.	Wilkinson, Ollie.
Woods, Michael.

[777]Níl
Allen, Bernard.	Boyle, Dan.
Broughan, Thomas P.	Bruton, Richard.
Burton, Joan.	Connaughton, Paul.
Connolly, Paudge.	Costello, Joe.
Cowley, Jerry.	Crawford, Seymour.
Crowe, Seán.	Cuffe, Ciarán.
Deasy, John.	Deenihan, Jimmy.
Durkan, Bernard J.	English, Damien.
Enright, Olwyn.	Ferris, Martin.
Gilmore, Eamon.	Gogarty, Paul.
Healy, Seamus.	Higgins, Joe.
Higgins, Michael D.	Kenny, Enda.
McCormack, Pádraic.	McGinley, Dinny.
McGrath, Paul.	McHugh, Paddy.
McManus, Liz.	Mitchell, Olivia.
Morgan, Arthur.	Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
Murphy, Catherine.	Naughten, Denis.
Neville, Dan.	Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.	O’Dowd, Fergus.
O’Keeffe, Jim.	O’Shea, Brian.
O’Sullivan, Jan.	Pattison, Seamus.
Perry, John.	Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat.	Ryan, Eamon.
Ryan, Seán.	Sargent, Trevor.
Sherlock, Joe.	Shortall, Róisín.
Stagg, Emmet.	Stanton, David.
Upton, Mary.

[777]Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Neville and Stagg.

[777]Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with No. 13, motion re establishment of a commission of investigation into the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against members of the clergy operating under the aegis of the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin and related matters, agreed? Agreed.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 3, conclusion of Second and Subsequent Stages of the Social Welfare Bill 2005, agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kenny: A number of people with knowledge of the electricity sector have informed me that the number of medium risk orange alerts has doubled in the past 12 months and that the national grid was put on a full-scale red alert earlier this year. What steps have been taken to ensure that we have capacity in the event of a severe winter? When will the energy (miscellaneous provisions) Bill and the electricity Bill be published? Can the Taoiseach guarantee that the electricity system will not fail to meet the country’s needs over the coming months?

The Taoiseach: The energy (miscellaneous provisions) Bill is down for the beginning of the session. The capecity of the electricity system to meet demand is always under review. Difficulties can appear when industry operates at full capacity and cold weather arises, particularly during the early evenings. No immediate concerns have been voiced about the forthcoming season. However, there is always a threat that the system will not meet demand during very cold weather.

[778]Mr. Kenny: The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, received the recent report on the reform of the electricity market. When will this report be published?

The Taoiseach: I will check with the Minister.

Mr. Rabbitte: My colleague, Deputy O’Sullivan, highlighted the plight of Marie Therese O’Loughlin, who is protesting outside the House. Apparently, the Minister’s response to the assertion that there was an inspection function with the State for the Morning Star hostel, was that she could not confirm that because there are no records. It must be possible to put together——

An Ceann Comhairle: The matter does not arise on the Order of Business.

Mr. Rabbitte: It must be possible to make some arrangement to alleviate the plight of Ms O’Loughlin before Christmas.

An Ceann Comhairle: Does Deputy Rabbitte have a question appropriate to the Order of Business? As he noted, this matter was discussed in the House last night.

Mr. Rabbitte: We cannot leave her outside the gate of the House.

The Taoiseach: Nobody is happy with the current situation pertaining to Ms O’Loughlin. Late last night and early this morning I checked the possibilities with regard to the Morning Star hos[779]tel. Ms O’Loughlin’s life has been a very unfortunate one. However, she also resided in a listed institution for a period and it is perhaps in that area that we should look.

Mr. Sargent: Will the Taoiseach be present in the House tomorrow or should we wish him happy Christmas today? It is akin to the Queen’s birthday in that there is an official and unofficial——

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Sargent can discuss the matter later.

Mr. Sargent: I hope the Taoiseach will be present in the House tomorrow so we can all stand on a level playing field.

Promises to introduce the Abbotstown Sports Development Campus Authority Bill in this session have been made seven times. Will an eighth promise be made or will it be debated before Christmas?

I thank the Taoiseach for correcting the record with regard to legislation on the road safety authority. I understood that new legislation dealing with the authority was to be introduced. If this is not the case, could the Taoiseach inform the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, because he said there would be new legislation before Christmas? I understand that the new Bill is an amendment to the Driver Testing and Standards Authority Bill, which I hope will be introduced quickly in light of road deaths.

There has been some controversy about statements the Taoiseach made on translation costs for translations into Irish. I want to get itemised the actual cost. Could the Taoiseach clarify matters relating to the costs of translating documents into Irish?

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise.

Mr. Sargent: It is about correcting the record.

The Taoiseach: A road traffic Bill will be included in the new testing Bill.

Mr. Sargent: What about the Abbotstown Bill?

The Taoiseach: This session will continue until the next session. That is the definition.

Mr. Sargent: Next January.

Mr. Durkan: I once had a motor car and it was said, in a derogatory fashion, that it could not pass a filling station.

An Ceann Comhairle: This might be more suitable for the Adjournment.

Mr. Durkan: The handbrake is off for the moment. We now have a Minister who may be suffering from an analogous condition.

[780]A Deputy: A what?

Mr. Durkan: An analogous condition. It could be worse, because he cannot pass a Bill. The following is a list of Bills promised but not delivered: the Bord Gáis Éireann Bill, the broadcasting authority Bill, the electronic communications Bill, which allowed the Minister an opportunity to convert the electronic voting machines to an alternative use, the minerals development Bill — we could dig deeper and find out more about that one in the undergrowth — the natural gas regulation Bill, which would deal with natural gas, gas pipelines and so on, and the energy (miscellaneous provisions) Bill. The latter Bill was faithfully promised by the Minister in this House on several occasions in the past 12 months but it has not yet been published. Christmas without the energy Bill will be something else.

Mr. Allen: We will have to turn off the Christmas tree lights.

Mr. Durkan: Deputy Kenny raised the issue of legislation about electricity.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should confine himself to enumerating the Bills. He does not have to make any preamble. He should not be repetitive. If Deputy Kenny has spoken about certain Bills, there is no need to raise them again.

Mr. Durkan: The electricity Bill was promised for a long time, as was the national oil reserves agency Bill, which Government party Members will remember affectionately. All these Bills deal with issues that are pertinent and need to be debated. When will the Taoiseach nudge the Minister in the right direction?

The Taoiseach: The energy (miscellaneous provisions) Bill will be published in this session. All the other Bills are for 2006.

Mr. Durkan: Mañana.

Mr. Broughan: Everyone welcomes the apparent resolution of the situation in Irish Ferries. However, the flagging issue has not been dealt with. Will the Taoiseach consider amending the Mercantile Marine (Avoidance of Flags of Convenience) Bill 2005 which was published by the Labour Party? He could do so early in the next session.

A large group of Roadstone drivers came into Leinster House yesterday to meet Senator Tuffy and me. They asked me to give the Taoiseach a message. They are losing——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy will have to find another way of conveying the message to the Taoiseach. He can only speak on the legislation.

Mr. Broughan: I cannot do so. I only see the Taoiseach during the Order of Business. These [781]people are losing their jobs. They are being displaced.

An Ceann Comhairle: There are many other ways in which the Deputy can convey the message.

Mr. Broughan: I have no other way. They are being displaced by very cheap east European labour. Those Roadstone workers want to know if the Taoiseach will bring in legislation on the displacement of our workforce——

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Taoiseach to answer the first question.

Mr. Broughan: ——by people who are not working for the minimum wage in this economy.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is being disorderly.

Mr. Broughan: I do not care. I have no other opportunity to raise this.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has a number of opportunities and he is well aware of them.

Mr. Broughan: Senior workers are losing their jobs right, left and centre across the economy.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Adjournment would be very appropriate for this issue.

Mr. Broughan: The Taoiseach is sitting there and is not taking any action.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is not appropriate to come in to the House and raise matters that are not for the Order of Business. The Deputy could have submitted that for the Adjournment but he did not do so.

Mr. Broughan: I did not get a chance to do that.

An Ceann Comhairle: Every Deputy got a chance.

The Taoiseach: I have already pointed out to the leader of the Labour Party the difficulties with its maritime legislation. With regard to the other issue raised by the Deputy and in the context of social partnership talks, I wrote a letter to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions about the Government’s desire to assist in legislation on the issue.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Will the Taoiseach please take whatever steps are necessary to help Marie Therese O’Loughlin who is outside Leinster House? Will he respond to the letter I recently sent to him on that matter before we finish tomorrow?

[782]A Bill to provide for the introduction of business improvement districts has been signalled. When will the heads of that Bill be published or agreed if they have not already been? I have never received notification of heads of a Bill despite having made several requests, including through the parliamentary question mechanism. How does one access heads of a Bill from a Department? When will the heads of this specific Bill be available? Will the Taoiseach make them available to Members?

The Taoiseach: The heads of business improvement districts Bill have been approved. The legislation is yet to be drafted and it will be late 2006 before the legislation will be prepared.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Will they be made available to Members? That is a simple question.

Mr. Crawford: About 400 families will have a very lonely Christmas this year as a result of road deaths. When will the alcohol products Bill be brought before the House so that we can discuss these issues and find a way to minimise these dreadful events?

The Taoiseach: The alcohol products Bill has been deferred pending the voluntary agreements that have been reached with the alcohol and advertising industries. We are holding it off until we see how the voluntary agreements work.

Mr. Costello: The proposed solution in the Taoiseach’s reply to Deputy Rabbitte’s question about Marie Therese O’Loughlin cannot work. While she spent some time subsequently in Goldenbridge, which is a scheduled institution, her horrific injuries were sustained in Morning Star when she was a baby there.

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot have a debate on this issue today. It was debated last night. It was already raised by Deputy Rabbitte and was answered by the Taoiseach.

Mr. Costello: I have a question on the legislation. A small number of those institutions are feeder institutions to the institutions that are scheduled. They have not been included, even though it was the State that transferred them.

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise on the Order of Business.

Mr. Costello: Will the Taoiseach speak to the Minister for Education and Science with a view to amending——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s colleague, Deputy O’Sullivan, raised the matter last night and it was debated in this House. We cannot have a debate on it today.

Mr. Costello: My question is on legislation.

[783]An Ceann Comhairle: If it is included in legislation that is already promised, it is appropriate to the Order of Business. The Deputy is asking if something will be brought into the House that has not been promised.

Mr. Costello: My question is on legislation. I ask the Taoiseach to amend the Residential Institutions Redress Act——

An Ceann Comhairle: That is not appropriate. I suggest the Deputy submit a question to the appropriate line Minister.

Mr. Costello: ——to allow time for these issues to be examined properly.

Mr. J. Higgins: Does the Taoiseach not find it disgusting that workers in Irish Ferries will now be paid vastly different wages from now on? Does he agree——

An Ceann Comhairle: Has the Deputy a question on legislation?

Mr. J. Higgins: I have. Just because the race to the bottom did not get as low as Irish Ferries wanted does not mean that the settlement is right. The Taoiseach said that there were difficulties with legislation, but he was talking about this State. What about moving legislation within the European Union? This could ensure common arrangements for shipping so that the laws of this State can apply in ships plying the waters of the European Union and the exploitation of workers can stop.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is legislation promised?

The Taoiseach: Something similar to that has already happened. The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, has raised these issues at European level.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Could he re-table the directive?

Mr. Allen: Can the Taoiseach arrange for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to answer questions submitted to him in this House? I tabled two questions in mid-November, and they have yet to be answered. I raised this matter as regards a previous question in November, to the effect that it had been submitted in August, and I did not get an answer until November. Under Dáil reform——

An Ceann Comhairle: There are other ways of getting information. The Deputy had the opportunity to submit these matters for the Adjournment Debate and he did not do it. I call on Deputy McManus.

[784]Mr. Allen: Is the Taoiseach bringing forward proposals as regards adequate Dáil reform to deal with issues such as that?

The Taoiseach: Many things could be done if there was co-operation.

Mr. Durkan: That cuts both ways. It is a two-way process.

Mr. Allen: It is a gross discourtesy to the Members of this House who put questions.

Mr. Rabbitte: The Deputy should get Deputy Finian McGrath to put them in for him.

Ms McManus: I am somewhat puzzled. I understood, because the Taoiseach has repeatedly stated, that the legislation relating to nursing home charges would be published before Christmas. It does not seem to have appeared yet. I am puzzled by that and wonder what is going on.

The Taoiseach: The legislation will be published this session. Practically every day I have to define what this session is. It runs until the start of the next session.

Ms McManus: This session finishes tomorrow.

The Taoiseach: It does not and that is the point.

Ms McManus: Does that mean we will get it on Christmas Eve?

The Taoiseach: In terms of legislation this session runs to the day before the next session starts. That is what happens all the time.

Ms McManus: I think that is being disingenuous. We were promised we would have it this year.

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot have a debate on this matter at this time.

Ms McManus: We were not promised we would have it in January.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has made her point.

Mr. Boyle: Will the Taoiseach say whether the Government intends to introduce legislation in the light of the major fire and explosion at Hemel Hempstead oil depot in the United Kingdom——

An Ceann Comhairle: Is legislation promised?

Mr. Boyle: ——as regards implementing the Seveso II EU directive on the safety of industrial installations?

[785]The Taoiseach: I will raise this matter with the Minister.

Normally at the close of business on the final day I have an opportunity to give Christmas greetings to the House, along with Opposition leaders. However, the European Council meeting starts tomorrow and I will not be in a position to do that. I would like to thank the Ceann Comhairle for all of his diligent work throughout the year and for the difficult job he has keeping order in the House. I do my best not to create too much disorder except when we are going over time. I thank the Superintendent, Captain, all the staff, including the administrative staff, ushers and service staff of the House and the press which reports all our activities throughout the year. I thank in particular all the Members of the House, and those I deal with every day, Deputies Enda Kenny, Pat Rabbitte, Trevor Sargent, Caoimghín Ó Caoláin, Joe Higgins and other members of the Technical Group, as well as our colleagues in the Upper House.

I wish everyone a happy Christmas. I hope people can have a restful period, unlike last year when the tragedies of the Tsunami broke on St. Stephen’s Day and turned the Christmas period into a time of international grief. We think of those people and we recall all the other tragedies during 2005. Unfortunately, it was a year when there were tragedies, though thankfully not in our own country. However, that does not alleviate our concern for all those people who experienced such enormous tragedies, many of whom are suffering this Christmas, mainly because of the climatic events that occurred throughout the course of 2005. I wish people a very happy Christmas. I hope people get a rest and spend it with their families. I extend my best wishes to all Members not in the House at this time.

Mr. Kenny: I, too, must take off my shoes at 6 a.m. tomorrow en route to the leaders of the EPP meeting in Brussels. It is opportune that we should express these sentiments now. I concur with the Taoiseach in expressing the thanks of the Fine Gael Party to the personnel of the House for their courtesy and diligence. The Captain was somewhat busier in the last few months than in previous times. I thank the members of the Fourth Estate, the press, for their activity and accuracy in reporting, the Garda for their attendance and all the Members. I, too, wish to be associated with this.

One matter concerns me. The Ceann Comhairle may not recall, but many years ago he said to me in the course of a dissertation about Leinster House, that one of the most important matters to be appreciated was the fact that one’s words were recorded forever for posterity. I am not sure whether there should be an investigation into this, but the Ceann Comhairle’s words approaching a mild expletive last week appear to have disappeared from the Official Report. The tape, broadcast to the nation, in clearly audible Cavan-[786]Monaghan terms, recalls what he said. Yet, somebody, somewhere, in the depths of the building, has had a slip. I am not sure whether he recalls his words to me on that matter or not.

To the Taoiseach, as leader of the Government, and the Tánaiste, it is our job to hold the Government to account, to expose the Government and its Ministers for failures to live up to their constitutional and ministerial duties and I hope we have tried to do that in the best way we can. For now I am happy to return the swords to their scabbards. I look forward to 2006 and hope, irrespective of what the political scene brings, for the good health of our democracy people understand and appreciate that a job has to be done in here for the political health of the nation, as it were. Whenever the Taoiseach raises the white flag or has it raised for him, I hope the people will all participate in making their choice. Finally, I wish a happy and holy Christmas to everybody and peace and good health to all mankind.

Mr. Rabbitte: I join with my colleagues in wishing the Ceann Comhairle and the staff of the House a happy Christmas. I extend our appreciation to all categories of staff for their diligent efforts throughout the year.

Like Deputy Kenny, I have wondered and indeed, had correspondence with the Ceann Comhairle’s office on a number of occasions in the past about the spoken word, as uttered in here and what actually appears in the Official Report. I have a very lengthy final definitive statement over the name of his predecessor, pointing out that the Official Report is only that — a report. It is not a verbatim record of what transpires in here. It is not a Hansard. From the point of view of archivists and future historians that is a great pity. Sometimes a form of linguistics is tried out in this House that the mother of all parliaments has never experienced. It is a pity that is not recorded as spoken.

I want to join in the seasonal good wishes to the Taoiseach. I was reading his latest interview in a magazine recently and I was very hurt when he suggested that I had, apparently, made some personal remarks about him. I never recall making any personal remarks about the Taoiseach. If he thinks I did I want to withdraw them. I sympathise with him when he says he has not got any newspaper group in the country supporting him. I understand that position and I hope that this, too, continues to be the case in the new year. Happy Christmas to everyone.

Mr. Boyle: I speak on behalf of my party leader and party colleagues. The party leader, unfortunately, had to attend a meeting of the surprisingly busy ethics committee. I wish to reiterate the Christmas greetings to the Ceann Comhairle and the staff of the House for the patience and fortitude that have been extended to Members during this session. When the House returns in 2006, it will undoubtedly be a somewhat more frayed [787]session, the voices will be higher and louder and tempers will become more frayed. However, that is the future and now is the time for expressing seasonal felicitations and wishing all Members a happy and peaceful season.

I extend those wishes to the staff such as the porters who facilitate the day-to-day running of the House. I look forward to returning to a different Dáil and perhaps a more exciting and useful Dáil in 2006.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I join other Deputies in wishing a Nollaig Shona to the Ceann Comhairle, the Taoiseach and members of the Government and the Government parties, the Opposition Deputies of all parties and none and the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas in all the various roles they perform. I acknowledge their courtesy and helpfulness at all times throughout the year, which is very much appreciated by all Members of the House.

I extend the same greeting to the members of the press, including those who seek only to denigrate and vilify this Deputy and my colleagues——

Mr. S. Power: The Deputy sounds like Alex Ferguson.

A Deputy: All is forgiven.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We are well used to it. Because this is a difficult day for so many people, I extend every blessing and comfort to those who today and over the period ahead suffer the loss of a loved one, such as so many families experienced yesterday on the roads of our country. I am sure for each and every one of us, knowing the centrality of family at Christmas time, I can only say that the great weight and great burden that so many will suffer over this Christmas period is hardly imaginable. We must be mindful of those at this time of the year.

Mr. McHugh: On behalf of the Independent Members of the Technical Group, I wish to be associated with the expressions of thanks to the various people and wish everybody the best for Christmas and the new year.

An Ceann Comhairle: On behalf of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Pattison, and myself, I thank the leaders for their comments. On the question raised by Deputy Kenny, that was a little tête-à-tête between myself and himself because the Chair also was indiscreet in saying “Enda” rather than Deputy Kenny and it was the first time the Chair said that. It was a little aside between the two of us.

Mr. Allen: In the immortal words of Father Jack.

[788]An Ceann Comhairle: I checked the term in the Oxford Dictionary of the Ulster dialect and I discovered it means a working community in County Donegal. I am not sure whether it applies to County Mayo.

On behalf of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and myself, I thank the Members for their co-operation. It has been a very busy year, both for the parliamentarians and the staff of the House. Apart from the business conducted in this Chamber, there have been over 525 committee meetings and by tomorrow evening, there will have been more than 43,000 parliamentary questions processed. This is a record for the House and is 5,000 more than in the past. I am glad to say that only 3.78% of questions have been disallowed, which is the smallest number in the past ten years.

Mr. Gallagher: The Ceann Comhairle’s largesse knows no bounds.

An Ceann Comhairle: I join the leaders in thanking the Clerk, the Clerk Assistant, the Superintendent, the Captain of the Guard, the ushers, all those we see around the building and all those we do not see because some of them are here and gone before we arrive in the morning. I thank all the staff who help to ensure that we have a very good functioning democracy. I thank the press, the Garda, the Army and those who are involved. I wish a very happy Christmas to all Members and staff. Members will be back here in early January to discuss legislation at committee meetings. In the meantime over Christmas, my advice is that they should take a break and enjoy themselves. Thank you.

Question again proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

Cecilia Keaveney: The current punishment does not fit the crime and increasing the level of the fine will neither add anything to the debate nor address the fundamental issue. I will state bluntly that a mechanism must be found to treat different breaches in different ways. For minor breaches, as in the penalty points system for traffic offences, there should be a choice between a type of on-the-spot fine which a person can pay or decide to fight the case in court. It is understood that if one admits the offence in the case of a traffic offence, one will receive a lighter sentence than if one unsuccessfully fights the system. A statutory instrument of 2003 exists for the imposition of administrative fines. If such an instrument exists for inland fisheries there should be an option to expand it. If administrative fines are imposed for motor offences why should those “driving” on our waters be different?

I refer to the current debate on the treatment of on-the-runs. Fishermen will be criminalised [789]which could, for instance, jeopardise a person’s access to the USA, while it is proposed that presidential pardons be given to people who may be regarded as having committed serious acts. If is not fair to criminalise fishermen.

One of the costs involved is the confiscation of gear and catch. This decision should not be regarded as automatic because the case is heard in the Circuit Court. Some level of discretion must be allowed. The Judiciary should be in a position to decide between the seriousness of one crime and another. The mandatory confiscation of gear provided for in the Bill will leave a judge hamstrung. The punishment should fit the crime.

I have an issue with the proposal in the Bill that a boat may be confiscated. I ask the Minister of State to confirm in what circumstances a boat may be confiscated and whether the offence is linked to the boat or the fisherman. It is obvious that if a warning is given to a boat owner and he decides to sell the boat, if the penalty is attached to the boat the value of the boat at the point of sale will be undermined. This may be a point to be reviewed. I would be interested to know if the Minister of State will table amendments on this point on Committee Stage.

I do not support blatant abuses of quotas. If fishermen cannot see that huge over-catches of a depleted stock will ensure less opportunities for themselves and their families into the future, this will be their loss sooner rather than later. Many people in my area wish to bring family members into the industry and they are therefore aware that depletion of the stock is not desirable.

I refer to section 14(3)(b) which is confusing as to the role of the buyer, handler, weigher and haulier. If a haulier transports fish that subsequently turns out to be illegal, he can be held responsible. While it may sound fine on paper to embrace all those who might collaborate in the breaking of a law, I wonder in practice how one can define whether a haulier was in a position to know that certain fish were over the quota or without a quota. Is this always to be a knowing breach?

In respect of sea-fisheries officers being given a special status, I question whether it is advisable to give one group of people immunity while denying it to other groups such as buyers, handlers, weighers and hauliers.

On the question of knowing one is over the quota, it is vital in the age of modern technology that a fisherman is communicated this message by electronic means. It is not good enough that a letter is sent out by post or delivered by hand to the fisherman’s residence or place of business, as proposed in section 13. Letters may be delayed or mislaid. An oral and-or hand delivered message is vital with the back-up of electronic means. If breaches of quota are to be treated so seriously the fishermen must be advised in a fair and comprehensive manner of their authorisation. The case I have in mind is that of the by-catch scenario which is part and parcel of the whitefish and [790]nephrops fisheries. Reports confirm that by the very act of trawling up to 80% of non-target species can be caught. To throw these dead fish into the sea would not be illegal but does not make sense. Recent reports in the UK seek to have the “discarding” policy reviewed and suggest the preference of landing the entire catch, in particular from the perspective of accurate catch data. Other Members have mentioned this.

The basic premise of my contribution today is that our fishermen are doing a difficult job in difficult conditions. Their families watch them leave for days and wonder if they will return. Last week we saw Wexford families grieve. I hope all those lost will be recovered. Greencastle knows that grief and the people of Donegal share it. We recently remembered those lost from the Carrickatine. Ten years on they have never been found.

The fisherman’s job gets more difficult as the fish stock dwindles. We all have a role to play in this area, none more so than fishermen. This Bill will not do the industry justice unless it amends the issues of concern. The concerns have been well rehearsed here. We must work towards the gradation of sanctions and new methods of administrative sanctions that decriminalise offences that are not comparable to what one would normally think of as criminal offences. We must yet, in differentiating between serious and minor crimes, enable those committing serious offences to be treated in a serious manner. Following this, we must link the confiscation of gear and catch to a punishment fitting the crime scenario.

We also need an alternative manner of dealing with the seafood control regulation, whether through an independent office or some such mechanism. I know some people worry about the creation of more independent offices with regard to accountability to the House. We are in a situation where if we put a question to the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, it will be referred to Fáilte Ireland. If we put a question to the Minister for Public Transport, we will be told it is the responsibility of the NRA and if we put a question to the Minister for Health and Children, we will be told it is the responsibility of the HSE. Therefore, I sometimes worry that we may create too many independent structures. One other change we need to make is to remove the threat of the use of guns, both in terms of firing at vessels and in terms of their presence on vessels. The main request made to me by fisherman is for a level playing pitch. They want to be on a comparable level to other nations and to have a future for their industry.

I would like the message to come clearly from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources that fishermen, like their Ministers, are presiding over a progressive industry with a future. The concept of control and management has been well aired and debated in many documents at which I have briefly glanced. [791]There are some things we can do in this age of technology to help the industry and we should put some options back on the table with regard to how to manage our fisheries and support our industry. These positive messages may yield more positive reaction from those at the heart of the industry and encourage them to use peer pressure on those who want to abuse and not use the potential of the sea.

Recently I read that in 2003, Denmark, Spain, the UK and France were amongst the highest offenders. On the other hand, in 2005, the UK was graded 19.5 out of 20 on the current implementation of the cod recovery programme, which aims to preserve stocks. The need to work with the industry to not only use its expertise, but also give fishermen days at sea to do constructive work in conservation or observation is clear and has positive potential. We need a proactive and collaborative approach that is grounded in science to kick off policy development that will manage fisheries as an ecosystem and not as a single focus on any individual species or any individual player in the marine sector.

I will digress slightly. Earlier this month I attended the British Irish Interparliamentary Body in Edinburgh. As part of Committee B, the committee dealing with European Affairs, I and others looked at the co-operation programme, specifically at the opportunities that lie ahead for co-operation between places like west Scotland and north east Donegal. Representatives from the Inishowen rural development Leader group, IRDL, and ICBAN attended. Continuing changes in the fisheries policy of 2003, which helped with the setting up of regional management bodies and gave control back to national governments for the area within the 12 mile zone, give a potential boost and offer the potential to do some co-operative fishery management, particularly as Inishowen Head to Islay is only 33 miles. If we work together on 24 of those 33 miles we could have some say on how that small section is managed properly. Perhaps this may expand into greater opportunities or have important results in terms of supporting that ecosystem.

Recently, we had a Private Members motion on global warming. It is worth putting on record that global warming is having an effect on our fishing stock. As the seas warm, the plankton stock that is vital for fish larvae survival is affected. Global warming also results in fish moving northwards. This is important information for future consequences. A cod used to live for 20 years, getting more successfully productive as it aged. The current rate of fishing ensures that cod are caught younger, usually by the age of six. This creates a hidden difficulty of ensuring that we cannot confidently predict how they will adapt to their new environment, namely their new climate or change in their supporting ecology. If fish are caught younger they do not get the extra years to enable them adapt to new circumstances. What [792]stock will we have left in a number of years if the global warming effect continues as it is? We must consider the ecosystem and not just blame the most convenient source, the fishermen.

The message is clear that future policy must be a co-operative venture for it to succeed. The comparison between the price of success and the price of failure is so great that the issues must be well thought through. This Bill, while necessary, needs to be amended. It also needs an associated positive focus on how to support our industry. We should not just figure how much harder we can make this most difficult job.

I welcome the fact that we have decided to take this Bill more slowly rather than put it through Report and Final Stages in the House this week. That would have been a terrible injustice to maritime interests around the country. I congratulate the Minister of State and the Minister for taking on board the issues we have raised and the points we have made. I ask that the Bill be given considerable time on Committee Stage. I know the Minister of State is anxious to address as many of the issues as is practicable. I hope the time given on Committee Stage will yield a better Bill.

Now that I have the opportunity, I will be parochial and wish the Minister of State well with the development of Greencastle harbour. People have invested in new boats, supported by this Government’s modernisation scheme, and it is great to see that people in the industry still have enthusiasm for it, despite the difficulties they face, both on and off the sea. There is to be a massive injection of infrastructure at Greencastle. Given the great support recently for marine infrastructure around the country, I know the Greencastle development will be a priority for the Minister of State.

I wish to raise two final issues. Are fishermen entitled to postal votes? Fish farmers currently have an exemption from payment on their stores or sheds for holding fishing gear. Should this be considered for fishermen also, not where they are working from commercial premises, but for sheds for storing gear? The Minister of State knows they are under many pressures.

I have aired the main concerns of the Bill. We want fairness and we want punishments that fit the crime. We also want the Department to look as positively at the future of the industry as do the fishermen.

Mr. Deenihan: I will share time with Deputy Ring. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I have listened to the various speakers on this issue over the past weeks and am fascinated by what has happened with regard to this Bill. As one who had the experience of introducing new legislation, when I was fortunate enough to be a junior Minister in the mid-1990s, I am amazed by what has happened with this Bill. The procedure has been quite extraordinary.

I remember that when I introduced legislation, it was new and without precedent. I had to go [793]through the procedures with two civil servants in the Department and with the draftsman. Every part of that Bill had to be considered. The heads were agreed by Government and the provisions were agreed by me and the Government. In this case, I find it extraordinary that speaker after speaker from the Government side has come into the House to criticise a Government Bill, which is entirely unprecedented. I do not know whether analysts are looking at this, but it would certainly be a very interesting exercise.

I have great admiration for the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, whom I have known since I became a Member. He has always been friendly to me, but the word is about — I do not know whether it is true and I do not believe everything I hear — that he is also against this Bill. That is even more extraordinary than the criticisms by other Members on the Government side.

Members are making one point in the House and a different point to the fishermen in their constituencies to keep them happy. In this case, it could be said the Government side of the House has expressed the view that it is not in favour of the Bill. I was amazed to hear the view of former Minister, Deputy Walsh, who introduced several Bills in the House. He is very familiar with how legislation is formed and is emphatically against this Bill. He made a major statement in this regard, which was taken up by the media, and he is one of the few people who were quoted in respect of the legislation. He took an extraordinarily hard stand against it. Politically, the Bill represents a major departure and a new way of doing business in this House. It represents a new type of opposition, by Members on the Government side, to legislation.

The Bill affords us an opportunity to consider fishing policy, of which there is need for a major review. Many reports are issued in this regard but they are sectoral and do not include a major debate. Various interest groups are not consulted and this is what results in sectoral reports. There is no doubt that there is great need for a major debate on issues such as conservation, life protection and fisheries development.

Let me refer to the issue of salmon stocks. I have spent all my life living near the River Feale in County Kerry, which flows right by my village, Finuge, and the town of Listowel. As a young person, I fished on that river, as did hundreds of fishermen, both locals and visitors. The river was a major source of wealth to the local economy, probably for 50 years, but now there are very few people fishing on it, for recreation or otherwise, because the stock level is simply too low. It is really important that major salmon initiatives are introduced. Deputy Perry will introduce a policy in this area in the new year.

I find it difficult to understand why the scientific advice on salmon stocks has been ignored consistently. This was the case even last year when the quota was set at a figure 40% higher [794]than that recommended. If that is not an effort to destroy the salmon stocks, I do not know what is.

The Maritime Institute of Ireland, the Central Fisheries Board, the relevant international agencies and the tourism boards have called for a change to the way in which salmon stocks are managed. The common factor in all scientific advice is the call for a decrease in the number who use commercial nets to fish for salmon.

I am the Fine Gael spokesman on tourism and in this capacity I note that the number of game angling tourists, who fished on the River Feale, drank in the local bar, the Angler’s Rest, and stayed in the Listowel Arms Hotel, has declined in recent years. In 1999, 54,000 game angling tourists came to Ireland, but this figure has reduced to 27,000 by this year. The contribution to GNP of salmon angling declined by 52% since 1986, that is, from €28.6 million to €13.6 million. This is a considerable decline in income for small rural communities, in whose localities the game angling rivers are generally located. The fall in numbers has led to the closure of facilities, including guesthouses, and a decline in the business of bars and restaurants. This is a major issue and it is simply not being addressed or fully understood.

I, like all my colleagues, oppose this Bill. It may have a few welcome aspects and in this regard I certainly welcome the section that enshrines in Irish law the part of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea extending Irish jurisdiction over the waters around our coasts.

On the issue of protection, we cannot have people drifting around the sea and plundering and pillaging our fish stocks with no thought for the common good, the need for sustainable exploitation rates and the need to maintain the quality and biodiversity of our marine environment. Although I agree with this I do not believe it can be achieved through this legislation. Although Committee Stage of the Bill is to be taken after Christmas, I advise strongly that it be withdrawn following consultation.

The urgency of this Bill has arisen from the two cases in Kerry that were taken to the Supreme Court. They occurred two years ago but the skies have not fallen in since then. There have been many prosecutions in the meantime and therefore I see no reason for this very tough approach.

I am from a coastal constituency with a large number of small and medium-sized fishing enterprises, including individuals. Fishing is very important to the fabric of life in a county such as Kerry, which has 300 miles of coastline. I am very conscious that the sanctions proposed in this Bill, if enacted, will be imposed on the smallest vessels in my area in addition to the largest ones. There will be as many small operators who will be affected as large operators.

The Minister contends it is constitutionally impossible to have in place a system of administrative sanctions as an alternative to purely criminal sanctions, the strength of which has been [795]increased in this Bill. My colleague Deputy Jim O’Keeffe referred to this in his contribution last week. Similar examples arise in respect of road traffic offences and I am sure that, in the case of sanctions, they cannot be referred to this Bill also.

I join Members of the European Parliament, Deputies on the Government side and Deputies on this side of the House, including Deputy Perry, in appealing to the Minister of State to withdraw the Bill and allow for the consultation demanded by many people. If he does so, we will, I hope, get the legislation right collectively.

1 o’clock

Mr. Ring: Christmas is approaching and I will not get angry today. The Minister of State, the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, its MEPs and all others in that party are telling the fishermen of this country that this is a bad Bill. There is no point in the Minister of State, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats blaming officials because officials do what they are told. The Bill is sponsored by the Minister of State who is responsible for marine affairs. I have listened carefully to fishermen throughout the country in this regard and know they are very unhappy. The Minister of State and Fianna Fáil Members and MEPs are also unhappy. There must be something very wrong when everybody is unhappy. When legislation goes through the House, somebody is usually happy with it but nobody is happy with this Bill. Even the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is against it.

Deputies Walsh and O’Donovan and others who have spoken against the Bill in the House should do the honourable thing and vote against it. There is no point saying one thing in a constituency and doing another in the House. If the legislation is wrong and not good for fishermen, and they know it is not good and are not happy with it, Members should vote against it.

My colleagues have appealed to the Minister to withdraw the Bill, which he should do. He should have further discussions with fishermen, the officials of his Department and officials in Europe and return to the House with another Bill which would meet the needs of the fishing community. The Minister of State has represented that community well over the years. He knows fishing is a difficult business and a difficult life. He and I know of the serious tragedy that occurred in recent weeks to fishermen trying to make a living.

We do not want two laws, one for our fishermen and another for European fishermen. The State has given away fishing rights to other European states. Super-boats are coming to Ireland, plundering all before them, yet nobody does anything about it. However, when a small fisherman in the west, Donegal or elsewhere steps outside the line, he is immediately lifted by the coastguard, taken in, charged by the fisheries boards and has his fish and nets seized. In addition to [796]being fined, fishermen will become criminals as a result of the Bill. A fisherman trying to work, make a living and raise his family is not a criminal. He is competing against the best boats in Europe as well as the rules and regulations which help the Europeans while crucifying our own fishermen. This must be stopped.

Legislation was rushed through the House last year only for it to be found unconstitutional in the courts last January. While the Bill before us may not be unconstitutional, it is not good legislation. I appeal to the Minister of State, who has represented a fishing community for many years, to withdraw the Bill. He should not guillotine it and force his colleagues to vote for it when they know it is wrong, as I and many MEPs know. The sanctions that will be taken against fishermen are not right. Instead of having to pay fines, they will be made criminals and will have a record for the rest of their lives because they fought for their livelihood and their rights and tried to make a living in difficult circumstances. The Minister should withdraw the legislation.

I have seen enough of the elected representatives in this House handing powers to State agencies, in particular the National Roads Authority and the Health Service Executive. When I put questions to Ministers, I am told they have no responsibility to the Dáil. We ask the people to vote every four or five years and to put their faith in the representatives they elect to this House, yet we hand over too many powers to outside agencies which are not accountable to anybody. We see this process at work in the Health Service Executive, local authorities and all State agencies. The Leader programme boards and community groups have more power than this House, which is seen as no more than a rubber stamp to provide jobs for the boys and girls in these agencies.

The introduction of seafood managers is another similar transfer and another negative aspect of the Bill. While it will create more big jobs, when the managers are asked to do something, they will say they have no power to do it, as is the case with the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs. When one writes to that body, one is told it is outside its power to act and that it cannot deal with the issue in question. It will be the same with seafood managers.

Seizing the boats, nets and catches of fishermen does not make sense. When European legislation is introduced, why is it that we go four times better and act more severely than every other European country? France and Italy simply ignore European legislation whereas we tackle the small guy. This is turning into a police state. This bad Bill should be withdrawn immediately.

Deputy Perry outlined the Fine Gael view on the Bill. He stated we will introduce the necessary amendments on Committee Stage to deal with the problem. However, the Bill should not reach Committee Stage and should be withdrawn immediately. We had strong Ministers in the past. If they did not agree with legislation, they did not [797]allow it to get through the Dáil. Strong Ministers were not afraid to vote against legislation when it was not right. I call on Fianna Fáil backbenchers who are speaking out of the sides of their mouths in the constituencies and at committee to do the right thing and vote against the Bill. It is bad legislation and will cause difficulty in the future for the Minister of State, me and every rural Deputy.

Fishing is a difficult business. Fishermen are trying to make a living but they are regulated to the extent that they are sick and tired of it. They are feeling the pinch because past Governments sold the fishing industry to get rights for the agricultural sector, which has also been taken away by European regulation. If Mr. Mandelson gets his way at the World Trade Organisation talks, nobody in this country will be fishing or farming. European visitors who want to use the west to have little sanctuaries for shooting will bring us back to the days of the landlord. We always complained about Britain but we are worse to our own people than any landlord ever was. At least when the landlord was here, we knew he was the landlord. Now, the State and its Ministers are the landlords. We saw a landlord in the House yesterday and know what happened in that regard.

I call on the Minister and Fianna Fáil backbenchers to withdraw this bad Bill which is neither wanted nor needed. Nobody called for it. If the Oireachtas and Irish MEPs do not want it, why is it before the House? The Minister of State should do the right thing. If he tells the Taoiseach he will resign if it is not withdrawn, he would be a hero to the fishing community. They would see him as the person who fought well for them. However, the fishing community sees Members as two-faced, having listened to Fianna Fáil Members say one thing and then another. The former Minister, Deputy Walsh, is a nice man and one I have always had time for. Listening to him last week, I thought he was a member of Fine Gael. He does not have to be a member of the party because all we ask him to do is vote with us today.

Mr. Healy-Rae: I wish to share time with Deputy Glennon.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Cowley): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Healy-Rae: Coming as I do from a rural and coastal community, I have tremendous respect for any group of people who work at building up an industry and who maintain viable communities as a result. In my experience the fishermen of Ireland have worked extremely hard and have succeeded in establishing the industry in spite of massive Government neglect through the years. There are many coastal towns and villages which would crumble completely if the fishing industry and the revenue it provides were taken out. I hope the fishing industry will con[798]tinue to develop and contribute to the economic well-being of the country.

When my attention was first drawn to this Bill, I was very surprised at the severity of the fines being proposed and the general approach being taken towards fishermen. It must be remembered that we are not discussing drug dealers or terrorists, but fishermen attempting to make a fair and credible living. This proposed Bill is totally unreasonable and over the top, penalising Irish fishermen far more than those from other European states. I am aware that across Europe, which in theory has a Common Fisheries Policy, the vast majority of fishery offences are dealt with differently than here. Irish fishermen already face the harshest penalties in Europe for fisheries offences. This has been reported in a number of debates in this House recently, and I do not need to quote facts and figures.

There has been a media campaign in the past few weeks claiming this Bill is required to avoid heavy fines from Europe. I cannot see the logic behind the increasing of fines to avoid European sanctions, when Irish fines are already the highest in Europe. This makes no sense to most, but it clearly does to some civil servants. This is a complete red herring and the European Commission does not support the introduction of heavier fines, but favours the use of administrative sanctions. Another justification for the Bill is the possibility of closing existing loopholes. I am in favour of this, but the addition of heavier fines and penalties for unrelated offences is completely unacceptable.

I have some questions for those in favour of this Bill in its current entirety, and who argue that it is required for the protection of the State and its fisheries. What actions are being taken to address the wholesale discarding of fish by fleet or factory trawlers off the Irish coast? These vessels are discarding more pelagic fish in a week than the majority of Irish vessels are landing in a year. If the powers that be are so interested in protecting our fish resources, why is this problem not being addressed?

It has been acknowledged in various European Commissions over the years that on top of having the highest fines, most Irish cases are heard in the Circuit Court, which results in the fisherman getting a criminal record and having an additional penalty of at least €10,000 and automatic confiscation of gear and catch. This provision for automatic confiscation of gear and catch applies only to Irish vessels. Those in charge of foreign vessels tried for the same offence will not face automatic confiscation of gear and catch.

This is despite foreign vessels fishing alongside Irish vessels and catching the majority of fish in Irish waters. The Government nonetheless appears determined to further penalise Irish fishermen by increasing the fines and penalties imposed. If this Bill goes through, the gap between the system here and in other member states will be wider than ever. I cannot under[799]stand why Irish fishermen are deserving of such special treatment. This is the same Government which showed its colours by downgrading the word “marine” three years ago. The same Government presides over the break-up of the Department into various ineffective sections. It would make one wonder whether the Government has an interest in the development of the Irish fishing industry.

This pattern is repeating over the years and is the reason the fishing industry finds itself under extreme pressure currently. This Government’s vision of our coastal community extends only as far as summer holiday houses for well-off city dwellers. At this rate, the summer will be the only time people will reside in these coastal towns and villages, or partake in traditional industries such as fishing. What plans are being introduced to combat the 7,000 km of illegal gillnets off the Irish coast? These nets are slaughtering small fish 24 hours per day and nothing is being done about it. Will this Bill address these major issues? I feel it will not. I am certain it will badly affect Irish fishermen, however.

Ireland’s fishing communities are under pressure from shrinking employment in traditional industries. I have serious reservations that this Bill, as proposed, has the potential to put fishing vessels large and small out of business. It will be another nail in the coffin of coastal communities. There must be a system which imposes sensible sanctions on those who commit fishery offences. A serious offence must receive a serious penalty. This Bill proposes sanctions that are completely unreasonable and unrelated to the European average. I have not seen its like since my election to this House.

I ask the Minister of State, for whom I have the greatest regard in the world, to consider this. As my colleague, Deputy Deenihan, already stated, I feel from the rumours circulating around from Dingle to Castletownbere that the Minister of State is not satisfied with the Bill. I appeal to the Minister of State to stand with the fishermen whom he knows very well and try to improve their lot, which is a bad one. I appeal to the Minister of State to look after these fisherman to the best of his ability.

Mr. Glennon: I thank Deputy Healy-Rae for sharing time. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, on his tremendous work over a long number of years in the area of sea fisheries. There is probably no other Deputy in the House as well qualified, or with the deep experience of the marine and fishing activities, as the Minister of State with regard to this issue.

When I mentioned to a person this morning that I would speak on this Bill, an eyebrow was raised. I was asked how a Dublin Deputy would have an opinion on marine matters. This relates to my interest in agricultural matters. My con[800]stituency of Dublin North has traditionally had the horticultural and mariculture industries as the twin pillars of its economy. The horticultural industry is doing quite well in difficult circumstances, but the same cannot be said about the fishing industry.

Within a few miles of my home there are the harbours and fishing ports of Balbriggan, Skerries and Loughshinny. Unfortunately I have seen in my lifetime the gradual decline of these harbours to bases for leisure activity rather than commercial activity. Growing up in Skerries in the 1960s there were ten boats fishing daily from the local harbour. In the late 1960s the pier was extended and doubled in size, and the fleet doubled in size. Over the next 20 years there were approximately 20 larger boats fishing out of Skerries. It is sad to report that there are currently only five boats fishing out of Skerries.

Balbriggan has dwindled somewhat also, although not to the same extent. There is a small amount of lobster fishing being done out of Loughshinny. It is sad that the Irish Sea has been over-fished to the point that it is almost cleaned out. The experience of the ports in my area is replicated along the coast from Kilkeel to Arklow. Some attribute this to over-regulation, others to under-regulation, while the more astute say it is due to abuse of regulation.

We all agree that the fishing industry was the victim of the State’s accession negotiations to the then EEC, and it has had a bad time since. It was the poor relation of agriculture at the time of those negotiations in the early 1970s and remains so. It is overrun by foreign craft fishing with little regard for regulation or chance of detection. Our fishing industry has been the victim of bureaucracy for 30 years. My colleagues and I have received comments from fishermen around the country who see themselves as victims again in respect of this Bill.

I was interested to listen to many of my colleagues, whose knowledge of the marine is highly respected, debate this issue on 24 November. In particular, Deputy O’Donovan read into the record a letter from a solicitor whom he did not know. It stated:

I do a lot of work for people in the Marine business around the coast, and I have had a couple of recent cases of representing individuals under the fisheries Acts. In fact this morning, I was in the Circuit Criminal Court [where serious crimes relating to drugs, rape and violent crime against the person are dealt with, and fishermen are brought in there] representing a young fisherman whose offence was that he had not filled in the Log Book [a technical offence]. At the trial, evidence was given of extenuating circumstances — bad weather, mechanical breakdown, and there was no suggestion that he was to profit in any way for his administrative lapse.

[801]

Notwithstanding all of that, penalties in the amount of €40,000 were imposed, comprising of a fine of €10,000, forfeiture of the catch and the gear, and in addition the client was at the loss of fishing when his boat was tied up, and also the cost of legal fees...

Legal fees for the defence amounted to €40,000 for a technical offence from which he did not profit. There is something very badly wrong with a system that penalises a man doing his daily work in the difficult circumstances that fishing presents, amounting to a total cost of €80,000.

The point was made that, according to EU records and standards, 86% of all EU fisheries offences are dealt with by way of administrative sanctions. There is a dispute as to whether there is a constitutional impediment in this country to changing our laws to facilitate dealing administratively with these issues.

I appreciate the Minister of State’s undertaking to pursue this matter at European level, although it cannot be accommodated in the Bill now. I urge him to proceed swiftly and diligently to deal with this anomaly, which is highly inequitable, at EU level. This appears to be the only answer. When legal opinion conflicts we must abide by that of the Attorney General.

While the levels of fines being introduced are maximum limits, there is something wrong with a system whereby existing fines are increased in some instances by up to 800%, which is out of kilter with the earnings of Irish fishermen. The fines appear to be introduced to deal with the factory ships of Europe, of which we have one or two. Most of our fishermen, however, are not in the factory ship business. There must be some way of linking fines to a vessel’s tonnage and capacity.

The fines and detection rates among some of our EU colleagues smell of something badly wrong. In addition, while respecting the independence of the Judiciary, we must devise some system whereby the Judiciary is aware of the political reality and the reality on the ground. This is true not just of fines but of sentencing, which is regularly mentioned in the House. The practice of imposing different penalties on different walks of life, for various breaches of the law is severely criticised inside and outside the House.

Referring to the point raised in the letter to Deputy O’Donovan, I fail to understand why a man who was guilty of a mere technical offence in respect of his log book, in the extenuating circumstances of bad weather and mechanical breakdown, had to pay €80,000 to return to sea. This penalty is disproportionate to the potential profit of an expedition and in that instance the fisherman would not profit financially from his lapse. No other matters, such as previous convictions, were brought before the court. It is incredible that such a penalty is imposed on a man going about his business.

[802]I shudder to think of the effect such a penalty would have on the farming lobby. There would be marches outside the door of the House. The farmers would rightly be camped outside the gate complaining, but because the fishermen are based off-shore, in such small and unfortunately ever-dwindling numbers, they do not have that capacity.

Deputy Deenihan seemed somewhat surprised at the attitude of Fianna Fáil backbenchers to this legislation. They have demonstrated a great exercise in parliamentary democracy. As a result of the debate within party rooms and in this Chamber, the Minister of State has undertaken significant changes which will be introduced on Committee Stage.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

35. Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps he has taken to ensure no Irish facility has been used for the covert transfer of detainees or prisoners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39434/05]

36. Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government’s view on whether the concept of extraordinary rendition is an acceptable and lawful tool of implementation for the international campaign against terrorism. [39340/05]

37. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the assurances given to the Government by the US Administration regarding extraordinary renditions of prisoners and possible involvement of Irish airports in the transit of these prisoners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39681/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 35 to 37, inclusive, together.

The Government is completely opposed to the practice of so-called “extraordinary rendition”, whereby prisoners are transported from one jurisdiction to another contrary to international law and without recourse to the normal judicial checks and balances that attend the legitimate transfer of prisoners. That such a practice might have the aim of delivering a prisoner to a jurisdiction in which he or she might be tortured, or otherwise ill-treated, is disturbing and objectionable. The Government has not and will not per[803]mit any flight engaged in extraordinary rendition to pass through an Irish airport or through Irish or Irish-controlled airspace.

Deputies will be aware from my replies to previous parliamentary questions on this subject, most recently Parliamentary Question No. 151 of 8 December 2005, the United States has given Ireland repeated, clear and explicit assurances that no prisoners have been transferred through Irish airports, nor would they be, without our permission. These assurances were confirmed by the US Secretary of State, Ms Rice, at our meeting on 1 December. Suggestions have been made that these assurances may be qualified in some way by the definition of torture as applied by the US Government. The assurances we have received have contained no reference to the purposes for which any prisoners might be transferred which could be used to limit the broad scope of those assurances. In the wider European context, they are of particular clarity and completeness.

I have no reason to believe Irish airports have been used in the manner described by the Deputies. None of the allegations made about the passage through Irish airports of aeroplanes, supposedly involved in extraordinary rendition, has included any concrete or specific claim of this type.

In light of the absolute assurances received, the Government will continue to follow the long-standing practice whereby details supplied to the Department of Foreign Affairs in this area by the US authorities are accepted in good faith as being accurate. Should it ever emerge that, contrary to our firm belief, our airports or airspace have been used for the purpose of extraordinary rendition, the Government would take the gravest possible view of the matter.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister agree there is serious disquiet, not only in Ireland, but in the EU, at the possibility of the existence of Guantanamo Bay type detention centres within the European Union? The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has also expressed its concerns; so much so, is the Minister aware it has invited the US ambassador to come before it? I ask the Minister to use his good offices with the ambassador to get an agreement from him to appear before the committee to provide some explanations.

If detention centres exist in the European Union, then they are in violation of the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Articles 6 and 7 of the Nice Treaty, member states housing such detention centres could have their voting rights within the Union withdrawn. Will the Minister make Ireland’s views on this known to his EU counterparts?

Ms Rice, on her recent visit to Europe, said that some European countries had enjoyed the services of US intelligence agencies arising from US dealings with prisoners from Iraq. Has Ireland [804]enjoyed these services in security and the prevention of terrorism matters?

Mr. D. Ahern: As Minister for Foreign Affairs, I would not normally be aware of any matters relating to the last question. Ms Rice, in her discussions with me, made it clear that intelligence agencies across the world share information in the fight against terrorism. The US and other states expect that co-operation.

This question relates to flights while another relates to detention centres in Europe. The Government shares the concerns of the wider public in this regard. It is as a result of both the Ireland and Finland raising the issue at a recent EU meeting that Mr. Jack Straw, wrote on behalf of the EU to the US in advance of Ms Rice’s visit to Europe. The issues of centres, so-called “black sites” and rendition and that European soil would not be used by the US for such purposes was raised at this level.

It is entirely a matter for the US ambassador to decide whether he should attend the committee. I had discussions with the ambassador before I travelled to the US to meet Ms Rice. I have had many other discussions with him and his officials previously on these issues.

Ireland was one of the first states, if not the very first, to raise the issue of extraordinary rendition when we became aware of it in the media. We decided to do this to assure ourselves and the public that this was not happening on our soil or in our airspace. Categoric assurances, without qualification, on the issue of extraordinary rendition and on torture have been given, which were confirmed by the US Secretary of State, Ms Rice, on my recent visit to the States. I raise the issue at every available fora. The EU undertook to raise the matter formally with the US as a result of Ireland and Finland raising the matter at EU level.

Mr. M. Higgins: The aeroplane in question is a Gulfstream V, registered N8068V, and also registered under two separate enumerations, N379P and N44982, of which the Minister is aware. This ’plane landed at Shannon Airport several times. It has been proved to be involved in, what has been admitted by the US Secretary of State, Ms Rice, as an abduction by mistake, extraordinary rendition if one likes, of Khaled el-Masri. He is now taking a case in the US Federal Courts concerning his illegal and improper abduction. If the aeroplane was not involved in rendition, then is it not the action of a friendly country to explain what it was doing in Shannon Airport on the several occasions it landed?

On the Minister’s comments on secret interrogations taking place, the Polish Government has changed its position and is holding an official inquiry into the possible presence of such interrogation systems within its jurisdiction. It is important to place on the record that when the [805]Minister receives an assurance on torture, there is a real difficulty——

Mr. D. Ahern: No. I received an assurance on rendition, on any account and unqualified.

Mr. M. Higgins: I welcome the Minister’s statement on the Government’s position on rendition. The UN Convention Against Torture defines it as severe physical or mental pain or suffering and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. However, after the attacks of September 2001 the Justice Department in the United States narrowed the definition of torture to the infliction of pain comparable to “organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death”. This is a fundamental change in the definition. While the debate on whether the McCain Bill in the United States will be fully implemented is for another day, an assurance must cover the full scope of the United Nations convention.

This issue rolls back on to the question of rendition. Regarding the assurance the Minister obtained, is he satisfied the Government is in compliance with three levels of convention, namely, the United Nations Convention against Torture, the Council of Europe’s convention on torture and the European Union’s statements on the matter, to which the Minister referred? Is he confident about the assurance he received given the absence of inspections and the fact that the story has changed radically on several occasions? Members of the public seek random, regular inspections of the flights in question to ensure compliance with something stronger than the simple assurance the Minister secured.

Mr. D. Ahern: The Deputy cites a number of conventions. The European Court of Human Rights has determined that there must be substantial proof of a real risk of a breach of rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. To date, despite media speculation, we have no substantial grounds in that respect. I do not rely only on the assurances I received but also on other sources, including Human Rights Watch which recently indicated it would be unlikely for the flights in question to pass through major civilian airports. In its submission, that organisation referred to a number of airports but not Shannon Airport.

I answered questions in the House on suggestions made in the media that Martin Scheinin, the United Nations rapporteur on human rights, had received reports or complaints. When officials from my Department contacted his office, they were informed Professor Scheinin had not received complaints and the only contact made with his office from Ireland had been from journalists inquiring whether he had received complaints. Professor Scheinin was in Ireland just last week and did not provide any information regarding an investigation by him.

[806]I cite comments made by Dr. Tom Clonan, an expert on defence matters who frequently appears on RTE, during a recent interview on “Today with Pat Kenny”. Referring to his visit to Guantanamo Bay, Dr. Clonan indicated that he had asked, off the record, whether any new detainees had arrived in Guantanamo and if they had travelled through Shannon Airport. He stated: “To be honest with you the informal, off-the-record view, in so much as I can accept it, is that the CIA would not actually use Shannon for the transit of cargo”. He added that the CIA would be more likely to use secure military bases.

I reiterate my central point that it is long-standing practice to accept categoric, unqualified assurances of a friendly government, irrespective in this case of what was said subsequently during Condoleezza Rice’s visit to Europe. Ms Rice stated that torture is torture no matter where it is committed and there are not two standards of torture as far as the US Administration is concerned.

Another parliamentary question submitted to me concerns undocumented Irish people in the United States, an issue which exercises most Deputies. I must negotiate with President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and all the leading Congressmen and politicians in the United States on this issue. Will I negotiate with them on this or any other issue relevant to US-Irish relations while, at the same time, indicating that we regard the assurances given by the US Government on Shannon Airport as misleading? It beggars belief that we would go behind the back of the US when we have a special relationship with it which we want to continue.

Mr. M. Higgins: Without wishing to confuse the issue, Senator McCain, who is involved in helping undocumented Irish people in the United States, suffered torture and is anxious to ensure it is never practised at home or abroad on behalf of the United States. I put it to the Minister that the aeroplane which abducted Khalid al-Masri flew from Kabul to Shannon Airport on 17 December 2003 and from Shannon to Kabul on 13 August 2004.

Complaints have been registered in Shannon Airport. Is it not the case that the Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated that he will define Garda actions with regard to any suggestions about improper use of flights through Shannon? Is this not a factor?

On the issue of negotiating with the United States, while I accept the US is a friendly nation, what is wrong with random inspections if it has nothing to hide? It is not correct that this is a long-standing practice. The civilian aircraft involved are leased under commercial contract but are in fact leased by the CIA. There is no precedent for rendition practised through such aeroplanes and flights.

[807]Mr. D. Ahern: The information available to me indicates that such CIA flights have been taking place for a long time, certainly the past 50 years during which various political parties have been in Government here. Having received categoric assurances which a number of other European countries have been unable to secure on this issue, we cannot go behind them. If we were to do so, it would be regarded as unfriendly. I accept there is public disquiet on this matter but the Government has made clear its position. If evidence is found, it will be a matter for the Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Government cannot order the Garda Síochána to investigate.

Mr. M. Higgins: It is also a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Mr. D. Ahern: The Minister cannot order investigations which are entirely a matter for the DPP and the Garda.

Mr. M. Higgins: What would be the position if the DPP were to be found to be obstructing an investigation?

Mr. D. Ahern: While I share the concerns of citizens on this matter, I repeat the central point that unless and until there are substantial grounds as defined by the European Court of Human Rights, no investigation can take place.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Before I call Deputy Boyle, I should point out that on Question No. 37, Deputy Gormley, who submitted it, gave prior notice of his absence to the Office of the Ceann Comhairle and asked that Deputy Boyle substitute for him. As prior notice has been given, I call Deputy Boyle.

Mr. Boyle: I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Deputy Gormley is indisposed. The Minister appears to have gone further today in his acceptance of US denials on the practice of rendition. Previously he stated publicly that a statement by the United States Government that rendition is not taking place would be sufficient. He appears also to have indicated that the US Government’s definition of torture —“torture is torture is torture”— is acceptable to him. It has already been documented that the prisoners held without status in Guantanamo Bay are subject to isolation, deprivation and hooding, practices not regarded under any common definition of human rights as anything other than torture. If the Minister’s definition coincides with that of the US Administration, the Government is in a difficult moral position.

I will go further. Does the Minister believe that the current US Administration has not at any time misled or given false information to the Government? During the current conflict in Iraq [808]the US Government has been seen to do nothing but mislead the entire world on its objectives.

On the specific questions on the transit of particular aeroplanes associated with the practice of rendition which have been readily identified in airports throughout the world, will the Minister comment specifically on reports in the Swedish press concerning the abduction of two Egyptian citizens, Ahmed Agiza and Muhammed Al Zery, on an aeroplane bearing the number N379P, subsequently identified as having stopped in Shannon Airport? Did the Minister and his Department become aware of these reports in Sweden? Did they make contact with the Swedish Government? Did the Minister discover whether any definition of flight paths coincided with Sweden and Ireland on that day?

Can the Minister explain why, of the 50 flights that have been identified by the Federal Aviation Authority in the United States as having arrived in Shannon, only 35 are recorded as having left? Does that mean there was a practice of secret flights coming in and out of Shannon? Is the Government aware of this and is it colluding in the practice of secret flights using Shannon? Is the Minister aware of the action being taken by the secretary general of the Council of Europe in invoking Article 52 of the council’s human rights charter for only the eighth time in its history to investigate these allegations in several European countries?

Why is it that the Minister continues to believe that somehow Ireland is different and indifferent to what is happening in this situation? The opinion of New York University’s college of law would seem to indicate that foreknowledge of——

Mr. M. Higgins: Yes.

Mr. Boyle: ——and reluctance to become involved in asking questions and making inspections of flights puts this country in danger of being seen to collude in the practice of rendition because of our willingness to accept on face value the words of people and administrations that have shown themselves not to be credible on any of these issues.

Mr. D. Ahern: On the last point, New York University prepared a study for the House of Commons which made quite clear that actual knowledge would be part of a state’s assisting the issue of rendition. This State has no knowledge of these activities.

The Deputy referred to a so-called discrepancy. Yesterday, the Minister for Transport answered a question from Deputy Gormley about the particular planes that were identified as having passed through Shannon, stating that 43 of them had landed and 43 had taken off. Therefore there was no discrepancy in that regard. These are civilian aircraft out of approximately 9,000 civilian aircraft that landed in Shannon during that period.

[809]Mr. Boyle: These are American statistics from the Federal Aviation Authority in Washington.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We are running out of time for this question.

Mr. M. Higgins: They are called pressure flights.

Mr. D. Ahern: We can only relate to the statistics that we have for Shannon which were provided in the parliamentary question yesterday.

Mr. Boyle: Basically, we know what we want to know.

Mr. D. Ahern: What was the other issue the Deputy asked about?

Mr. Boyle: I asked specifically about what has been reported in the Swedish media concerning the abduction of two Egyptian citizens and the flight number of a plane that was identified as having landed in Shannon. What efforts have been made by the Government to contact the Swedish Government about these reports?

Mr. D. Ahern: At EU level generally we have raised the issue of abducting people and we have made it quite clear that we have not accepted it and do not or will not accept it. We will investigate any hard evidence that is brought to us, but to date no such evidence has been brought to us concerning the use of Shannon in any shape or form.

Mr. Boyle: What about the flight numbers?

Mr. D. Ahern: Unless and until that hard evidence is brought to us, we cannot investigate it. The Government is adamant that if it does get that hard evidence, it will be investigated and we will take serious action on foot of it.

Mr. Boyle: The third question was about the Council of Europe.

Mr. D. Ahern: We have answered the question from the Council of Europe and we will co-operate fully with any investigation. We will answer the questionnaire that has been submitted. It will be done on the previously stated basis.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I will allow a brief supplementary.

Mr. Allen: Has the Minister made it clear to his EU colleagues that if secret detention centres are detected within the European Union, Articles 6 and 7 of the Nice treaty will be invoked, and that any country hosting such detention centres will have their voting rights withdrawn?

Mr. M. Higgins: Suspended.

[810]Mr. D. Ahern: We will have to cross that bridge when we come to it, but if there are black sites on EU soil, obviously the EU would have to consider seriously what action to take. We would be one of the first member states to raise this issue if there were proof of such sites.

38. Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of senior development staff volunteering to decentralise with Development Co-operation Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39435/05]

Mr. D. Ahern: Under the Government’s decentralisation programme, the development co-operation directorate of the Department of Foreign Affairs, currently based in Dublin, is scheduled to decentralise to Limerick in the first quarter of 2007. There are 123 posts attached to the directorate at headquarters, of which 24 are specialist posts, with three of these being designated as principal development specialists. No applications through the central applications facility, CAF, have been received for these three posts so far.

On the other hand, a combined total of eight senior development specialists and development specialists currently serving in the directorate have applied through the CAF for the 21 posts at these levels which are being decentralised to Limerick. In addition, four development specialists have been recruited since the announcement of the decentralisation programme.

In summary, therefore, arrangements are in place to fill 12 of the 24 specialist posts. It would be my hope that a greater number of specialists will volunteer to decentralise to Limerick as the date for the decentralisation of the directorate draws nearer.

Mr. Allen: The Minister said that the date for decentralisation is drawing near, but has a property been identified yet to house Development Co-operation Ireland, DCI? How does the Minister propose to deal with staff who will not transfer to Limerick and where will they be accommodated within the service? Does the Minister agree that in view of the substantial increase in overseas development aid, there is a serious danger of the intellectual memory of DCI being fatally damaged by this ill-planned decentralisation fiasco? Have any more senior specialists indicated their willingness to move since the Minister’s junior colleague last dealt with these questions approximately a month ago?

Mr. D. Ahern: There has been some media comment about the issue of the DCD transferring or decentralising to Limerick. Unfortunately, the references in the media are incorrect. The number of people wishing to decentralise is much higher than was reported. Some 46 people from within the Department——

[811]Mr. Allen: Within the Department, but not DCI.

Mr. D. Ahern: From within the Department.

Mr. Allen: That is a different matter.

Mr. D. Ahern: Yes, from within the Department, but——

Mr. Allen: My question concerned staff from within DCI.

Mr. D. Ahern: Many people within the Department have served abroad on overseas development aid issues. Out of 123 posts to be decentralised, however, 28 so far in the directorate, including that of the director general himself, are being filled by people who wish to decentralise. A further 18 officers serving elsewhere in the Department, mostly abroad on aid missions, have also expressed an interest in going to Limerick. A further 18 will join the directorate from other Departments via the CAF in January and February.

There has been a great deal of nonsense about this and I am surprised that someone like the Deputy, who is from outside Dublin, would be against decentralisation.

Mr. Allen: I am not against decentralisation. That is misrepresentation.

Mr. D. Ahern: That is typical of the Deputy’s party.

Mr. Allen: The Minister cannot answer the question.

Mr. D. Ahern: He says one thing up here, but when he goes back home to Cork, he says something different.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister answer the question?

Mr. D. Ahern: At a recent conference in Dublin——

Mr. Allen: Does he even have a property?

Mr. D. Ahern: I just want to illustrate——

Mr. Allen: Does he have a property?

Mr. D. Ahern: ——the whole concept of——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Minister without interruption.

Mr. Allen: The Minister should answer the question.

Mr. D. Ahern: Yes, there is a property.

Mr. Allen: Has it been purchased?

[812]Mr. D. Ahern: It will be leased.

Mr. Allen: Has it been leased?

Mr. D. Ahern: Yes. They are in negotiations with the people involved.

Mr. Allen: It has not been leased. The Minister knows that.

Mr. D. Ahern: We now have an identifiable property.

Mr. Allen: It has not been leased.

3 o’clock

Mr. D. Ahern: Now that we have the property, many more people will be willing to relocate to Limerick. The concept of DCI or the DCD going to Limerick is important. At a conference in Dublin some months ago, Mr. Richard Manning, who was the chair of the development assistance committee of the OECD, was asked this very question as to his attitude to the proposal to decentralise to Limerick. His reply was very interesting.

He said, regarding decentralisation, that he was reluctant to get involved in a local issue. However, he wished to relate a story from the UK. In 1991, his organisation had set up an office in Bangladesh to run its programme there. To make it financially possible — he was the director for Asia at the time — he moved all staff in London who dealt with Bangladesh to that country. Parliamentary questions regarding the Bangladesh programme were dealt with by the unit in Dhaka, and it worked very well.

He went on to say that he personally believed that with modern technology and plenty of coming and going, almost any situation was possible. He said that what we faced in Ireland was a transitional problem of how we wanted to get there. There was clearly an issue for staff used to living in a particular part of the country who did not want to move. They had the same problem in the UK when they set up an office in Scotland.

Deputy Allen wants me to stop, but the truth is sometimes bitter.

Mr. Allen: Not at all. The Minister is filibustering now.

Mr. D. Ahern: He thought that we needed to distinguish the very real problems and need for flexibility in the short term from the ability of any country to set up a world-class office anywhere at once these days.

Mr. Allen: The Minister is obviously filibustering. I asked specific questions.

Mr. D. Ahern: I am delivering the truth.

Mr. Allen: Of the seven senior specialist positions in DCI at present, how many people have indicated that they would like to be decentralised [813]to Limerick? Will the Minister agree that no property has been bought or leased in the area for decentralisation?

Mr. D. Ahern: No, the Deputy is wrong. I am not aware of whether the money has been transferred, but it has identified, and to all intents and purposes acquired, a property.

Mr. Allen: Has the Minister had any recent discussions with non-governmental organisations regarding this fiasco? Will he publish the most recent risk assessment conducted of decentralisation? The Minister should not use the trick of pretending that I am against decentralisation. I am in favour or well thought-out and well planned decentralisation, but the madcap idea that he has presented to us regarding DCI is totally unacceptable and will severely damage the delivery and effectiveness of the overseas development aid programme.

Mr. D. Ahern: I recall the famous case of Knock Airport, completely opposed by Deputy Allen’s party, which said that it was on top of a boggy mountain. Today it is a great success, and they must answer to the people of Knock in that regard.

Mr. Allen: The Minister should answer the question put to him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Let us proceed to Question No. 39.

Mr. D. Ahern: I believe that no one is indispensable, and it is possible to run an organisation——

Mr. Allen: How many of the seven specialists——

Mr. D. Ahern: ——in Limerick, just as it is in Dublin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Let us proceed to Question No. 39.

Mr. D. Ahern: That is where the Deputy and I differ. It is the case that, regarding the senior management team, none of the existing people has applied. However, there are ten principal officers from elsewhere in the public and Civil Service who are willing, meaning that there is plenty of scope. This will probably be one of the success stories, since we have now acquired a building, and a high proportion of people are interested in going to Limerick.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Let us proceed to Question No. 39.

Mr. Allen: What about the risk assessment report? Has an up-to-date survey been conducted?

[814]An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Chair has called Question No. 39.

Mr. D. Ahern: That is also an issue on which I will get back to the Deputy. I am not aware of that.

39. Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the basis used for his expression of concern to the US Embassy at the use of white phosphorus in Iraq; the adequacy of the response which he received on foot of this communication; the position on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39341/05]

Mr. D. Ahern: The Government strongly opposes any use of chemical weapons, which is of course contrary to international law. We likewise strongly oppose the use of any conventional weapons in a manner contrary to international law.

My concern on the issue was aroused by several media reports last month which alleged that weapons banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention, CWC, had been used by US forces in Iraq in the attack on Falluja in November 2004, and that it had led to many civilian casualties. At the same time, it was reported that the US authorities had admitted that information previously given to journalists regarding the use of white phosphorus had not been accurate. It was against that background that I asked my Department to seek clarification from the US Embassy in Dublin to ascertain the actual position.

The embassy confirmed that US forces had used white phosphorus munitions in Iraq, both to create smokescreens and as incendiary weapons against defended positions. It said that the US characterises white phosphorus as a conventional munition and a standard part of its arsenal.

A spokesperson for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW, which implements the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, was quoted in media reports as suggesting that the weapons concerned were not prohibited by the convention. The Government then sought clarification direct from the OPCW. The response was that white phosphorus is regarded as an incendiary weapon and that since incendiary weapons achieve their intended effect through the release of thermal energy, or heat, they would not fall within the scope of the Chemical Weapons Convention. While that clarifies the international legal position on the status of white phosphorus, it does not, of course, alleviate concerns about the use of conventional munitions, including white phosphorus, in areas where civilians are present.

As a conventional weapon, white phosphorus falls under the Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, more [815]commonly known as the CCW Convention, which came into force in 1983. Protocol III of that convention deals directly with prohibitions and restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons.

That protocol prohibits in all circumstances making the civilian population the object of attack by incendiary weapons. It also prohibits making any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of an attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

With regard to the delivery of such weapons by ground forces, there is a requirement that such a military objective be clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and that all feasible precautions be taken to avoid or minimise the incidental loss of civilian life.

While the US has signed the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, it is not party to Protocol III of the convention. However, the US Embassy, in confirming that white phosphorous was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants, has stated that suggestions that civilians have been targeted with these weapons are wrong. The embassy has also stated that US forces in Iraq go to extreme lengths to ensure that everything possible is done to ensure that civilians are not put in harm’s way during their operations.

The Government has clearly and consistently expressed the view, before, during and after the events in Falluja, that every possible effort must be made to keep to a minimum the use of force in built-up areas, and to avoid civilian casualties. I believe all of us in the House are deeply concerned about the events there. The Government of Iraq has announced that it is sending a team to Falluja to investigate the circumstances in which incendiaries were used in that battle. We look forward to the outcome of that investigation.

Mr. M. Higgins: My question did not confine itself to the convention banning the use of chemical weapons. White phosphorous is an incendiary weapon. As the Minister pointed out, under Article 2 of Protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons it is specifically banned in areas where there are civilians. The basis for my tabling this question was the suggestion in the first instance that it had been used simply for illumination and then that it had been used against military combatants. In neither of those early statements was reference made to the fact that it had been used adjacent to civilians.

Frankly, it is extremely clear that it is not correct to say that white phosphorous never falls within the Chemical Weapons Convention. By definition, if white phosphorous is used against civilians or close to them, it falls within the convention’s ambit. In other words, it depends on the [816]manner of its use. Regarding how it was used, we got a straightforward denial followed by a qualified statement that it had been used for illumination. Then came a suggestion that it had been used for military purposes, and we had a string of denials that it had been used in Falluja, a town of 300,000 people where no effort had been made to ensure that the civilian population would not be affected. That is the reason for my question. It is incredible to think that white phosphorous, which burns on a person’s skin and continues to burn, and which can be released into wounds and so forth, should have been used in such conditions in a civilian area.

If that is the kind of statement that we get on white phosphorous in Iraq, how can the Minister unconditionally accept such assurances as he receives on other matters?

Mr. D. Ahern: We raised with the OPCW the definition of white phosphorous and whether it was a chemical weapon. It confirmed that it was not since it did not fall within that convention’s ambit. However, at the same time, I fully empathise with the Deputy’s view regarding the use of such weapons in circumstances where civilians are involved. We raised this issue with the US Embassy. There were media reports on the issue and the embassy confirmed that, while it had been used, that was against enemy combatants. They said that any suggestion that it had been used against civilians was completely wrong.

Mr. M. Higgins: Does the Minister believe them?

Mr. D. Ahern: I go on to say that they stated that forces in Iraq went to extreme lengths to ensure that everything possible was done to keep civilians out of harm’s way. Regarding Falluja, I believe that there were in the region of 300,000 there.

Mr. M. Higgins: Yes.

Mr. D. Ahern: After appeals to the civilian population to leave the area, approximately 30,000 people remained. It raises concerns regarding this issue, but when we first became aware of the use of phosphorous and the way in which it was used, we raised those issues with the US Embassy.

Mr. M. Higgins: I appreciate the Minister raising it with the United States embassy but I also asked about the degree to which he is satisfied with the response and where we go from here on this issue. Apart from the convention banning the use of chemical weapons, there are clear breaches of international law, including breaches of the protocol to the Geneva Convention regarding the protection of civilians. Will the Department follow up that matter? In regard to Protocol III of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain [817]Weapons, which is a more general convention, it is frankly unacceptable that one can say there were 300,000 civilians, we asked them to leave, 30,000 remained and therefore we broke international law straightforwardly in using these horrific weapons against a population that was overwhelmingly civilian. The final part of my question concerned the satisfaction or otherwise of the Minister, his Department and the Government with the reply they got and whether they intend, for example, to pursue the issue of other clear breaches of international law, specifically the Geneva Convention and the protection of civilians.

Mr. D. Ahern: We are going back over old ground in regard to the assurances about Shannon. We accept the same assurances that the Deputy accepted when he was a member of a Government——

Mr. M. Higgins: No, not at all.

Mr. D. Ahern: ——in respect of the use of Shannon. That has been the case for 50 years.

Mr. M. Higgins: No, it is not the case.

Mr. D. Ahern: Regarding the use of Shannon and infringement of any——

Mr. M. Higgins: Not in relation to leaks by the CIA about extraordinary rendition.

Mr. D. Ahern: ——international human rights, the Deputy was a member of a Government that accepted that.

Mr. M. Higgins: Yes, I was, and if I was a member of a Government I would have inspections.

Mr. D. Ahern: I am glad the Deputy clarified that.

Mr. M. Higgins: I am clarifying it and I am also clarifying the issue regarding white phosphorous. I believe in the application of international law.

Mr. D. Ahern: If the Deputy asks a question he should let me finish. I will not take double standards from the likes of Deputy Higgins, depending on the side of the House he sits on.

Mr. M. Higgins: They are not double standards. I assure the Minister that if he makes an allegation it will be replied to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Order, please.

Mr. M. Higgins: A Government in which I was or would be a member would not support extraordinary rendition in the way the Minister is doing.

[818]Mr. D. Ahern: We are not——

Mr. M. Higgins: Yes, you are.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Minister to conclude.

Mr. D. Ahern: We have made it clear that——

Mr. M. Higgins: If the plane begins and ends its journey there and the Minister knows that, what happens in between is his responsibility.

Mr. D. Ahern: Deputy Higgins, we have made it clear that we condemn extraordinary rendition and we will not allow this State to be party to it.

(Interruptions).

Mr. D. Ahern: We have said that and we have also said that we are against the use of chemical weapons in conflicts such as that in Iraq. Regarding the question the Deputy asked, we have raised the issue of the use of white phosphorous in the only way we can — with the United States through our diplomatic channels, and they have said clearly that they have not used white phosphorous specifically against civilians.

Mr. M. Higgins: The Minister can raise the issue under a breach of the Geneva Convention.

40. Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the measures he has taken, intends taking or is empowered to take to ensure that the transferral of prisoners by the US military through extraordinary renditions does not occur with the use of Irish airspace or ground-based air facilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39254/05]

45. Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the fact that two planes which it has been acknowledged landed in Ireland in 2003 and 2004 have been reportedly used by agents of the United States to render persons to torture in Egypt; to remove the German citizen Khaled Al Masri from Macedonia and Afghanistan to imprisonment, treatment the US Secretary of State admitted to have been a mistake, and the fact records show that this plane flew from Shannon to Kabul in the same month; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39268/05]

48. Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the discussions that he has held with the US Administration with regard to the ren[819]dition of prisoners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39176/05]

53. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on 5 December 2005 Amnesty International report outlining extraordinary renditions by six CIA-chartered planes; his response to the revelation that these planes landed at Shannon Airport 50 times; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39306/05]

56. Ms McManus asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the character and precise nature of the assurances the Government indicates it has received with respect to the passage of planes owned by the CIA or its agents through Irish airspace, in particular if such assurances have related to the transfer of prisoners or to ascertain if such transfers are in compliance with international law; the form in which such assurances have been received; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39266/05]

82. Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the measures the Government proposes to take to ensure that Irish airspace and facilities are not used to breach international and Irish law, inter alia, through the conduct of verification measures such as random and regular checks of aircraft, particularly in view of his reply to Question No. 2 of 10 November 2005 in which he acknowledges Ireland’s positive obligations to ensure that persons who come within the jurisdiction of the State benefit from protection against removal to serious harm. [39264/05]

85. Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the basis upon which he considers that it is reasonable for the Government to rely on assurances from the Government of the United States that international law is not being breached as a result of planes owned by the CIA or its agents landing in Irish territory in view of a raft of publicly known facts, not least that leaked classified reports by the CIA’s own inspector general indicate that interrogation techniques approved by the White House violate international law. [39267/05]

90. Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if in view of the admission by the US Secretary of State that mistakes had been made in the US renditions policy and with the aim of promoting Ireland’s contribution to international peace, security and development, he will reconsider the policy whereby authorities do not seek to board US military aircraft or aircraft carrying US personnel in order to verify their declared cargo; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39317/05]

110. Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps he is taking to ensure that no [820]Irish facility is being used to facilitate the rendition of prisoners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39175/05]

114. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the assurances given to the Government by the US Administration regarding extraordinary renditions of prisoners and possible involvement of Irish airports in the transit of these prisoners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39307/05]

210. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has satisfied himself that US prisoners or prisoners of war are not being transported through Shannon Airport en route to centres where treatment might not be in accord with the Geneva Convention; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39607/05]

221. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the suspected transfer of terror suspects through Shannon by the US; if such claims turned out to be true; the action which will be taken; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39632/05]

Mr. D. Ahern: I propose to take Questions Nos. 40, 45, 48, 53, 56, 82, 85, 90, 110, 114, 210 and 221 together.

The Government is completely opposed to the practice of so-called extraordinary rendition, whereby prisoners are transported from one jurisdiction to another contrary to international law and without recourse to the normal judicial checks and balances that attend the legitimate transfer of prisoners. That such a practice might have the aim of delivering a prisoner to a jurisdiction in which he or she might be tortured or otherwise ill-treated is particularly disturbing and objectionable.

The Government has not permitted, and we cannot and will not permit, any flight engaged in so-called “extraordinary rendition” to pass through an Irish airport or through Irish or Irish-controlled airspace.

As Deputies will be aware from my replies to previous questions on this subject, most recently to Priority Questions today, the United States has given Ireland repeated, clear and explicit assurances that no prisoners have been transferred through Irish airports, nor would they be, without our permission. These assurances were confirmed by Secretary of State Rice at my meeting with her on 1 December 2005 in Washington. There have been suggestions that these may be qualified in some way by the definition of torture that is applied by the US Government. I would like to set the record straight on this matter. The assurances we have received contained no reference to the purposes for which any prisoners might be transferred which could be used to limit the broad scope of those assurances. In the wider European context the assurances Ireland has received con[821]sistently from the US authorities are of particular clarity and completeness.

I have no reason to believe Irish airports have been used in the manner described by the Deputies. None of the allegations made about the passage through Irish airports of aeroplanes supposedly involved in extraordinary rendition has included any concrete or specific claim of this type.

In the light of the absolute assurances we have received, the Government will continue to follow the long-standing practice whereby details supplied to the Department of Foreign Affairs in this area by the US authorities are accepted in good faith as being accurate. I would add that should it ever emerge that, contrary to our firm belief, our airports or airspace have been used for the purpose of extraordinary rendition, the Government would take the gravest possible view of the matter.

Ms C. Murphy: The Minister said earlier that we had a special relationship with the US. Will he accept that trust has become difficult with this Administration given that weapons of mass destruction did not materialise in Iraq when we were told they were there? That was the raison d’être for this war. Given that we have this special relationship with the US, how would the Minister treat a state with which we do not have a special relationship? Would we treat it any differently? That is important in terms of determining what it is possible for Ireland to do to ensure that our airports and air space are not being abused.

I echo the point made by Deputy Michael Higgins. If it has nothing to hide, would the Minister not expect an Administration to invite inspections with a view to ensuring that a State like ours does not feel compromised?

I am confused about the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Minister said that if the Government gets hard evidence it will take appropriate action yet he said it is up to the Garda to take that action. Presumably, the DPP is constrained by this special relationship with the US because it is difficult to understand how he can reconcile one with the other if that is not the case.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I remind the Deputy that supplementary questions are limited to one minute and she has exceeded that time.

Ms C. Murphy: Does the DPP operate on the basis of a special relationship with the US?

Mr. D. Ahern: Absolutely not. The DPP has to implement the laws as laid down by the Oireachtas.

On the issue of our special relationship with the US, people here accept that given America’s emphasis on Ireland concerning all matters, not least the peace process on which an inordinate amount of time and effort was spent by US poli[822]ticians and Administrations of all creeds to help Ireland, when they give us an assurance on these issues, and these are categoric assurances from as far back as autumn of 2004, we accept them. We were one of the first countries to ask the Americans about these media reports. Many other countries have come late to this issue and it has moved on somewhat. However, regarding the assurances that we were given, if we were to go against that without any hard evidence it would show extremely bad faith to the US people generally, not just the Administration.

On the issue of inspections, it is entirely a matter for the Garda Síochána if it believes a crime has been committed. A civilian airplane is treated in the same way as a house. If they wanted to search a house they would have to get a search warrant. The same rule applies to civilian airplanes. Laws enable the Irish Aviation Authority to carry out safety inspections of airplanes. We have received categorical assurances from the US that Ireland has not been used to render prisoners to other destinations to be tortured or for other purposes. We accept these assurances until we receive hard evidence and will act on such evidence if we receive it.

Deputy Rabbitte argued that it was ludicrous for the Government to ask the Opposition to supply it with hard evidence. If the Opposition has such evidence, it should come forward with it. We are asking any individual with evidence that can be passed on to the Garda Síochána to come forward. The Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has stated in this House that the Garda Síochána will investigate any evidence brought to it. To date, we have received no hard evidence despite publicity generated by different organs and individuals.

Mr. M. Higgins: The DPP has stated that he will not permit the Garda Síochána to take action on matters reported to him. There have been two cases involving the reporting of evidence to the DPP. Such issues have arisen before and must be resolved by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the DPP. I would be delighted to hear from the relevant Department if I am wrong.

The Minister probably agrees that secret detention breaches several international conventions and customary laws of war. I am glad he quoted from Human Rights Watch because it is a reputable source. On 1 December 2005, this organisation stated that at least 26 “ghost” prisoners were being held at secret detention centres. Human Rights Watch has also stated that the US Government has not denied holding prisoners at secret detention centres. Senator Dick Marty from Switzerland is rapporteur of the group appointed by the Council of Europe to investigate the issue. This group has requested flight plans and log books of flights that might be involved in the secret detention of prisoners. According to Senator Marty, allegations regard[823]ing secret detention centres in Europe have credibility. He has also suggested that prisoners could have been moved from Europe to north Africa in November 2005. How can we be in compliance with international conventions if it is proved that an airplane carrying a person to a secret detention centre landed in our jurisdiction? How can we be in compliance if we do not seek assurances of those involved or investigate what takes place on such flights? How can it be considered unfriendly to ask why such airplanes land 50 times if they are flying between north Africa and Kabul in Afghanistan?

Mr. D. Ahern: This is because it boils down to actual knowledge. When these airplanes came through Ireland, we had no actual knowledge regarding this matter and any investigation into it. According to the European Court of Human Rights, substantial proof was needed, of which there is none. This question concerns rendition flights, although the Deputy’s argument veers between them and black sites. Human Rights Watch has stated it is unlikely that clandestine operations of the kind referred to by Deputy Michael D. Higgins, which I condemn, would be run through civilian airports. The organisation does not mention Shannon Airport but it is obviously the type of airport to which it refers.

Tom Clonan, an expert on defence matters, investigated the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and was told off the record that Shannon Airport would not have been used. We have received no hard evidence about the use of Shannon Airport for rendition flights despite our exhortation to the public in Ireland and abroad. The DPP often states he will not act in certain cases because he does not have hard evidence and I suspect the same is true in this case.

Mr. M. Higgins: As long as one does not have hard evidence, one is safe.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: What little knowledge I have regarding investigations by the Garda Síochána suggests gardaí operate on the basis of suspicion when they look for a warrant. They seek a warrant to gain evidence, which they then pass on to the DPP, who decides whether to prosecute. The gardaí should investigate these flights by boarding them and ensuring that available evidence is obtained and passed on to the DPP.

Does the Minister agree we have an obligation under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which this State ratified in 2002, to actively seek to prevent any activity that may contribute to torture? If we are party to this convention, it is logical that we investigate these flights. The Government should direct the Garda Síochána to seek evidence based on the suspicions of Members of this House, the Council of Europe, journalists and reputable organisations [824]such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch instead of waiting for Opposition Deputies to present evidence. The Council of Europe has appointed a group headed by a rapporteur to investigate the matter because it believes these activities have been taking place throughout Europe.

Does the Minister agree the definition of torture used by the US Government is so narrow that it renders assurances it has given on this matter meaningless? The US Government refers to “enhanced interrogation” techniques, which contravene the understanding of torture as enshrined in the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Mr. D. Ahern: I defer to Deputy Ó Snodaigh’s experience and knowledge of Garda investigations, which probably surpass mine. As I understand it, the gardaí must have a reasonable suspicion before they can enter a premises. We cannot direct the gardaí with regard to this matter but it is obvious that they do not have a reasonable suspicion that crimes are being committed on these aircraft. They probably take the assurances given by the US Government into account.

The various respected international organs quoted by Deputy Ó Snodaigh have produced information but no hard facts. I made a reference to people speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. I am reluctant to take any guidance from Deputy Ó Snodaigh, who condones attacking aircraft at Shannon Airport.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: It is justified if these airplanes are involved in extraordinary rendition.

Mr. D. Ahern: I am even reluctant to try to understand his perspective. However, Deputy Ó Snodaigh and the rest of Sinn Féin do not use such anti-American rhetoric when they visit the US or when Gerry Adams, MLA, appears in a video aimed at his friends in the US.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I am not being anti-American. My arguments relate to extraordinary rendition, which is a breach of international law.

Mr. D. Ahern: On their next visit to the US or when they appear in videos aimed at a US audience, Deputy Ó Snodaigh and his colleagues might inform their hosts about the type of questions the Deputy asked me today.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The White House will do that for them.

Dr. Cowley: I am experiencing a sense of déjà vu regarding this issue. I remember speaking in this House about the war in Iraq and the assurances given to us that it held weapons of mass destruction and that measures were needed to deal with them. I remember Congressmen speak[825]ing with Members of this House about that. It appears that there were no weapons of mass destruction, yet we have had this terrible war which is still going on. There is a great need for more checks and balances. After all, anything could be in those aircraft. Surely we have an obligation to carry out checks on these aircraft.

Mr. D. Ahern: The situation regarding these aircraft is historical. There is nothing we can do about it. They passed through our State and based on the assurances that we were given, no investigation was carried out into what might or might not have been on them. In recent times, nothing has been brought to our attention about the use of Shannon by similar planes.

It is a fact that CIA planes have been using airports throughout Europe for many decades for issues that have nothing to do with war, but to do with security in general or events that may be taking place. I have no doubt that intelligence services throughout the world are tick-tacking with each other to ensure that the forthcoming world cup is not sabotaged by terrorists. Airports around the world have been used by civilian aircraft on behalf of the US military to bring their personnel to various meetings on these issues. This must be put into the context of what is happening in the fight against what is a new form of war on this globe, as manifested in London, Madrid, New York and so on. Unfortunately, we are living in a changing world where situations must be dealt with in different ways.

Mr. Cuffe: It may be a new form of war, but nothing should allow terrorism to occur. I remind the Minister of the remarks of his ministerial colleague last night, when he stated that all it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing. It is not good enough to stand idly by on the sidelines claiming that we could not go near those planes as US business would leave in the morning. It is a patriotic act to ask the US what is in those planes. Carrying my Irish and my American citizenship, I think it is incumbent on us to ask what is happening on those planes. We know we were told lies about weapons of mass destruction and about white phosphorous.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Has the Deputy a question?

Mr. Cuffe: We are only now finding out about the 30,000 Iraqi casualties. Is the Minister saying that the only thing the Garda can do is stand on the sidelines? He and I both know, as I read it into the record on 30 September 2004, that the plane with the call sign N379P landed at Shannon. We know that the people using that plane abducted and transported al-Qaeda suspects on behalf of the US Government. It is not good enough to stand idly on the sidelines. Is the Minister asking the Garda and the people in Shannon [826]to wait until the evidence lands in their lap? I believe that he should be doing more.

Mr. D. Ahern: The Deputy has no evidence and he also has an agenda. He was one of the Deputies who condoned the attack on aircraft in Shannon, something which no member of any democratic society should do. He can correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. Cuffe: I do not believe my colleague condoned the attack.

Mr. D. Ahern: No, but the Deputy did.

Mr. Cuffe: No I did not. If the Minister can show me evidence——

Mr. D. Ahern: Perhaps the reports are different.

Mr. Cuffe: Does the Minister condone the killing of 30,000 Iraqis?

Mr. D. Ahern: Of course I do not. Does the Deputy condone the damage to planes in Shannon?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Now, now, Deputy Cuffe is being anti-American.

Mr. D. Ahern: We are not standing idly by. We have raised the issue at every available forum. I have raised it umpteen times at EU meetings. I raised it with the Finnish Government so that the EU Presidency would raise it with US authorities, which it did in a public way. The Presidency raised the issue of what are known as “black sites”, as well as the issue of rendition. I made it clear that the Irish people were worried about constant reports about rendition throughout the EU. I also pointed out that we had received categorical assurances, which is something the other countries had not yet received. We were one of the first countries to raise this when it was published in the media.

The Deputy has no hard evidence that the plane was used in Shannon for rendition. He is talking about something that happened two years ago. If anyone has evidence, we will investigate it. So far, nothing has been brought forward, despite the best exhortations from the Government. We have nothing to hide on this. We condemn rendition and the transfer of prisoners against their will from one country to another. We condemn black sites. Unless and until we get evidence on these activities, I can bring it no further than that.

Ms C. Murphy: The Minister told us what would happen at Shannon in the event of hard evidence coming to light. What kind of policing mechanism do we have for our airspace? It is not possible to board a plane when it does not stop over. Does the Minister not accept that when he [827]acquires knowledge of such activities, it is too late for the individuals involved?

The US Secretary of State stated that mistakes had been made by the US on its rendition policy. Is the Minister satisfied that such mistakes will not be repeated and that they did not affect this jurisdiction? How did he satisfy himself that they are not being repeated?

Mr. D. Ahern: No one would want anything to happen that would subsequently be termed a mistake. My dealings with Ms Condoleezza Rice were categoric on the use of Ireland’s airspace or otherwise for rendition purposes. We were given clear assurances at that meeting and at the US Embassy in Dublin and our embassy in Washington. On each occasion, we raised all the reports to which the Deputies have referred today. We raised them even before they were raised in this House. We were given assurances that Ireland was not used in any way in the facilitation of rendition. Ultimately, the only people who can enforce the law in this land are the gardaí. That is the way matters are dealt with in any democratic country.

41. Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government’s views on whether the use of white phosphorus is the use of a chemical weapon; if the Government will campaign to have white phosphorus listed as such; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39178/05]

Mr. D. Ahern: I refer the Deputy to the reply I have just given to the priority question on this issue. There have been several recent media reports expressing concern over the reported use of white phosphorus and suggesting that its use was in breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The question of whether white phosphorus is a chemical weapon is important since such weapons are regarded as weapons of mass destruction, and under the chemical weapons convention their use is prohibited in all circumstances.

A spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which implements the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, was quoted in some media reports as suggesting that the weapons concerned were not prohibited by the convention. My Department sought clarification direct from the OPCW. The organisation indicated, in response, that white phosphorous is an incendiary weapon and that since incendiary weapons achieve their intended effect through the release of thermal energy, or heat, they would not fall within the scope of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

White phosphorus is regarded as a conventional weapon and falls under the Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscrimi[828]nate Effects, CCW, which came into force in 1983. Protocol III of this convention deals directly with prohibitions and restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons.

In the light of the OPCW reasoning that white phosphorus does not fall within the scope of the CWC, a campaign to have it listed under the convention would be extremely unlikely to be successful. That said, all of us would be very concerned about its use except in the most controlled circumstances and subject to the prohibitions and restrictions set out in the CCW convention.

Mr. Allen: Based on my personal experience and the work I did as a chemical technologist before entering the Dáil, phosphorous is the dirtiest and nastiest chemical one can use in a laboratory. If it gets on one’s finger the only remedy is to have the skin surrounding the affected area excised. The Minister referred to the CWC, to which the United States is a signatory. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has said that used as an illumination the phosphorous is not in contravention of that convention. However, the Minister did not indicate other data in the convention to the effect that expert opinion is that if used as a weapon to flush out insurgents, for instance, or people occupying entrenched positions, it is in contravention of the CWC.

The Minister referred earlier to the security analyst, Mr. Tom Clonan, as justification for a previous argument he made. In his article in The Irish Times of 17 November, Mr. Clonan said, as regards American marines, that each of them has the use of high specification goggles in night time warfare and that there is no need for illuminations in battle situations. He says this unusual deployment of illumination rounds for detonation within buildings leaves the US military open to the accusation that white phosphorous was being used as a chemical or terror weapon in Fallujah. I put it to the Minister that there is a major question mark as regards the use of this chemical. It is a weapon I would describe as being “on the edge” of civilised behaviour. The Minister should think again on this issue, and think hard, because there is a contravention of the convention in this case.

Mr. D. Ahern: I do not disagree with what the Deputy says. I would not like us to use white phosphorous in any shape or form. I can only speak for Ireland. I am not, in effect, defending the use of white phosphorous. Neither is the Government. Obviously we would be very concerned if it was used in any circumstances where it was in contravention of any of the conventions. However, strictly speaking, as regards the legal definition, according to the body that oversees it, white phosphorous is not regarded as a chemical weapon. Given that it is then regarded as a conventional weapon, does it comply with the CWC in that regard? Again, it is very specific. All of [829]us would be very concerned if it was used in an indiscriminate manner, in ways in which, perhaps, civilians were being put at risk. We would condemn that. Unfortunately the reports I have, emanating from Fallujah, do not inspire confidence in that regard. It is something we must deal with carefully. The international community must exhort those in the international force in Iraq to be extremely careful in its use.

The only way in which we can raise this is through diplomatic channels with the US. We did that immediately the reports emanated as regards its use.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister say what response he got given that Mr. Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the OPCW, which monitors the use of phosphorous as a weapon, said that if it was used as a way of flushing out people from entrenched positions, it would be a weapon of terror. The Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable, said “illumination rounds were used in Fallujah to penetrate and destroy insurgent strongholds and to drive enemy combatants out into the open, where they could be killed with high explosives”. Therefore, given the opinions of Mr. Kaiser and the Pentagon spokesman, would the Minister now agree that this was being used as a chemical weapon? What steps does he propose to take with the US Administration in this regard?

Mr. D. Ahern: Strictly speaking, from a legal viewpoint, it is not defined as a chemical weapon. Again, I am not sure what it was used for at Fallujah. However, it is suggested that it was used to illuminate. I heard what the Deputy said and I am not an expert on this. However, when we raised this with the US Embassy, it was categoric in so far as it could be, that it was not used against the civilian population.

Mr. Allen: As regards the invitation to the US Ambassador to appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, it would be in all our interests to have these issues cleared up and to have a friendly exchange of views. Will the Minister use his good offices, as I am sure he will meet him for Christmas drinks or whatever? Perhaps he could ask him to deal with the committee on these important issues.

Mr. D. Ahern: I will not meet him for Christmas drinks. As regards whether he attends a meeting of the committee, that is entirely a matter for himself.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

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 Pat Breen — to ask the Minister [830]about a number of sewerage schemes in County Clare; (2) Deputy Lynch — on the Minister’s plans to resolve the problems facing parents of students attending or hoping to attend Coláiste an Chroí Naofa, Carraig na bhFear, County Cork; (3) Deputy O’Dowd — to ask the Minister’s views on the decision of the Health Service Executive to close the Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda; (4) Deputy Perry — the Minister’s views on the decision by SP Wine Produces Limited to close its plant at Easkey, County Sligo, with the consequent loss of 31 jobs; (5) Deputy Cowley — to ask if the Minister still intends to proceed with the Corrib gas pipeline in the light of the findings of the recent Advantica report; and (6) Deputy Walsh — to ask the Minister about progress on the affordable housing scheme at Clonakilty, County Cork.

The matters raised by Deputies Cowley, Perry, Pat Breen and Walsh have been selected for discussion.

Question again proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

Mr. Connaughton: I had the opportunity over several weeks to hear a number of the contributions on this Bill. I listened with bated breath today to Deputy Glennon. One would swear he was on this side of the House. I know most of what I am concerned about has been thrashed out on Second Stage over a long period. The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher’s colleague, Deputy Glennon, paid tribute to him in saying that more than most Members of the House he was closely associated with and has a great knowledge of the fishing industry. I share that view and have always done so. However, I cannot understand how the Minister of State, if he will pardon the pun, has got caught on the hook he is now on. Time and again, his own colleagues in the House have pointed out the blatant shortfalls in the Bill. That is a matter of public record. I assume there will be a division at the end of Second Stage at 4.30 p.m. It will be remarkable in any democratic sense if the people that I have listened to talk about the Bill’s serious practical defects walk through the lobbies and vote with the Government. I sincerely hope the fishermen they thought they were helping will read the Official Report and see precisely what they have been doing. I had always understood that when legislation was proposed by Government, it came through the House on the understanding that it was backed by the Cabinet and that the Government parties would support it, through the Whip system. Everything would be cleared except for minor details which will always arise with Bills of this type. The Government is presenting and asking the House to vote for a Bill which the majority of Government party Deputies have been warn[831]ing the Minister of State is flawed. They do not like it and they regard it as being anti-fisherman.

For a Bill that proposes to be in the best interests of Irish fishermen, I do not understand why the Minister of State’s people are so much against it. I hope it will be hand-tripped along the line. Who devised some of proposals in the Bill? It may be the senior Minister or the Civil Service or the European Union because I do not believe it is the Minister of State.

I cannot say I possess a deep knowledge of the fishing industry but I know many fishermen and I held the position of Opposition spokesman on fisheries for a few months some years ago. I do not understand why any Irish Government would want to put its fishermen at a much greater disadvantage in so far as criminality is concerned. No one will understand this better than the Minister of State. This Bill commits Irish fishermen to a level of court charges, fees and fines which no other fishermen in any other European state would be within an ass’s roar of. Neither I nor the Fine Gael party will back wrong-doers, whether they are in farming, banking or fishing. Law and order and the rule of law must be respected.

Spain is one of the great fishing nations but I understand that only four court proceedings have resulted out of 4,000 cases of infringement or possible infringement in that country. What is the rationale behind the Government’s decision to introduce such a level of charges? It is not apparent to any of us in the House. We all appreciate that checks and balances are necessary in all areas of life and fishing is no exception. We all acknowledge it is a difficult way to make a living and it is similar in many ways to the world of farming. There are fewer fishermen in the business than five or ten years ago. It is acknowledged the Common Fisheries Policy has not been good for Ireland, for whatever reason, over the years. The fish stocks were allowed to be fished out and now we are in a very sorry state. The industry badly needs to be given more confidence. The Minister of State knows a great deal about the industry and he has great respect for the people in it, as have all his backbenchers. However, he proposes to criminalise fishermen when there is no need to do so.

Deputy Glennon read a letter which was obviously put on the record by Deputy O’Donovan. It refers to a young fisherman who was in court recently for failure to fill out the log book. I assume it is very important to fill out the log book because this is part of the quota system and provides important information. However, had this case been heard in a Spanish court, the fisherman would have received a fine of a few thousand euro on the administrative side and no criminality would be attached. However, when the fisherman had paid everybody, including his solicitor, it had cost him €80,000.

[832]The Minister of State proposes fines as high as €200,000 for serious misdemeanours. His backbenchers stated in this Chamber that they did not like the Bill and I understand why. If they are true to form, however, as they have been over the years, they will not be like sheep but rather like fish to be filleted. They will vote with the Government despite anything they may have said previously.

Fishing is closely associated with tourism and it is carried on in some of the remotest areas of the country. I am a party spokesperson on regional development. There is very little development of any kind in the areas where fishing takes place. Some of these coastal areas have bad roads and under-resourced villages and towns.

I am aware of the EU implications and we have been warned that the sky will fall if this Bill is not passed this week. I have listened to many ultimatums from Brussels. What are the principles applied by our negotiators in Brussels when it comes down to a vital national asset such as this? It is similar to the milk quota in the world of farming years ago. This Bill will haul Irish fishermen into the courts to face charges which in most cases are not serious by any standards but the sentencing, fines and penalties proposed will cause the fishermen to wonder what sort of regime is running the country.

If someone fishes without a licence in Spain, the average fine for such an offence is €1,463 whereas the fine for the same offence in this country will be €21,000. They are all fishermen following the same way of life and all citizens of the European Union. It is difficult to understand why we are putting the boot into this great industry. It has been a great industry for a variety of reasons. The communities served by the fishing industry would be wastelands without it. The people who contacted me about this Bill are incensed by it. They do not understand what the Minister of State is at. Given the knowledge he has of the industry, had the Minister of State been in the place of his colleagues rather than in his current position, he would have been the most vociferous person in the House with regard to how bad and unfair this legislation is. The most outstanding aspect of this legislation is its unfairness.

4 o’clock

I would like to know what the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, thinks of this. Is this his work? I am surprised he is not here to answer for it on behalf of the Government. Given that he is the senior Minister, one would have expected him to be here. However, when the Government was formed the marine area was sidelined and removed from the Minister’s brief. It was only through the Minister of State’s elevation that it was accorded some measure of respectability. This would make us wonder whether Government has decided to write fisheries out of the [833]script altogether. If that is the case, the problem is even greater than we thought.

I do not need to tell the Minister of State that the fishing industry has been crying out for change for years. When I first read Deputy Gallagher’s speech, I could not believe what I was reading. I could not believe that under this Bill any naval officer, irrespective of the jurisdiction they are from, would have the power to fire at or onto a boat. I know that provision has been removed. However, the Minister of State could not blame me or any of the Government backbenchers from wondering what those who included that provision would be capable of including in the legislation if we had no counterbalances.

I genuinely believe that it is very important we instil confidence in fishermen and the fishing industry. I do not have time to go through all the issues we should be discussing, but which have not been covered here. I hope the Minister of State will do something about the issue of salmon drift net fishing. I hope the day comes when all sides of that case are given a fair hearing. We know from tourism statistics that a salmon caught by a tourist is more beneficial to the State, by a factor of 150, than a salmon caught in the ordinary way. I hope the Minister of State puts his mind to this issue in the near future. I am somewhat surprised that something has not happened in this regard already, because I heard the Minister of State speak about the issue long ago. I would have thought that if anybody in the House could do something about this, it would be him, but it is not happening, whatever the reason.

I understand there have been a number of court cases and Supreme Court judgments in this area, namely in the Browne v Attorney General and Kennedy v Attorney General cases. I did not have time to study those judgments in detail, but I understand the word from the Department is that this legislation must be passed. I have heard this kind of talk before. Sometimes it might be the case, but other times there is no need for the rush. Rushed legislation was always bad legislation, irrespective of what it set out to do.

I do not know what the agenda is, but whatever it is, it is not normal for a Government to put the boot into the fishing industry as this Government is doing. I may be charged that this is Opposition drivel, but our job is to expose by whatever means we can the faults in legislation. We have heard all sides, including the Progressive Democrats, state that this legislation is not wanted. Their way out of it is to say that because they put the boot in at the parliamentary party and did this or that, matters will be different when the amendments are introduced. As long as I am in this House, I cannot remember a Bill being substantially changed. If this Bill is dramatically changed, will it bear any resemblance to the Bill that was introduced? Where will we stand then? We understand the House has the job of debating amendments, but I am beginning to think that the [834]original Bill is so flawed that it should be thrown out.

I understand that the average fine for a logbook offence in Denmark is approximately €393. The same offence here will incur a fine of €8,455 when this legislation is passed. In the UK, a person found fishing for a prohibited species incurs a fine of €2,380.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s time has concluded.

Mr. Connaughton: In all my years here I have never seen such opposition within Government parties to a Bill. Why has this Bill been introduced given the level of opposition to it? What amendments must be brought in to ensure the Bill will be a real reflection of a Government that wants to help our fishermen?

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Moynihan-Cronin. I am obliged to call the Minister of State at 4.15 p.m. so the Deputy has only seven minutes available. Will she allow Deputy Healy two of those minutes as he has been waiting to speak? Perhaps the Minister of State will also allow him two minutes. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I have been amazed by the debate on this Bill, particularly by the contributions of Fianna Fáil Deputies. I know they have been at the receiving end of criticism from fishermen in their constituencies who are totally opposed to the Bill.

The Labour Party is opposed to a number of sections and provisions of this Bill. We do, however, welcome some of its provisions. The manner in which the Bill was presented to the Opposition was very shabby. Normally, spokespersons are provided with briefing documents when a Bill is brought forward, but unfortunately this did not happen on this occasion. The Bill was presented in a rush after an acrimonious Fianna Fáil meeting.

The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, appears to have no interest in the marine industry. I feel sorry for the Minister of State, whom I believe has a genuine interest and understanding of the fishing industry. I feel his heart is not in this Bill and I compliment him on being so supportive of fishermen. He comes from a constituency like mine, Kerry South, where fishing is very important.

When speaking on this Bill we must realise how many people are employed in the areas where fishing is a major industry, such as Dingle in my constituency. More than 10,000 people are directly involved in the industry and they have approximately 30,000 dependants. Many shops and other businesses depend on the industry. If the industry is damaged any further, those concerned will discover there are very few alternative [835]employment opportunities in the areas in question. The Minister of State will agree that this is the case in his constituency. The fishing industry is very important to small places such as Baile na nGall, which is west of Dingle, where fishing and small farming are part of the culture. We need to support those involved.

I remember Deputy Broughan telling me that representatives of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources went to Killybegs earlier in the year and were struck by statements of local fishermen to the effect that Irish fisheries should be viewed as sustainable sunrise industries rather than viewed constantly as sunset industries in terminal decline. This Bill, if it passes in its present form, will not be of any help.

The representatives of the fisheries sector were very reasonable in their approach to this legislation and in setting out what they wanted from it. One issue that arose concerned the independence of the seafood control managers. Will the Minister be able to answer questions in the House on this issue? Deputies in Opposition constantly get letters from the Ceann Comhairle in respect of matters they raise, to the effect that the matters are not the responsibility of the Minister. The Ceann Comhairle has no option but to send such letters and there is no accountability to the House. Will the seafood control managers, when appointed, operate like An Bord Pleanála such that Members will not be able to question their work or raise relevant concerns on the floor of the House? Will the Minister of State answer this when making his contribution?

I am very disappointed in the Bill. Communities of fishermen along the west coast and in my constituency of Kerry South are very concerned because, even at this stage, they are struggling. Many of them are on their knees and they hoped this Bill would bring them some solace and support. I hope the Labour Party amendments to the Bill will be deemed acceptable by many of the Fianna Fáil Members who also have concerns.

Mr. Healy: I thank Deputy Breeda Moynihan-Cronin and the Minister of State for sharing time.

It is appropriate that we sympathise again with the families in the Kilmore Quay area who have suffered so grievously over recent weeks. I thank the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Naval Service, the local community and other individuals involved in the search in recent weeks. The tragedy demonstrates the difficulty associated with the daily work of fishermen.

What is the rationale behind this Bill? It appears there is no humanity in it and that its drafters must have no knowledge or experience of the fishing industry and the difficulties posed in terms of weather, finances and labour. Many backbenchers have very serious difficulties with the Bill and, as with Opposition Members, they [836]have been asking the Minister of State either to withdraw it or make serious changes thereto.

The most telling contribution on the Bill by a Government backbencher was by the former Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh. In the House last week, he gave a very effective and comprehensive critique of the measures in the Bill. The Minister of State and Department would be advised to take on board many of Deputy Walsh’s criticisms because they are echoed throughout the House on both Opposition benches and Government backbenches.

It is very difficult to understand why this legislation is being introduced, why it is effectively being rushed through the House and why it is so severe and lacking in humanity. As we all know, rushed legislation is almost always very bad legislation. In this regard, we have only to remember the nursing homes legislation which was declared unconstitutional. It would be worthwhile if the Minister of State withdrew this Bill and reconsidered it.

It is true that serious issues arise regarding fish stocks off our shores. Many fish types have been harvested unsustainably over the years and there is no doubt in anybody’s mind that this must be dealt with. However, this Bill reminds me of the adage about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is a human side to the fishing industry that does not appear to be acknowledged in the legislation.

The Bill will criminalise fishermen for very minor fishery offences, thus giving them criminal records. If this occurs, they will find it impossible to travel to the United States, for instance. We will clog up the courts with cases in this regard. Many of the offences should be dealt with on an administrative basis, as is the case in other EU member states. The Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted and the views of the Opposition and the very many Government backbenchers who have spoken about its difficulties should be taken on board.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher): I thank the 34 Members from all sides of the House who contributed to this debate. I compliment them on researching their contributions well and I know they are quite sincere in their remarks. This debate is very healthy. It would be fair to say that, more often than is regarded enough, there is not the same degree of interest in legislation pertaining to the fisheries sector as there is in other legislation. However, there has been great interest in this Bill. When I have an opportunity to consider suggested amendments in light of the various issues raised, it will possibly result in a better Bill.

Is one suggesting there is something wrong with members of the Fianna Fáil Party expressing views that might be somewhat contrary to the Bill? It is a broadly based party and its members have the same right to make a contribution and [837]express their views as other Members. If they did not do so, they could stand accused in that regard also. Our members are not in straitjackets. I will listen to Opposition views as I will to the views of members of my own party. Many and varying views were expressed and I listened carefully to every contribution in the debate. I will try to reflect many of the views on Committee Stage, although little time is available to me.

When the Bill was first published and came before the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, many contributions were made from all sectors of the community, including producers, processors, the banking sector and the European Union. One contribution in particular laid great emphasis on administrative sanctions. I am a supporter of administrative sanctions for minor offences. However, as I pointed out in my initial contribution, I have a difficulty due to Article 34 of the Constitution, which states: “Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public”.

This difficulty could be overcome if European regulations recommended administrative sanctions across the board. However, it is not enough for me to say I can do nothing. I must try to do something. Therefore, subject to further advice, I will propose further revised penalties for certain sea fisheries offences reflecting the varying sizes of sea fishing vessels. It will take some time to prepare these amendments, which will be substantial, but I will bring them before the joint committee during January next.

I am anxious that the penalty fits the crime. Neither I nor the Government wants to criminalise fishermen for offences which would normally be administrative or would attract on-the-spot fines. Hopefully, such offences can be dealt with by the District Court as summary offences. I support the introduction of administrative sanctions because that is the system which applies throughout most of Europe for dealing with minor offences.

An indication of my commitment to giving Deputies an opportunity to debate the Bill — there were 34 contributions on the Bill — was the agreement secured through the Whips to extend the time limit for Second Stage debate, which gave us four sessions in the Dáil. The Bill will only be improved as a result. I am not here to stonewall. If the Bill can be improved, I will try to achieve that.

Some Members questioned the necessity for the Bill. The core reason for its introduction related to the Browne and Kennedy cases, which went to the Supreme Court. That court questioned our ability to give effect to EU regulations, not just with regard to the Department of [838]Communications, Marine and Natural Resources but across the board. The majority of the sections in the Bill consolidate the Acts of 1959 onwards, seven Acts in all. All the legislation will be consolidated in the Bill, when enacted, and the 2003 Act. This is the principle behind the Bill.

I will not waste the time of the House referring to the gun. The legislation has been in place since 1959 and many, including myself, were not aware of this aspect. However, as it has been brought to my attention, the relevant subsections will be deleted, which is accepted by all.

I referred to administrative sanctions. I am in favour of these in principle and will move halfway and deal with this matter by way of revised penalties. I will reconsider the proposed penalties and, without giving any detail to the House at this stage, I will propose amendments and will listen to the Opposition spokespersons, who I presume will also table amendments.

As this is the final week of the Dáil session, I will take the time remaining to me to refer to the all-important December Fisheries Council which will be held next week in Brussels, where the Council of Ministers will set the TAC and quotas for 2006. Notwithstanding the importance of the Bill, I assure the House that I will have a clear focus on the importance of securing a good outcome for fishermen at the December Council. Our hands are tied due to our signing up to the Common Fisheries Policy and we are all aware of the percentage of the TAC that constitutes our quota, which can be difficult. Nonetheless, I will do my utmost to secure the best deal for Irish fishermen. I am aware that the mackerel quota has already been set because it is a straddling stock — there will be an increase of 5%.

Since my reappointment to this office, I have maintained that given the reduction in quotas it is more essential than ever to manage the quotas available to us and to ensure that the catch can be landed over a prolonged period rather than having a rush to the line. We must sit down with the producers and processors in the industry to decide how best this can be achieved. We have been very successful with regard to mackerel. While all will admit that we do not have enough mackerel, we must maximise our position with regard to the quota. Given the reduced level of landings, we must ensure we secure a higher price for lower quantities.

Horse mackerel is an important pelagic stock. While we had a reasonable quota for this species in recent years, we did not manage it properly in that there was a rush to the line from the start of the year. By the end of the year, I hope to manage that stock. It would be unfair and unfeasible if I were to leave this until the beginning of next year when landings will have taken place. I will try to deal with the matter so that we can maximise with regard to that stock.

[839]This time last year I dealt with an issue raised by many Deputies, particularly Opposition spokespersons, namely, the weighing of fish on the quayside and the problem of maintaining quality when mixed with water. Value for money was being lost. Processors were paying for water but were not receiving the required tonnage of fish. I have dealt with that issue. I hope that on 1 January the new system will give us a level playing pitch with Scotland, Norway and similar countries so that fish can be weighed in factories using a flow system prior to selecting and processing.

The fishing industry is an important one. While in national terms it perhaps does not compare favourably with other industries, the fishing industry is extremely important for peripheral regions, providing much needed jobs where there is no alternative source of employment.

I look forward to the debate on Committee Stage. It is a long Bill with 70 sections. While much of it is not contentious, I have stated on numerous occasions that I will be as practical, realistic and pragmatic as I can with regard to contentious sections. I will listen carefully in particular to the spokespersons of the Opposition. [840]They have taken a very keen interest not just in this Bill but in all issues relating to the fishing industry. I will bring forward my suite of amendments regarding the substantive issues that have been raised.

The issue of seafood control was overlooked. I stated at the outset my wish for the body overseeing this to be independent, and to be seen to be independent, or at one remove from the Department. I am not in any way reflecting on the integrity of the person who may head this body, be it a person inside or outside the Department. The register of fishing boat licences is independent as a result of the 2003 Act and I understand it is working quite well.

I assure the Members that I was particularly pleased to have the opportunity to debate this Bill over a long period. As a result, I am sincere in my wish to work with the Opposition on amendments relating to major issues, such as sanctions and fines to be graduated or calibrated. In defence of my colleagues, it is unfair to criticise them because they have strong views. They have the same right to reflect these views as any other Member.

Question put.

[839]The Dáil divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 56.

Tá
Ahern, Dermot.	Ahern, Noel.
Andrews, Barry.	Ardagh, Seán.
Boyle, Dan.	Brady, Johnny.
Brady, Martin.	Brennan, Seamus.
Browne, John.	Callely, Ivor.
Carey, Pat.	Carty, John.
Collins, Michael.	Cregan, John.
Cuffe, Ciarán.	Cullen, Martin.
Curran, John.	Davern, Noel.
de Valera, Síle.	Dempsey, Noel.
Dempsey, Tony.	Dennehy, John.
Devins, Jimmy.	Ellis, John.
Fahey, Frank.	Finneran, Michael.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.	Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
Glennon, Jim.	Gogarty, Paul.
Grealish, Noel.	Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.	Haughey, Seán.
Hoctor, Máire.	Jacob, Joe.
Keaveney, Cecilia.	Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Peter.	Killeen, Tony.
Kirk, Seamus.	Kitt, Tom.
Lenihan, Brian.	McDowell, Michael.
McEllistrim, Thomas.	Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Donal.	Moynihan, Michael.
Mulcahy, Michael.	Nolan, M. J.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.	Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O’Connor, Charlie.	O’Dea, Willie.
O’Donnell, Liz.	O’Donoghue, John.
O’Donovan, Denis.	O’Flynn, Noel.
O’Keeffe, Batt.	O’Keeffe, Ned.
O’Malley, Fiona.	O’Malley, Tim.
Parlon, Tom.	Power, Peter.
Power, Seán.	Roche, Dick.
Ryan, Eamon.	Sargent, Trevor.
Sexton, Mae.	Smith, Brendan.
Treacy, Noel.	Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary.	Walsh, Joe.
Wilkinson, Ollie.	Woods, Michael.

[841]Níl
Allen, Bernard.	Breen, James.
Breen, Pat.	Broughan, Thomas P.
Bruton, Richard.	Burton, Joan.
Connaughton, Paul.	Connolly, Paudge.
Costello, Joe.	Cowley, Jerry.
Crawford, Seymour.	Crowe, Seán.
Deasy, John.	Deenihan, Jimmy.
Durkan, Bernard J.	English, Damien.
Enright, Olwyn.	Ferris, Martin.
Gilmore, Eamon.	Gregory, Tony.
Hayes, Tom.	Healy, Seamus.
Healy-Rae, Jackie.	Higgins, Joe.
Higgins, Michael D.	Lynch, Kathleen.
McCormack, Pádraic.	McEntee, Shane.
McGrath, Finian.	McGrath, Paul.
McManus, Liz.	Mitchell, Olivia.
Morgan, Arthur.	Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
Murphy, Catherine.	Naughten, Denis.
Neville, Dan.	Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.	O’Dowd, Fergus.
O’Keeffe, Jim.	O’Shea, Brian.
O’Sullivan, Jan.	Pattison, Seamus.
Penrose, Willie.	Perry, John.
Rabbitte, Pat.	Ring, Michael.
Ryan, Seán.	Sherlock, Joe.
Shortall, Róisín.	Stagg, Emmet.
Stanton, David.	Timmins, Billy.
Twomey, Liam.	Upton, Mary.

[841]Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Neville and Stagg

[841]Question declared carried.

Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): I move:

That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this resolution for the charging in accordance with the Act of certain fees on—

(a) applications for the registration of sea fishing boats or for the removal of such boats from the Register of Fishing Boats, and

(b) the grant of certain sea-fishing boat licences, and sea-fishing licences, authorisations and permits.

[842]Question put.

The Dáil divided by electronic means.

Mr. Neville: Considering the serious implications of this Bill and the confusion within the Government benches, as a teller, under Standing Order 69, I propose the vote be taken by other than electronic means.

An Ceann Comhairle: As Deputy Neville is a Whip, under Standing Order 69 he is entitled to call a vote through the lobby.

Question again put.

[841]The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 54.

Tá
Ahern, Dermot.	Ahern, Noel.
Andrews, Barry.	Ardagh, Seán.
Brady, Johnny.	Brady, Martin.
Brennan, Seamus.	Browne, John.
Callely, Ivor.	Carey, Pat.
Carty, John.	Collins, Michael.
Cregan, John.	Cullen, Martin.
Curran, John.	Davern, Noel.
de Valera, Síle.	Dempsey, Noel.
Dempsey, Tony.	Dennehy, John.
Devins, Jimmy.	Ellis, John.
Fahey, Frank.	Finneran, Michael.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.	Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
Glennon, Jim.	Grealish, Noel.
Hanafin, Mary.	Harney, Mary.
[843]Haughey, Seán.	Hoctor, Máire.
Jacob, Joe.	Keaveney, Cecilia.
Kelleher, Billy.	Kelly, Peter.
Killeen, Tony.	Kirk, Seamus.
Kitt, Tom.	Lenihan, Brian.
McDowell, Michael.	McEllistrim, Thomas.
Moloney, John.	Moynihan, Donal.
Moynihan, Michael.	Mulcahy, Michael.
Nolan, M. J.	Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.	O’Connor, Charlie.
O’Dea, Willie.	O’Donnell, Liz.
O’Donoghue, John.	O’Donovan, Denis.
O’Flynn, Noel.	O’Keeffe, Batt.
O’Keeffe, Ned.	O’Malley, Fiona.
O’Malley, Tim.	Parlon, Tom.
Power, Peter.	Power, Seán.
Roche, Dick.	Sexton, Mae.
Smith, Brendan.	Treacy, Noel.
Wallace, Dan.	Wallace, Mary.
Walsh, Joe.	Wilkinson, Ollie.
Woods, Michael.

[843]Níl
Allen, Bernard.	Blaney, Niall.
Breen, James.	Breen, Pat.
Broughan, Thomas P.	Bruton, Richard.
Burton, Joan.	Connaughton, Paul.
Connolly, Paudge.	Costello, Joe.
Cowley, Jerry.	Crawford, Seymour.
Crowe, Seán.	Deasy, John.
Deenihan, Jimmy.	Durkan, Bernard J.
English, Damien.	Enright, Olwyn.
Ferris, Martin.	Gilmore, Eamon.
Healy, Seamus.	Healy-Rae, Jackie.
Higgins, Joe.	Higgins, Michael D.
Lynch, Kathleen.	McCormack, Pádraic.
McEntee, Shane.	McGrath, Finian.
McGrath, Paul.	McManus, Liz.
Mitchell, Olivia.	Morgan, Arthur.
Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.	Murphy, Catherine.
Naughten, Denis.	Neville, Dan.
Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.	Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
O’Dowd, Fergus.	O’Keeffe, Jim.
O’Shea, Brian.	O’Sullivan, Jan.
Pattison, Seamus.	Penrose, Willie.
Perry, John.	Rabbitte, Pat.
Ring, Michael.	Ryan, Seán.
Sherlock, Joe.	Stagg, Emmet.
Stanton, David.	Timmins, Billy.
Twomey, Liam.	Upton, Mary.

[843]Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelleher and Kitt; Níl, Deputies Neville and Stagg.

[843]Question declared carried.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher): I move:

That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, in accordance with Standing Order 120(1) and paragraph 1(a)(i) of the Orders of Reference of that committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): I move:

That Dáil Éireann,

—bearing in mind the significant public concern about the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against members of the clergy operating under the aegis of the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin;

—noting the informal Government decision of 22 October 2002 that the matter required further consideration and reflection, in particular on the [845]part of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform;

—noting the Government decision of 25 October 2005 accepting in principle the recommendations of the report of the inquiry into the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse in the diocese of Ferns and giving a commitment to their implementation by line Departments and relevant agencies;

—noting that it is the opinion of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that a commission of investigation represents the best method of addressing the issues involved;

—further noting that a draft order posed to be made by the Government under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 (No. 23 of 2004) has been duly laid before Dáil Éireann in respect of the foregoing matters referred to, together with a statement of reasons for establishing a commission under that Act;

approves the draft Commission of Investigation (Child Sexual Abuse) Order 2005.

5 o’clock

One reflection I have had over the past 24 hours is that this business arises in many cases from people ignoring their duty to act with the excuse that no one had been proved formally to have done wrong. As with subversion of the State, so it is with the protection of children. One cannot wait for proof beyond reasonable doubt and good authority requires people to act pre-emptively.

Mr. F. McGrath: The Minister never gives up.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: He never misses an opportunity.

Mr. McDowell: I remind the House of the circumstances which give rise to the motion before the House. In November 2002, an RTE “Prime Time” documentary reported on child sexual abuse by priests in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin. The programme made a number of disturbing assertions as to the inadequate way in which allegations and complaints of sexual abuse by priests of the archdiocese were handled, for example, the priests in question were simply moved to another position without people being informed of the reasons for the move.

It is universally recognised that child sexual abuse is not only morally reprehensible but also a particularly serious crime. It is my duty and that of the Government and Oireachtas to protect the most vulnerable members of our community who cannot protect themselves. This applies with particular force to our children. Child sexual abuse is associated with a range of adverse long-term effects such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and relationship problems. [846]Characteristics of the abuse suffered, such as the type of abusive act, the duration of the abuse and the degree of physical or psychological force used, influence the severity of its effects. These effects extend well beyond the abused individual and can have a significant impact on “secondary” victims such as family members of the abused and the abuser.

Furthermore, parents of sexually abused children often feel guilty because of a perceived failure to protect the child. It is also recognised that where child sexual abuse is perpetrated by an authority figure such as a clergyman, its impact on the victim can have additional consequences such as alienation and a loss of faith, both religious and in people.

In addition to the grave psychological damage which such abuse may cause, the criminal offences involved are of the utmost gravity. It is important to emphasise that complaints of sexual abuse are fully investigated by the Garda Síochána and all efforts are made to bring the perpetrators to justice. A significant number of clerical perpetrators of sexual abuse have been convicted following Garda investigations and many of them have served or are serving custodial sentences. Irrespective of any form of investigation that might be undertaken, it is a priority that every effort is made to ensure that anyone who has engaged in criminal behaviour of this type is brought to justice.

In light of the disclosures in the “Prime Time” programme and elsewhere, I announced my intention to introduce legislation for a new procedure which would, among other things, enable a detailed and focused investigation into how church and other authorities dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse by clergy and religious. I introduced the Commissions of Investigation Bill in 2003 and, on foot of this legislation, the Commissions of Investigation Act was enacted in July 2004.

A further significant development was the establishment in March 2003 of the non-statutory Ferns Inquiry into the nature of the response to allegations of child sexual abuse by priests operating under the aegis of the diocese of Ferns. The inquiry’s report, which was presented to the Minister for Health and Children on 25 October, contains a number of valuable recommendations.

Under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004, a commission of investigation may be established by the Government based on a proposal by a Minister, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, to investigate any matter considered by the Government to be of “significant public concern”. An issue giving rise to significant public concern is one that is of more than mere interest to the public or more than just the subject of vigorous political debate. It must, instead, be an issue which has profound implications for life in our society. The Government and I are satisfied that an investigation into the handling of child sexual abuse allegations against the archdiocese [847]of Dublin comes within that category. The sensitive nature of the subject matter and the need to ensure the fullest confidence in and compliance with the investigation means that a commission of investigation, backed up by the statutory powers available to a commission under the 2004 Act, is the appropriate vehicle for investigating the matter.

It would not be appropriate for the Garda Síochána to investigate this matter as it is the handling of complaints or allegations of child sexual abuse rather than the allegations of abuse themselves which are being investigated, and this would involve matters which may not in themselves have been criminal offences. In addition, in investigating the handling of complaints or allegations, it may well be that the handling of complaints made to the Garda Síochána might itself require investigation. For these reasons the Government is of the view that the establishment of a commission of investigation is required.

The report of the Ferns inquiry made a series of recommendations on the lessons which might usefully be learnt from how such complaints or allegations were handled in the past and which will result in improved child protection. The inquiry’s view was that the recommendation of the 1996 report of the Irish Catholic bishops’ advisory committee on child sexual abuse by priests and religious, entitled Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response, on the reporting of child sexual abuse is one of the most important and has had the most impact on the church’s handling of this problem in the past nine years.

With regard to the procedure of holding regular high level meetings between the diocese of Ferns, the Garda Síochána and the Health Service Executive, which is called the inter-agency review committee, the inquiry saw this as having considerable merits and was of the view that the procedure should and could be adopted in any case in which continuing problems arise concerning child sexual abuse.

On 25 October, the Government accepted in principle the recommendations in the Ferns Report and gave a commitment to its implementation by line Departments and relevant agencies. The Government also authorised the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to write to the Irish bishops’ commission to ask it to ensure individual and collective compliance with the inquiry’s recommendations and to request the Health Service Executive to liaise with individual bishops to ensure implementation of the recommendations. The Minister of State consequently wrote to the president of the bishops’ conference and the Health Service Executive on 26 October with particular emphasis on the 1996 guidelines and the inter-agency review committee.

As a further step in ensuring compliance with the inquiry’s recommendations, the commission [848]should undertake two further tasks in addition to investigating the archdiocese of Dublin. Following a notification by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children that a diocese may not have established the structures or may not be operating satisfactorily the procedures set out in church guidelines, whether the 1996 guidelines or any subsequent ones, the commission of investigation should examine the position in that diocese. Following a notification by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children that a diocese may not be implementing satisfactorily the recommendations of the Ferns Report, the commission should examine the position in that diocese.

The motion before the House is a necessary prerequisite to the establishment of the commission. The motion seeks approval of the draft Government order providing for the establishment of a commission of investigation into two matters: the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against clergy operating under the aegis of the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin, and examining the implementation of church guidelines or the recommendations of the Ferns Report in a particular diocese if the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children requests the commission to do so.

The draft order contains a schedule setting out a statement of reasons for establishing the commission, as required by the Commissions of Investigation Act. A similar motion will be brought before the Upper House. The draft order sets out the terms of reference for the commission. The commission of investigation is being established to:

(a) select a representative sample of complaints or allegations of child sexual abuse made to the archdiocesan and other church authorities and public and State authorities in the period 1 January 1975 to 1 May 2004 against clergy operating under the aegis of the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin;

(b) examine and report on the nature of the response to those sample complaints or allegations on the part of the authorities to which those sample complaints or allegations were reported, including whether there is any evidence of attempts on the part of those authorities to obstruct, prevent or interfere with the proper investigation of such complaints;

(c) in the case of complaints or allegations being examined, to examine and report also on the nature of the response to any other complaints or allegations made by the complainant or against the person in respect of whom those complaints or allegations were made, including any such complaints or allegations made before 1 January 1975;

(d) select a representative sample of cases where the archdiocesan and other church and public and State authorities had in the period [849]1 January 1975 to 1 May 2004 knowledge of, or strong and clear suspicion of, or reasonable concern regarding sexual abuse involving clergy operating under the aegis of the archdiocese of Dublin;

(e) establish the response of the archdiocesan and other church and public and State authorities to those sample cases;

(f) establish the levels of communication that prevailed between the archdiocesan and other church authorities and public and State authorities with regard to those sample complaints, allegations, knowledge, reasonable concern or strong and clear suspicion;

(g) examine, following a notification from the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children that a Catholic diocese in the State may not have established the structures, or may not be operating satisfactorily the procedures set out in the 1996 report of the Irish Catholic bishops’ advisory committee on child sexual abuse by priests and religious, Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response, and any subsequent similar document, the position in that diocese; and

(h) examine, following a notification from the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children that a Catholic diocese in the State may not be implementing satisfactorily the recommendations of the Ferns Report delivered to the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children on 25 October 2005, the position in that diocese.

I draw the attention of Deputies to a number of points about these terms of reference. The commission will investigate the handling of two categories of cases in the archdiocese of Dublin. It will investigate the handling of cases where specific complaints or allegations were made and it will investigate the handling of cases where, while there were no complaints or allegations, there was knowledge, strong and clear suspicion or reasonable concern of sexual abuse.

The commission will cover a specific period from 1 January 1975 to 1 May 2004. While I am aware of the arguments for not having a period of time specified, it is a more productive use of the resources available to proceed in that way. To give the commission an open-ended remit would make it almost impossible for it to complete its work within a reasonable timeframe. In addition, the further back in time one goes, the more fragmentary would be the records on the handling of cases by the archdiocese and, consequently, the more difficult the task of investigation would be. The most important task is to draw lessons from the mistakes of the past to ensure that nothing similar happens again.

The terms of reference specify that a representative sample of cases will be examined. The important word here is “representative”. It will be incumbent on the commission to examine the [850]cases which come to its attention, whether through an examination of documents and records it discovers or as a result of advertising for persons to approach it and, having examined these cases, choosing a sample which is representative of them. The terms of reference specify that where a case is among the representative sample, all complaints and allegations by that complainant are also examined. They also specify that all complaints and allegations against an alleged perpetrator named in a complaint or allegation being investigated will also be investigated.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Minister should conclude.

Mr. McDowell: I have a fairly substantial script but it is available for Deputies.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Fine Gael welcomes the proposed establishment of this commission. I should preface my contribution by saying that I will ignore the Minister’s opening remarks other than to say that they show how incorrigible he is. They probably confirm the view that he will never learn. We will leave that matter aside, however, and deal with the serious issue in the motion.

It is important for the House to support the right of victims of abuse to tell their stories so that the full and dreadful nature of their abuse and exploitation can be recounted as they so wish. It is important that this be done within a workable timeframe and in a way that is sufficiently resourced to ensure that those victims will feel they are being treated properly.

The case of Marie Therese O’Loughlin has been raised recently in the House on a number of occasions. I saw a chink of light in the Taoiseach’s response this morning. When somebody has clearly been the victim of abuse and believes he or she must resort to the measures she has taken, we all want to find a solution to his or her case. If it is the situation that she was an inmate of another institution covered by the Residential Institutions Redress Act, we would all want to see her case being dealt with as quickly as possible.

I am interested in the need for a proper political will behind what steps are taken as well as the provision of proper resources. I know we must tread a fine line, but when the House agrees to establish an investigation, we should know that it will be properly dealt with and resourced. I am thinking of the example of the commission under Ms Justice Laffoy which eventually ran into the ground to a great degree since she had to resign owing to the difficulties that she experienced in securing resources for it. On the one hand, I would like to see the commission of investigation properly resourced, and on the other hand I do not want a situation to arise whereby, after a time, there is commission fatigue among the public and an element of scandal since people may feel that resources have been wasted. That is the fine line that we must tread. We must ensure [851]proper resources but also that there is no sense of their being wasted.

From that perspective, it is obviously extremely important that any commission established by this House be fully accountable and transparent. On the question of resources, I know that the Minister will have to come back to us with detailed projections. It would be helpful at this stage if he could give us a rough idea. Has any thought been given to ballpark figures or to the general factors that might affect the final total? If the public knew in advance of the time and cost, it would be better prepared to support fully the resources needed to bring the commission to a successful conclusion. I say that in all fairness to the judge who has agreed to accept the position as chair of the commission. That person must be assured that the full resources will be made available.

Regarding the issues the Minister mentioned in his speech, it would be helpful from the perspective of the House and the public for him to deal with the decision to opt for a representative sample as opposed to hearing all such complaints. I can see that one might not want to be totally open-ended, but how will that representative sample work and what percentage of complaints will be adopted? Will individuals who may have been seriously abused feel aggrieved at their exclusion from the process owing to the way in which the representative sample is selected? Perhaps the Minister might provide further information on that.

In his reply, the Minister might also give some indication of what matters in his ambit remain outstanding of those raised in the Ferns Report. Several such issues require a response from him. One was the commission of investigation that we are now establishing, but there were also questions regarding legal aid. Have they been addressed? What situation will arise regarding those coming before the commission that we are now setting up? In a broader context, the Ferns Report recommended that legal aid irrespective of means be made available to both complainants and priests against whom allegations are made where the cases are not determined by a criminal court. Is there now a decision to ensure that such legal aid will be available?

Several other issues arose in the Ferns Report that call for action on the part of the Minister, one being the question of introducing a new offence. That seems to have been lumped in with the proposal to table an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill 2004. I must issue a word of concern at this stage regarding the Bill and question whether all those amendments might ever be brought on board. Will the Bill ever complete the legislative process? We will end up with an absolute blockbuster and I am concerned about its faltering under its own weight and failing to pass in the lifetime of the current Government. There are now many proposals to add to it.

[852]There is also an issue that I felt quite important, namely, the reference in the report to training procedures for members of the Garda Síochána. There was particular mention of the approach adopted in Northern Ireland by the PSNI. Specialist child protection units were referred to as being very highly regarded there. It was thought that we could take a leaf out of their book and that the approach adopted in Northern Ireland could provide a useful model. I wonder if that recommendation has been followed. It would obviously be very difficult to implement a process whereby it could be acted on very quickly.

As far as the current proposal is concerned, I am very glad to lend the motion before the House my full support. I would like to raise another issue touched on by the Minister in his speech which concerned the situation in other dioceses. I understand that we would want to have a process to deal with dioceses where new guidelines were not operating satisfactorily, but at this stage I find it difficult to understand. I am somewhat impatient regarding where a diocese has put the necessary guidelines in place. It would be helpful if the Minister might outline the situation in that regard.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, has a role. Does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, know if any diocese has thus far failed to establish the structures referred to in his speech? If so, perhaps serious steps should be taken immediately to ensure they are put in place. I take the point that if it is merely a question of examining whether they are operating satisfactorily, that is a separate issue. However, perhaps the Minister might deal with that in his reply. Overall, I am very happy to give the motion before the House my full support on behalf of Fine Gael.

Mr. Costello: I once again welcome the Minister whose visits to the House are becoming regular events. I also welcome the motion. I would have preferred it to have been broader than it is, but it is welcome to see at last a commission of investigation being established to investigate the handling of allegations into child sexual abuse against clergy operating under the aegis of the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin and to examine the implementation by Catholic dioceses of church guidelines and the recommendations of the Ferns Report. The terminology may not be quite correct, in that the Anglican Church terms itself a Protestant and Catholic church. It also uses the words “Catholic” and “apostolic”. For us to arrogate the Catholic version is not doing it justice. Is the Minister proposing to extend it to include “Protestant”? Did he just happen to omit “Protestant”?

Mr. McDowell: I will ring the Protestant Archbishop and ask him.

[853]Mr. Costello: I do not think he is happy with the manner in which we specified the church——

Mr. McDowell: Anyway, we can change that on Committee Stage.

Mr. Costello: I am glad. The Archbishop will be delighted.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The Minister might have got a belt of a crozier.

Mr. Costello: It is a relevant matter because the Schedule to the Residential Institutions Redress Act includes Protestant as well as Catholic institutions. Presumably, what we are doing here refers only to the Roman Catholic Church. No doubt the Minister will clarify all of that on Committee Stage.

Numerous allegations of child sexual abuse against members of the clergy in the archdiocese of Dublin surfaced in the late 1990s and early 2000s and culminated in the explosive “Prime Time” programme, Cardinal Sins, in October 2002. The programme revealed that there were then 450 legal actions in progress as a result of clerical child sexual abuse allegations facing the archdiocese of Dublin. The programme detailed accounts of cases of abuse by eight priests, of which at least six archbishops were aware.

The Minister, Deputy McDowell, who was Minister at the time, in The Irish Times immediately declared that he was “very alarmed” by what he had seen and he found it “deeply disturbing”. To be sure, he watched the programme a second time. Furthermore, he said he would brief the Cabinet immediately on the type of inquiry to be set up. However, the proposed inquiry was disgracefully put on hold by the Minister and the Government. I will give an example that indicates the position at the time.

I put down a parliamentary question in November 2002, shortly after I became spokesperson on justice, and I know how clearly and elaborately the Minister answers such questions. He gave me a two-paragraph reply to the question but it was interesting——

Mr. McDowell: I am told some of my answers are too long.

Mr. Costello: Some of them can be over-elaborate and may miss the point, despite the fact that they are so long, but some of them can be short and to the point. In this case the reply was quite short and to the point. The question was as follows: “To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when he expects to announce details of the form of inquiry to be held into allegations of serious sexual abuse within the Dublin Archdiocese; if the inquiry will be limited to Dublin; if it will cover other areas in the country; and if he will make a statement on the matter”. [854]That was in November 2002. The Minister’s crisp and specific response was as follows:

I am finalising proposals in relation to this matter which I hope to submit to Government shortly. The Deputy will appreciate that in advance of that submission I cannot definitively answer the questions he poses regarding the form and scope of such an inquiry. I assure the House that I am giving priority to this matter because of the grave nature of the issues involved.

That was more than three years ago. The Minister had an inquiry in mind. He intended to establish an inquiry. He had briefed the Cabinet. He found the report very disturbing and he was giving the matter priority. I wonder what would happen on a matter to which the Minister did not give priority.

The inquiry the Minister is now establishing will report in 18 months. There is one certainty about this inquiry; it will not report while the Minister is Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in this Administration. I do not know what will happen afterwards.

Mr. F. McGrath: The Deputy is looking for the job.

Mr. Costello: I am sure Deputy McGrath would have an eye on the job.

Mr. F. McGrath: My seat is very dodgy.

Mr. Costello: The reason the Minister gave in subsequent questions I and other Deputies asked was to do with the outcome of the Ferns investigation but that investigation was not set up until March 2003. The Minister said the outcome of that investigation was awaited and that he did not want to do anything until that had come out.

Mr. McDowell: Which was very wise.

Mr. Costello: It may have been very wise but in 2002 the Minister had given this inquiry priority over the Ferns investigation. The Minister’s wisdom in hindsight is wonderful. The other reason he gave was that a more effective medium of investigation was required. Both reasons are wise and appropriate but the effect of not taking action at that time, when many allegations had been put into the public domain, meant that the matter was left in a type of limbo, if limbo still exists, for three years. This was serious criminality but the Minister was prepared to put the issue on the long finger. He did not know when the Ferns report would come out. He did not know at that time whether we would have a commission of investigation. As it happened it came out in due course. The Commission of Investigation Bill was enacted in 2004 and the Ferns report came out in October 2005.

At last, the long-awaited inquiry into the Dublin Archdiocese has been established under [855]the Commissions of Investigation Act and Yvonne Murphy, Circuit Court judge, will chair the investigation. The terms of reference were published in early November this year. I welcome the publication of the terms of reference and the statement by the Minister at the time, to which Deputy Jim O’Keeffe alluded, that a figure of €5.7 million would be made available to meet the cost of the inquiry. I do not believe that will be enough although the inquiry will continue but at least a figure was put on the costs. I welcome also the announcement by the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, that he and the diocese would co-operate fully with the inquiry. I hope all of these mechanisms are in place.

There are a number of matters that give rise to concern about the terms of reference as outlined previously. The first serious issue is the limited timescale of the investigation. It extends only from January 1975 to May 2004, less than a 30 year period. Part of the Minister’s script, which he did not get an opportunity to read out, states: “In addition, the further back in time one goes, the more fragmentary would be the records on the handling of cases by the Archdiocese and consequently the more difficult the task of investigation would be”. It also states: “To give the Commission an open ended remit would make it almost impossible for it to complete its work ...”. The Ferns inquiry and the Residential Institutions Redress Board had an open ended remit and I cannot understand——

Mr. McDowell: Ferns is about one tenth the size of the Dublin diocese.

Mr. Costello: That is the point in terms of the timescale the Minister is providing for. He should provide for ten times the 18 months.

Mr. McDowell: That is a good idea.

Mr. Costello: The Minister must recognise the amount of work involved but I will come to that shortly.

Mr. McDowell: A 15 year inquiry is an attractive idea.

Mr. Costello: It is more than that. By drawing the line in 1975 the Minister is effectively giving an amnesty in terms of any offence committed prior to that time. In other words, he is drawing the line at a time when, according to the Ferns Report, considerable child sexual abuse was taking place in that diocese. It is wrong to draw the line in that arbitrary fashion and simply say it would be difficult to proceed beyond that. We know that a great deal of abuse took place in the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s and throughout the 1970s. What the Minister is doing is unfair. He should remember that he is not covering everything. He is covering only rep[856]resentative samples. The totality of what took place in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin could be captured if this arbitrary line were not drawn. The Minister should revisit this provision. Although many people who were abused in the 1930s and 1940s are now dead, many of them are still alive.

The timescale is probably the other major issue. A timescale of 18 months for an inquiry into an archdiocese the size of Dublin is clearly inadequate considering the number of cases which have already been alluded to, the amount of sampling that must take place, the complexity of the process and the fact that Judge Murphy must examine whatever material is given to her by the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, regarding the audit of other dioceses. Other material must be examined. The Minister should ensure that the inquiry is allocated whatever time is necessary is carry out a thorough investigation.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I wish to share my time with Deputies Finian McGrath and Cuffe. We will not oppose this motion to approve the order establishing a commission of investigation into the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against members of the clergy operating under the aegis of the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin. People have been appalled by the revelations in the Ferns Report. The most damning aspect of the report was the failure of those in authority in the church and the State, including the Garda Síochána, to act to protect children who were being repeatedly and systematically abused.

With this order the Government intends to establish a commission of investigation into the archdiocese of Dublin. When the Ferns Report was issued, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, stated that the commission would investigate any Catholic diocese in the State following a notification from his office that the diocese in question may not be implementing church guidelines regarding child sexual abuse by a priest or a religious or may not be implementing the recommendations of the Ferns Report satisfactorily.

This area should be revisited. A commitment to an investigation into the archdiocese of Dublin has been given and should proceed but why should similar investigations into every Catholic diocese in the country not be held? Abuse could have occurred and been covered up in every diocese in the country. Why should investigations be limited to Catholic dioceses? What about investigations into other churches and institutions which deal and have dealt with children?

Mr. McDowell: Regarding the 15-year proposal——

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I must interrupt the Minister as I have only three minutes in which to speak. Why should the decision of a Minister to [857]establish an investigation be determined by church guidelines? The Minister’s guidelines should be State guidelines and laws enacted by the Oireachtas. I would expect the Minister to be a champion of this principle.

I again appeal to the Government to extend the deadline for the inclusion of further institutions, among them the Morning Star mother and baby home, in the remit of the Residential Institutions Redress Board. Marie Therese O’Loughlin has stood outside the gates of Leinster House day and night for many weeks. It is shameful that she was forced to do so.

Mr. F. McGrath: Hear, hear.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: She suffered horrific experiences as a child in a State which neglected her and many others and which still neglects her. Shame on those who could make the right decision in her case but who have failed to do so. I appeal to the Minister for an 11th hour change of heart.

Mr. F. McGrath: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important debate and motion. I welcome the commission of investigation to inquire into allegations of child sexual abuse by clergy operating under the aegis of the archdiocese of Dublin and to examine the implementation by the archdiocese of church guidelines and the recommendations of the Ferns Report. I will support this motion.

The Minister was correct in stating earlier that sexual abuse is associated with a range of adverse long-term effects, such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and relationship problems. We must all acknowledge that the pain of sexual abuse lingers with victims for many years. We must also acknowledge that the damage inflicted on young children and people in the care of the Catholic Church and other institutions has led to suicide and alcohol and drug abuse. The most important people in this debate are the victims of abuse. They have suffered a nightmare of pain and anguish so the maximum amount of support and assistance must be offered to them.

It is important to pay tribute to the people who acted as whistleblowers. They worked with children and faced and exposed situations where abuse was taking place. Teachers who attempt to deal with child sexual abuse show great courage as they face threats of violence and intimidation as a result of their actions. I base this comment on my own experience as a primary school teacher. It is extremely difficult for an individual who uncovers the abuse of a young child. It is difficult for that individual to look at his or her own children and try to sleep at night after contacting the social services, knowing that young children are at risk. We should pay tribute to and look after the whistleblowers because they are often forgotten. Social workers and child care [858]workers must be guaranteed our maximum support and protection because their work is very dangerous. Child abuse is a very dangerous issue with which to become involved.

It is important for the commission to deal fairly with the issues. Adequate compensation must be provided for the victims. Sadly, many victims are unable to move on and we must constantly be vigilant and look after them. We must also understand that many victims of child abuse have not and do not wish to disclose publicly the abuse they suffered. We must help this silent majority. A friend of mine, who is now married with two children, was raped at the age of 11. I can see that his suffering has continued.

We must be vigilant in the future because those who abuse children will adapt in the face of intervention strategies established to protect children from sexual abuse. Those who abuse children will not go away in the future. I welcome the establishment of this commission because it is a very important development.

Mr. Cuffe: I noted the Minister’s remarks at the beginning of his speech. In light of yesterday’s events, I was surprised he did not identify individuals in his address to the House given his remarks yesterday. Perhaps he has already given names to his friends in the Fourth Estate.

I welcome the Government’s proposal, which contains a considerable amount of detail. Given that the commission will use a representative sample, I would have thought it might have been possible to examine the period before 1975. I accept the Minister’s point that records produced before 1975 will be more difficult to obtain. However, if we are simply examining a representative sample of cases, we could extend the scope of investigation to the period before 1975 because we can limit the amount of cases being examined.

In that part of his speech which he did not get a chance to read, the Minister mentioned that Judge Yvonne Murphy has been offered the post of chair of the commission and I am glad to hear that she has accepted the offer. I reiterate Deputy Costello’s point that it is important that everyone involved in the commission have the appropriate legal resources made available to them. I would hate to think that people would be concerned that they might not have the resources they need to carry out their duties, be they members of the public, the clergy or others.

The Minister spoke about the need to staff the commission. It is crucial that the people who are seconded or appointed to this office have an appropriate range of professional backgrounds and training. Sensitivity is a word that arises continually in this area. It is crucial that people working with the commission have the appropriate training to deal with others and cope with what they might uncover.

It is important that the clergy has sufficient resources. The Catholic Church is in crisis. Amidst a background of declining vocations, [859]there may be problems in simply getting backroom staff. When it comes to looking at the files, sourcing them and pulling them out, I hope the Minister ensures that the church has sufficient resources to do it adequately.

I accept the point that this is a response to the “Prime Time” documentary that looked specifically at the Catholic Church in Dublin. However, a Pandora’s box has been opened. It is for another time and another day, but many other bodies need to be examined, such as sports organisations that have already been in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. I have no doubt this short, sharp response will lead to a greater investigation that will have to be carried out in the future. I accept this inquiry has to be short and quick. I would deeply regret if it carried on much longer than the 18 months specified, although I note that the Minister allows it to do so. It is important that we establish a coherent body of information that can inform us better on where we go in the future. I welcome this and commend the Minister in having got it this far. I wish him well in setting up the procedures.

Mr. McDowell: I thank the Deputies for their warm and supportive remarks. The commission will be established for 18 months. It will report not later than 18 months after its establishment. It is open to the Minister of the day to extend that time if it becomes necessary. It will comprise of a number of members. The Chair, Judge Murphy, will work full-time for the commission. The other three members will spend half of their time on commission work. Judge Murphy herself is a person——

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Have they been appointed?

Mr. McDowell: No, they are being selected in a consultative process. Judge Murphy has immense experience as a public servant, as a journalist, as an editor of a magazine and as a member of the staff of the National Social Service Board. In addition, she was at one stage a special adviser to the Tánaiste of this State. These are quite extensive qualifications for anyone carrying out this kind of work. She also has judicial experience in family law and other criminal law cases, which will be very important. I am very grateful to her for accepting the commission.

The staffing of the commission will comprise of a solicitor, two higher executive officers or administrative officers, two executive officers, five clerical officers as well as a senior counsel and five researchers. Projected staffing costs for the commission of investigation into child clerical abuse total €5.695 million, which includes €1.6 million for the legal costs of third parties, roughly 40% of the commission’s own costs. The terms of reference permitted by the Act will be honed and perfected before the commission is established. The victims organisations have been consulted [860]about all of this and they are, broadly speaking, happy with them. Many meetings were held with them.

There could be inquiries in every diocese in Ireland, in every non-Catholic diocese in Ireland and in areas which are not religious at all. It could be possible to abandon sampling as an idea. It would be possible to take away the 1975 guidelines and investigate incidents in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. However, there would be at least a century of investigation which could only be accomplished by 15 or 20 parallel inquiries, or by the establishment of some monumental statutory body that would never report back to us. The victims are happy with the approach being taken. Mr. Colm O’Gorman, to whom I want to pay particular tribute, has been entirely realistic about this. I thank him for his patience, because he has seen the political process that has brought us from where we were when this programme was shown to where we are now.

I thank the Deputies for their supportive remarks and I wish the commission good fortune in carrying out its functions. Once the motion is agreed by this House, I will bring a similar motion before the Seanad and I hope to establish the commission in the new year.

Question put and agreed to.

Question again proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

Mr. Crawford: I will continue where I left off last night. The family income supplement is a benefit to those on low pay within the system, but it is not available to the self-employed. With all the supermarkets setting up and leaving small shopkeepers and others on low income, or even forcing them out of business, the FIS should be extended to the self-employed. Their books are acceptable to the Revenue Commissioners so their need of supplementary income should also be acceptable.

The idea that there would be an increase in the take up of the pharmacy scheme has also been on the go for several years. We were originally told that 40,000 would be on the scheme and later we were told that there would only be 20,000. The reality is that there are only around 8,000 on this scheme at any given time. Farm organisations stated that it should be at least twice that number. Unfortunately, there is a fear among farmers to apply for it. There seems to be an attitude among some social welfare officers — I emphasise that it is only some officers — who think that farmers should not be entitled to it.

Both the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach have mentioned the situation regarding old age non-contributory pensioners. I thank the Minister for Social and Family Affairs for the [861]change that allows them to earn some income without being cut. We must go back to the actions of the former Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern. He brought in the half rate pension for those who had contributed for five years or more under the scheme introduced in April 1988. Those people could not pay the full ten years because they were too old at the time. Whenever Deputy Jim O’Keeffe and I tried to get the pension to be pro rata we were assured that such would be the case. In reality, when it was introduced the rate was only 50%. The Minister admits that these people have served the country well through the years and are entitled to a fair share. I urge him at this late stage to look at that. The amount of money would not be that big because some people would have paid for six years. Some people would have paid for the full ten years, but they were born a few days before 1 April of a certain year and they were not eligible to get the full contributory old age pension. Instead of getting 90% or 80%, they get 50%. These people wanted to pay but because of their age, they could not.

Other Deputies have referred to the fact that there has been a substantial increase in maternity benefit and maternity leave. Why is there no paternity benefit? It is one of the things that keeps me from doing anything like that, because one needs to be sure it is available before one does anything.

Mr. Stanton: I knew that was the reason.

6 o’clock

Mr. Crawford: Other issues must be looked at as well. Deputy Keaveney mentioned the issue of people working in FÁS. Surely anyone over 55 should be allowed to remain on a FÁS scheme until he or she reaches the age of retirement. It is a good organisation which has served both rural and urban communities well. People should be allowed to work, regardless of the number of years there, once they have reached a certain age.

In the previous budget the Minister said he would be giving out respite grants of €9 million to those not already on carer’s allowance. The reality is that less than €6 million has been paid. That indicates there is some money available in that area and the entire carer situation needs to be reviewed. The means test has been slightly increased, but there are still seriously ill people who require full-time care. Daughters, daughters-in-law and whatever must stay at home and look after them. I know the carer’s benefit exists, but the situation is much the same in that regard.

I took a phone call a short time ago from a woman in my constituency whose husband was forced to work more overtime because of work practice changes. She has been reassessed for carer’s allowance and cut off because of his overtime. She feels very aggrieved.

I welcome the increased funding for the money advice and budgeting service, MABS. In spite of [862]all the talk about the Celtic tiger and the country rolling in money, a vulnerable group still exists comprising not just people on social welfare but middle income groups as well. They are being hit by high costs for houses, cars and, perhaps, furniture on loan. The people in MABS inform me that many such people are now coming to them for help. It is therefore very important that MABS should be looked after.

A woman told me at the weekend that a community welfare officer had come to the house to see what food she had for herself and her three children before giving her €50. That is how serious some situations are. In general, I welcome the increases. A major step forward has been made over recent years. However, we need to ensure that the regulations allow for hardship cases wherever they arise.

Mr. Perry: I am delighted to speak on this very important Bill. Given that the budget has allocated €12 billion to the Department, obviously it has a major responsibility in helping families and those on low incomes. That is the essence of public service for those in need, especially those in receipt of old age pensions and social welfare, those affected by child and family poverty, and carers. That is the critical mass to be addressed. Many of those in receipt of weekly social welfare payments are on old age and related pensions. This is a major Department and an enormous amount of money is involved.

To get equity into the system, it is important to assess those most in need and decide how best to deal with the new poor in the economy. Deputy Crawford has spoken about carers. Governments have always striven to give increased benefits to carers of older people in particular and in this regard the home care package is very important and good value for money. The costs of keeping people in nursing homes are enormous, even allowing for subvention rates. Families often must come up with hundreds of euro, but in many instances they could cope if they were given an increased subvention to look after elderly parents at home. This could be easily regulated through the Health Service Executive.

The nursing home subvention is important. What is very unfair about it, however, is the wide variation in subvention rates. In Sligo, for example, it is €190 while in Dublin it can be €450. This is unfair from the viewpoint of people who operate nursing homes because costs are quite similar in many respects. Will the Minister indicate why there are different rates of subvention? If a patient is fortunate enough to get a place in a nursing home in Dublin, the family might have only to pay €200. The same family would have to find €500 for a nursing home place in Sligo. The difference is difficult to explain to nursing home operators and it is clearly not equitable.

As for other social welfare measures, the increase in the fuel scheme from €9 to €14 is welcome even though another anomaly has arisen [863]with ESB bills. A woman told me last week her ESB bill was €108. It contained a VAT element of €14, so perhaps the Minister might look at a derogation of VAT on ESB bills for people on pensions and living alone. The fact that this VAT is not reclaimable and that it is 13.5% means it is yet another element of tax.

An enhanced carer’s allowance rate of €200 a week for people aged 66 and over and €180 for those under 66 is welcome. The area of caring for people at home needs to be looked at, however. The State can get great value for money.

One of the tax incentives to be retained relates to the building of nursing homes and private hospitals. An obligation should be imposed on such ventures to provide sufficient public places as well at a fixed rate. In some cases such facilities can be very exclusive. The State should ensure that the equivalent of Part V of the Planning and Development Act which deals with affordable housing is put in place for such projects to ensure that an agreed number of public beds is facilitated. This would mean an integration of patients as well and this is to be encouraged. Availability in some of the privately built nursing homes is primarily targeted at VHI patients. If they were obliged to give 25% to the State for public beds that would ensure balance.

Caring for older people is certainly the most important issue of all and the five-year child care strategy is also crucial. I compliment Deputy Stanton on all the work he has done in this area on behalf of Fine Gael. He has clearly identified enormous issues, many of which have been incorporated into this budget. The strategy for the development of child care facilities in every town and region while encouraging people to mind people at home are examples. I see, however, that where one’s income is in excess of €10,000, all of it will be taxed. That is unfair. Tax should be levied only on the income in excess of €10,000. If the facility is catering for three children, that is approximately €65 per child per week, equivalent to considerably less than the minimum wage. This situation should be re-examined.

Ireland has many voluntary groups who do fantastic work in our communities. Such voluntary groups offer support to people and create awareness of specific issues. As legislators we need to be constantly aware of the concerns of voluntary groups. We have many such groups in Sligo-Leitrim. For example, the Sligo Social Services Council has the worthy aim of promoting the justice, equality and dignity of all human beings.

Almost one in five people in Ireland are at risk of poverty and those people are living in households where the income is less than 60% of the national income. The most vulnerable people are most at risk. A massive 48% of lone parents are at risk of poverty and 36% of people living alone are also at risk. Almost 7% of Irish people are consistently poor and 47% of people who are ill or disabled are at risk of poverty.

[864]The Celtic tiger has been beneficial in many ways but many people missed out. The Minister is doing a good job. His Department has a huge budget. As Deputy Crawford said, MABS plays an important role by helping people to manage their finances. The Sligo branch of MABS has been very effective. Sligo social services do a very good job. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is very active in the region. I compliment all on the good work. Voluntary groups are needed in every constituency and voluntarism is to be commended.

Figures released by the CSO show that the highest level of poverty is to be found in the Border, midlands and western areas. This runs contrary to the development of a booming economy. One in four people in the north west are at risk from poverty. The welfare package in the budget incorporates significant facilities such as caring for the elderly and the very young, both critical groups.

Mr. Dennehy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I agree with Deputy Perry on the importance of the Bill. I am glad I am not an Opposition Deputy when it comes to this Bill and the budget because it would be a difficult job. I am confident my colleagues opposite will do their best to muddy the waters, so to speak, because that is their job.

Mr. Stanton: No, the Deputies opposite did it all themselves.

Mr. Dennehy: I note a new pattern continuing from last year whereby votes on the budget are avoided, as was the case last Wednesday. This is unprecedented but it probably indicates a certain strength in the budget in that it is difficult to argue against it.

There has been a disturbing effort by the Opposition to avoid discussion in the House on the budget. I regard this as a worrying trend. The Members opposite will forgive me if I refer occasionally to their time in office, purely for comparison purposes. The only way the effectiveness and the benefit of this budget can be measured is by reference to the past.

Deputy Crawford is usually a man who is a rock of common sense, but last night he scolded some of my colleagues who had spoken earlier in the day for, as he said, going on about the good things in the Bill. I suggest the Deputy should get real, so to speak. A total of 1.5 million people have benefited from the greatest package ever in the history of the State and, according to the Deputy, we are not supposed to talk about it. He carried on nit-picking, but I am sorry to break the sad news in his absence that I will continue along the same lines.

The only way to measure the contents is by comparison. I refer to the most recent Cabinet in which the Opposition participated and compare it with this Government’s achievements, partic[865]ularly with reference to the budget and this Bill. As Deputy Perry stated, these are the main issues for the year. When I made such comparisons in the past, I was shouted at on one or two occasions and that upset me——

Mr. Stanton: This is pointless. The Deputy should come up to date.

Mr. Dennehy: I was told I was dealing with history. The people who made the decisions back then are still around, unfortunately, and they would be part of any alternative administration. It is important to examine their record. One of the chief strategists from that era was holding forth on the contents of the budget last week. This was the same gentleman who was the chief adviser to the former Democratic Left, Workers Party or Labour Party Minister for Social Welfare who gave the elderly an increase of £1.30. It is far easier to talk about what people should do rather than do it.

I will make a comparison between that former Labour Minister for Social Welfare and his record and that of the Minister, Deputy Brennan, who is currently in the same portfolio. When he was first appointed to this Ministry, we saw evidence of the truth of Edmund Burke’s theory that we Irish never speak well of anyone. Before he did any work we were told that he would be a disaster, and that was one of the milder terms used. The Minister’s impeccable record in various previous portfolios was ignored. The vision, courage and commitment shown by him in every portfolio was ignored.

This superficial judgment of the Minister, Deputy Brennan, has been proven to be very inaccurate and wide of the mark. This judgment was not confined to Members of this House but was repeated by commentators and others who should have known better and should have bided their time and waited to evaluate his record until after this Social Welfare Bill. Those doubting his commitment will have received the final proof, if further proof were needed, from the recent ESRI report. Deputy Perry referred to other reports, including the OECD report. The ESRI report indicates that the rate of increase for welfare payments is the key driver in ensuring that the poorest 20% of our society gains seven times as much from the budget as the richest 20% of the population. This is a tribute to the Minister, Deputy Brennan, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen.

I am delighted the Minister has been a success as Minister for Social and Family Affairs and I am confident the social welfare recipients are even happier. They are the chief beneficiaries of his commitment to the less well-off, children and the elderly. Comparison is the only way to show a fair picture of the achievements of the Government regarding its treatment of the elderly, its support for families and its treatment of the less well-off. The results are the same by reference to [866]any of the issues or to the global programme. There is much higher expenditure and higher percentage increases of a multiple of the rate of inflation in all benefits.

Deputy Crawford referred to 1988. I have been accused of going back in history, but he pointed out that in 1988 a Fianna Fáil Minister gave pro rata pensions and mixed contribution pensions. The Department of Finance at the time said this was not practical, but Fianna Fáil gave those pensions. Deputy Crawford has complained that the rate is still only 50%, but he has blithely ignored the fact that while his party was in office from 1993 to 1997, nothing was nothing done about the matter. That was the time when they should have done something about it. He also referred to the carer’s allowances and complaints made about it. This Administration introduced the concept of a carer’s allowance, to which it has added steadily, and improved the attaching conditions in each budget and Social Welfare Bill. I am pleased, as I am sure every Member is, by this. We must give credit where it is due and praise when bridges are crossed. I do not wish to deal in clichés all the time, but I am concerned about a number of clichéd statements trotted out, on which I will comment.

The overall spend of €13.5 billion will benefit 1.5 million people. This sum is probably too large for us to get a meaningful picture. However, when we consider that the level of expenditure this year is double what it was in 2000, we get a fairer picture and some idea of the improvement made in the past couple of years. We should continue this as far as possible. When the overall spend is broken down into its component parts, the picture becomes clearer.

Some innovative measures, including, for example, a €28 million package for new opportunities and activation measures, were discussed during the years. If, for example, we want a tapered withdrawal of disability allowance for those returning to employment or back to work incentives, this package has been provided for in the Bill. A €30 million package has been provided for the support of carers, including an increase in rates and better respite allowances, a matter talked about previously. This is a significant package. As many of the packages provided for are lost in the whole, we need to break down the figure of €13.5 billion to get the full picture. A €150 million package is provided for to alleviate child poverty. This is in addition to the increased child benefit payments and will provide for extra benefits for low income families, an increase in family income supplement and back to school allowances.

Deputy Perry mentioned the figure of one in five at risk of poverty. I would like a debate on the issue in the House in order to ask the Minister how this figure is measured. So far, I have discovered five formulas for measuring poverty levels from five sources. I have been particularly concerned during the years about children in [867]households with adequate finance which is spent unwisely, either on drink or other substances. Regardless of how much financial assistance we provide in such cases, the problem will continue. We must examine and deal with this issue. We need to establish criteria for measuring poverty levels in order that we can identify those who are less well off and, in particular, those at risk. We can then cater for them through providing the extra help they need. Having five groups measuring poverty levels, each coming up with different facts and figures, is no help, particularly to those who are suffering.

In addition to the €42 million fuel poverty package and the increase in pensions for older people, a separate €50 million support package is provided for the support of older people. This represents a breakthrough. The extra money will allow for an improved position in this category. However, there are other categories for which we need to cater, but the Government has taken the initiative and will use the moneys collected from the taxpayer to help those in need.

I wish to refer briefly to the programmes screened on television during the summer recess in which we were told how stupid we were to be paying so much in tax. The Minister laid it on the line when he said he had given €2 billion to older people, a further €2 billion to younger children and more to the less well-off and others and asked which portion people wanted him to cut off? We should have more discussion of how we use taxpayer’s money. If we introduce innovative measures such as those mentioned and those who need help can see this happening, the people will be quite happy to pay their taxes. They are happy to pay when the money goes to the proper source. The greatest level of support for any Department is provided for the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It must continue to be innovative in the distribution of its resources and taxpayer’s money.

As a founding trustee of a local pre-school and family support centre, set up over 20 years ago in my parish of Togher in Cork, I spent many years fighting the Southern Health Board for support. Although I chaired that august body for a time, it still took me years to have a budget heading introduced within the health board system for five family centres in Cork. It is for this reason I feel an innovative approach is needed. The ad hoc granting of funds, with money dribbling into schemes now and then when problems arise, is not adequate. Centres such as these need a specific budget to allow volunteers get on with their work. I can confirm that every single euro spent by the centres has been paid back one hundredfold to society. The reason I raise this matter is to point out that it should not have taken that long to secure a formal financial footing and that we must be more receptive to new ideas and ways of doing things to help solve the difficulties we [868]face, particularly when people bring forward proposals to try to help themselves.

The Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, has shown a genuine willingness to meet and listen to people. I compliment him on adopting this approach. This gives the lie to those who claimed he would have no interest in his job. It is accepted that he has, but it was unfair to suggest he would not be interested before he began his work. I ask him to address the anomalies that crop up in all schemes and on which departmental personnel often give a rigid response. The bureaucrats involved must be less rigid. This may mean they require flexibility in legislation. This should be taken into account in future legislation.

I am concerned about electronic payments and how they affect people. I am dealing with a case of a widow in receipt of disability benefit. She suffered a family bereavement and was suffering from depression. She was invited to the United States by a relative who wanted to help get her back on her feet. Being an honest person, the lady concerned applied to have her money drawn down weekly. She was told she should notify the Department, but when she filled in the form and sent it off, her payment was disallowed for all but two weeks of the benefit payments due to her, even though she was certified as suffering from depression. Had she signed on to receive payment of her allowance electronically, she would have had no problem. If she had not bothered to inform the Department what she was doing, she would have had no bother. She could have taken five or six approaches without encountering a problem, but because she did the correct thing, departmental officials said the rules must be followed and that they could do nothing for her. I will recommend her to approach the Ombudsman and hope this will work for her. It is blackguarding that she was deprived of money she needed to pay her way and keep her house going.

This side of the House has consistently argued that the best way for people to benefit is to have a job. Cork City Council has produced an economic monitor report several times a year for the past 20 years or so. I was glad to read in this month’s version that in February 1997, the month before we returned to this side of the House, the unemployment figure in Cork was 21,294. By this September it had decreased to 9,771. This is proof positive that our programmes are working. This happened against the backdrop of a massive increase in employment generally and an increase in the benefits that have been made available. The ultimate aim of providing benefits is to ensure people have a well paid livelihood and are treated fairly.

Over the years, each Member present has spoken about a number of specific issues pertaining to social welfare, including those concerning the elderly. In this regard, we have increased the pension and are heading for the target of €200. I am sure we will have to exceed this quite [869]substantially next year. I hope we will achieve this.

Reference was made to children and families at risk because of a lack of finance, particularly where a family member is working. The Minister’s increases to the family income supplement were a reaction not only to his knowledge of the issues that arise in this regard but also to the points made by spokespersons of the various parties.

The issue of carers first arose some years ago and we found there were 150,000 full-time carers in receipt of no benefits or recognition. A lady from Clare got the bandwagon rolling, almost on her own, and those of us who signed up to support the campaign and those who have joined since welcome what is happening. We will continue to welcome it. The issue of supplying money to carers to look after elderly people at home is very closely linked to this matter, but not all carers are looking after the elderly. However, the Minister has picked up on this very sensitive issue.

Children at risk were referred to and in this regard the Minister has tried to target those affected. We all accept the critical importance of targeted funding and the Minister has targeted funding into the areas where it is most needed.

I am sure I am speaking for the spokespersons of each of the parties in complimenting the Minster, Deputy Brennan, who is one of my own. As somebody who came new to his current brief, he has picked up the ball very quickly and has achieved a great deal in 18 months. I compliment him on the Bill and commend it to the House.

Mr. S. Ryan: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill 2005. I compliment the Minister on the various improvements he has made through the Bill on foot of the budget. We must acknowledge that he has had available to him the greatest amount of money available to a Minister in his position in the history of the State. There was a surplus of nearly €2 billion when the Minister for Finance set about preparing his budget. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs had a number of issues to deal with and in this context he must be complimented.

Serious consideration must be given to people living in poverty. Some 17% are in this category, which highlights the emergence of the working poor. It is important that we consider some of the Minister’s statements on the budget and this Bill regarding child poverty. The reality is that between 60,000 and 120,000 children are affected in some way by poverty which could blight their lives and sow the seeds for a serious lack of labour development. The Minister referred to this. On the problems faced by lone parents, he said the 86,000 lone parents and their children, numbering up to 150,000, are especially vulnerable and at high risk of poverty.

[870]We must return to the issue of pensions. Pensioners need to have enough money to live on when they finish their working lives. While not much credence was given to this in the Bill, I look forward to discussing and dealing with it in the future.

The fuel allowance has been increased to €14 but the basic fuel allowance for senior citizens is €9 per week and has not been increased since 2002. As practising politicians, we know the reality that domestic electricity prices have increased by nearly 44% since 2002 and that heating oil is approximately 20% more expensive now than it was this time last year. The current allowance barely covers the cost of a small bag of coal which would heat a house for two or three days per week at most. This must be borne in mind. It is in the context of the increases in energy costs that we must consider the increase in the fuel allowance. I am disappointed it has not been doubled. Perhaps the Minister will respond to this.

Let me deal with the issue of rent allowance and the need to afford people the opportunity to make the transition from welfare to work. While dealing with the Social Welfare Bill 2004 and the recent consolidation Bill in the House, I brought this to the attention of the Minister. He has endeavoured to take on board, where practical, and amend, where necessary, many of the suggestions we made on this side of the House, but if we are truly to afford people the opportunity to leave the social welfare system for work, we must acknowledge one of the main problems that exists in society, namely, the lack of housing. The supplementary welfare allowance, which afforded people in need of housing an opportunity to obtain rent supplement, was devastated by the Minister’s predecessor, Deputy Coughlan, as part of her vicious 16 cuts. There have been slight amendments to the allowance but they do not go far enough.

In the past people tended to be married but other forms of relationship now exist. This needs to be acknowledged. While it has been referred to time and again by the Minister, he might indicate to the House when he envisages a detailed response from the Department to deal with the issue. As I stated previously, people working full-time but living on low income are ineligible for a rent supplement at a time when fewer and fewer social houses are being built by local authorities. This creates a major problem. Couples will separate and others will claim they are not living together when they are only doing so because if they acknowledge the true position, their rent supplement will be taken away. It is not good enough. The issue must be dealt with and I hope the Minister will consider it in a positive manner.

I referred to deserted wife’s benefit in the context of the consolidation Bill. I was pleased that the Minister had acknowledged the anomalies with regard to entitlement and given a commitment to deal with them. Section 10 of the Bill [871]makes reference to the status quo. I hope it will enable the Minister to make changes by regulation. However, as an anomaly arises, I intend to propose a Report Stage amendment for the Minister’s consideration. The earnings bands for deserted wife’s benefit were introduced in 1992 when the full personal rate was £60.50 per week. The bands were never changed, even following the changeover to the euro. The reduced rates of payment were set at 80%, 60%, 40% and 20% of the full rate. This has led to an anomaly whereby, as a person crosses over an earnings threshold, she loses more than she gains. The loss increases with each budget.

The Minister might, at least, as an interim measure to eliminate these anomalies, consider the following changes to the bands. Where earnings are below €15,000, which would qualify one for the full rate, the weekly rate should be €171.30. Where earnings exceed €15,000 but do not exceed €18,000, the weekly rate should be €137. Where earnings exceed €18,000 but do not exceed €21,000, the weekly rate should be €102.80. Where earnings exceed €21,000 but do not exceed €24,000, the weekly rate should be €68.50. Where earnings exceed €24,000 but do not exceed €27,000, the weekly rate should be €34.30. This minor measure, while eliminating anomalies in the short term, would still not restore deserted wife’s benefit recipients to the position that obtained in 1992 as it does not take into account the rate of inflation. As the numbers in receipt of this payment are small and the number with earnings smaller, the Minister might consider abolishing the earnings bands altogether. The payment comes from the social insurance fund. The Minister suggested that if I [872]had any ideas in this regard, I should express them and I have done so.

Some of my colleagues brought a further anomaly to my attention. They were supported by an e-mail I received last week with the following suggestion for deserted wife’s benefit. Given the increase in carer’s benefit, could a deserted wife’s benefit recipient change to carer’s benefit for a few years and then return to deserted wife’s benefit when the person being cared for dies or needs nursing home care? At present this option is not available. A difficulty arises where a woman changes from deserted wife’s benefit to carer’s benefit while looking after a person in need of care. When the person receiving care dies, where does the carer stand with regard to her benefit? I acknowledge that slight improvements for carers have been introduced in the Bill. I support the welcome increase in the respite care grant, which was increased by €200 from €1,000.

In summing up the Minister may be able to indicate how many additional carers will be in receipt of the carer’s allowance as a result of the changes. The Carers Association indicated that perhaps an extra couple of hundred will be in receipt of the carer’s allowance. Considering the number of people who have provided invaluable work and service to look after loved ones, a specific commitment of the all-party committee under the chairmanship of my colleague, Deputy Penrose, in bringing out the report on carers, was to press for the abolition of the means test for carer’s allowance.

Notwithstanding the actions of the Minister and some of his Government colleagues, there is a specific commitment as far as the Labour Party is concerned. If and when our party gets back into Government after the next election, we will bring about a substantial change of the mind set that seems to exist within the Department and with various Ministers.

Mr. O’Connor: If the Labour Party gets into Government.

Mr. S. Ryan: We must acknowledge the role of carers throughout the length and breadth of the country. I acknowledge that certain progress has been made, but I am not convinced the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, has the commitment to go all the way and eliminate the means test for carers’ allowance.

In this context, we have one of the richest countries in the world. The Minister has had much money available, and he has received a disproportionate share from the Minister for Finance in the last budget. Given the existing poverty and our record on combatting poverty, we cannot become complacent. We must get stronger, as the people we look after do not always have the strength and opportunity to represent themselves. Our test as parliamentarians is how we deal with the most vulnerable in our [873]society. The Minister has gone some of the way, but more has to be done.

Mr. O’Connor: I thought Deputy Seán Ryan was about to state “A lot done, more to do”, but he missed his chance. I hope it is not just the impending Christmas that is cheering the Opposition. It seems reasonably happy and I am pleased to see that. As I probably will not get an opportunity tomorrow, I wish all my colleagues a happy Christmas. I will, as always, spend my Christmas in Tallaght. I hope my colleagues have a good time.

I congratulate the Minister on the work he has done. Many speakers from the Opposition have also congratulated him. I am on record stating my belief that Deputy Brennan has revolutionised the Department of Social and Family Affairs in the short time he has been there. He is doing a superb job. Colleagues on the Opposition benches acknowledge this. The Minister listens. I am the secretary of the Fianna Fáil policy group on social and family affairs, and the Minister met us on many occasions, not only leading up to this budget but in the time since he took office as Minister. He has listened to concerns and views expressed to him. Many of the Minister’s efforts regarding the announcements following the budget reflect what he heard from backbenchers, and not only from within the Fianna Fáil party.

I pay tribute to Deputy Penrose, as others have, and this is not merely in the Christmas spirit. Deputy Penrose is an excellent Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, and he is fair to members, as I would expect. I will not make a quip about lost Labour Party leaders as I may upset Deputy Rabbitte, but I notice the Sunday Independent stated this with regard to Deputy Penrose. The Deputy has been keen to support everything the members say at committee level. He has been a particularly strong advocate for carers and their needs. I am happy and privileged to support him in that.

I am pleased that much progress has been made on this issue. The Minister has considered the matter of carers and although there will always be more to do, the Minister has acknowledged this. The Minister is spending approximately €13.5 billion this year, and he has done his best. He has considered what is required and made superb efforts.

I did not have a chance to speak last week in the budget debate because of the pressure of the day and because it was important to allow ministerial colleagues to make important announcements.

Mr. Penrose: Along with junior Ministers.

Mr. O’Connor: Yes. I am a strong supporter of all the junior Ministers, especially the Minister of State in my constituency, Deputy Conor Lenihan.

[874]Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The Deputy may be one yet. Where is his constituency?

Mr. O’Connor: I am under pressure today as Deputy Conor Lenihan is abroad and I have to work even harder than usual. I am happy to do this.

It was good to hear people being positive about last week’s budget. There will always be a need to make political points and I have no difficulty with this. People have generally been very fair to what was a good budget. The media made that point, and I even heard RTE stating it was a good budget, so it must be true. I was pleased the Government considered the needs of the elderly and those in the child care area. The various social welfare announcements were particularly welcome and helpful.

In any debate such as this, we should be prepared to make points about tweaking the system. All of us will be visited by constituents making some point every day of every month. It is in this way we often hear for the first time about an issue regarding how the system is working. I made the point on many occasions that since I became a Deputy three and a half years ago, I get far more social welfare queries than I did before, despite my having been in the local authority for a long period. That people come to their Dáil representatives to raise these issues reflects the confidence people have in the system. It is a good process as we may not only try to deal with the needs and difficulties of constituents on an ongoing basis with the Department, but we can raise these needs in policy discussions also.

On many different occasions in social welfare debates we made the point about the excellent way in which the Department of Social and Family Affairs deals with queries. I have no complaint about the Department as it does a superb job. It is important to understand that it is vital that good quick responses are made. Very often, people coming to us at our clinics and offices are those who are vulnerable and under pressure. With the current numbers availing of the services of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, it is important to acknowledge the good job being done.

7 o’clock

I hope the Minister will continue to examine avenues to satisfy this particular appetite. Where the system is not working for people, I hope he ensures that the Department will listen, respond and deal with the issues. In Tallaght we have a superb facility at the social welfare office in the Square. It is probably one of the most modern of its kind here and it provides an excellent service. If the Minister can find some time early in the New Year I will be happy to show him around Tallaght.

Mr. Stanton: Again?

[875]Mr. O’Connor: The Minister and I share a boundary, and I am happy to look after his former constituents in parts of Firhouse. It would be nice if the Minister came to Tallaght some day to have a look at the social welfare office.

Mr. Brennan: I will go out on the Luas.

Debate adjourned.

SECTION 1.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(a) by the repeal of section 17 and the substitution of the following:

‘17.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a coroner is informed that the body of a deceased person is lying within his district, it shall be the duty of the coroner to hold an inquest in relation to the death of that person if he is of opinion that the death may have occurred

(a) in a violent or unnatural manner,

(b) suddenly and from unknown causes,

(d) following release from military, Garda or prison custody, as a consequence of conditions of custody, treatment while in custody, or a lack of appropriate medical attention while in custody, or

(e) in a place or in circumstances which, under provisions in that behalf contained in any other enactment, require that an inquest should be held.’,”.

This Bill is welcome and my amendments do not detract from that but seek to address other urgent issues connected with the Coroners Act that my party feels should be addressed as quickly possible. This is preferable to delaying until the long-awaited comprehensive reform Bill is published and travels through both Houses of the Oireachtas to become law. I thank the Labour Party for tabling this Bill and take the opportunity to ensure that we consider these two further priorities which must be addressed.

This amendment is quite simple: it aims to make it mandatory to hold an inquest in all cases where the death occurs in military, Garda or [876]prison custody. In certain circumstances deaths occur immediately after the period of custody. Given that many people die in prison and there is nothing untoward in their deaths, one might wonder why there should be an inquest in each case. When people are in Garda or military custody or are in prison, the State has a special duty of care for them. It is therefore in the public interest to hold an inquest every time a person dies in custody, or the death is related to the custody.

This would reassure the public that nothing untoward happened and that everything connected with that custody was above aboard. In the public interest it is necessary to establish the identity of the deceased, when and where the death took place, and the medical cause of death. The inquest must also take into account the circumstances surrounding the death. This amendment will improve transparency and promote public confidence in the institutions which hold people in custody. It is also crucial in the interests of justice for the family of the deceased that this amendment be adopted.

The reference in the amendment to deaths occurring in custody is based on recommendation No. 54 of the report of the working group to review the coroner service. The report stated:

There are situations where a coroner has discretion to hold an inquest and other situations where he has no choice in the matter. The present legal provisions in this regard are presented in a somewhat tortuous way in that some mandatory inquests are subject to the opinion of the coroner that a post-mortem will suffice in terms of carrying out an effective death investigation. . . .Having discussed the issue, the Group felt that obligatory inquests should be extended to cover such situations as death in Garda custody, prison . . .

The coroners rules stipulate that an inquest must be held where a coroner believes the death occurred in a violent or unnatural manner; a death occurs in Garda, Military or prison custody and where it is required under another enactment.

Only the first and third grounds for mandatory inquest have a direct legislative basis, namely, the Coroners Act 1962, section 17 which states:

Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a coroner is informed that the body of a deceased person is lying within his district, it shall be the duty of the coroner to hold an inquest in relation to the death of that person if he is of opinion that the death may have occurred in a violent or unnatural manner, or suddenly and from unknown causes or in a place or in circumstances which, under provisions in that behalf contained in any other enactment, require that an inquest should be held.

[877]The only case in which there is no legislative direction to hold an inquest is when “a death occurs in Garda, Military or prison custody”.

Sinn Féin believes deaths occurring in custody should be treated equally with those listed in the coroners rules. Therefore legislation should guarantee a mandatory inquest in those cases. This amendment would provide such a guarantee.

Our amendment goes slightly further in that it seeks a guarantee of a mandatory inquest into deaths that occur following custody where the coroner is of the opinion that the death may relate to the circumstances of custody. Several cases, some high profile, others less so demonstrate the case for mandatory inquests in deaths following custody. These include the tragic cases of Brian Rossiter, Terence Wheelock, and John Maloney from my constituency.

We are not trying to decide the outcome of such inquests but holding them could go a long way to addressing concerns often raised by the parents or others about the deaths of people who have just been released from custody. In many cases these are sudden deaths which may be connected with the circumstances under which the person was held. The inquest will form that opinion.

That is why this amendment should be accepted for everybody’s sake. It is a reasonable amendment and the issue is pressing. We have the opportunity now to ensure that this one of the 110 recommendations of the coroner service review group is implemented. At least we will have begun to address those recommendations rather than wait another year or two for the Minister to bring forward the full Bill.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): The heads of the Bill which are under preparation will deal with this area and the question of people who die in State custody is de facto virtually always the subject of an inquest. It is not as if there is a practice among coroners that urgently needs change.

We have agreed to a very expeditious debate this evening. If I were to accept such a broad amendment it would to an extent be a fraud on the other Members because I agreed we would deal with this Bill in very short order with a guillotine motion attached. I do not want to do that in circumstances where the legislation needs to be carefully thought through.

The other Members thought, rightly, on the basis of the Second Stage debate, that this Stage would focus only on two fundamental issues. Extending the debate to a third area would involve legislating for a matter which we did not adequately signal to other Members, under a guillotine agreed on the basis of a narrow proposal.

I have no problem with the principle of the Deputy’s amendment. For instance, under the Garda Ombudsman provisions in the Garda Síochána Act, mandatory inquiries are in place [878]for circumstances such as this relating to the Garda Síochána. This does not apply to military or prison custody.

I want to carefully consider the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Other areas may need to be examined, such as provisions for people detained in psychiatric institutions and the like. If I was to accept the amendment this evening, I would be short-changing the Members who agreed to an attenuated passage of the Bill on the basis that it had a narrow focus.

Mr. Costello: I agree with the Minister’s sentiments on his intention to introduce a major review and updating of the Coroners Act next year.

Deputy Rabbitte’s legislation intends to deal with two specific areas. By broadening it out, we will move into other areas that will require a considerable degree of examination. I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh that there is a need for greater scope and mandatory requirements for areas not covered in the current Act. Section 17 of the 1962 Act states that, it is only if it is the opinion of the coroner that the death has been from unnatural causes or in unnatural circumstances.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh’s amendment proposes to include certain locations in the legislation. My difficulty with it is that the list is not comprehensive. It relates only to military, Garda or prison custody. I want to see that extended to areas such as nursing homes, hospitals, suicides, drug-related deaths, which should be covered by coroners’ inquests. It is best to accept the principle of extending the scope of coroners’ inquests, as was recommended in the coroners service working group’s report in 2000. The Minister’s pledge to include an extension of the scope in the new legislation in 2006 is the best way forward.

Mr. Naughten: Deputy Costello is correct on the need to extend the scope of a coroner’s remit. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform must examine this in the promised coroners Bill to be published next year. There is also a need for facilities such as hospitals and nursing homes to be included in the definition.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh is correct on the need for expanding the issues that coroners must examine. Mandatory requirements must be introduced. One important issue, which I hope the Minister will take on board, is that of blood-alcohol limits. Under the current legislation, it is at the discretion of the coroner whether he or she decides to test the blood-alcohol limits in road traffic accidents. In some circumstances tests are completed, while in others they are not. If it were a mandatory requirement, there are still no facilities in place for the collation of those statistics on a national basis to see how large an issue it is. It is important this basic information is collected.

I have come across many cases where young drivers involved in fatal road traffic accidents [879]have been branded as having been over the alcohol limit. In one such case, a member of the Garda Síochána informed me that the individual had a converted van but not to the correct specifications. The safety plate at the back of the driver’s area was not in place and a toolbox came through the back of the van, killing the young man. As far as hearsay in the local community was concerned, however, it was claimed the young man was drinking even though he had not been.

It is important to ensure and protect people’s reputations. Blood-alcohol testing must be put on a mandatory basis, with the statistics collated on a national basis. Deputy Ó Snodaigh’s amendment, in principle, is correct, but it is more appropriate for the more substantial coroners’ legislation that will come before the House in the new year.

Mr. McDowell: Deputy Costello referred to nursing homes and hospitals. However, I must emphasise that whatever obligations are introduced in that area, they will not be blanket ones. We cannot have a situation where every nursing home and hospital death ends up in an inquest. Many people die of natural causes in nursing homes and hospitals. A mandatory inquest every time this happens is not needed.

I know the Deputy is referring to the need for independent scrutiny of deaths in such places, particularly in nursing homes. People cannot simply disappear from a nursing home without anyone inquiring as to what happened. This might be better dealt with by requiring certification of the death in a particular manner rather than having a full formal inquest. If an elderly person dies of old age at 104 years in a nursing home, we do not want to go down the road of having an inquest as well as other matters.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I have some sympathy for the Minister’s arguments in this area. Sinn Féin, however, feels the amendment was of an urgent nature. Members had as much time to examine the amendment as I have often had for the Minister’s amendments on other legislation. The Minister cannot be at a disadvantage because, in the preparation of the heads of the coroners service Bill, some work must have been done in this area. To dismiss the amendment on the basis that this, that and the other must be examined does not really hold. The amendments were submitted at the earliest possible time to ensure Members had enough time to check them.

I am sorry if the amendments are flawed, but it is an attempt to ensure——

Mr. McDowell: I did not say the amendments were flawed.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: No, I am saying if it is flawed, it is because it is an attempt to easily [880]address an issue where only one of the three circumstances described is legislated for at present. The Minister is correct that virtually in every case an inquest is held but there are cases where they are not.

The other circumstance addressed in the amendment concerns deaths not only in Garda custody but also within ten minutes or half an hour of leaving custody. A coroner will be required to determine whether the death was related to the person’s time in custody or to events just prior to the person being incarcerated in some form or other.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. McDowell: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“(b) by the substitution of the following section for section 36:

‘36.—A summons requiring the attendance of a person at an inquest as a juror or witness shall be served on the person by a member of the Garda Síochána in one of the following ways:

(a) by delivering it to the person;

(b) by delivering it at the address at which the person ordinarily resides to a person who has attained the age of 16 years and who resides or is employed at that address; or

(c) by sending it by prepaid registered post to the address at which the person ordinarily resides or, in a case where an address for service has been furnished, to that address.’,

and”.

This is essentially a technical amendment to allow for the service of summonses through registered post at the address at which the person ordinarily resides. Deputies will note that the summons must be delivered to the house or the person concerned. It is a common sense amendment which will make the lot of coroners much easier in the short term.

Mr. Costello: The amendment strengthens the relevant section of the principal Act, the wording of which is somewhat loose in terms of the delivery of summonses. Specifying that a summons must be delivered to the person concerned at the address at which he or she ordinarily resides by pre-paid registered post will ensure it arrives. This technical amendment, therefore, tightens the section.

Mr. Rabbitte: I note that in amendment No. 5 the Minister proposes to draw a distinction between a juror and a witness. I presume this is an added reason for ensuring the procedures in [881]the matter of serving the summons are clear. As Deputy Costello stated, the procedure the Minister proposes to establish provides for more clarity and definitiveness. As such, the amendment is acceptable to the Labour Party.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“(b) by the repeal of section 30 and the substitution of the following:

‘30.—The inquest has a duty to establish the following:

(a) the identity of the deceased;

(b) when and where the death took place;

(d) the surrounding circumstances of death;

in establishing this, the coroner is not permitted to allow any consideration of these matters which apportions civil or criminal liability.’,”.

This amendment addresses the other area which I suggested required amendment at this stage. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are based on the recommendations of the review of the coroner service. Amendment No. 3 is based on recommendation 49 of the working group which stated the jurisdiction of the coroner should include the investigation not only of the medical cause of death but also the circumstances surrounding it. This, it added, should be expressed in positive terms in the new Coroners Bill. This recommendation featured on the list of 110 recommendations produced by the working group.

The purpose of an inquest should not be confined to providing justice and answers for the family of the deceased, which are crucial functions in themselves. One of the purposes of the coroner is to try to prevent further fatalities where these may be preventable. In the tragic case of Frances Sheridan, to give one sad example, the Coroner’s Court was not allowed to ask questions to which answers were necessary if the causes of her death were to be fully understood and to allow recommendations to be made aimed at preventing further fatalities. The court was not in a position to examine the understaffing, underfunding and mismanagement which tragically contributed to some preventable deaths. It is reasonable to seek a role for coroners in attempting to prevent tragic deaths.

[882]The reason a coroner cannot expand his or her investigation is the narrow interpretation of the purpose of the coroner arising from the wording of section 30 of the current Act. This matter must be addressed by deleting the section and replacing it with the wording proposed in the amendment.

Inquests, by their nature, are investigations which are warranted in the public interest. If establishing the cause of death is limited to determining the medical cause of death, as is currently the case according to the review group, the ability of the court to make recommendations in the interests of public safety and the prevention of future fatalities is severely restricted and the role of the coroner is to do little more than to confirm the pathologist’s post mortem report. A balance is required at this stage. The amendment would redress the current imbalance and mirrors the recommendation of the review group. I hope the proposers of the Bill and the Minister will accept it.

Mr. McDowell: As I indicated in my Second Stage speech, I am disposed towards increasing the scope of the coroner’s inquest to cover surrounding circumstances of death. Deputy Ó Snodaigh will appreciate, however, that to do this and to do justice to a widened coronial function of this kind and enable jurors to consider these issues properly, we need support services and a reform of the coroner service to create a system which will live up to the remit the Oireachtas has conferred upon it. I want to reorganise the coroner service; establish a support service; have reasonable districts; create circumstances in which the Coroner’s Court will function; have a jury service which is properly provided for; and provide the full range of supports necessary for a widened remit for the Coroner’s Court.

While amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are sensible in principle, I do not want to attempt to put new wheels on the car without first checking that the engine and brakes work and the driver knows the new wheels have been fitted.

Mr. Costello: Is the Minister referring to Deputy Callely’s car?

Mr. McDowell: I want to ensure comprehensive reform is a balanced package in which the new coroner service, with its widened remit, has the resources and organisation to deal with the kind of questions which will arise. We must remember that, having given an excessively narrow function to the Coroner’s Court to discharge, we have also under-nourished it and left coroners in something of an administrative and legislative backwater. Neither have we put in place all the powers that coroners would require in order to go into issues with their juries concerning the circumstances surrounding deaths. For that reason, while I have sympathy, which I have already expressed in my speech on Second Stage, for the [883]type of reform sought by this amendment, it should only be attempted where we have a coherent reform of the coroners service under contemplation. For that reason, I ask the Deputy to accept my assurance that the new legislation will provide for provisions analogous to those contained in this amendment. The House will have an opportunity soon to consider a broader coroners Bill, and the widening of the focus of a coronial inquiry will be accompanied by an appropriate administrative and legal infrastructure which will give reasonable results.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I am. May I address it again?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Yes, you may.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Will the Minister indicate when the heads of the Bill will be ready? That would help us to prepare so that when the Bill appears we can ensure its passage through the House as quickly as our deliberations will allow. All sides of the House want to ensure that the coroners’ service will be fully resourced and will consequently be the best in the world. I am not trying to delay the passage of the legislation, but I am trying to encourage the Minister to produce the Bill as quickly as the parliamentary draftsman can do so. The sooner that is done, the quicker we can get down to passing next year what I am sure will be a worthwhile measure. It is 43 years since the last such measure was passed by the House.

Amendment No. 4 does not involve any major change in the way coroners operate. Currently, in many circumstances, coroners make general recommendations designed to prevent further fatalities. The amendment may appear technical but, in seeking to insert the words “should” and “where appropriate in the public interest”, it would place a more positive demand on coroners. In cases where they believe it is in the public interest to do so, most coroners already make such recommendations so it would not be
onerous to adopt amendment No. 4.

Mr. Costello: I support the thrust of what Deputy Ó Snodaigh is saying. The existing section 30 simply refers to the identity of the deceased, as well as how, when and where the death occurred. It does not make provision for the surrounding circumstances. At the same time, section 31 makes provision for a rider or recommendation to be made. In many ways, it is hard to see how one can add a meaningful rider unless there is some discussion of the circumstances in which the deceased met his or her death. I always thought there was a lacuna between sections 30 and 31. If there is provision for a rider or recom[884]mendation, it would be desirable to indicate clearly that it would be brought to the attention of the jury. If that is not done, jurors may or may not ask for it, but they will only do so if they have some experience. A recommendation emanating from the Coroner’s Court on foot of the circumstances in which a death occurred would, in itself, be desirable.

I agree with the Minister that this matter requires other structures and resources to be in place before it would be meaningful. I also agree that it should be left to the new, updated Bill.

Mr. McDowell: It is my intention to bring the heads of the Bill to Cabinet before Christmas. If they are approved by the Cabinet — and I do not want to presume that — I intend to publish them early in the new year on my Department’s website for consultation. It is also my intention that the drafting process should commence during the consultation period so that the Bill can be published early for consideration by the Oireachtas. I am conscious of the need to make rapid progress in this area, especially at this stage in the life of this Dáil. It is not my intention to have this matter sidelined.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“(b) in section 31, subsection (2) by deleting the word ‘may’ and substituting ‘should’ and after ‘inquest’ by inserting ‘where appropriate in the public interest’,”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. McDowell: I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, lines 9 to 31 and in page 4, lines 1 to 15, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute the following:

“(b) the substitution of the following section for section 37:

‘37.—(1) A person who, having been duly served with a summons requiring him to attend an inquest as a juror, fails to attend on the date and at the time and place specified in the summons shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €500.

(2) A person who, having been duly served with a summons requiring him to attend an inquest as a witness, fails to attend on the date and at the time and place specified in the summons shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.

[885]

(3) The amendment of this Act (other than this subsection) effected by paragraph (b) of section 1 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 2005 shall not apply if the date specified in the summons concerned falls before the passing of the second-mentioned Act.’.”.

It is proposed here to differentiate between witnesses and jurors. Under the Bill as it stands they are treated the same way as regards punishments. The view taken by my Department is that the non-attendance of a juror or potential juror, while serious, is not of the same order as somebody who has evidence to give, deciding not to turn up. One is a random process, whereas the other is a deliberate process which could seriously affect the viability of an inquest. The approach the Department proposes is to differentiate between both situations in a manner that reflects the seriousness of somebody who is required as a witness, not turning up. I commend the amendment to the committee.

Mr. Costello: This is a useful amendment because there is quite a difference between a juror and a witness. It is a fault of the Coroners Act 1962 that juries for coroners courts are empanelled in a different way to other juries. They are empanelled in a very ad hoc fashion. I remember one instance where a sergeant at Store Street Garda station was running up and down the road trying to get enough jurors for a coroner’s inquest on the morning of the inquest. It seems as if the empanelling of a jury is very much at the discretion of local gardaí. We will have to examine in detail how we empanel juries for coroners’ inquests. For that reason, it is difficult to see how jurors and witnesses could be taken in the same way. It is no harm to make the distinction.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: “That section 2 be deleted.”

Mr. McDowell: With some degree of reluctance, I must oppose this section and suggest its deletion. My reluctance stems from the fact that it is not obvious to me exactly what is wrong with it. However, I am told there are technical legal reasons that fault it. When I saw it, I drew up my own proposed amendments which were incorporated in manuscript. I am not quite clear why it is so bad in its present form. However, to please the powers that be, I have agreed to propose the deletion of this section, even as amended by me. I will not make a song and dance about it, except to say that the office of the Attorney General and the parliamentary draftsmen are unhappy with Deputy Rabbitte’s drafting, as amended by me. [886]In view of the short time available for the consideration of the Bill, they asked that I agree to its deletion. To get it through, I said that I would agree.

Mr. Costello: I too was wondering why the Minister should delete this section and what the draftsman or draftswoman might have found wrong with it.

Mr. McDowell: Perhaps it was the identity of the drafter.

Mr. Costello: The Minister could have amended it and retained the principle. It seeks to grant powers of compellability to the coroner. He may order a juror or witness to comply with a summons and make such other orders as may be considered necessary. The second strand of the legislation that Deputy Rabbitte has proposed is that witnesses and jurors should be compellable and have to turn up, particularly witnesses. Currently the legislation specifies that the only penalty is IR£5, or €6.35, and no one would pay a blind bit of notice to that. We have obviously strengthened the legislation with stiffer penalties, but there are, nevertheless, important witnesses without whom the coroner’s work must be frustrated and the family of the deceased unable to achieve a proper conclusion.

A good example relates to a natural health therapist in Mayo. On more than one occasion where death occurred and the witness was summonsed, she refused to attend the coroner’s inquest. That person was the unqualified medical practitioner central to the inquest and yet could absent herself with no questions asked regarding the person’s death. There is no way under such circumstances that one can bring about a satisfactory conclusion to the inquest. There must therefore be some powers to enforce compellability as well as the penalty. Perhaps if there is a drafting problem, that might be it. The intent was to strengthen this section of the legislation so that the effectiveness of the coroner’s court might be underpinned.

Mr. English: I have a quick question. Is the problem to do with having to go to the High Court? Is there any other way that one might do it? The planning laws are an example. When the council has to go to the High Court, it chooses not to use that mechanism, with the result that nothing is done. Is there any other way that one might enforce that without going to the High Court?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I will not question the draftspeople on this. Suffice it to say that the Bill was published on 1 December. Today is 14 December, and it is sad that the Minister has not received advice enabling him to explain why this section is being deleted. I believe that is was a good one, and I ask only that the Minister return [887]to us when he is preparing the Bill promised for next year to ensure that something of this nature is included so that a coroner has enforcement rights to ensure that the coroner’s court can act to its full capability and that, when summons are issued, people are compelled to attend, whether they be jurors or witnesses. I hope that he will address that along with all the other issues.

Mr. McDowell: I assure Deputies that I will certainly do so. I am not sure what is wrong with the section, but it may not sufficiently resemble provisions in the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, which allow for orders in aid of the High Court punishable as contempt of that court. It may have something to do with that. However, since we are legislating in the very short term, I hope that we will be able to address this in a more comprehensive manner in the new heads that will come forward. Some matters are not revealed to me, and a deal is a deal. I must stand by it.

Mr. Costello: The Minister sometimes produces revelations.

I will certainly accept what the Minister has said. No doubt, the next time we address this in the new year, the Minister will have revealed all to us.

Mr. Rabbitte: Speed is of the essence here, and there is a limited, stated, known objective, namely, to enact this Bill. I trust that the absence of compellability will not act as a barrier in this case. Therefore, the fact that the Minister, in his comprehensive legislation, will revisit the issue is acceptable to us. I cannot envisage circumstances where the absence of this section would impede the case that it is designed to address. I have no idea whether, having earlier made a distinction between juror and witness, one would necessarily have to follow that format in the enforcement procedures or whether one would apply graver judgment on a witness failing to conform to a summons than on a juror. However, that is but one question that the Minister has said will be addressed in the major Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Mr. Rabbitte: I move: “That Report Stage be taken now.”

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: As there are no amendments on Report Stage, we will proceed to [888]Fifth Stage in accordance with the Order of the Dáil.

Bill received for final consideration.

Question proposed: “That the Bill do now pass.”

Mr. Rabbitte: I again record my appreciation of the Minister for facilitating the speedy passage of this Bill. There is a pressing humanitarian reason I sponsored the Bill. I am aware that the family concerned is very grateful to the Minister also and to his officials for doing something we do not do too frequently in this House, that is, put through legislation with this speed, and it is greatly appreciated by all concerned. I am glad the Bill can be dealt with in the other House tomorrow.

Mr. English: As somebody who has often given out about the way this House does its business, I must say I am very impressed that this Bill could be taken last night and tonight for the right reasons. The Nowlan family will certainly appreciate that but in general it proves that this House can function extremely well when its Members want it to, and there is no reason that cannot happen more often. An example has been set. I commend Deputy Rabbitte and Deputy Costello for bringing forward the Bill and I thank the Minister for giving us an opportunity to prove that we can do business in this House speedily when we want to. It is an example of democracy at work, and I welcome it.

Mr. O’Connor: I wish to be associated with the remarks of other Deputies. I commend my constituency colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, and Deputy Costello on the manner in which the House has dealt with this business. We have all praised the work of the Minister. I said last night that the family, whom I am glad to see in the Visitors Gallery again this evening, appreciates what the Minister did and the manner in which he met them and listened to what they had to say. We should commend the family, Jean and Stephen Nowlan, the parents of baby Pierce, and Phyllis, his paternal grandmother, and wish them well. They have witnessed history here. Other colleagues made the point that they brought all the parties in the Dáil together, which is a significant achievement, but they have done much more than that. I said last night, and I hope it is true, that the passage of this Bill will stand as a memorial to Pierce Nowlan. We must not forget that it is about him.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): I want to be associated with the remarks of the other Deputies. It is welcome that this Bill could be dealt with in the way in which we have dealt with it. I have no doubt there are people looking with slitty eyes on tonight’s pro[889]ceedings and saying that this is a precedent which should never have been created, but so be it.

Question put and agreed to.

Question again proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

Mr. O’Connor: Before the break I was praising the Minister with a little banter. Any time I make a contribution in the presence of the Minister, Deputy Brennan, I always mention Luas but it is Christmas and I forgot to do it earlier. I am happy to compliment the Minister in that regard.

It is right that we acknowledge and appreciate the Minister’s budget announcements about lone parents. Many people have welcomed the fact that the upper income limit for one parent families has been substantially increased by €82 per week to a new limit of €375. Of the approximately 80,000 lone parents in receipt of the payment, it is estimated that 60% are currently in full or part-time employment. The increased income limit will allow several thousand people become eligible for payment and all those recipients who are working will be in a position to increase their earnings further. Further reforms in the area of lone parents have been mentioned by the Minister and I hope those will be considered by the Department.

We all take an opportunity at every level — in the Oireachtas joint committee of which I am a member and in my party’s social and family affairs policy group — to raise with the Minister various concerns of which we become aware. In terms of lone parents the Minister has been particularly open and has listened carefully to what has been said.

There is a suspicion that I am on the socialist wing of Fianna Fáil. I would be proud if that is what is being said about me but on this issue it is important, and I know the Minister agrees with me, that we must continue to do everything possible to ensure that those who want to return to work are facilitated in every possible way. In my eight weekly clinics which I hold throughout Dublin south west, people make the point to me that if they take up employment they will be caught in various poverty traps. While there have been some improvements in that regard, which are welcome, we must continue to examine the situation of lone parents. People find it difficult to take up jobs because it will affect their payments or rent subsidies. We must be careful to ensure people are not left in poverty traps. We must encourage them, where possible, to return to the workforce.

I hope the Minister will continue to examine this area in an innovative way and ensure that the processes are such that people can respond. I am [890]aware the Minister has undertaken a particular study in that regard and I wish him well. I hope he will listen to what people are saying and I appeal to the various organisations representing those concerned in the matter to outline to us what they see as the solutions. I hope the Minister will then examine all those issues to determine what can be done.

In addition to the general rates increases, I refer to the €28 million the Minister mentioned which is being invested in a range of new and enhanced support schemes that promote activation and offer opportunities and choices to welfare recipients, in particular the unemployed, to ensure the potential and contribution of each individual is fully recognised. The Minister made the point that a tapered 50% withdrawal rate for disability allowance will be introduced where the recipient is engaged in employment. As a significant activation measure, the qualifying period for access to the back to work allowance for employees has been reduced from five to two years on the live register and, in the case of the self-employed, from three to two years. Those measures are welcome.

In regard to publicising the various schemes, we often hear people say that they do not know their entitlements. I attended a function many years ago at which the then Taoiseach, Garrett FitzGerald, made the point that much of the work that crosses the desks of public representatives on any week relates to the fact that people do not know their entitlements. I acknowledge that major progress has been made over several years in that regard and the citizens information centres — there is one in the main street in Tallaght village, where I have my full-time office — do tremendous work but people continue to tell us that they are unclear about their entitlements. I hope the Minister will publicise that area as much as possible because people should not be unclear about their entitlements. If they are genuinely in need and vulnerable and if families are in crisis or under pressure, they should be able to easily access the assistance that is available to them.

I made the point earlier that we often come across people who believe, for one reason or another, that the local office is being a little more difficult — I will be careful about the phraseology — than it should be. The system must not be abused but people must be cared for in a way that respects their dignity. People who need assistance are vulnerable for a variety of reasons and we must ensure that we are sensitive to their needs and help them. Unemployed people looking for assistance sometimes find some of the regulations harder to understand than they should be. I have intervened in a number of recent cases where the social welfare office did not accept the assurances of the applicants in question that they were genuinely seeking work. I have no difficulty interven[891]ing in such cases. We should ensure that the system remains consumer-friendly.

Section 1 contains the normal provisions for defining certain terms used in the Bill. Section 2 provides for increases in social insurance-based payments with effect from January 2006. I am glad these increases include a €14 per week increase for recipients of the old age contributory pension and the widow-widowers contributory pension, recipients of the deserted wife’s benefit who are over 66 years of age and recipients of the retirement pension or invalidity pension who are over 65. This brings the weekly rate of payment to €193.30. The Bill contains an increase of €17 per week in the personal rate of all other insurance-based payments, resulting in a new weekly rate of unemployment, disability, health and safety and injury benefit of €165.80.

There will be an increase of €10.80 in the qualified adult allowance payable with the old age contributory, retirement and invalidity pension where the qualified adult is over 66, while the increase in the qualified adult allowance payable with the old age contributory or retirement pension is €9.30 for a qualified adult under 66. This results in new weekly rates of €149.30 and €128.80, respectively. The increase in the qualified adult allowance payable with invalidity pension is €12.10 for a qualified adult under 66, resulting in an increase in the weekly payment from €110 to €122.20. The increased amount payable for a qualified adult over 66 is €149.30. There will be an increase of €11.30 per week in the qualified adult allowance payable with all other social insurance payments, resulting in a new weekly rate of €110.

Members have highlighted in many debates the importance of looking after elderly people. I will not make a political point as it is Christmas except to say that Fianna Fáil has always been rightly mindful of the needs of older people. I have been privileged to serve as a member of the board of Tallaght Welfare Society, which caters very much for elderly people. A number of celebrations have been held in Glenview Lodge day care centre in Tallaght recently where benefits for elderly people were welcomed. We should be open to the needs of elderly people throughout the year, not just at Christmas. We should pay particular attention to their needs during the winter with the onset of cold weather. Without sounding patronising, I hope all of us could find a way to visit elderly people in our communities who live alone and could experience loneliness over the coming weeks. They must be careful about who they open their doors to but they always welcome company. I hope we are all good neighbours and convey to all our communities and constituencies the positive message that neighbours should look after elderly people.

[892]I welcome the Minister’s additional initiative regarding the fuel allowance. The international community has experienced considerable difficulties with regard to oil prices. Fortunately, the fire at Buncefield oil depot in the UK does not appear to have affected supply. We should extend our sympathies to all those affected by this disaster, which highlights the vulnerability of fuel supplies and fuel prices. The Minister has paid particular attention to what was needed this year and I hope he will continue to monitor it. Unfortunately, the situation developing across the world is not positive although I do not wish to give a negative speech on international affairs on the second-last day of the session. We all understand the considerable degree to which international affairs and difficulties relating to fuel prices affect us. The budget for social welfare will be challenged regularly in this regard and we expect the Minister to continue to monitor developments.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to comment on the Bill and I wish the Minister well. The increases and initiatives he has announced and his general attitude to the Bill have been warmly welcomed in many communities throughout the country, including Dublin South West, which I am proud to represent. I am unafraid to state, as a Fianna Fáil Deputy, that there are challenges which must be addressed. I am confident the Minister will continue to listen to people’s problems. It is important to send a positive message to those who must draw social welfare benefits. We should and do treat families in need in a very caring fashion. We should help them as much as possible, ensure they know the benefits to which they are entitled and deliver these benefits as easily and quickly as possible. The Minister has re-examined service delivery since assuming his post and has made good progress in this regard. I look forward to working with him for the next 450 days before the next general election and beyond. If I am not breaching protocol, I would like to wish the Minister a happy Christmas.

8 o’clock

Ms C. Murphy: I wish to share time with Deputies Healy and Gogarty. The Social Welfare Bill 2005 is set in the context of the budget. The first conclusion I drew from the budget was that it was not written by one person. This was not because its language varied but because concepts varied throughout. I did not believe it was necessarily about winning the next general election. The budget showed that the Government was trying first to test and then tap into the mood of the public. Two very distinct views are evident in this budget, one of which is found in the section dealing with social welfare and social affairs.

The budget and this Bill do not merely concern gains and losses, rather, they concern political and social mapping. The fact the Government’s one major achievement has been the rolling out [893]of the economy poses difficulties for it because this success story no longer resonates with the public as the primary delivery function when it is presented to them year after year. The public wants to see a hands-on Government and better delivery of public services, be they health, education, transport or social welfare services. We are now living in the post-Celtic tiger era, although we are not living in a post-Celtic tiger economy. The agenda has changed for a cohort of young parents, homeowners and commuters who might have been footloose five years ago. These people do not see themselves as workers with children; they see themselves as families connected to their chosen communities and which have matured. They are concerned about the shape and direction of their social and physical environment.

Child care was the centrepiece of the budget. There is a considerable difference between a child care policy that puts children centre stage and one whose aim is to encourage both parents to continue working. The former policy prioritises child protection and welfare and regards child care as more than mere child minding. Such a policy recognises the importance of preschool education and the role of the community.

The budget represented a missed opportunity, although I accept it could not deliver everything in an area neglected for so long. The extension of maternity leave in 2006 and 2007 is very welcome. The unpaid weeks for both paternity and maternity leave are of dubious benefit. They are obviously beneficial, but many people simply cannot afford to take unpaid time off. The child care supplement had to start somewhere and the under fives was where the primary focus obviously lay. While there may be some acceptance of that, there was little expectation that it would be done in such an exclusive way. For parents who are paying the equivalent of an additional mortgage each month for child care, there will be disappointment with the overall level of support, particularly for those whose children are aged over six.

I also have concerns about the €10,000 exemption from tax and PRSI levies for child minders who mind up to three children. It raises serious issues about child protection, given that there is no registration required. In Scotland, carers who care for children for more than two hours per week are required to register and there is a training and vetting requirement as well. The county child care committees are to have a co-ordinating function, but they have an absolute minimum of resources. We would divert the small amount of training that is currently being carried out if these committees are given this co-ordinating role without additional resources. The child care sector needs to be structured and that means charting careers. It is appropriate for child minders to see their job as a career. However, that would also [894]include pensions and that is an area that should be examined.

Reliance on grants and a market response is not enough. A major initiative is required in developing community based facilities in every community. A portion of child care facilities are required to be built in large residential areas for every 75 houses. Essentially, the community cannot make the large rents that are charged. A significant number of non-profit community groups could be brought into the equation. Many communities are interested in running multi-use child care facilities, including after-school care. That may be particularly appropriate for lone parents. It has the effect of cutting down the cost of child care, while continuing to provide a high level of service in a child centred environment. It represents an opportunity that must be taken. The Minister should speak to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government about Part V of the Planning Act 2000 as amended in 2002, especially where houses will not be delivered. It is an important area of social progress.

Much of what has been announced will not be delivered by this Government, but will be delivered by the following Government. I welcome many of the increases in social welfare. Small changes are meaningful, such as the right of carers to work an extra five hours. That provision could go a little bit further, especially for those who are caring for children with disabilities. I was very disappointed that child dependant rates were not specifically addressed. This area needs to be tackled urgently.

Mr. Healy: I am delighted to have a few minutes to speak on this Bill. I welcome the increases in benefit that have been announced. However, when one looks at the situation and pulls back the veil of hype, one finds that the increases are not enough even to begin the reversal of the profoundly unequal society the Government has created over the past nine years. The gap between rich and poor has widened to more than €16,000 per annum over that period. This budget does nothing to begin that reversal. It is simply a budget that marks time.

Some aspects of the Bill and the budget are particularly disappointing. In the past three or four months, there have been a number of high level reports, such as a UN report, an ESRI report and a Barnardo’s report, all of which indicate that we have created a profoundly unequal society in recent years. The Barnardo’s report confirms that there are 148,000 children living in consistent poverty, while there are around 242,000 children living between consistent and relative poverty. That is sad in a country that is so rich and has so much money available. That the child dependant allowance has been frozen for 12 years is very difficult to understand. I ask [895]the Minister to increase that allowance. All of the various agencies dealing with children had indicated that the child dependant allowance should be raised to €30 per week. The formative years of young children are very important for their future development. The area of social inclusion in the community must be addressed properly. The applicant rates for widows and widowers under 66, as well as for people on invalidity pension under 65, are very small.

The Minister should also look at the fuel allowance. I accept that there has been a €5 increase, but we have seen huge hikes in the price of fuel, be it coal, gas or electricity. A €14 allowance per week will not even buy a bag of coal and a bale of briquettes. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul rightly suggested that the allowance should have been increased to at least €18 per week. That is particularly the case for elderly people who need heat for the winter period. The fuel allowance should have been increased significantly and it could have been done at very little cost to the Exchequer.

There is significant concern and even anger across the country about the capping of the community employment schemes. I attended a meeting last week in the village of Dundrum in south Tipperary. There were 550 participant sponsors and supervisors at that meeting. The capping of those schemes is putting them in danger. A significant number of participants are being let go before 13 January. A third of the supervisors will lose their jobs in that period. The value of these schemes to local communities is huge and covers everything from tidy towns committees to meals on wheels, sports clubs, health related matters and the whole gamut of community work. This is very good value for very little cost. The cost of keeping a participant on one of these schemes is only an additional €20 per week. Such schemes should be continued. We should ensure that the capping is removed and I ask the Minister to talk to his colleague about this. These schemes are necessary, valuable and give very good value for money. There are various other areas I could refer to, for example the carer’s allowance and the bereavement grant. However, I am thankful for the opportunity to have said these few words.

Mr. Gogarty: I have only six minutes, so I am going to try to talk very quickly. I have much else to say but I cannot, because of time constraints. A couple of years ago I was castigated for describing the Government’s treatment in terms of social welfare and pension payments for people living in disadvantaged areas as a “urination”, for which I got a rap on the knuckles. Having looked at matters over the years, I was too soft. I should have said that people were being pissed on by this Government and I have no regrets for saying that.

[896]There is a Celtic tiger that is gorging selfishly on the largesse it has been fed and this time I will not use such terms. However, the gorging is creating the few scraps that are being divvied out to those less well off and people are supposed to feel grateful. In setting that context, I welcome some of the increases that relate to old age benefit, maternity benefit and carer’s allowance. They are nowhere near enough, however, to tackle the poverty gap.

The Minister has been quoted as stating that education is the way out of poverty. In terms of collective responsibility, while the small increases are welcome, the Department of Education and Science’s refusal to properly fund the National Educational Welfare Board and the lack of an adequate school meals system throughout the country, is leading to children leaving school too early to ever meet the income requirements they will need, thus putting pressure — from a PD perspective — on the social welfare system. The only way to bypass that is to invest in breaking the cycle at an early stage. The National Educational Welfare Board is the only body with the statutory obligation to do that and it is not getting the funding. While a few euro may be divvied out here and there the root causes will not be tackled unless an holistic approach is taken on an interdepartmental basis.

Because of time constraints I can only allude to some aspects of this legislation. In general, I welcome sections 2 and 3. The carer’s allowance, however, is still not enough. More needs to be done as regards the issue of paid respite care.

I have a query as regards pensions. Where a pensioner has a spouse who is in receipt of a pension, he or she is not entitled to a contributory pension and must depend on a partner. Constituents in this position tell me they need to be recognised and given dignity in their own right even if they are only entitled to half a pension. Perhaps the Minister might look at this. As regards maternity benefit, constituents have also asked me why, for example, the amendments consequential on the extension of paid maternity leave by four weeks will take effect in March 2006, given that the increase to 8% in reckonable weekly earnings will come on stream from 1 January. People who are due to take maternity leave shortly are concerned that they will not qualify because of the March 2006 start date. Perhaps the Minister might clarify this and have some type of transition period.

I am quite critical of the supplementary welfare allowance because even as regards people working on CE schemes, as is mentioned in the legislation, an amount over the €60 gross income from earnings is disregarded. In section 12 there is an improvement, indicating that half the gross earnings between €60 and €90 may be disregarded. If the Minister wants to have any effect and allow people to do a little part-time work, he should [897]have taken the whole amount up to €90. As the EU survey on income and living conditions shows, almost one fifth of the population is at risk of poverty. The people most at risk are lone parents. They have an obligation to look after their children but might want to better themselves by doing CE schemes, engaging in part-time work to top up income etc. Because of the half gross weekly earnings stricture of between €60 and €90 they will not be helped much. They should be able to get a leg up to enable them to get out of the poverty trap entirely, becoming taxpayers over a period of time.

I also want to comment as regards the closure of social welfare offices. An example quite close to Leinster House is Oisín House in Pearse Street, which deals with everything apart from unemployment benefit. People go to these types of offices who, for social or stigma reasons, will not enter an unemployment benefit office. Staff there have ready access to people’s data. Elderly people in particular can ask about their situation and get a one-to-one personal interface. This is in sharp contrast to telephoning an office in Sligo, which might have 100 or 200 people, but will not provide the one-to-one service that vulnerable people need. I would like the Minister to comment in his final contribution on how many of the local offices will be closed. Does he recognise the value of having local offices for people to drop into?

Finally, I raise the issue of the fuel allowance. As my colleagues, Deputies Boyle, Sargent and others have pointed out, globally fuel prices will continue to rise. We could even have shortages eventually. I will not go into that issue except to comment that the Government tax strategy appears to be to let the taxpayer pay through carbon trading rather than to implement the full whack of fuel price increases to encourage efficiency. By lowering taxes on income and making allowances payable to people on unemployment benefit through refundable tax credits, a rise in fuel could be sanctioned that would encourage everybody to be more efficient in its use. At the same time a proper fuel allowance could be provided for the elderly and disadvantaged. Even if nothing is done about the carbon trading issue, the doubling of the current fuel allowance is derisory in terms of the price increases that have occurred. I ask that something be done in next year’s budget in that regard because fuel prices will continue on an upward spiral. Unless we give our elderly people some type of solace for the cold winters that lie ahead, the position will continue to worsen.

Mr. Ellis: I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution to this Bill. I will be sharing time with Deputy Kelleher.

We see in this Bill the implementation of a €1.12 billion social welfare package, which was [898]announced in the budget. That is an enormous amount of money. No matter what we do, however, there will not be sufficient to satisfy everybody’s needs. There will always be need and some will always see themselves in a category of greater need than others. We have seen enormous changes as regards social welfare, first as regards the amounts and the percentage increases. I recall when increases of 2% or 3% were seen as phenomenal. In some cases little or no increases were seen as a major achievement in terms of being able to sustain the social welfare budget for certain sectors. We have, thankfully, moved on from that. Because of our economy, a greater contribution may now be made towards people who are less well off and in need. We have to welcome the fact that one of the highest rates of increase this year, €17, will go to those on the lowest level of payment. That is to be welcomed. I was surprised to hear that CORI was shocked at learning its full request had been fulfilled through the €17 increase given to people in those categories.

The old age pension has reached €193 for a contributory pensioner, with the fringe benefits of fuel or living alone allowances. In effect, we have reached the €200 pension that had been talked and dreamt about for many people down the years. As we reach that level, people will argue there is still need for further increases on an annual basis. The rate of increases across the various sectors in this year’s Social Welfare Bill is noteworthy. The 11% increase in widow’s or widower’s contributory pensions rise is significant. The biggest increase is in the carer’s allowance which is an allowance that should be targeted. People who care for their elderly family members at home make an important contribution to society but their contribution is even more important to the person being cared for. People are given a right to remain in their own family surroundings as long as possible. It may not be possible for them to remain there all their lives and they may require institutional care but the carer’s allowance has encouraged people for the first time to look after their elderly family members.

I am aware of some cases of people who had been refused the respite care grant. I compliment the Minister’s Department because it responded very well to the inquiries. The grant had been refused for minor reasons and in one case had been refused because only one half of the doctor’s certificate had arrived with the application.

These grants and allowances encourage people to look after their elderly. Any society that does not look after its elderly is neither a just nor a fair society. The most vulnerable people in any society are the old and the young and they have been looked after reasonably well in this Bill and in the budget.

[899]The increases will help parents to care for their children. We would all have liked to see a greater increase in the rate of child benefit but there is a limit. The targeting of the sum of €1,000 per year for children under six years of age will help parents to cope with young children. Such young children need parental time and care. The changes in maternity leave will be welcomed by every parent in the country. It will give parents the opportunity of staying at home to look after their children in the early months of life and is to be welcomed.

The fuel allowance has been increased significantly by €5 per week. This increase is at a cost of €42 million. There is also the benefit of the change in the rebate on household fuel. I hope this will be passed on to the consumers as soon as possible. It may not be possible to do this immediately in some cases, despite the fact it has been cleared by the House in the excise duties.

We must continue to target the people who need social welfare most, the young and the old. In between is a category of people who also find themselves in hardship. They may be those on disability benefit or those who lose a job and are unable to find another one and they must be supported. Whether it is by the use of the family income supplement as a mechanism to support them back into the labour force or by means of the other schemes available, it is important that these schemes are made as accessible as possible to the public.

Many people are not aware of their social welfare entitlements and do not believe they can learn anything from the citizens information centres. They often turn to the local politician or councillor. It is a sad fact that these people are ignorant because of a fear of social welfare. A stigma is attached to social welfare in some people’s minds. They believe it downgrades them but I do not share this opinion. Social welfare is a provision whereby the rest of society supports those in need. Any one of us could find ourselves in need at any time in our lives and that is when one appreciates the people who offer support. In this case the State is supporting these people. There will be one more social welfare Bill in the lifetime of this Government. This should provide for some of the people who have been left behind in some form.

The elderly must continue to be the number one priority. They are the people who must be kept in their communities for as long as possible by means of social welfare payments, given the cost of residential care for older people. It is traumatic for an elderly person to be forced to go into residential care. We must concentrate on ensuring that as many people as possible can remain in their communities for as long as possible or for their entire lifetime if possible. There is a duty on families to support the elderly within the com[900]munity for as long as possible. Elderly people were discarded in some cases and put into institutional care when there was no need for it. The supports now in place would have helped them continue in their communities.

The changes in this year’s budget will benefit the young. I hope that the child supports which have been introduced will be increased in the next budget. I would like to see the child benefit increased from the proposed €150 to at least €160 or €165 for the first child in next year’s social welfare Bill or budget.

I wish to bring a parochial matter to the Minister’s attention. As Members will be aware, a section of the Department of Social and Family Affairs has moved to Carrick-on-Shannon. I would appreciate if the Minister would use his good offices to ensure that the office is up and running by the proposed date of early 2007. The Minister is committed to decentralisation, as is the Government. However, in some cases, the groups responsible for assisting decentralisation have been quite slow in taking action to ensure that the section of the Department and other Departments are decentralised.

Mr. P. McGrath: It is the Progressive Democrats again.

Mr. Ellis: That party should not be blamed. We are not blaming anybody. The commitment to decentralisation should be fulfilled as far as all areas are concerned. I am sure Deputies Paul McGrath and Penrose are looking forward to the Department of Education and Science arriving in Mullingar.

Mr. P. McGrath: We will be there to cut the tape.

Mr. Kelleher: I support the provisions of the Social Welfare Bill and the budget. Like previous speakers, I acknowledge the major advances in recent years in social welfare payments. Behind the figures and statistics the lives of people are being transformed by the provisions in the Bill.

The situation of carers has been highlighted for many years and the desired advances were not achieved for a long time. I acknowledge the changes that have been made. These have an effect on people’s lives and lifestyles, acknowledge the contribution made by carers to society and show that care of people in the home by family members and the extended community is a positive aspect to be welcomed and encouraged at all times. I hope that whoever sits in the ministerial chair over the next few years will advance that commitment. I refer to the commitment made by the Government to increase the old age pensions which has been achieved. Many people who are carers have suffered for a long time. The Government has acknowledged that action was necessary. It has established the supports and [901]services to encourage and allow people to care for their loved ones in their home.

The respite care grant has been increased from €1,000 to €1,200 and the carer’s allowance has been increased from between €20 and €40 a week with a single person receiving up to €290 and €580 for a couple. These changes make a tangible difference to people caring for people in their homes. We talk about statistics and outline the huge package of €13.5 billion, but behind all the statistics genuine people are striving to make ends meet. This assistance and these acknowledgements of their difficulties will go a long way to meeting their needs.

We often get caught up in this House with debate and some people comment on the value of €14 or €17 a week extra. We must remember that many people are living on the breadline and that €14 or €17 a week extra makes a significant difference in their household budget. Many of those who report on the provisions of a budget or social welfare Bill do not understand the reality of what is happening or that some people must try on a daily basis to make ends meet. An increase of this nature makes a significant impact on their quality of life. Some people dismiss the fuel allowance with a comment as to the benefit of another €5. To people already on the margins, €5 with the other increases can transform their quality of life. I am hopeful that over the coming years we will continue to strive to ensure that people dependent on social welfare are looked after.

When I first entered politics in 1992 as a public representative, social welfare was a significant issue of debate, primarily in the context of unemployment and people being unable to express themselves through work. Thankfully, we have moved on from that and people who are capable can find gainful employment and make a contribution to society through their taxes. Those funds can then transfer to people on social welfare. However, there is begrudgery among some people that those on social welfare are a thorn in the side of the community, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Most people on social welfare are people who have made a genuine commitment to society over many years, in particular the elderly who worked through lean and hard times and raised families. Now that they are coming to the end of their lives, they are entitled to enjoy the benefits of a booming economy, one that has strong employment, good tax receipts and the transfer of that to people who deserve it. People do not just need it, they deserve it. Sometimes when we debate social welfare provisions, some people begrudge those payments.

The Government has been very conscious of the need to ensure that those who made sacrifices, worked hard for many years and reared families in difficult circumstances enjoy in their [902]latter years the gainful support of society. I compliment everybody involved in past years in this Government who acknowledged in particular the contribution of older people and who moved swiftly towards meeting the target pension of €200 a week. This target is not set to make a political point, but because these people deserve it. We can come in here and speak platitudes and slap people on the back, but the Government and all of us know these people are entitled to our support. People appreciate the move to deliver the €200 a week old age pension.

Child care is an issue that has been discussed at many fora throughout the country by people with different perspectives. I declare a specific interest in this area as we had a baby girl recently and I will, obviously, benefit from the packages announced in the budget. In these days of political correctness, I want to declare that specific interest.

Mr. Penrose: Just in time.

Mr. Kelleher: It is equally important that we acknowledge that many different elements make a family. Some people want to stay at home, some want to work. It would pay some people who go to work better to stay at home, but they want to work. The provision of €1,000 per child up to the age of six is a tangible acknowledgement of this. We often hear people say the State does not do enough to allow people the choice to work or stay at home. No Government could satisfy all the various viewpoints on this issue. The Government has, however, taken a step in the right direction by supporting the child, the central person in the issue of child care.

Child care is not about providing income for parents or those caring for the child, but about providing income supports for the child. This has been forgotten in many debates on this issue. Child care is about addressing the needs of the child. The overall supports and increases, in particular the €1,000 for those under six and the increases in child benefit and family income supplement, benefit families with a number of children. As the number of children increases, so do payments. If we are serious about addressing all the supports a child will need during its life, we have made a significant step in the right direction in this Bill.

Child benefit has been debated ad nauseam. People ask what is the best way to direct payment at the child and some people complain there is no means test for child benefit. We must acknowledge the core principle that the benefit is for the child. It is up to the parents and guardians to decide where the money is spent. Many people can probably afford to spend it in areas that do not directly impact on the child’s welfare on a daily basis. The general principle of treating all children equally is positive. Over the coming [903]years, as a result of changes in child care support, demographics and the workforce we will see a greater need to advance the issue of flexible child care.

We are only just beginning to tap into and acknowledge this issue, which is pertinent on a number of fronts, primarily with regard to changes in the workforce and the desire of parents to work. Parents are entitled to work, even if they work for less. Work may be therapeutic for them, it may be what they want or that they interact with others. The provisions in this Bill are a positive step to encourage as many people as possible to work, without putting obstacles in their way if they want to stay at home.

Overall, the Minister can look back on this Social Welfare Bill and say that the Cabinet debate was successful in delivering a tangible benefit to individuals. The Bill is not just about a €13.5 billion social welfare package, but about what it delivers to individuals and how it changes and enhances their lives. I commend the Minister and this Bill to the Dáil.

Mr. P. McGrath: I thank the Chair for the opportunity to address the House on this Bill. It has been a long day for everybody and I am sure the Minister is getting tired of hearing everything being said——

Mr. Kelleher: Tired of all the praise.

Mr. P. McGrath: ——and of being praised so much, although I am sure he takes it in his stride.

Mr. Penrose: The only way he can go is down.

Mr. P. McGrath: I see his poor officials are here with him. I saw a wry smile appear on their faces when I appeared tonight because I have probably been giving the same speech for so many years that they could write it for me at this stage.

Mr. Penrose: A single transferable speech.

Mr. P. McGrath: They probably feel I will say the same again tonight. Some of what I say will be the same, because they have not changed. Let me begin by giving out the plaudits and saying that much of what has been achieved in the social welfare budget is very good. The Minister has managed to provide reasonable increases for many of the vulnerable in society, the elderly, carers etc. These have got reasonable increases, no more than they deserve.

This social welfare budget is not a grandiose handing out of benefits but gives people that to which they are entitled. In many instances it just repays the confidence they showed in the system through the contributions they made over the [904]years. Therefore, they are entitled to what they are getting.

My role is to point out the shortfalls in this social welfare budget. There is a glaring shortfall in the area of child dependant allowance. This allowance is targeted at vulnerable people and provides for families in receipt of social welfare payments. I see a smile appearing on the officials’ faces because they know what I am about to say. The child dependant allowance is very targeted in that anybody in receipt of it has already qualified through making contributions or by passing a means test. The allowance has not changed since the early 1990s. Not only has it not changed, it presents a great anomaly because there are three different payments. The response the Minister’s officials will pass to him is that this is not too bad because there used to be 36 levels of payment. I am not interested in that and do not want it said by the Minister for the 93rd time. It is not right and not in accord with the policy of treating children equally that there are three different payments.

There is not even consistency regarding the composition of the payments or what they relate to. If one is in receipt of unemployment benefit, one has paid into an insurance scheme called the social insurance fund by way of one’s weekly PRSI contributions at work. When one needs to get a payment from this fund, one applies for what is called unemployment benefit. If one is on unemployment benefit and has a child dependant, one gets €16.80 for the child per week. If one is on disability benefit or in receipt of the old age non-contributory pension, which is not insurance-based, one gets €16.80 per child per week. Furthermore, if one receives a pension for the blind, a widow’s or widower’s non-contributory pension or the carer’s allowance, one gets €16.80 per child per week. Some of these payments are based on paying into the social insurance fund and others are not, yet all entitle one to €16.80 per child per week.

If, however, one receives an old age contributory pension, which comes out of the social insurance fund, one gets €19.30 per child per week. If one receives invalidity pension or the one-parent family payment, one gets €19.30 per child per week. There is no consistency as some of these payments are made from the social insurance fund while others are not. A widow or widower on a contributory pension receives €21.60 per child per week. The difference between the top and bottom rates amounts to €250 per annum and this simply cannot be justified.

One of the major criticisms of the budget and the social welfare package was by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, as the Minister knows. It criticised him for doing nothing in respect of the child dependant allowance. It asked him to increase it to €30 per week because it is a targeted [905]payment. Not only was it not increased, the anomaly I have mentioned was not removed from the system. This is a mistake and missed opportunity and the Minister should address it soon.

It is not right that children who are equal can be treated differently. There is a great deal of money in the social insurance fund and the last time I noted its size, it was approaching €2 billion. The Minister could therefore take the major step of equalising the payments. I know what will happen, however. Most children are on the lower payment and the Minister cannot decrease the payment to anybody, thus implying that he would have to pay them all at the top rate. This would cost a great deal of money and this is probably why the payments have not been equalised. However, that is not an excuse for tolerating inequality in society, including inequality in the way in which we treat our children.

The script for my contribution on child benefit could probably be written by others as they have heard these points before. The Minister has provided for an increase of slightly in excess of €8 in this benefit. Just to keep pace with the promises made in the budget statement of 2003, the increase would need to amount to €40 per month; this has not happened. I always ask why one’s third, fourth and fifth children receive a higher rate of payment than the first and second children. How can one justify this? What is special about child three that he should receive a higher rate of payment than child two? If one has twins, there is — I almost used an unparliamentary word — a non-standard payment that bridges the gap between the two payments such that a kind of hybrid payment is made. Why should there be any difference in treatment?

This problem stems from the old days when child benefit was first introduced. The Minister and I are old enough to remember what my mother used to call the half crowns. Deputy Penrose once spoke about it.

Mr. Penrose: I was the eldest; I got the half crown.

Mr. Kelleher: The Deputy did well out of it.

Mr. P. McGrath: It was a great bonus that came every month and families were delighted with it. By the time I arrived — I was fairly late on the scene and was the tenth child in my household — no payment was made in respect of me at all. If one had only one child, one did not get the payment. The great day came, in the 1950s or 1960s, when there was a payment made for one child. It amounted to 10 shillings and we were in clover. It made an awful difference.

This is why there are different child benefit payments for different people. In the interest of equality it is not justifiable to have one rate of payment for the first and second children and [906]another rate for further children. This needs to be addressed by the Minister.

A very interesting fact that the Minister should note when considering child benefit — the figures have changed over the years — is that 22% of recipients receive no other form of income in their name. These recipients, amounting to approximately 110,000, are virtually all women. It is very important that this payment be maintained at a reasonably high rate. The Minister should consider this.

I believed this Bill would address the habitual residence clause in so far as it applies to social welfare payments because what is happening at present is grossly unfair. In recent weeks I have come across a number of European nationals from Poland and other such countries who have suffered in this regard. They have come here to work and have been working, mostly in the construction trade. If the weather deteriorates in the approach to Christmas, many people in the construction trade close up shop. If this occurs, the immigrants, who are probably on the minimum wage, get turfed out because they have no work. They go to their local social welfare office to try to get a few shillings but cannot do so because the habitual residence clause is applied. They are told they have only been in the country for ten months, a year or a year and a half and have not been here for the magic two years required under the clause. They are therefore turned down.

What are they supposed to do? Many sleep rough in this city because they cannot afford to pay the rent. This is not right. We allow these EU nationals to work in Ireland, which they are entitled to do, and they pay their taxes. I have heard successive Ministers say the immigrants have increased the competitiveness of our economy, yet when the chips are down and they need a little help to tide them over the Christmas period, we apply the habitual residence clause, wish them good luck and give them nothing. This is not right.

9 o’clock

Compare the circumstances of these immigrants with those of our relations and everybody in this House who worked abroad in different periods, especially in Britain. The way they were treated in Britain in terms of welfare and housing puts us to shame. When our economy has lifted and we have a few bob, people who paid into the insurance fund, which contains a great deal of money, are told: “Goodnight. Get out. We do not want to know.” That is not good enough. I would be frowned upon if I said that in a Christian country we should do something like that, and that this is what we are about. We are supposed to be a hospitable people yet we turn the hard hand on these people, and tell them that we have this rule. It is not good enough.

Will the Minister reconsider the issue of long-term and short-term payments? Unemployment benefit runs out after 15 months and recipients [907]must find some other income, which is fine, as many of those on unemployment benefit move on to another payment or find work. However, a terrible anomaly arises in that disability benefit is classified as a short-term payment. As such, recipients do not get the Christmas bonus or the child dependant payment while a child is at college. If they happen to be unfortunate enough that they require unemployment benefit for the period when a child is at college, they are given the run around and will not get the payment. That is not fair. It bears repeating — the school teacher in me is coming out — that unemployment benefit comes from the social insurance fund, which contains almost €2 billion. These people paid their insurance so why are they not entitled to the payment?

I am harping on many of these issues because I am very conscious that Deputy Penrose is present. As he is a prospective future Minister for Social and Family Affairs, it will save me saying this to him at that time.

Mr. Penrose: That is the kiss of death.

Mr. P. McGrath: The Minister must consider long-term and short-term entitlements.

The Minister could put the worst anomaly right at the stroke of a pen and at little cost. I have come across it in just two cases in my career, both involving disability benefit, which is a short-term payment. The families involved had children in higher education and qualified for the higher education grant. A top-up grant is payable by the Department of Social and Family Affairs if one’s income is below a certain income threshold, which is approximately €15,500 per annum at present. The problem is that a person can be in receipt of unemployment benefit or disability benefit, which is below the threshold of €15,500, but because that payment is a short-term payment, the person is not entitled to the top-up grant.

This cannot be justified given that the student is at college and the parents are struggling on welfare payments to keep him or her there. If they were on long-term welfare payments, the Department would give them the top-up grant because they are below the threshold. However, because they are on short-term payments, it will not do so. Surely the Department could pay them for the year they are on the short-term payment and then let the case be reviewed if the parents return to work or otherwise. When there is a crisis in a family, its members must be looked after.

It is positive that the carer’s benefit has been extended to 24 months but the Minister might address one query. With regard to a carer who has cared for, say, an ill mother for the current 15 month period, if there is a further requirement to look after the ill mother to get her through a [908]difficult period, can the carer access the additional nine months of carer’s benefit? This might apply to a small number of cases and it is only reasonable that it should happen.

Mr. Penrose: It should be allowed.

Mr. P. McGrath: The Minister might consider the matter.

It is welcome that maternity benefit, which also comes from the social insurance fund, has increased to 80% of gross earnings. When one pays car insurance, one is fully covered in case of an accident. Why only give those on maternity benefit 80% of their income from two years previously, which in many cases would be much lower than their current income? They should be given 100%.

I welcome the increase in the back to school clothing and footwear allowance, which is a good idea. In July and August every year I am pestered by people with regard to the nominal income threshold for this allowance. If a family is above the income threshold, it does not get the allowance. There is no excuse for somebody who qualifies for family income supplement not qualifying for the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. Qualification for family income supplement automatically suggests that the State acknowledges that a person is on low income. Nonetheless, if a person is above a certain threshold, he or she does not qualify for the allowance. There should be a clause in the Bill whereby if one qualifies for a family income supplement payment, one automatically receives the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. An automatic payment would save the Department’s officials endless hours of trying to find ways to make people qualify and would speed up the process, as well as bringing clarity and fairness to the system.

The Government’s child care package has gone down reasonably well but I see one major flaw in it, namely, the question of a person being able to earn €10,000 tax free by virtue of looking after children in his or her own home. While I stand to be corrected, it is the only payment within the State, apart from the rent a room allowance, that is not subject to tax. To take an example, if my wife looked after two or three children at home, she would not necessarily have to be qualified or have met the relevant health and safety standards. At the same time, my daughter might have qualified from child care courses and work in the local child care centre, which is subject to inspection. She must pay tax on every penny she earns whereas, in theory, my wife could earn €10,000 tax free. What will be the result? Staff will be sucked out of the child care sector, in which the Government has invested substantial capital spending, and put into the uncharted waters of the black economy. A system will develop to the [909]detriment of the provision of child care spaces elsewhere. The issue must be carefully considered.

Mr. Sargent: Is cúis áthais dom deis a fháil labhairt ar chúrsaí leasa shóisialaigh. Tááthas orm go bhfuil an tAire i láthair. The background to the social welfare provisions in the budget and the legislation arising from it must be put in context following the fanfare indicating the budget was going to deal with child care and resolve many problems faced by people, particularly parents. In 2005, disability issues were the hook on which the Government hung the budget, and in 2004, decentralisation was the issue. We cannot state that any of these issues have been resolved or that there has been a universal welcome. That is quite ironic given the reaction to decentralisation in particular, and the manner in which disability groups have continued to lobby for a rights-based approach to the issues that need to be addressed. There was further lobbying for this budget by disability groups which felt they were not getting the core funding required to lift them out of dependency and community employment schemes. That is still an outstanding issue.

I appreciate the Government has endeavoured to raise in general the payments being made and to introduce some other measures, particularly in the area of child care. This was an effort to get the main pressure off its back with regard to these issues. However, the wider issue that should be borne in mind is that personal debt is rising. The Government has a responsibility to come to terms with this and address the matter. All the social welfare measures in the world are not going to relieve problems if personal debt is growing and outstripping those increases.

I realise the Government is not in a position to provide a nanny state and tell people not to get into debt. The matter must be addressed when the Government, on the one hand, is stating that balance of payments are in a healthy position nationally, while at the same time the ratio of household credit to disposable income is estimated to increase from approximately 112% of disposable income at the end of 2004 to 133% at the end of 2005.

In the national picture, the Government is stating it has everything in order. I dispute this but I will not get into too much detail as we are dealing with social welfare. However, for every €1 of disposable income, the average person will owe €1.33. Over the next three years the Central Bank expects €1.60 to be owed for every €1 of disposable income. There is a trend against which social welfare payments must be taken into account. In contrast, ten years ago Irish people owed just 48 cent for every €1 of income after tax. This indicates some of the difficulty that is faced by the Government. When it considers this, it may wonder why there is not a fulsome response from all [910]concerned despite the budget being so generous. One of the main criticisms of social welfare payments and the child care package is that it was so general and across the board in a society which is very divided. In European and world terms we have a reputation, or perhaps infamy, for being a divided society.

The reaction of Barnardos is that the budget does not reflect the reality of bringing up children. The National Women’s Council has stated its disappointment that the new child care supplement is not index linked. ICTU, with tongue slightly in cheek, has stated it was underwhelmed. IBEC stated the measures do not focus enough on making child care affordable for parents working outside the home. The Children’s Rights Alliance is concerned about the lack of focus on quality child care and will look closely to ensure that children’s rights are central to the roll out of the child care programme. The Combat Poverty Agency stated its concern that child dependant allowances, which they hoped would be targeted at the poorest children in the State, remain frozen. The Simon Community voiced its concern that the Government did not prioritise housing, although I know that is beyond the Minister’s brief. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul stated its disappointment at the lack of targeted payments for poor families. The One Parent Exchange and Network had a similar response.

In general there is a pattern running through many of the reactions from people who are at the coal face, dealing with various disadvantaged groups and people in society. They are stating that wealthy families that could easily go without will be receiving child care and child benefit payments of almost €2,550 per child next year, while families at serious risk of poverty receive the same amount. They believe the Government should have linked payments to earnings far more decisively.

One could ask why, and the Minister might have his own answer. There is an impression that a large pot of money was to be spread out as much as possible with a view to giving everybody something so they might feel they were being looked after. It is a sad fact that many of the poorest people in our society do not vote. I wonder if there was some motivation in that regard. Perhaps that is something which will change in the next election, and it certainly needs to change for democracy to be seen as effective.

The social welfare system is so complex that problems in administration are quite likely, whatever about sums of money involved. I have an example of a conscientious landlord who contacted me. He provided accommodation for people who were on rent supplement, for example. The sum involved would be €737 per month. However, last June that landlord found he was to sell the house being rented. He gave notice to his tenants, who departed and got other [911]rented accommodation. The landlord let the social welfare authorities know he was no longer renting the property. However, payments were still being received three months later. He rang me to find out who he could give the money back to, as money which he was not entitled to was being sent to him. The person in question knew he was not entitled to the money but it was arriving for him without any questions being asked.

There is a need to cross-reference, check and put in place balances that will ensure that not only is the money given to those with greatest need, but that it is given in a way that is above board and will not tempt people to hold on to it if they are not entitled to it. This was the case outlined above. Has the Minister come across this before and has he advice on the matter? I also ask how the checks and balances can be put in place, given that much money is being paid out. It appears from time to time that such money is paid out in error. It is not helping those with the greatest need if the Government is claiming that a certain amount of money is being spent, when it is not being spent in a targeted or correct way.

Tá litir agam mar gheall ar mhná den chuid is mó atá gan phinsean. Tá mé ag ceapadh go bhfuil fadhb ansin agus gur cheart don Aire díriú uirthi. Tá fear ag scríobh chugam mar gheall ar ghrúpa — nach mór é— de mhná atá in aois an phinsin ach nach bhfaigheann pinsean ar bith. Deir an fear seo liom:

In ainneoin Alt 41.2.1° de Bhunreacht na hÉireann tá na mílte ban atá 70 bliain d’aois nó breis agus 70 bliain d’aois lonnaithe ar fud na Poblachta gan phingin rua de phinsean ón Stát. Seanmhná is ea iad seo a streachlaíonn leis an saol gan mhaoin, gan sealúchas, gan phinsean dá gcuid féin — iad ag brath ar dhaoine eile dá gcothú.

Ar meán d’oibrigh na mná seo 124 míle uair i rith a saol: iad i mbun tí agus ag tógáil clainne.

In Alt 41.2.1° den Bhunreacht deirtear:

[A]dmhaíonn an Stát go dtugann an bhean don Stát, trína saol sa teaghlach, cúnamh nach bhféadfaí leas an phobail a ghnóthú dáéagmais.

In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

Measaim nár mhiste d’aon Rialtas sóisialach liúntas beag, pearsanta seachtainiúil a bhronnadh ar gach bean nach bhfuil pinsean á fháil aici agus atá 70 bliain d’aois nó níos mó.

Is mór a chuirfeadh sé lena neamhspleáchas, lena gcaighdeán maireachtála agus lena ndínit.

Dealraíonn sé nach eol don CSO cruinnuimhir na mban i gceist, i.e. uimhir na [912]mban nach raibh acmhainn don teaghlach [leathchoróin, mar a dúirt daoine eile] á n-íoc acu go deonach ón mbliain 1961 AD amach (tuigim go bhfuair thart ar 87% de mhná na hÉireann in aois a 70 nó 70+ pinsean sa bhliain 2003).

Ag cur san áireamh go bhfuil Éire ar cheann de na tíortha is saibhre ar domhan anois, tá súil agam go mbeidh tú sásta brú a chur ar an Rialtas líon na mban i gceist a nochtadh don bhliain reatha agus liúntas pearsanta caoi a bhronnadh orthu mar cheart!

Seans gur féidir leis an Aire a rá go bhfuil plean ag an Rialtais díriú ar an gceist seo. It is very obvious that, for all the complexity and cross-referencing that goes on in the Department of Social and Family Affairs, there is a group of people that falls through the cracks because they have worked to raise a family and now, aged 70 years or more, are not entitled to any pension. This is shameful. They may have a spouse on whom they depend but that is not always the case.

It is strange that the Central Statistics Office does not have accurate figures. These people are out of the Government’s sight and mind. I will give the Minister more information about this after the debate, if he needs it. This issue points again to the need to achieve a balance between the complexity of the system and its simplification so that it does not give rise to such injustices.

Fr. Seán Healy has made presentations to Fianna Fáil on many different issues, including probably the principle of refundable tax credits and the more developed system of a guaranteed basic income. Without going that far, it is unjust that some people receive tax breaks and others receive nothing because they are not in a workplace where they receive pay. A refundable tax credit could deal with that.

Has the Minister given time and thought to refundable tax credits and brought the idea to the attention of his colleagues in Government, particularly the Minister for Finance? If so has there been any progress on that proposal? Meanwhile, I urge the Minister to take on board the injustice of the case I cited and the clear but unintentional abuse of the system whereby rent supplements are paid where there is no need, for example, if there is no tenant in the house. I would like the Minister to address these issues when summing up the debate.

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mr. Brennan): Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá mar gheall ar an gcás sin. B’fhéidir go ndéanfainn scrúdú faoi leith air, más mian leis an Teachta an litir sin a thabhairt dom. Is éard atá i gceist ná liúntas faoi leith tar éis é a bheith 70 bliain d’aois nó níos sine. Déanfaidh mé scrúdú faoi leith ar sin.

[913]More than 22 Deputies contributed to this debate and I thank every one of them for doing so. I particularly thank the main spokespersons of the Opposition parties who sat through the entire debate, or as much of it as they possibly could. Public representatives have a special knowledge of welfare because of the number of people they meet in their daily work.

I thank Deputy Stanton for his constructive approach to the Bill. He suggested that I set targets to eliminate poverty instead of relying on certain percentages. I would like to discuss this proposal further. He asked me to develop the family income supplement, which I certainly will do.

He took me to task for not getting on with the second tier but the National Economic and Social Council is considering ways to pull that together. Meanwhile, I have increased the family income supplement by €25 million which is the start of that process. He asked me to examine secondary benefits for widows and so on, and I will continue to keep that under review. He also suggested a voucher type of system as a travel pass for rural areas. That is complicated but we can continue to review it.

I was particularly taken with his point about local authorities’ differential rent. I agree with him that when we make increases in the budget, local authorities claw them back by changing the differential rent. I will discuss this issue with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to see whether we can make progress on it. I am not sure of the scale of the problem but I receive many complaints about it. We need to establish whether this can be standardised throughout the country. That, however, is complicated because local authorities have their own statutory authority with which it is sometimes difficult to interfere.

Deputy Stanton asked me to enforce further the maintenance from fathers. I am conscious of that issue. He also spoke about the quality of child care centres and so on. I acknowledge those points and will work on them.

I thank Deputy Penrose for chairing the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs. He put it to me, without his tongue in his cheek, that I swiped many of his ideas. I do not often acknowledge theft on the floor of the House but the Deputy brought to my attention many anomalies, especially in the lone parent’s benefit, to which I have tried to respond. I was impressed by his proposals on individualisation and the need to treat every social welfare recipient as an individual and would like to move on that premise. In effect it involves individualising qualified adult allowances and paying them directly.

We have had several meetings in the Department on this issue. I will see if further progress can be made on the matter. Many Members [914]asked why the Government did not increase the child dependant allowance.

I took careful note of the warning on the poverty trap that could be created by people losing benefits because they return to work. I am conscious that as welfare payments are increased and the gap between the benefits of welfare and work is reduced, a clutch and accelerator type approach is required. This should allow people to move from welfare to work without suffering a drop in income. I have inserted new thresholds and new tapering reliefs and reduced the slope in this Bill. For example, recipients of rent allowance, when they return to work, are allowed to hold on to it for a longer period than before. It is the same with disability benefits. People must be eased off allowances as they go back to work. The family income supplement will also help in this regard.

Deputy Penrose always asks me about abolishing the carer’s grant means test. I was briefed that it would come to approximately €145 million.

Mr. Penrose: It is approximately €200 million.

Mr. Brennan: The complete abolition of the means test for the carer’s grant will have cost implications, estimated at €140 million in a full year.

Mr. Penrose: That is not as bad as I thought.

Mr. Brennan: While I respect the Deputy’s view, I am surprised how easily he feels this can be done. This would be a move towards a universal carer’s allowance. At the risk of being shot, if the Deputy was beginning from scratch with child benefit, would he make it a universal benefit?

Mr. Penrose: That is a fair point.

Mr. Brennan: Would the Deputy be then careful about taking universal routes for other benefits as many people may not need benefits? I will continue to examine the affordability and the practicality of means-testing the carer’s allowance. However, it is not at the top of my priorities. I prefer instead to increase the thresholds, bring more carers into the system and increase allowances and benefits.

Deputy Boyle asked about abolishing dependence status and individualisation, a direction the Women’s Council asked me to take. I am working on this issue. The Deputy asked me about indexing the fuel allowance. The allowance was increased by 55% this year and a €2 million package was introduced for home insulation. The fuel allowance was never meant to be other than a contribution to costs. No one pretends it pays their fuel bills.

Deputy Sargent raised the issue of increasing levels of individual debt and indebtedness in society. The money advice and budgeting service does a superb job in dealing with people on lower [915]incomes with debt problems. I am indebted to it for the work it does.

The Bill increases benefits by 10.5%, four times the expected rate of inflation, and benefits 970,000 people. People on lower rates will receive an extra €17 a week, while a special €16 a week payment goes to people on non-contributory pensions. A sum of €14 a week goes to other pensioners, who are not means-tested. This time, I believe we have got it the right way around. The higher increases have been given to those on lower incomes and vice versa. The child benefit package amounts to over €100 million, which will be paid to 545,000 families, with payments increased to €150 for the first and second child and €185 a week for the third child and subsequent children. The fuel allowance package amounts to €42 million and will begin in January. Up to 274,000 households will receive the fuel allowance.

I am pleased there is a €300 million package for social welfare reforms as opposed to the price of the rates, which amounts to €800 million. I fought hard to ensure that on top of the rates, a special fund was introduced to reform the system. This is to recognise carers, increase the income for vulnerable older people and introduce specific measures to tackle child poverty issues. It will also aim to empower lone parents and introduce measures such as changing the back-to-work regulations so that an individual only has to be unemployed for two years instead of five to claim the allowance.

These measures will promote activation by encouraging people to get back to work, training and education opportunities. All Members have a duty to tackle the social issues behind the payments, not just focus on the payments themselves, valuable as they are. We have to help people move, if it is appropriate, from welfare dependency to financial independence. We must help them make that journey, not just trap them in a welfare dependent position. This philosophy is at the heart of the budget presented in this Social Welfare Bill.

At the cost of €20 million, a new enhanced State non-contributory pension will be introduced which will transfer 35,000 pensioners on partial payments to full entitlement. This has been brought about by increasing the means disregard of €7.60 to €20. On top of this, people on non-contributory pensions will be allowed to earn up to €100 a week before we touch their pensions. The current level is €7.60 assuming they have no other means. This is a signal to people that when they start to get their pensions, they do not have to stop earning funds for fear of their pensions being taken off them. It will allow and encourage older people to take up employment without losing their pension at an early stage.

[916]This is a threshold I would like to see increased on a regular basis. Contributory pensioners are fully entitled to earn what they wish without any interference with their pension. It is important that non-contributory pensioners are allowed to do the same. Up to 100,000 people are locked in the position where if they earned over €7.60, the State took their pension from them, assuming they had no other means.

I am pleased a special effort was made in regard to carers. The allowance was increased by €30 a week, bringing it up to the top rate of €200, an increase of 17% on last year. We often speak of increasing pensions to the €200 a week mark. I am particularly pleased the top rate of carer’s allowance is now €200 a week. This makes it the largest single welfare payment in the State, leaving aside the special case for the over-80s. The respite care grant has been increased by 25% to €1,200. This year 33,000 carers availed of this grant.

The child care package is dedicated to measures to alleviate child poverty. The specific measure was to increase the family income supplement by putting in an extra €25 million. We have increased the amounts from €19 to €282 per week. This year it will be targeted at larger families. I will give the House some of the figures intended in this measure on another Stage. When the figures are in the public arena, Members will note the strong effect this change will have on family income support. It will mean larger families, who are most vulnerable to poverty, will gain substantially from the new family income supplement. The measure is a direct assault on child poverty because it will result in people on low incomes receiving top-ups from the State and being allowed to earn more while keeping their benefits. In addition, larger families will receive more than smaller families.

On the issue of child poverty, the back to school clothing and footwear allowance, which benefits 160,000 children, has been increased by 50% or €40 per child, bringing the rate up to €120 for children aged under 11 years and €190 for eligible persons aged up to 22 years. Moreover, funding for the school meals programme has been increased by 25% or €2 million.

I ran through these figures to demonstrate that when one examines the combined effects of the new child care package and increases in child benefit, social welfare rates, the fuel allowance and pensions, one finds that the ESRI’s view that the budget is targeted at the lower paid and its benefits reduce as income increases is true. The progressive nature of the budget has been confirmed by the ESRI poverty model which indicates that the bottom fifth in society gained substantially more from the budget measures than the other four fifths of the population.

Deputies mentioned lone parents. I increased the upper earnings limit for lone parents by €82 [917]per week to a new limit of €375. As a result, several thousand people will become eligible for a payment and lone parents currently in work will be in a position to substantially increase their earnings. Allowing people to earn more money before their allowance is touched and removing the allowance at a slower rate to ensure recipients find a solid footing will assist people in avoiding the poverty trap to which Deputy Penrose referred. The jump in the limit by €82 per week or more than €4,000 per annum will be helpful.

Specifically on activation measures, I noted the introduction of a tapered 50% withdrawal rate for disability allowance and the reduction in the qualification period for back to work allowance from five years to two years on the live register. This, too, is part of the philosophy behind what I am attempting to achieve, namely, to recognise carers, support older people, ensure activation is at the heart of the budget and, specifically, target child poverty. In this regard, I was pleased to note from the CSO’s EU survey that consistent poverty, to use the words of the CSO, has fallen from 8.8% to 6.8% in one year. While the latter figure is still not acceptable, the budget will reduce it further because we have forcefully targeted poverty.

Many questions were asked about the child care supplement. The supplement will be paid by the Department on behalf of the National Children’s Office because the Department has the relevant records and is, therefore, in a much better position to make the payments. The supplement will be paid quarterly in arrears for the second, third and fourth quarters of 2006, with three payments of €250 issuing over the year. The first payment will be made in the summer of 2006 when the necessary processing systems and procedures are in place. Full quarterly payments will be paid in respect of each child who was under six years and had an entitlement to child benefit at any point during the relevant quarter. The date of a child’s birthday during the quarter is irrelevant.

Mr. Sargent: I asked a question about rent supplement which was wrongly paid for three months after tenants left a dwelling.

Mr. Brennan: What was the Deputy’s point?

Mr. Sargent: A landlord contacted me pointing out that despite informing the Department that tenants had left a rented property, cheques for rent supplement continued to arrive for three months. Is it possible to stop such wrong payments which were neither expected nor due in the case in question?

Mr. Brennan: The Deputy is referring to a specific individual who received rent allowance from the Health Service Executive in error.

[918]Mr. Sargent: Yes. Who should the landlord contact to have the cheques stopped?

Mr. Brennan: While I presume the landlord should contact the Health Service Executive, if the Deputy supplies my officials with details of the case, it will be addressed.

Mr. Sargent: It is a flaw in the system.

Mr. Brennan: It is unusual to be pressed on how to give back money. If someone wishes to return money, I promise the Deputy we will find a way for him to do so. I am sure the HSE would be glad to have the cheque returned.

A number of speakers, albeit none of the Deputies present, used phrases such as “pittance” to describe increases in social welfare. I will outline some examples of how the increases will affect families. A family with two children under six years with an income of €20,000 will receive €2,000 in child care allowance, €3,600 in child benefit and, most important, €4,233 in family income supplement, as well as €240 back to school allowance. In summary, the family will receive a total child support package of €10,073, whereas the equivalent figure for last year was €6,400. I will publish these figures in due course.

I do not wish to try the Acting Chairman’s patience but I wish to outline a further example. A family with four children, two of whom are aged over six years and two under six years, with an income of €20,000 will receive, in round figures, child care payments of €2,000, child benefit of €8,000, family income supplement of €8,000 and back to school allowance of €480. In total, the family will receive additional social welfare, specifically for children, of €18,000 on top of earnings of €20,000, bringing its income up to €38,000. The equivalent figure for last year was €12,000.

The previous figure referred to a family on low pay in receipt of family income supplement. A family with two children aged under six years in which the parents are unemployed will receive unemployment assistance of €16,000, child care allowance of €2,000, child benefit of €3,600, fuel allowance of €406 and back to school allowance of €240, giving a total income from the State of €22,335. Last year, this ordinary family with two children would have received €18,000 from the State.

If an unemployed person had four children, two of whom are aged under six years and two aged over six years, the family would receive €17,000 in unemployment assistance, which includes child dependant allowance, €2,000 in child care allowance, €8,000 in child benefit. Taken together with the other smaller allowances I mentioned, this gives a total income of €28,000, as compared to €24,000 last year.

I accept the point made by many Deputies that social welfare payments are made using tax[919]payers’ rather than Government money. An unemployed person who received €18,000 social welfare last year will receive €22,000 in social welfare after this budget. In another scenario, a family in which the parents are unemployed will have its income jump from €24,000 to €28,000. I will try to publish these figures in some format in the future.

I do not propose to take Deputies through figures on pensioners but they are equally dramatic. For example, in the case of one pensioner, income will increase from €1,800 to more than €8,000 due to the new disregards introduced in the budget.

I thank Deputies for considering Second Stage and look forward to their contributions on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Cecilia Keaveney): When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. Brennan: Now.

NEW SECTIONS.

Mr. Penrose: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, before section 1, to insert the following new section:

“1.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of increasing the fuel allowance and living alone allowance to take into account the increase in the cost of living since those allowances were last increased.”.

While I know the Minister will not have sufficient time to deal with them, I wish to point out some anomalies concerning the Bill. A person is awarded credits while in receipt of a carer’s allowance, but this does not apply to people who are self-employed prior to being awarded the carer’s allowance. This is in spite of the fact that they are paying a contribution, which is important to them for pension purposes. Such people will have a break in their contributions, which will count against them when they apply for the old age pension, widow’s or widower’s pension, as the yearly average will be reduced. A person who leaves employment, however, can avail of credits which keep their contribution alive. This is a disincentive for people to become carers.

The same applies to a self-employed person who becomes ill. A driving instructor who was paying a self-employed contribution has been diagnosed with cancer. He has no choice but to [920]apply for the disability allowance as the self-employed contribution does not entitle him to disability benefit. He cannot now put on a credit stamp as he was self-employed prior to getting sick so he must go on disability allowance. This man has been sick for over two years and is being denied an invalidity pension because when he became ill he did not have 48 contributions credited in the last complete tax year. He had 268 stamps which he had paid for before becoming self-employed. This would have made him eligible for the invalidity pension which is not means tested. A small pension of €10 per week would not reduce his invalidity pension as it would do for the disability allowance.

Part of the carer’s allowance is calculated for receipt of the back to school clothing and footwear allowance, but the Minister should exempt it. Deputy Paul McGrath referred to the same aspect regarding family income supplements.

I realise that I am straying away from the purpose of the amendment, but I want to try to help the Minister. The granting of additional paid and unpaid maternity leave is a godsend to all working mothers. However, the 1 March 2006 introduction date has confused and annoyed many women who are due to take maternity leave in January and February. New measures announced in the budget generally take effect immediately or on 1 January. One lady told me that women who are due to take maternity leave in January or February are left thinking they came so close yet remain so far away. She used a great analogy, stating “The last two days for us have been like hearing that you had won the lotto, and then hearing you’d got it wrong”.

If each time the Department set up extended leave it produced new forms, a solution could be that women who take maternity leave after 1 January could reapply for the four-week extension while on maternity leave. This would surely be manageable for the relatively small number of women who are in this situation. They should have an opportunity to extend their maternity leave in line with national best practice. The Minister’s good work could be undone if women are not afforded such an opportunity. He should examine that matter and try to address it.

Another anomaly involves a full-time student who was involved in a car crash on returning to Ireland. As a result he could not return to college or work so he took a year out. During that time he was horrified to find that he could not claim any social welfare disability allowance. He had worked in Ireland since he was 12 and had always paid his PRSI and other contributions, yet he could not believe that he was not entitled to any allowances. To cap it all, approximately a month ago, he was involved in another crash. This time he fulfilled all the relevant paperwork, including medical certificates, for a disability benefit claim. He received a letter stating that he was ineligible, [921]but why would such a person not be eligible? I will furnish the Minister’s staff with this letter which created an aura of resentment.

Mr. Stanton: Now that Deputy Penrose has given us a full run through the social welfare code——

Mr. Brennan: He knows it well.

Mr. Stanton: ——I will get back to the amendment, which refers to the fuel and living alone allowances. It would be useful to know where we are going with both allowances. That is the thrust of the amendment. I understand that the living alone allowance has not been raised this time around, but it would be useful to know what the Minister’s thinking is on that allowance. Should it be subsumed into the social welfare code by including it and increasing it across the board? If it is useful it should have been increased, otherwise it should be subsumed into the social welfare code. Deputy Penrose has graphically illustrated the fact that the social welfare code is very complicated.

We must remember a small group of people at this time. Every year, when the Minister for Social and Family Affairs makes all these changes following the budget, community welfare officers and other social welfare staff have to grapple with changing rates. They must alter all their operating procedures which represents a huge amount of work. The Minister should simplify the social welfare code as much as possible to make it easier to understand. Where possible he should amalgamate allowances, while not decreasing them, so that the system is easier for people to grasp. The same applies to varying rates of payment.

As regards the fuel allowance, it would be useful to check the impact of dramatic fuel price increases. Perhaps the Combat Poverty Agency has information on that matter. Much will depend on the weather conditions this winter. Discussions take place every year on increasing the length of time for which the fuel allowance is provided. We are always told that it cannot be done because it costs so much, but I would like to see what benefit it would make if that contribution, as the Minister calls it, was available to people for a bit longer during the year. In other words, is it needed?

Mr. Boyle: I am confused as to what I am speaking to, but I will use the amendment as my springboard to discuss the fuel and living alone allowances. The central point of the amendment is the need to address properly the living costs of those dependent on welfare payments. In his summing up, the Minister referred to my contributions, including my belief that the fuel allowance should be index linked. He rightly pointed out that the fuel allowance was never intended as a 100% subsidy towards fuel costs for those on [922]social welfare. The reality, however, is that the existing fuel allowance has less impact as a subsidy than when it was first introduced. It certainly has less impact than when it was frozen at 2002 levels.

We are now entering a period of huge uncertainty over future fuel costs. In my original contribution I said that that uncertainty is not helped by the fact that the fuel allowance is a non-statutory payment. We should work towards having it included in future social welfare Bills so that we can discuss mechanisms like index-linking and, in particular, how we can put in place the means to recognise cost of living realities, including heating costs. I would not be averse to some creative thinking in this area. It is a sad reality that the poorest in our society can only avail of the most expensive fuels, which are also sometimes the most environmentally damaging. Perhaps the fuel allowance could be staggered in some way to favour more heat-effective and environmentally friendly fuels. The Minister should consider that possibility.

10 o’clock

The Minister also referred to the fact the Bill and the budget have allocated a €2 million fund to help with the insulation of houses of social welfare recipients. That is welcome, but €2 million is but a puddle in the ocean that is the annual expenditure of the Government. If we are really serious about fuel efficiency, the Government will need to embark on a major programme worth hundreds of millions of euro to look at the nation’s entire housing stock. The sum of €2 million is an exercise in dipping one’s toe, however welcome it is.

Deputy Stanton has noted that the living alone allowance has not been increased this year. However, we must prepare for the changing demographics of our society. It is yet to happen to a large degree, but as this generation, which is more solitary and lives on its own more than any previous one, gets older, we must recognise a massive problem down the road. The next generation of senior citizens in this country will be more divorced from social contact and extended families as well as from the ability to interact with the wider community than those who preceded us. We must confront the sad reality that there will be many more elderly people living on their own in our society. How can we plan for that?

The only other point that I would like to make at this stage concerns something said on Second Stage regarding the need to control increases in social welfare payments and to protect them so that the bite-back in increased local authority rent does not have an immediate impact for recipients. I am aware of a guideline document issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that discourages local authorities from doing this, but apparently the directive does not have any impact.

We must consider specific legislation that would say that if social welfare payments are [923]granted in any given year, no more than a set percentage may be used for an increase in payments to State agencies for rent and other services. Unless we do that, in the Estimates being discussed in local authorities in the next month, much of the impact of these additional payments will unfortunately be watered down. The Minister and his Cabinet colleagues must respond to that.

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mr. Brennan): All the points made have one thing in common, namely, that they all cost a few bob. I had to make choices in this budget, as one does in every one. I have made those choices and will have to stand over those as priorities. Regarding carer’s allowance for the self-employed, that group is not specifically banned from receiving it, but they may only work up to ten hours a week, a figure that has now risen to 15. One will not be able to engage in much self-employment in ten to 15 hours per week. They are not specifically excluded, however.

On exempting family income supplement from the means test for the back to school allowance, FIS is part of one’s income, albeit a top-up. As such, it is probably all right to consider it as part of one’s income. I am not sure what scope I have left to pay maternity benefits from January, given that the sums are locked into the budget arithmetic.

Deputy Stanton asked why the living alone allowance was not being increased. That has not moved for a long time, and not only I but successive Ministers have preferred to put money into the rate. There is also a social issue. Even saying this out loud can land one in all sorts of trouble, but if one is on a living alone allowance and we keep raising it, one suffers the effect of losing it more if one later resides with someone.

The question is whether we should promote living alone as a social strategy. That argument has certainly put me off for the moment. If elderly people who are obviously living alone by choice need extra funds, I would prefer to give it to them in fuel allowance or directly in the rate rather than giving them another payment and stipulating another requirement about how they must live, namely, that they may not have a partner in the house if that is their choice. I am aware that even putting it like that can be emotional, but that is the thinking behind leaving it alone for the moment. We want to get the money to the same person in an unconditional manner whereby he or she receives it simply by virtue of being of pensionable age.

I agree with the Deputy regarding simplification. Some of it is a nightmare. All one need do is listen to Deputy Penrose for five minutes——

Mr. Stanton: Two minutes.

[924]Mr. Brennan: ——and one realises what a nightmare it is. We continue to work on that.

According to the Central Statistics Office, the overall consumer price index increased by 12% from the start of 2002 to November 2005. In the same period, energy products increased by 41%. Liquid heating fuel is up by 70%, and solid fuel by 20%. The 41% figure is something of a crude average. The budget increase that we have introduced is 55%.

Regarding Deputy Boyle’s point on indexation, one must be careful. If we had indexed welfare payments years ago when people in this House on all sides made strong pleas regarding payments of all sorts, without improving on them those payments would now be substantially lower than they are. The CPI in the last 11 years went up 35%, and old age pensions rose by 85%. Wages went up 63% in that time. Over that 11-year period, old age welfare payments have increased by at least three times as much as the consumer price index. One should be very careful about indexing something since it can have the opposite effect, holding back what people might otherwise receive. Future Governments might take the view that something is indexed to the CPI and leave it. We try to ensure that all payments reach a point where they are more related to average earnings than to the CPI. If one does any indexing, one must try to index them to earnings. Then they are at least raised in line with them.

I know the Deputy means well and wishes to ensure that we do not fall into the trap of a few years ago when we did not touch the fuel allowance for many years. However, the reason for that too was that we wanted to put money into the rates. We hoped that, by increasing them strongly and leaving people themselves the income, they could decide what to spend it on rather than be too prescriptive and say that one must have a certain amount for fuel and other matters, with conditions attached. If one gives them the main rate and gets the maximum into their pockets, one can let them make decisions about how they want to spend money. That was the policy of recent years. It was with some reluctance that I reversed that this year and went for the fuel, but I could see the pressure in the House, and Deputies were adamant. I took the point that the 41% increase was quite exceptional. The rise was 20% for solid fuel, and we tried to respond.

However, we must discuss whether that is the way to proceed in future and whether we should continue to prescribe all those little bits and pieces that people must get and how they must qualify for €20 here and €30 there. We could also take a giant leap and give them the money up front, saying that they are all old and wise enough to spend it on whatever services they need for themselves.

[925]Mr. Boyle: The Minister seems to think that 41% is an annual increase, whereas the fuel allowance is not available on an annual basis. Someone needs to go back and do the sums on that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Mr. Stanton: What amendments are being taken together?

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 2 and 24 are together.

Mr. Stanton: Perhaps I might speak very briefly on amendment No. 24. I wish to reiterate a point concerning carers. I know that the Minister has taken this on as a major project. We must have some sort of national strategy for carers, and perhaps the Minister might take that on board.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to be brief, as, strictly speaking, when amendment No. 2 is withdrawn, we should move through the others.

Mr. Stanton: That is all right.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 3, 22 and 23 are related and may be discussed together.

Mr. Penrose: I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, before section 1, to insert the following new section:

“1.—The Minister shall within 6 months from after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the impact of the social welfare system on one parent families and on proposals to remove the restriction on formation of a family unit which presently applies to recipients of such payments, and to alleviate the requirement that income disregard be assessed by reference to any particular week rather than averaged over a year or other period.”.

One-parent families are extremely important. I told the Minister yesterday that this area must be examined with great care. I know he wants to be innovative and has some forward thinking ideas in this regard but it is important that we do not create a plethora of traps in terms of the way families are treated in the constitutional context. Sole parents are increasingly disadvantaged as a group in terms of poverty, social welfare dependency and access to services that help address these issues. Many lone parents have not benefited from the Celtic tiger boom due to the lack of necessary supports. Indeed, many children in [926]one parent families are more at risk of ongoing poverty and social exclusion.

We need a coherent policy framework for one-parent families that reflects the reality of their lives and those of their children. That framework policy needs to be co-ordinated across all Departments and there must be co-operation on implementation across Departments and agencies.

Consistent poverty levels for one-parent household families are at approximately 33%, and 75% of those on local authority housing lists are one-parent families. The real value of child dependant allowances has fallen by approximately 35% since 1994. We must provide flexible and positive support for lone parents who wish to return to education, training and employment and ensure that lone parents and others wishing to increase their participation in the labour market are supported and rewarded. We must develop and pilot suitable supports for lone parents wishing to progress from community employment schemes and an effective mechanism to enable CE jobs serving ongoing community needs to become long term and sustainable. The back to education allowance should make self-employment a realistic option for lone parents, particularly in regard to interaction with other benefits.

The earning disregard in regard to one-parent family payments was equivalent to 18% of gross average industrial earnings when it was introduced in 1997. I acknowledge that the Minister has increased that significantly in the budget, and OPEN and other groups have welcomed it. I compliment the Minister on taking cognisance of the issue I brought to his attention last year that income should be disregarded by reference to any particular week and should average over a year or other period. The new section the Minister is introducing in the Bill deals with that position. This is a forward thinking approach on the part of the Minister which allows him to prescribe regulations.

I urge the Minister to ensure that when he is prescribing the regulations — I know that some of the Minister’s senior officials are very aware of this — it is done on a per annum basis. That will ensure that the weekly basis will be taken out of the equation whereby if somebody is only €1 over the weekly prescribed limit, they would lose their lone parent allowance for that period. They would then have to reapply only to lose it again after another six or eight weeks if periodic employment or holiday work became available. This was an administrative nightmare which cost the Minister’s Department a fortune. There is no net gain but the person who wanted to take up, say, the An Post holiday job with a view to being made permanent in the long term or a similar type job lost out. They could not participate, but this new section will deal with that anomaly. The Minister should ensure it is not undermined by anybody before it reaches the regulation stage. I salute the Minister for addressing that anomaly, and one-parent families [927]throughout the State should be grateful to him for what he has done in this regard.

Mr. Stanton: Amendment No. 22 in my name endeavours to draw attention to the need to focus on one-parent families. There are more one-parent families now than ever before and in my constituency work, and that of colleagues, we find that more one-parent families are under unbelievable pressure. They are three and a half times more likely to be in poverty than two-parent families. Will the Minister tell us what the income disregard will do for thousands of lone parents who would like to return to education or work? Many lone parents have major housing needs also in that they are paying exorbitant rents of €700 or €800 per month. There is not much left after paying that amount. Many lone parents depend on the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other charities to keep going from week to week, and their situation is getting worse. The Minister should carry out an in-depth study of the needs of one-parent families because it is a serious issue. I understand the proportion of lone-parent families is ten times that of two-parent families with the same need.

The welfare to work transition is very difficult for one-parent families because they have children to mind, take to school and so on. That is a major issue. If they get increases in welfare such as those proposed here, they might lose their medical card. That is another problem they must face. One size does not fit all in terms of the child care infrastructure. Lone parents have particular needs because there is no one available to look after their children. They are on their own and if they want to return to work or education, they are faced with the major obstacle of getting somebody to mind their child. Paying for that is a major issue also.

The recent CSO study indicated that 48% of lone parents were at risk of poverty in 2004. I encourage and support the Minister in bringing forward a more family friendly child payment for one-parent families. I agree with what the Minister said in the past about our code encouraging parents to live apart. It goes back to what the Minister said earlier about the living alone allowance, paying people to live alone. The same applies here where fathers are often seen sneaking back home at night to stay with their families, with neighbours reporting that he is visiting his partner and children, and the payment is then at risk, with all the stress and strain that involves. There is a huge area of work to be grappled in that regard. The Minister has been saying for some time that he intends to do something about it. I know he is genuine about that but time is getting short. The Minister has done a certain amount of work in this area and I encourage him to see what else can be done.

Mr. Boyle: I am supportive of the sentiments expressed in these amendments. Whether the [928]timeframe is three or six months there is an obligation on the Minister to bring forward his ideas on this area because, unwittingly, through his creative thinking out loud in the past, he has caused concerns for lone parents and, more particularly, organisations that seek to represent the interests of lone parents. Some of that was thought to be delivered in this budget but for various reasons it has not been given the priority talked about in the past.

The Minister could use this opportunity of presenting a report in three or six months to give clarity on the general debate he sought to initiate in recent months on whether lone parents should be encouraged to come out of poverty through achieving employment and the way that conflicts with their role of caring for their children. It is an element of workfare that could be introduced. On those grounds I would like to be more certain of the Minister’s attitudes. Perhaps he will be more accommodating towards thinking that any of these three amendments are worth considering in the context of making such a report to the House in the coming months.

Mr. Brennan: Making reports to the House poses no problem. We regularly answer parliamentary questions so we should be able to find time to produce the reports envisaged in these amendments.

I hope more lone parents can be persuaded to join the back to education allowance scheme. The number of people availing of this scheme has doubled in the past six years, with the number of lone parents participating in the scheme in 2004 and 2005 standing at 1,309. I would like to increase this figure dramatically and we will examine the best way to do this. From 1 December 2005, the qualifying criteria has been reduced to nine months. We need to attract more lone parents back to education.

The income threshold was increased from €293 per week to €375 per week, which amounts to a yearly salary of €19,500. It is difficult to quantify but this reform will allow thousands more lone parents to go back to work. These substantial reforms of the back to education allowance scheme and the upper limit on earnings should make it considerably easier for lone parents to get back to education or work.

Tapering rent supplement will also help lone parents because they will retain it for a longer period of time when they take up employment. I presented the paper on lone parents to the Cabinet’s social inclusion committee, which generally endorsed my view that I should publish it for discussion. This should come before the Cabinet next month, after which I hope to publish the paper. The paper will set out a number of options for helping lone parents. There will be a short debate on it, after which I will return to the Cabinet with solid proposals.

[929]Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Penrose: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, before section 1, to insert the following new section:

“1.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of extending the social welfare free schemes to widows and widowers who do not currently qualify in that regard.”.

Deputy McGrath once likened himself to a long-playing record due to the number of issues he raised in the House. I have been lobbying on this issue for almost the same length of time. The Minister stated that extending the household benefits scheme to widows and widowers under 66 who do not currently qualify for it would involve a considerable level of expenditure. I would like to discover the actual numbers of widows and widowers under 66. One could then calculate how many of them would avail of the household benefits scheme.

The loss of a spouse is very traumatic. The trauma is magnified if the spouse was the sole earner and the surviving spouse is left with two or three young children to raise. I acknowledge that the new payment for children under six years is an additional support for parents. The loss of a spouse who was the sole earner is a very significant financial blow because a significant portion of the income the surviving spouse relies on has gone. The surviving spouse is left to cope with an increasingly stressful situation. He or she suffers the emotional blow of losing his or her spouse and parent of his or her children and also loses a significant portion of his or her income. The standard of living the surviving spouse is accustomed to is severely diminished or dismantled.

As a compassionate society, we should extend household benefits to a vulnerable group. Benefits could be extended on a three-year trial basis to widows and widowers under 66 while they are still finding their feet after their initial loss. I cannot see how extending household benefits to this group on a continuous basis would be too expensive. If I was Minister for Social and Family Affairs, I would like to extend household benefits to this group, many of whom care for disabled relatives. It is worthwhile exploring whether household benefits could be extended to widows and widowers under 66. Catering for widows and widowers in this position would demonstrate that we are a truly compassionate society.

Mr. Stanton: The Minister is aware that widows and widowers under 66 constitute another group that often experiences great hardship. As Deputy Penrose noted, losing a spouse, who was possibly [930]the family breadwinner, is very stressful. Wives are often left to care for children with a dramatically reduced income and no emotional supports. I am not sure of the numbers of widows or widowers under 66. A person in his or her late 40s or early 50s who finds himself or herself in that situation needs that extra support. It has been said that we should pay more attention and give more support to widows and widowers.

Deputy Penrose made the wise suggestion that household benefits could be extended to widows and widowers under 66 for a short period or until they could return to work if they were not previously in employment. Many widows who gave up work to rear children face financial pressure.

Could the Minister tell us whether the Department has carried out research into the possibility of extending household benefits to widows and widowers under 66 as the matter has been raised over the years? It is a very important proposal and it is a pity we do not have more time on Committee Stage to tease out these issues. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this amendment.

Mr. Boyle: I support the amendment. Anecdotal evidence and personal experience indicate that a considerable portion of the cohort of people to which we refer consist of women widowed in their 50s who fall short of retirement age and fall into an income hole they did not expect at this stage of their lives. If some consideration could be given to offering some or all of the household benefits on a tapered basis to this group, it would go some way towards meeting a shortfall in needs experienced by them.

Mr. Brennan: The estimated cost of extending the household benefits scheme and free travel to all widows and widowers, irrespective of their age, would be €45 million. We are obviously talking about widows and widowers under 66 because approximately 66,200 widows and widowers over 66 receive free travel. A total of approximately 12,900 recipients of the widow’s-widower’s non-contributory pension receive free travel. A range of proposals to extend the free schemes to other groups, including widows and widowers, have been made from time to time. One must constantly keep matters under review.

A large number of people already receive household benefits. A total of 285,000 people receive the electricity allowance, while a similar number of people receive the free television licence. A total of 297,000 people receive the telephone allowance, 24,000 people receive the gas allowance and 624,000 people receive free travel. There is obviously an overlap because the same people avail of the different schemes but these numbers are very significant. We will periodically examine how the household benefits scheme could be extended if such a policy decision is [931]taken. We must make choices and try to focus them.

An Ceann Comhairle: As it is now 10.30 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: “That the amendments set down by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs for Committee Stage and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, in respect of each of the sections not disposed of, that the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended is hereby agreed to on Committee Stage, that Schedules 1 and 2 and the Title are hereby agreed to on Committee Stage, that the Bill, as amended, is accordingly reported to the House, that Report Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.”

Question put and agreed to.

Dr. Cowley: I am grateful to be able to raise this matter on the Adjournment. There are two reports which are quite damning of the Corrib gas pipeline, namely, the recently published Advantica report and the report of the Centre for Public Inquiry, published by Mr. Richard Kuprewicz.

The latter report by the CPI revealed that the disputed pipeline carries a real and substantial risk of failure because of its potential to operate at extremely high pressures. The likelihood of system failure increased also because of the unknown gas compositions it is required to carry and the probability of internal corrosion. As a result of these findings the report concludes that the current proposed route is unacceptable because of its close proximity to people and dwellings.

The pipeline has a uniquely large rupture impact zone with potential for high fatalities. There are too many unknowns regarding the future operation of this pipeline, especially in the areas of gas pressure and gas composition that can lead to failure. The thick-walled pipe specified for use is not invincible to leak or rupture. The proposed pipeline will transport gas at high pressure in a raw state, containing metals and radioactive gases. There is compelling evidence to suggest that internal corrosion of the pipeline is likely. The maximum pipeline pressure has not been clearly demonstrated or documented and this is a grave deficiency. Difficulties with locating the gas processing plant offshore have been overstated, and routing analysis for the onshore system are seriously deficient.

The Advantica safety review also raises serious issues on the advisability of proceeding any [932]further with the Corrib gas project as outlined. The value of Shell’s qualified risk assessment, QRA, and other material relied upon by those who claim this unique and exotic pipeline is safe is called into question. This report also validates the position of the Rossport five who spent 94 days in Clover Hill Prison over their objections to this pipeline. The report admits to its limited terms of reference regarding its alternative project design options and alternative pipeline design. Yet, ostrich-like, it seems to be accepted by the Minister that the project can proceed if certain things are done.

The report failed to specify minimum safety distances from the pipeline, as clearly specified by Mr. Richard Kuprewicz of Accufacts and the report by the CPI. Instead, the draft report tries to accommodate the Corrib gas pipeline shortcomings by suggesting that the pressure be reduced to 144 bar from 345 bar. This is the equivalent of trying to get a square peg into a round hole. Even the report questions whether this is possible. If this were possible, I doubt if anyone would trust Shell or its partners to ensure a safe pipeline pressure over time. Shell’s record in dealing with communities in Nigeria, Russia and elsewhere hardly engenders confidence in its ability to protect rights and the safety of local people. How can Shell be trusted when it illegally welded a 1.5 km section of pipeline?

I demand that the Government face up to its responsibilities. I ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to honour his ministerial responsibility by insisting that the Corrib gas project not go ahead as planned until it can be brought to safety. We all knew what was coming with the Advantica report. We knew that the Government forbade Advantica to inquire into the real safety questions, such as the production concept used by Shell, the route of the pipeline, the design of the pipeline and the real consequence and human casualties of the pipeline exploding.

The Advantica report ridiculously assumes that pensioners, women and children escaping a gas fireball or explosion can run 100 metres in 40 seconds and that the fields around Rossport have 20% in-built shelter. It also assumes that 90% of people can get out of a house, which is ridiculous as infants, small children and many old age pensioners sleep for part of the day. To assess that the pipeline has been designed to meet or exceed best international standards is nonsensical.

The Advantica report was set up as part of the Government and Shell strategy of persuasion, but it has not worked. It has had quite the opposite effect and people are as determined as ever that this pipeline will not happen as planned. The key recommendation of Advantica — that the pipeline pressure be capped at 144 bar — is just not possible. It cannot be technically guaranteed. As the Accufacts report made clear, no pipeline is [933]impervious to failure and no valve can be a failsafe design. It is obvious that the two reports do not allow the Minister to give consent. To give consent would be reckless when there is a real danger here. The Minister must insist that Shell returns to the drawing board and reconfigures the entire Corrib gas project.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher): I will take this debate on behalf of the Minister.

The Deputy asks if the Minister still intends to proceed with the Corrib gas pipeline. The Minister is not developing the Corrib project. Shell E&P Ireland is developing the project on behalf of the project partners. Whether or not the project proceeds is primarily a matter for Shell. The Minister has worked tirelessly to address the concerns of all, in particular the local community, with regard to this project. The Minister instructed that a comprehensive review of the health and safety aspects of the proposed Corrib gas onshore pipeline be undertaken in July 2005. Advantica was appointed in August and commenced work on 1 September 2005. Two days of oral hearings were held under the chairmanship of Mr. John Gallagher SC on 12 and 13 October 2005. The Department published the draft report of the safety review last Thursday. This report is now being studied by the developers and other concerned parties.

After 22 December, the authors, Advantica, will consider any comments received by that time and will proceed to prepare their final report. Following receipt of the final report, the Minister’s technical advisory group will make recommendations on the project to the Minister and he will make his decision based on these recommendations.

The draft consultants’ report makes a number of recommendations which Shell is considering. Only if Shell decides to implement those recommendations and any others which the Minister may impose on the company following advice from his technical advisory group is it conceivable that the project, as then configured rather than as currently proposed, could receive consent to proceed. The consultants’ report in its current draft states that the pipeline as proposed has been designed to meet or exceed appropriate standards and to best national and international practice. Advantica also states that safety considerations were properly taken into account during the design stage. The draft report makes a number of very specific recommendations for the construction and operation phase of the pipeline.

There are other inaccuracies in the Deputy’s statement. Advantica’s report does not state that the design pressure cannot be tolerated; it states exactly the opposite. It then goes one step further by stating that limiting the operating pressure to 144 bar will greatly increase safety for local people above the design level which itself [934]exceeded the international norms. The feasibility of the reduction to safer levels of pressure is not questioned in Advantica’s report. Advantica does not detail how this should be done and it shall be for Shell to submit proposals for achieving this should the company decide to proceed with the project and for the Minister to have these evaluated. The Advantica report finds failings with the documentation dealing with valve control systems, and so it was not demonstrated to Advantica that satisfactory designs exist. Shell has to provide such satisfactory evidence. The absence of satisfactory documentation does not lead us to the conclusion that it is not feasible to achieve the appropriate pressure reduction. The Minister fails to understand why the Deputy has made a connection with the damaged facility in Hertfordshire in England. This was an oil products storage facility, not a refinery, as the Deputy stated. It was not a gas installation. Shell’s only interest in it was that its products were stored there in the past. Does the Deputy seriously mean what he has implied in his wording “...considering the refinery explosion in Hemel Hempstead in which Shell was involved also”? Does he seriously mean to imply that Shell was somehow involved in the explosion? I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this occasion, but this is just another case where ridiculous efforts have been made to try to establish the most tenuous of links between various parties and Shell.

Dr. Cowley: Shell owned some containers there.

Mr. Gallagher: There is more to be said on this matter and the time for that is when the final report of the consultants has been received. In the meantime I hope the Deputy will give serious consideration to the detail in the draft report and provide considered responses rather than alarmist and inaccurate “off the cuff” remarks.

The report merits time and study, and I commend it to Deputies and other interested parties for full consideration. It is extremely thorough work and has looked into matters in much greater detail than heretofore. The Minister welcomes the work, which has been carried out to investigate the relevant safety issues, and hopes that people can take a much more informed view about this project. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, welcomes input from interested parties during the period of public consultation up to 22 December 2005.

Dr. Cowley: The Minister of State should read the report.

Mr. Perry: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing this matter to be raised and I thank the Minister of State for being here.

The decision taken by the company, SP Wine Products Limited, to close its plant in Easkey, [935]County Sligo, is a massive blow to that community. This will be felt in particular in the whole region of west Sligo. The north west has been dealt several severe blows in recent months. Tractech closed its plant in Sligo recently with the loss of 122 jobs and three months ago Hospira closed its plant in Donegal. The loss of so many jobs is a significant blow to the entire region. In Easkey, however, the SP Wine Products decision means that 31 people will lose their jobs, the equivalent of 300 jobs in the greater Dublin area.

This is a close-knit community where the company has operated since 1996. SP Wine Products makes bottle opening devices and tableware and is a subsidiary of Le Creuset, a successful company worldwide. It is never a good time for workers to hear that their employer is packing up and leaving the country, but it is particularly difficult at this time of the year. SP Wine Products is a very important employer for Easkey. I am not sure what the Minister of State can do, but perhaps Enterprise Ireland as well as the special task force for the enterprise boards might be able to encourage the company to reassess the opportunities on offer. I know it is looking at lower cost opportunities elsewhere. It is, perhaps, an indictment of the high cost of jobs in Ireland that companies are locating to lower cost countries. We cannot sit idly by, however, and watch jobs leave. This is a major loss.

This company is the biggest employer in west Sligo. The entire coastal community around Easkey very much welcomed this development in 1996 and it is regrettable that the company no longer finds it profitable to continue employing people in the region.

The high cost of doing business in Ireland is steadily increasing with added stealth taxes. The Government will have to look seriously at the sustainability of manufacturing jobs in the west. Quite a number of manufacturing jobs still exist there and there must be more incentives to encourage employers to remain. SP Wine Products is similar to Tractech, with its competitors moving to low cost manufacturing centres greatly influencing its decision.

I am confident that the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, is aware of the difficulties of small companies since they form the backbone of the successful Irish economy. The loss of jobs in the north west has been quite startling in recent times. Figures released yesterday show that one in four people in the north west is living on the edge of poverty compared to a national average of 19%. The Government must work harder to keep companies in Ireland and we must do more to develop the north west. As regards Enterprise Ireland, the Western Development Commission and all the statutory authorities, hopefully some encouragement will be given as regards incentives towards retention of those jobs in this region.

There are difficulties when it comes to profitability and most companies are driven by the bot[936]tom line. The Government is in the business of giving incentives to companies to set up. The high cost base, however, and the competition elsewhere in the world tend to drive the marketplace in a different direction. I hope in light of the Tractech announcement and now SP Wine Products in Easkey, the Minister of State can offer some possibility of a reassessment of the situation. With the involvement of Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland, perhaps there could be a meeting with the management of the company so that it might be persuaded to reconsider its decision and hold on to those valuable jobs in Easkey.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. On 13 October 2005, the company in question wrote to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment saying that the plant in Easkey would close over the next three months. As a result of this, the company would make 31 people redundant on a phased basis with the first job losses occurring on 11 November 2005. I understand that the decision to close was taken with considerable regret by the company.

The decision was particularly difficult as the company felt it had established an excellent team of workers with a strong service ethic. The directors.were particularly impressed with the commitment and hard work of the employees and said that they would work with them to help them gain alternative employment. The full services of FÁS will be available to the workers if they wish to avail of them. Up to the end of last week, almost half of the workers had been interviewed by FÁS officers and the remainder are being interviewed this week.

The company has been involved in manufacturing in Sligo since 1996. However, it has experienced four years of difficult trading conditions. Unfortunately, the business is now uneconomic, leaving the directors with no alternative but to cease trading and close the company. The loss of 122 jobs at the second company was discussed on the Adjournment in the Dáil on 22 November 2005. The jobs losses in both Sligo companies are of 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 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 being 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. Indeed, the company in Easkey has cited the movement of its competitors to low cost manufacturing centres as one of the main reasons for its [937]decision to close. 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 company level competitiveness. The industrial development agencies are making every effort to secure alternative employment for Sligo. IDA Ireland is promoting County Sligo to potential investors on an ongoing basis and every effort is being made to secure further industry by progressing the development of a knowledge economy in order that the region can compete both nationally and internationally for foreign direct investment. The agency is also working with its existing client base to expand its presence in the county.

To support the strategy of moving to a more knowledge based economy, IDA Ireland is working closely with educational institutions in the Sligo region to develop the skill sets necessary to attract high value added employment to the county. The agency is also working with FÁS to provide guidance in developing the skill sets needed by those in the workforce who are interested in upskilling. As part of the transition to repositioning the county to a more knowledge based economy, IDA Ireland is marketing Sligo as a key location for investment in the pharmaceuticals, chemicals, medical technologies, engineering, consumer product and financial services sectors.

Recent job announcements include Abbott Ireland, which is to add 350 new jobs to its existing diagnostics facility there, and the consumer telecommunications company IDT Toucan, which will create 300 new jobs at its customer service centre in Sligo. Since the beginning of 2002, Enterprise Ireland has approved over €3.4 million in support to its client companies in County Sligo and made payments of over €2.4 million. In the same period, Enterprise lreland has approved support of over €1.2 million for third level-industry partnerships with the Sligo Institute of Technology to encourage the adoption of new technologies by industry.

I assure the Deputy that the State development agencies, including the local county enterprise board, under the auspices of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, will continue to work closely together and with local interests in promoting Sligo for further job creation and investment.

Mr. P. Breen: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me the opportunity to raise this matter.

The delay in completion of a number of sewerage schemes in County Clare, among them the Scarriff, Feakle, Quilty-Mullagh, Labasheeda, Cooraclare and Carrigaholt schemes, is part of a [938]trend in rural Ireland where development grinds to a halt, homebuilders are put in a limbo and everything remains at a planning stage because of the failure by the Government to instil a sense of urgency in such projects. I ask the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to give a firm date on when such projects will go out to contract. These schemes are but the tip of the iceberg of the need for proper 21st century wastewater treatment schemes to be installed in the towns and villages of County Clare.

According to Clare County Council, the €13.4 million Labasheeda, Cooraclare and Carrigaholt schemes are due to start next year, along with a number of other schemes in Ennistymon, Liscannor, Miltown Malbay, Spanish Point,
O’Callaghan’s Mills, Bodyke, O’Brien’s Bridge, Flagmount, Cratloe and the Shannon town scheme. If this is the case then 2006 will be an auspicious year for wastewater treatment in County Clare.

I doubt if this will happen. I ask the Minister of State to give me some commitment on which schemes will commence in County Clare in 2006. Currently ten County Clare towns and villages, including the county town of Ennis, are behind schedule on various sewerage projects. The Scarriff, Feakle, Quilty and Mullagh schemes, costing approximately €12 million, were due to start last year. According to the same timetable, the Doolin, Ballyvaughan and Corofin sewerage schemes were due to start this year at a cost of €17 million, along with other schemes throughout the county.

I understand that with regard to the Scariff, Feakle, Quilty and Mullagh sewerage schemes, the preliminary report had been approved by the Department and consultants were to be appointed to prepare contract documents to allow the schemes proceed to construction. Have the contract documents been prepared and if so, when will construction commence on the Scarriff, Feakle and Quilty scheme?

The preliminary report for the Doolin, Ballyvaughan and Corofin sewerage scheme has been approved by the Department and consultants were to be appointed to prepare contract documents to facilitate their construction. Have the contract documents been prepared and when will the contract go to tender?

There is welcome news that the Lisdoonvarna and Ballyvaughan scheme is ready to go to tender. The Minister of State must be well aware of the net result of this chaotic situation which exists in large sections of County Clare. This stifles development, creates disproportionate investment in our already congested towns and makes a mockery of the national spatial strategy. The Minister of State may regard the expenditure on some of the smaller schemes such as those to which I have referred as representing a poor return on infrastructural investment. The Minister of State, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, implied as [939]much on a recent visit to the county when he compared the cost per unit of wastewater facilities in villages and in large towns and cities. This is an unfair and invalid comparison.

We either have a national policy on housing and rural development which includes a spatial strategy or we do not. I can assure the Minister of State that investment in our towns and communities will pay dividends in the long run. I am aware of the problems people encounter when trying to build houses in these areas. The county council will not give permission for these houses because the proper sewerage schemes are not in place. It is a hindrance to planning, for instance, in Labasheeda. This beautiful village on the estuary could be another Doolin if it had a proper sewerage scheme and the same can be said of Feakle, where a health problem exists.

We are told there is money available. I urge the Minister of State to fast track these schemes in 2006. There is a pollution problem in the Shannon estuary and there is a risk to the freshwater lakes and streams which will affect the blue flag status of many of the county’s beaches. This sends the wrong message to tourists at a time when the west in general is struggling to attract tourists.

In the flurry of paperwork between the county council and the Department, there seems to be an unyielding attitude at Government level that takes a great deal of time to eventually wear down. Statistics show that 283 private houses in County Clare had no piped water supply and 461 do not have the benefit of sewerage facilities. The policy relating to these projects must be overhauled as they are essential for balanced regional development.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. N. Ahern): I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. The Scarriff, Feakle and Quilty sewerage scheme, which includes Mullagh and the Carrigaholt, Labasheeda and Cooraclare scheme are being procured as two separate group projects. They are approved for construction in my Department’s Water Services Investment Programme 2004-2006 and are part of a package of more than 20 water and sewerage schemes, serving almost 40 different areas in the programme for County Clare with a combined value of nearly €194 million. Clare County Council’s contracts documents for the Feakle, Scariff, Quilty scheme are with my Department for examination. The council has also submitted an updated preliminary report for the Carrigaholt, Labasheeda and Cooraclare scheme to the Department.

To allow the contract documents for the Scarriff, Feakle and Quilty scheme to be fully examined, my Department asked the council in February 2005 to submit a revised water services pricing policy report. The importance of this [940]report was pointed out to the council since it plays a critical role in determining the overall economics of all water services schemes being funded by the Exchequer.

The water services pricing policy report sets out the proportion of the cost of a scheme that has to be funded by contributions from the non-domestic sector in accordance with “the polluter pays” policy. Broadly speaking, that policy provides for the capital costs associated with the provision of services to meet the requirements of the existing domestic population being funded by my Department, with an allowance for organic growth. The additional marginal capital cost of servicing non-domestic consumers, and providing for future development, is recovered by the local authority from all non-domestic consumers in its functional area through a combination of water charges on commercial consumers and planning levies on future development.

A preliminary assessment by my Department at that time indicated the likelihood of excessively high costs of servicing individual dwellings in the three locations. The cost per house in Feakle would have been €33,134; in Scarriff, €18,587; and Quilty, €56,410. On that basis it seemed unlikely that the scheme would be economically sustainable, unless a significant proportion of costs were appropriately attributable to the non-domestic sector with a resulting significant reduction in the cost of the domestic share of the scheme. In this context it is worth noting that a householder can provide a proprietary single house treatment system at only a fraction of these figures and this is the yardstick by which the installation of sewerage facilities from the public purse has to be assessed. In disbursing Exchequer funding, my Department has to be conscious of value for money principles. It cannot approve a scheme where the costs simply cannot be justified by comparison with other potential solutions.

11 o’clock

Clare County Council responded to the Department in June when a revised water services pricing policy report and economic assessment were received. These have been examined in the Department but the revised unit cost per existing house to the Exchequer, after deducting the amounts estimated by the council to be due from the non-domestic sector, is €19,725 in Feakle; in Scarriff €12,307; and in Quilty €27,549. In the case of the Carrigaholt, Labasheeda and Cooraclare scheme, following examination of the preliminary report, the Department wrote to the council in November 2004 outlining a number of issues that needed to be reviewed. Of particular concern again was the high average cost of serving each house to be connected to the scheme. The cost per house in Labasheeda would have exceeded €83,000 with equivalent costs in Cooraclare and Carragaholt of €53,000 and €74,000, respectively.

Clare County Council responded with a revised preliminary report and water services pricing [941]policy, polluter pays, report in May. In view of the figures emerging from the proposals put forward to my Department, a new more innovative approach will have to be adopted by the council to come up with schemes that can be provided at more acceptable costs to the public purse. Both my Department and I are anxious for an economical solution to be found. Against that background the Department wrote to the council about both schemes last week. The Department pointed out that the schemes, as currently designed, were not economically sustainable but emphasised that it was keen for the council to come up with alternative, financially viable proposals.

Mr. Walsh: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise this issue and I thank the Minister of State for coming into the House to reply to it and for his courtesy in bringing me up to date on this important project.

In 2003, Teagasc made available 15 hectares of land, approximately 38 acres, to Cork County Council to allow it build a housing scheme for the benefit of people in the affordable housing category. People in the west Cork area, in particular in the Clonakilty region, were very happy with this because they saw the opportunity of being able to afford a house of their own. Commercial housing in west Cork is prohibitively expensive. A site, for example, costs anything up to €250,000 and an ordinary three or four-bedroomed house costs from €500,000 to €750,000. If a house overlooks the sea, it costs in the region of €1 million. Young people cannot afford this kind of money. Even two people with relatively good public service jobs could not afford that kind of mortgage.

One might well ask what has happened with this gift to the council. Two years later, it seems that relatively little has happened. People, including myself, are extremely frustrated with the lack of progress. Clonakilty is a thriving town which has a superb business and technology park that employs approximately 450 people and is projected to employ 1,000. However, there is a shortage of affordable houses in the area.

Will the Minister inform me of the position on this scheme? The affordable housing scheme is attractive and inspired and I laud it. I am delighted all the social partners support it. Why is there lethargy in regard to this extremely laudable project and why is there such procrastination in its regard? I want the Minister of State to inculcate a sense of urgency with regard to this project. Will he take a personal interest in the matter?

With regard to the actual housing scheme, I ask that some flair and creativity be put into the project. We want a nice rural village in this location, a place called Darrara out by Ring village and about three miles from Clonakilty town. It would [942]be nice to have some green areas and some playing pitches etc. We do not want intensive housing or high density old Ballymun-type development in the heart of what is a beautiful rural area. There is already a school and a church in the village, so it lends itself to a suitable village type proposal.

Will the Minister of State provide an update on this project and a timescale for the commencement and completion of work so that young people eligible for this category of housing can aspire to have their own homes, at least some time before the end of this decade. Judging by the rate of progress so far, we do not know when we will see the development of the project. I look forward to hearing the Minister of State’s up to date report on the matter.

Mr. N. Ahern: I thank Deputy Walsh for raising this matter. As he knows, the affordable housing initiative was one of the ten special initiatives in Sustaining Progress. The Government is committed to delivery of affordable housing under this initiative. No doubt, the House is aware that progress is being made on the initiative and Part V affordable units are an important contribution to it. Approximately 70 projects on State or local authority lands are planned. It is projected that these projects, together with some 2,500 affordable units under Part V, will deliver 10,000 units.

As Deputy Walsh said, in December 2003 a site at Darrara agricultural college in Clonakilty was proposed by him as Minister for Agriculture and Food and agreed by Government for inclusion in the initiative. As Minister of State with responsibility for housing I acknowledge this and the other sites put forward by him as Minister. The number of housing units to be provided on this site, which is approximately 15 hectares, will be dependent on feasibility and other studies and the planning process.

As the Deputy is aware, the State lands made available for the initiative are transferred to the relevant local authority which is responsible for developing and progressing the projects. This is how matters are dealt with outside of Dublin. Within Dublin, the affordable homes partnership has responsibility. In this case, it is up to Cork County Council to plan and develop the project in a sustainable manner. The council has established an in-house technical group to progress the project.

There has been some progress on the site since it was released to the initiative. A comprehensive feasibility assessment on the site was carried out in the context of strategic land use planning, financial viability, affordability and suitable infrastructural solutions. The feasibility study was approved by Cork County Council on 30 September 2005. Following this, public consultation took place in October 2005, culminating in a council decision to initiate the process to amend [943]the local area plan in order to facilitate the construction of the affordable housing units.

I understand the consultant planners engaged by Cork County Council have been preparing the necessary documentation to advertise the amendment of the local area plan. This will now be examined by Cork County Council and the intention is to advertise the amendment of the local area plan after Christmas. Commencement of construction on this site now depends on the outcome of the planning process.

I understand and share Deputy Walsh’s frustrations with the delay. I get complaints in this [944]regard about all the sites offered under this initiative. Developers constantly remind us that from the time they put their eye on a site, it can take up to four years before work can commence. The planning process is frustratingly slow and detailed. I understand that while this site is a couple of miles outside of Clonakilty, the county council has gone about the issue in a professional way, although this may appear slow. I hope when the amendment to the plan is advertised early in the new year rapid progress will result and the changes to the plan will go through without local objections.

The Dáil adjourned at 11.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 15 December 2005.

The following are questions tabled by Members for written response and the ministerial replies received from the Departments [unrevised].

Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, answered orally.

Questions Nos. 8 to 34, inclusive, resubmitted.

Questions Nos. 35 to 41, inclusive, answered orally.

42. Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government’s position on the proposal that would allow Iran to operate a uranium conversion facility permanently if Tehran renounces the ability to enrich uranium on its own territory; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39184/05]

72. Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the findings in the IAEA’s 18 November 2005 report which concluded that Iran was non-compliant with agency safeguard agreements agreed upon in September 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39185/05]

84. Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the status of IAEA environmental testing in Iran and its effectiveness in monitoring nuclear development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39186/05]

87. Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the latest discussions which have taken place between Iran, Britain, Germany and France with regard to nuclear capability developments in Iran; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39170/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 42, 72, 84 and 87 together.

Negotiations between the EU3 and Iran are currently suspended following Iran’s decision of 8 August 2005 to recommence conversion of uranium at its Isfahan facility. This action was in breach of the Paris agreement signed by Iran and the EU3 — France, Germany and the United Kingdom — in November 2004. Under this agreement, Iran, inter alia, reaffirmed that it did not and would not seek to acquire nuclear weapons and committed itself to full transparency and co-operation with the IAEA. Iran, moreover, decided voluntarily to suspend all enrichment and reprocessing activities and to invite the IAEA to verify and to monitor the suspension. In return, [946]the EU3 agreed to commence negotiations with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on long-term arrangements in the areas of political and security issues, technology and co-operation and nuclear issues.

At the board of governors meeting at the IAEA last September the EU3 co-sponsored a resolution that found Iran to be non-compliant with the agency’s statute. The board has now the option to refer Iran to the UN Security Council at a future date. To avoid such referral, Iran has been urged, inter alia, to re-establish full and sustained suspension of uranium conversion and to implement transparency measures, including provision of documentation relating to its nuclear programme and providing IAEA inspectors with access to facilities. The resolution also requested the director general of the IAEA to continue his efforts to implement the resolution and previous resolutions and to report back to the board of governors on developments.

Ireland is not currently a member of the board of governors but fully supports the resolution that was adopted and hopes that Iran will take the necessary steps to comply fully with its provisions.

The director general reported again to the board last month indicating that issues in respect of the scope and chronology of Iran’s centrifuge programmes remain to be resolved. He said that the agency was reviewing new information supplied by Iran and was awaiting supporting documentation. In noting that Iran’s full transparency is indispensable and overdue, the director general sought permission from Iran to undertake additional visits to specified sites and to take environmental samples from these locations. The analysis of environmental samples is an important part of the agency’s investigations to verify information supplied by Iran on aspects of its nuclear programme. As the sampling and analysis processes are ongoing, the agency is not yet in a position to draw any definitive conclusions.

One new element which has emerged in recent weeks is a Russian idea that all uranium enrichment in respect of lran’s nuclear programme be carried out in Russia and to a lower than weapons grade standard. This is an interesting and potentially fruitful concept. So far Iran has given no signal that such an idea would be acceptable and, indeed, some Iranian spokesmen have continued to insist that enrichment must be carried out in Iran. We understand, however, that these ideas are still being explored. We welcome all efforts to find a diplomatic solution and believe that Russia is playing a helpful and constructive role in this regard.

The General Affairs and External Relations Council continues to keep the matter under regular review. At its meeting on 7 November, the Council reiterated its grave concern at Iran’s resumption of activity at the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan and urged Iran to implement all measures requested by the IAEA board of governors in its resolution on 24 September, [947]including reinstating a full suspension of all fuel cycle activities. The Council underlined the EU’s continued support for a diplomatic solution to international concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme and agreed to keep the EU’s approach to Iran under close review in light of progress on the nuclear file and other issues of concern.

43. Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the role and stance of the Government with respect to ongoing inquires at both the level of the Council of Europe and the European Union with respect to the allegations of the use of secret detention centres by the United States within Europe. [39269/05]

47. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Council of Europe has been in contact with the Government regarding the Council’s special investigation of human rights abuses in the illegal transfer of prisoners via aircraft; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36689/05]

66. Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has held discussions with his European Union counterparts with regard to the reported existence of secret detention centres within the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39177/05]

118. Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on reports in the media that the United States has in the past month closed two secret prisons, located in Poland and Romania; the information relevant to this disclosure which can be provided; the discussions he may have had or intends to have at European Union level in view of the fact that one of these countries is a member of the EU and the other is expected to join the EU in the coming years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39288/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 43, 47, 66 and 118 together.

The allegation that there is or has been a network of secret prisons in Europe is a matter of very deep concern. The existence of such secret prisons would plainly be in breach of international law and of the principles upon which the EU is founded: liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. If the allegation were proven to be true, the Government would view such a development with the gravest concern.

The Washington Post journalists who broke this story declined to identify the European states that they alleged hosted these facilities. Human Rights Watch, a US based NGO, subsequently [948]named two European states, Poland and Romania, both of which have denied any participation in this alleged network. However, on 10 December 2005, Poland announced an inquiry into the allegations.

Within the EU, the issue has been discussed at official level between the European Commission and officials in member states in Eastern Europe. The issue was also discussed informally during the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 21 November 2005. Following this meeting, the Presidency wrote to the US Secretary of State seeking clarification on the issue of secret prisons and rendition flights. Secretary Rice’s reply of 7 December reiterated her widely reported statements on the matter.

I have instructed my officials to monitor closely any further developments in this area, including the outcome of any inquires by the European Commission or any other international body. The Government will, of course, co-operate fully with an investigation which has been launched by the Council of Europe, comprising a questionnaire from the Secretary General and an investigation by a rapporteur. The rapporteur, Senator Dick Marty, was appointed by the committee for legal affairs and human rights of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe on 7 November 2005. He is expected to present his report to the PACE part session from 23-27 January 2006.

Separately, on 21 November, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Terry Davis, wrote to the Governments of all the Council of Europe member states, including Ireland, attaching a detailed questionnaire relating to this issue, asking that the completed version be returned before 21 February 2006. The Government will, of course, co-operate fully with the Secretary General’s request, as I have already informed him in my initial reply on 9 December 2005. Officials in my Department will co-ordinate a response to the Secretary General, which will require input from a number of different Departments and Government bodies.

In parallel to the Secretary General’s questionnaire, Senator Marty’s investigation continues. Since its establishment, it has been widened beyond its original remit of examining secret prisons and will also examine rendition allegations. As with the Secretary General’s questionnaire, the Government would be happy to co-operate with Senator Marty in the conduct of his investigation, although the Senator has not yet made any contact with the Government.

44. Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of states that have withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39246/05]

73. Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position with regard to reform of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39248/05]

124. Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the states that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39247/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 44, 73 and 124 together.

Ireland has a particularly close association with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT, which came into existence following an initiative taken by a distinguished predecessor in this office, the late Frank Aiken. His pioneering efforts were duly recognised when Ireland was invited in 1968 to be the first country to sign the treaty after it had been negotiated. Since then, support for the treaty has been our highest priority in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation.

The NPT is the most universal of all the multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation treaties. Of the 191 members of the United Nations, only three countries, India, Israel and Pakistan, have failed to sign the treaty. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK, is the only country ever to announce its withdrawal from the treaty. It did so in January 2003, one month after expelling inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency from its territory. Since announcing its withdrawal from the NPT, the DPRK has claimed, in February of this year, that it possesses nuclear weapons.

The best hope for a peaceful solution to this problem lies in the six party talks process involving the DPRK, South Korea, Japan, China, the Russian Federation and the United States. China has played the lead role in these talks, having initiated the process and chaired all sessions of the talks to date. On 19 September 2005 the six countries concerned issued a joint statement which contained a commitment by the DPRK to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing weapons programmes and return to the NPT and to the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. I look forward to the early implementation of these commitments and the establishment of verification arrangements in which the International Atomic Energy Agency could play a useful role.

As regards the three countries that have yet to sign up to the NPT, I have made clear my view that they should accede to the NPT as non-nuclear weapons states parties. I reiterated this call last May at the NPT review conference in New York. I described their decision to remain outside the NPT regime to be of serious concern and urged all three countries to accede to the treaty unconditionally at an early date. Such a call [950]has also been made in recent statements of the European Union. All EU member states are legally obliged to pursue this objective in line with an EU common position, agreed in November 2003, promoting the universalisation of key multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation instruments, including the NPT.

We will continue to press for the universalisation of the treaty. Ireland most recently joined with our partners in the new agenda coalition, NAC, to submit a resolution on the NPT to the first committee of the United Nation General Assembly in October. In addition to reaffirming the outcome of the 2000 NPT review conference as the framework for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, the resolution also called for the universalisation of the NPT and urged Israel, India and Pakistan to accede to it as non-nuclear weapons states promptly and without conditions. A separate vote was called on this latter aspect and some 148 countries voted in favour. The resolution came before the plenary of the General Assembly last Thursday and drew even greater support, with 158 countries endorsing the language on universalisation.

There is no reform process, as such, under way in respect of the NPT. Review conferences take place every five years, however, and afford an opportunity to review the implementation of the treaty and all its provisions. The next scheduled NPT review conference will take place in 2010 and will be preceded by a series of preparatory meetings beginning in 2007. Regrettably, the last review conference, in May of this year, ended without agreement on substantive conclusions and recommendations on how to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.

I have made clear the Government’s deep disappointment at this outcome. This was a missed opportunity for the international community to tackle some key threats to global peace and security and to agree an effective collective response. We continue to believe that global challenges are best tackled together, through such a response. Action to strengthen the treaty and ensure full respect for all its provisions remains essential and we will spare no effort in pursuit of this objective.

Question No. 45 answered with Question
No. 40.

46. Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the arrest and detention on 13 November 2005 of Kizza Besigye, the leader of the Forum for Democratic Change in Uganda and the principal challenger to the presidency of Yoweri Museveni, in view of trends in governance in Uganda; if these developments suggest grounds for a reconsideration of the nature and scope of Ireland’s current policies [951]towards the Government of Uganda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39287/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The Government views with deep concern the arrest on 14 November of the leader of the Forum for Democratic Change, FDC, Dr. Kizza Besigye, along with 22 others, on treason and other serious charges. These concerns have been compounded by the manner in which Dr. Besigye and his co-accused have subsequently found themselves also facing similar charges before a military general court martial, at the same time as their civil case before the Ugandan High Court is proceeding. Our concerns at these developments and their implications for political reform efforts in Uganda were clearly communicated to the Ugandan Government in a meeting between the Secretary General of my Department and the Ugandan ambassador on 15 November.

The EU has also expressed its deep concern, in a statement issued on 18 November, which urged that due process and the full protection of the Ugandan constitution be afforded to Dr. Besigye and his 22 co-accused. EU and donor ambassadors in Kampala, including Ireland’s chargé d’affaires, are closely following developments, including attending court proceedings where possible. They have also engaged in regular, ongoing discussions with President Museveni and the members of his government aimed at ensuring that Dr. Besigye is justly treated and the political transition process put back on track. It has been clearly communicated to the Museveni government that a failure to respond to the EU’s concerns over Dr. Besigye’s arrest and its implications for the political transition can only result in serious implications for our future relations with Uganda.

A number of legal challenges to the competence of the general court martial to try Dr. Besigye and his 22 co-accused have been filed in Uganda’s Constitutional Court and a hearing of these suits has now been fixed for today, 14 December. The Constitutional Court has also been asked to rule in a separate application on Dr. Besigye’s entitlement to bail, which was granted on an interim basis by the High Court on 25 November. However, Dr. Besigye has not been able to avail of this due to the military court charges he faces and, as a result, he remains in custody.

Dr. Besigye is due to stand as his party’s candidate in the presidential election now likely to take place next February and it appears that, notwithstanding his imprisonment, he will be able to submit his nomination by the requisite deadline of 15 December. Ireland, along with our EU and donor partners, has repeatedly made clear that a level playing field must be established for all parties if genuinely free and transparent elections are to take place in Uganda next spring. It is imperative, [952]therefore, that there should be a speedy, fair and transparent hearing before a civil court of the serious charges which Dr. Besigye and his co-accused face. They should also be extended due legal process and all protections extended under the Ugandan constitution.

The Government has repeatedly made clear its concerns over the slow pace of democratic reform and the need for improved governance in Uganda. These concerns led to the decision earlier this year to cut support to the Ugandan Government by €3 million. We are continuing to monitor the situation closely and will review our co-operation with Uganda in the light of further progress towards strengthening democracy and improved governance in that country.

Question No. 47 answered with Question
No. 43.

Question No. 48 answered with Question
No. 40.

49. Mr. Neville asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding US legislation designed to be of assistance to undocumented Irish in the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39192/05]

100. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has had recent discussions with his US counterpart with reference to the resolution of issues affecting undocumented Irish in the US; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39209/05]

117. Ms Lynch asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in view of his visit to the United States in November 2005 and his letter to Representatives in advance of this visit, the position regarding the visit and in particular the progress of the two principal bills, namely Kennedy/McCain and Kyl/Cornyn, being considered in the United States legislature; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39289/05]

187. Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the progress which has been made on the legislative process with regard to the undocumented Irish in the United States following his recent visit to America; the persons he met regarding this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39719/05]

220. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has made recent overtures to the US authorities with a view to resolution of the problem of undocumented Irish in the US; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39617/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 49, 100, 117, 187 and 220 together.

As Deputies are aware, including from recent debates and information that I have circulated to all Members of the Oireachtas, the legislative debate in Washington D.C. has entered a critical phase. Various proposals are under consideration at present, of which the bills sponsored by Senators Kennedy and McCain and by Senators Kyl and Cornyn remain the most comprehensive and significant politically. The approach put forward by Senators Kennedy and McCain is particularly attractive as it would offer the undocumented a path to permanent residency.

As I outlined in the information note that I circulated to Members of the House last month, the legislative situation is fluid and members of Congress are slow to make predictions. Despite significant developments, achieving the necessary compromise on this issue remains a formidable challenge. For example, in recent days the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives passed a further bill which will shortly be debated on the House floor, perhaps as early as this week. This bill, which is one of over 50 draft immigration bills currently before Congress, focuses on measures to improve border security and enhance enforcement. It does not provide for measures that would allow the undocumented to regularise their status. I welcome the engagement of President Bush in this issue and, in particular, his strong assertion in recent comments in Arizona that dealing with immigration must involve reform as well as enforcement.

I have visited the United States twice in recent weeks. In all of my contacts in New York, Boston and Washington D.C., including with Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and former President Clinton, I have briefed my interlocutors on the importance which the Government attaches to addressing the situation in a positive and sympathetic way. In particular, I have made known our support, and the support of this House, for the approach favoured by Senators Kennedy and McCain.

When Senator Kennedy and I met recently in Washington D.C. we reviewed the overall prospects for US legislative reform. I was delighted to have the opportunity to express to him our deep appreciation for his exceptional efforts on this issue in Congress. Senator Kennedy, for his part, warmly welcomed the motions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas in support of the legislative initiative which he, Senator McCain and others have introduced.

A significant development of note in recent weeks has been the establishment of the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform. This grassroots mobilisation of the Irish American community in support of the approach to immigration reform favoured by Senators Kennedy and McCain had its inaugural meeting on 9 December. I warmly welcome this timely action by the Irish com[954]munity in the US and the House can be assured that the Government fully supports the aims of this group.

50. Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the third party role to be undertaken by the EU in the Agreement on Movement and Access between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority discussed at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting in Brussels on 21-22 November 2005. [39237/05]

61. Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the date of deployment of the EU mission relating to the Agreement on Movement and Access between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority and agreed to at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting in Brussels on 21-22 November 2005. [39240/05]

75. Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the Agreement on Movement and Access between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority discussed at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting in Brussels on 21-22 November 2005. [39236/05]

86. Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the concept of operations for the EU mission agreed to be undertaken relating to the Agreement on Movement and Access between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority discussed at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting in Brussels on 21-22 November 2005. [39238/05]

106. Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the commitments included in the Agreement on Movement and Access between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority that were referred to by the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council conclusions from its meeting in Brussels on 21-22 November 2005; and the way in which the EU intends to ensure that these commitments are translated into reality. [39239/05]

120. Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when the Rafah border crossing point discussed at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting in Brussels on 21-22 November 2005 is likely to be fully opened. [39241/05]

203. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will use the opportunity of the General Affairs and External Relations [955]Council on 15-16 December 2005, in particular the EU-Israel Association Council item, to ensure that further progress is made with regard to the role of the EU in ensuring that the commitments made in the Agreement on Movement and Access between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority are translated into reality and built on; and if he will press for the suspension of the Euro-Mediteranean Association Agreement with Israel on the basis of Article 2 of that agreement. [39522/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 50, 61, 75, 86, 106, 120 and 203 together.

The Government and our partners in the EU warmly welcomed the conclusion of the Agreement on Movement and Access between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on 15 November, with the assistance of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and High Representative Solana. The agreement represents a major step towards improving the humanitarian situation in Gaza and promoting economic development following Israel’s disengagement.

It provided for the opening before the end of November of crossing points between Gaza, Israel and Egypt. It enables the export of all agricultural products from Gaza during the current harvest season. It establishes arrangements, which we hope to see finalised this month, for convoys between Gaza and the West Bank and it provides for the construction of a seaport in Gaza, and further discussion on rebuilding the airport. The EU is working together with the US and other members of the international community to ensure that the parties resolve the outstanding issues under the agreement and maintain their commitment to its full implementation.

At the invitation of both parties, the EU agreed to play a third party role to ensure that the agreement could take effect. The meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council which I attended in Brussels on 21 November decided to launch an ESDP mission to monitor the operation of the border crossing point at Rafah, on the Gaza-Egypt border, and to help build Palestinian border management capacity. The Government has contributed €200,000 towards the set-up costs of the mission.

It began operations on 25 November, with the re-opening of the crossing point. It is expected to last for 12 months, with a total staff of some 70 personnel drawn from member states. We expect that the mission will be fully operational in January, which will allow continuous opening of the crossing. So far, the crossing has opened for some six hours a day, which has, in fact, been sufficient to meet the needs at the moment of the population of Gaza.

The concept of operations for the mission is a confidential document setting out the parameters under which it will act. The overall role of the [956]mission, however, is to monitor, verify and evaluate the performance of the Palestinian authorities in implementing the agreed principles for the Rafah crossing. It also contributes to Palestinian capacity building in border and customs management and to liaison between the Palestinian, Israeli and Egyptian authorities in all aspects of the management of the crossing point. It is important to note that the mission in no way detracts from the Palestinian Authority’s responsibility for border and customs management.

The overall role of the EU was reviewed at the meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council which I attended in Brussels on 12 December. The EU-Israel Association Council had been due to meet the same day. However, the Israeli Government requested a postponement in view of the opening of the general election campaign in Israel. I look forward to the rescheduled meeting during the Austrian EU Presidency, in the first half of 2006. I do not believe that suspension of the association agreement, which would require consensus within the European Union, would serve the interests of any of the parties. Such action could seriously undermine the role of the EU in the peace process and create difficulties in implementing programmes of assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

51. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the acknowledgement by the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council conclusions from its meeting in Brussels on 21-22 November 2005 that Israeli activities including the construction of the apartheid wall, settlement building and home demolitions threaten to make any solution based on the coexistence of two viable states physically impossible and are contrary to international law and in particular in view of the fact that these activities are in breach of the fourth Geneva Convention outlawing collective punishment, he will urge the EU to suspend the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement with Israel under Article 2 of that agreement which provides its suspension on the grounds of non-compliance with international law and human rights. [39245/05]

60. Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the opening of an Israeli checkpoint at Rachel’s Tomb in the Beit Sahour municipality in the occupied Palestine territory, which controls movement between Bethlehem and east Jerusalem and which is having an extremely deleterious impact on the local economy and tourism, as has been raised by the local mayor; the discussions he and his officials have had on the matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39285/05]

77. Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his response to the substance of a United Kingdom Foreign Office memorandum, report[957]edly presented to the EU Council of Ministers in a meeting of 21 November 2005, in which it was claimed the continued construction of settlements and the West Bank barrier wall by Israel, in violation of international law, are deliberately intended to ensure the de facto annexation of the Arab area of Jerusalem; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39286/05]

91. Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Israeli practice of home demolitions in the occupied Palestinian territories, and in east Jerusalem in particular, stated to be of grave concern by the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council conclusions from its meeting in Brussels on 21-22 November 2005; and if he will make a further statement on the discussions which took place on this matter at the meeting. [39242/05]

130. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in view of the acknowledgement by the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council conclusions from its meeting in Brussels on 21-22 November 2005 that Israeli activities including the construction of the apartheid wall, settlement building and home demolitions threaten to make any solution based on the coexistence of two viable states physically impossible and are contrary to international law, the steps he and the EU will take to force Israel to cease the activities in question; and if these steps will include the suspension of preferential trade with Israel. [39244/05]

132. Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps that he and the EU intend to take to bring about an end to the Israeli practice of home demolitions in the occupied Palestinian territories on which the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council conclusions from its meeting in Brussels on 21-22 November 2005 expressed grave concern. [39243/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 51, 60, 77, 91, 130 and 132 together.

The Government, together with its partners in the EU, firmly believes that the quartet road map provides the best framework for a peaceful and lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The EU is working with the parties to ensure that they take advantage of the opportunity offered by the Israeli disengagement from Gaza for a return to full implementation of the road map. This will require parallel action by the Israeli Government and by the Palestinian Authority.

The Union has consistently outlined its clear view of the requirements of both parties if further progress is to be made towards a negotiated settlement based on the road map. We have called on the Palestinian Authority to fulfil its obligations on security issues and we will support [958]their efforts to this end. The EU has also repeatedly stressed the need for a halt to Israeli settlement activities in the Palestinian territories and expressed its serious concern at the continuing construction of the separation barrier in occupied territory, contrary to international law.

The two meetings of the General Affairs and External Relations Council which were held during November reviewed all aspects of the Middle East peace process, including Israeli activities in the Palestinian territories. The conclusions adopted by the meeting on 21 November underlined in particular the grave concern of the EU at Israeli activities in and around east Jerusalem, including settlement building, construction of the separation barrier and house demolitions. They set out the clear view of the Council, including Ireland, that these activities reduce the possibility of reaching a final status agreement on Jerusalem, threaten to make any solution based on the coexistence of two viable states physically impossible and are contrary to international law. The EU will maintain its opposition to any measures which would prejudge the outcome of permanent status negotiations. The EU will not recognise any change to the pre-1967 borders other than those arrived at by agreement between the parties.

The Government recognises the right, and indeed the duty, of the Israeli Government to protect the security of its citizens. However, the EU has consistently urged Israel not to pursue policies which create obstacles to the implementation of the road map and, therefore, to the prospects for a lasting settlement. I am also concerned at the humanitarian and economic consequences of policies in the occupied territories and at the infringements of recognised human rights principles for the Palestinian population.

I am aware of the particular difficulty which the checkpoint referred to, in the Beit Sahour municipality, is causing for anyone wishing to travel between east Jerusalem and Bethlehem. I am also conscious of very real concerns about the negative effect on the local economy. The problems are highlighted at this time of the year when many pilgrims from around the world who would wish to visit Bethlehem face the prospect of significant delays. In our bilateral contacts with the Israeli authorities, and in co-operation with our EU partners, the Government continues to emphasise that all security measures, including demolition of houses, should conform with the requirements of international humanitarian law and should be applied in a manner which minimises negative consequences for the civilian population of the occupied territories.

The Government and its partners in the EU will continue to engage directly and constructively with the Israeli Government and with the Palestinian Authority to encourage them to fulfil their obligations under the road map and under international law. I do not believe that the suspension of the EU’s Association Agreement with [959]Israel, which would require consensus within the European Union, would serve the interests of any of the parties. Article 2 of the agreement, to which the Deputy refers, reinforces obligations which already apply to the signatories with respect to human rights. Meetings of the Association Council provide the EU with an important additional opportunity to highlight concerns about the human rights implications of Israel’s security policies. A move to suspend the agreement could seriously undermine the role of the EU in the peace process and create difficulties in implementing programmes of assistance to the Palestinians.

52. Ms Burton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if Ireland supports, and will advocate the European Union to support, the retention and expansion of the office of the representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bogota, Colombia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39275/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, OHCHR, in Colombia was established on the basis of an agreement between the Government of Colombia and the United Nations in 1996. In September 2002, the office’s mandate was extended until October 2006. The retention and expansion of the office is for negotiation between the UN and the Colombian Government but we would support a further extension of its mandate.

The office’s role is to observe the level of respect for human rights and international human rights law in the country and to advise, and to provide technical assistance to, government authorities and civil society on the formulation and implementation of policies, programmes and measures to promote and protect human rights. Ireland monitors the human rights situation in Colombia along with our partners in the European Union. The General Affairs and External Relations Council on 3 October 2005 commended the work of the OHCHR in Colombia and confirmed the EU’s willingness to work closely with it. The Council also reiterated its call on all parties to the conflict to respect human rights and international humanitarian law.

Ireland and the EU will continue to monitor the human rights situation in Colombia and will give full support to the OHCHR in its negotiations with the Colombian Government regarding the future of its presence in Colombia.

Question No. 53 answered with Question
No. 40.

54. Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Foreign [960]Affairs his initiative, announced at the Royal Irish Academy on 18 November 2005, to establish two organisations to assist the developing world; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39310/05]

76. Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his Department will be engaged in the operation of the proposed new volunteer corps unit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36767/05]

107. Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his proposals for the establishment of a voluntary humanitarian corps; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39196/05]

122. Dr. Twomey asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when the voluntary humanitarian corps will be available to offer assistance to countries or regions in crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39197/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 54, 76, 107 and 122 together.

Last month, I announced two initiatives to coincide with the Government’s decision to make substantial increases in Ireland’s programme of official development assistance over the coming years. These are, first, to establish a rapid response initiative with the aim of strengthening Ireland’s contribution to emergency and disaster response in developing countries and, second, to facilitate and harness the vibrant volunteering spirit which is thriving in Irish society today.

Disasters such as the tsunami of 26 December 2004, the Niger food crisis, the impact of the hurricane season in the Caribbean and, more recently, the Pakistan earthquake have all served to direct public attention towards natural and man-made disasters and the international response. It is clear that the international community could respond more effectively to such disasters and crises. At EU level I have pushed for a stronger Union response. Ireland is one of the world’s highest per capita contributors to global humanitarian crises by members of the public. Furthermore, Government funding to humanitarian action is set to increase substantially in the near future as the aid budget increases.

I wish to deliver a more operational and value added response to humanitarian crises through a rapid response initiative. Specifically, opportunities for enhancing Ireland’s existing crisis response capacity will include: the pre-positioning and transportation of humanitarian supplies to disasters by the Department of Defence, the Defence Forces and the Department of Foreign Affairs — these supplies will be ready for deployment at short notice; a roster of highly skilled and experienced individuals, including from the Defences Forces, who will be available at short notice for deployment, with key national and [961]international humanitarian response agencies and mechanisms, to situations of great need — further specialised training will be provided to these individuals; standby arrangements and support to highly regarded international humanitarian response agencies and mechanisms including the UN joint logistics centre, UN disaster assessment and co-ordination teams and the International Humanitarian Partnership.

These areas were amongst those identified in a recent study commissioned by my Department in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami which concluded that there were a number of niches available to Ireland where we could enhance our response to emergencies in developing countries. They also represent a further strengthening of the capabilities of our key partners through recognising the unique and primary role of the United Nations in disaster response. My officials are working closely with their counterparts in the Department of Defence to bring this initiative forward.

Turning to the volunteering area, I have also announced the creation of a dedicated volunteer corps unit within my Department. It will have a clear and straightforward mandate — to harness and facilitate the strong volunteer spirit, the interest in development work and the wide range of abilities that exists throughout the country. This will be achieved by: the establishment of a dedicated “one stop shop” to provide information to the public on opportunities for volunteering and to provide information on all aspects of Ireland’s overseas aid programme — this facility will be in a highly visible and accessible location in the city centre, will be opened as early as possible next year and any individual interested in volunteering will be given information and advice on how best to get involved in development work; providing greater assistance to existing volunteering and development agencies, and identifying opportunities for more Irish individuals to work with groups such as the United Nations Volunteers Organisation — we will increase funding for development immersion type visits by young people and secondary schools, thereby building a new generation of advocates for the developing world. The new unit will also facilitate development partnerships between Irish companies and State agencies across all sectors with their counterparts in the developing world. My aim is to harness the skills of Irish workers in industry, education, the health sector and across the public and private sectors and facilitate matching their skills with needs in the developing world.

These two initiatives are aimed at bringing forward important aspects of public involvement in the aid programme. I wish to strengthen public awareness of, and buy-in to, this programme which is already justifiably praised internationally. I believe these initiatives will make an important contribution in this regard. Irish people should be justifiably proud of our overseas aid [962]programme and genuinely feel a part of its efforts to reduce poverty worldwide.

55. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding EU diplomatic efforts to assist the Middle East peace process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39313/05]

78. Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the status of peace talks in the Middle East; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39188/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 55 and 78 together.

The Government and its partners in the EU firmly believe that the quartet road map provides the best framework for a lasting and peaceful resolution of the Israeli — Palestinian conflict. The EU is continuing to work with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to ensure that they take advantage of the opportunity following the disengagement from Gaza for a return to full implementation of the road map. The immediate priority is to ensure early implementation of all aspects of the agreement on movement and access which was reached on 15 November, with the assistance of the US and the EU. The Union is playing its part through its engagement with the parties, the launch of the EU border assistance mission at Rafah and strong support for the work of the quartet’s special envoy for disengagement, Mr. James Wolfensohn.

The months ahead will be dominated politically by the Israeli and Palestinian election campaigns. It is important, however, that all parties bear in mind the need for early progress on implementation of their obligations under the road map. This will involve parallel action by the Israeli Government and by the Palestinian Authority, with the support of the EU and the wider international community.

With our partners in the EU, the Government will continue to encourage the parties towards the negotiation of a lasting settlement based on the coexistence of two states. This will entail the creation of an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state, living in peace and security with Israel and with its neighbours. I remain convinced that such an outcome can be achieved through negotiation and that it would represent a major step towards the establishment of a truly secure, prosperous and peaceful Middle East region.

Question No. 56 answered with Question
No. 40.

57. Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Foreign [963]Affairs if, in the context of growing insecurity and greatly reduced humanitarian access in the Darfur region of Sudan, he will increase Ireland’s financial support to the African Union mission in Sudan beyond the €1.5 million currently allocated; if he supports an expansion of its mandate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39280/05]

116. Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, further to the UN Sudan work plan appeal for $1.7 billion launched last week and the fact that 3.5 million persons in Darfur alone continue to rely on humanitarian assistance, if Ireland is considering increasing the amount of aid provided; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39279/05]

212. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the progress in regard to the war and starvation in the Sudan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39609/05]

215. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position in regard to alleviation of strife and starvation in Darfur; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39612/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 57, 116, 212 and 215 together.

I remain gravely concerned by the humanitarian situation in Sudan, particularly in the Darfur region of western Sudan. The conflict in Darfur has displaced about 1.8 million people during the last two years. Estimates vary but up to 200,000 people have died from the conflict, directly or indirectly.

Recently, the security situation in Darfur has deteriorated with appalling attacks on African Union peacekeepers, internally displaced persons and humanitarian workers. These attacks are greatly hampering the efforts of humanitarian workers and jeopardising the assistance which is being provided to over 2 million people. On 12 December, the General Affairs and External Relations Council condemned the continuing violence in Darfur and expressed concern that the vital delivery of relief supplies was being hampered.

The Council also commended the achievements of the African Union mission in Sudan, AMIS, to date and referred to the financial, technical and logistical support being provided to this mission by the EU and its member states. The EU will participate in a forthcoming review by the African Union of the situation in Darfur and the AMIS operation. This review is expected to also consider the future mandate and funding of AMIS, including the possibility that it may eventually become a UN led operation. Its recommendations will be considered by the African Union’s peace and security council and [964]heads of state and government during January 2006. Ireland has provided €1.5 million in funding to AMIS since 2004. The question of providing additional Irish funding or technical support to AMIS will be considered after the mission’s future mandate and status have been clarified.

Since the only solution to the crisis in Darfur is a political one, it is crucial that a framework agreement be concluded before the end of 2005 at the African Union mediated peace negotiations in Abuja, Nigeria. It is hoped that the development of a joint negotiation strategy by all the Darfur rebel groups and the presence of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, SPLM, in the Government of National Unity delegation will lend a new dynamic to the process. However, progress to date has been slow. Since the people of Darfur are living in unacceptable circumstances, I call on all parties to put aside their local, regional and national rivalries and negotiate flexibly and constructively, so that a pragmatic solution, leading to a sustainable peace agreement and security on the ground, can be reached during this round.

At the Oslo International Donors Conference in April this year, Ireland pledged support of €15 million to Sudan over the next two years. We are assisting the people of Sudan in moving towards the recovery and rebuilding of their lives. However, I am also conscious that the two and a half million people directly affected by the conflict in Darfur will continue to require humanitarian assistance for some time to come, particularly in the absence of a political resolution.

In 2005, Ireland has provided €9.8 million in support to Sudan. Support of almost €4 million has been provided to address humanitarian needs in Darfur. Ireland’s emergency assistance to Darfur in 2005 has been provided to Concern, GOAL, Oxfam Ireland, Médecins sans Frontières and Trócaire, as well as the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA, for its crucial co-ordinating role in the overall humanitarian response.

Ireland will collaborate with a number of donor partners in 2006 to provide funding directly to the UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Sudan. This will enable the co-ordinator to receive predictable funding which he will, in turn, earmark for the most urgent priority activities within the UN work plan for 2006. In addition, Ireland will continue to provide funding support for emergency and recovery activities to our other partners in the UN and NGOs. Ireland continues to attach high priority to ensuring that the humanitarian and development needs of Sudan, including Darfur, are met by the international community over the coming years.

58. Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on 7 December 2005 emergency meeting of EU Foreign Ministers to [965]discuss the EU budget; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39312/05]

98. Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if an agreement will be reached under the UK Presidency of the EU with regard to the next financial perspectives; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39194/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 58 and 98 together.

The European Council meets tomorrow to try to reach political agreement on the European Union’s future financial perspectives for the period 2007-2013. Negotiations are likely to be difficult as there are important issues to resolve. We continue to press for a deal that will enable the Union to meet the needs and expectations of its citizens over the years ahead.

As part of the preparations for tomorrow’s meeting of heads of state and government, I participated at two meetings of EU Foreign Ministers over the past week. The first was a ministerial “conclave” devoted to the financial perspectives on 7 December, while the second was the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 12 December. Member states have set out in detail their reactions to the UK Presidency’s compromise proposals issued on 5 December. A revised Presidency proposal is expected later today.

At the conclave and at the Taoiseach’s bilateral meeting on 9 December with the President of the European Council, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Ireland expressed considerable concern at the thrust of the Presidency proposals, especially the cuts affecting cohesion and rural development. We agree with almost all other member states that the UK’s offer on the rebate is insufficient and that all member states need to pay their fair share of the costs of enlargement. We are seeking for the October 2002 agreement on the CAP to be respected fully. We are opposed to a review whose outcome is meant to take effect in advance of 2014.

These are the main issues for Ireland in the lead-up to tomorrow’s European Council. There is no doubting the widespread desire for political agreement on the financial perspectives. Much will depend, however, on the revised compromise proposals expected shortly. An agreement can still be achieved but there is a need for movement on a number of key fronts. The Government will report to the House in detail on the European Council’s outcome early next year.

59. Mr. G. Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the political and security situation in Iraq; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39180/05]

71. Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the conduct of the trial of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein currently taking place in Baghdad in view of the killing of lawyers assisting Mr. Hussein; the statement by the United States Government that it cannot be responsible for the safety of the defence team; the fact that the highest UN human rights official in Iraq has said that this tribunal will never be able to produce the kind of process that would be able to satisfy international standards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39284/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 59 and 71 together.

The elections in Iraq tomorrow will be the start of the final phase in the political process for the reconstruction of Iraq which was set out by the UN Security Council in Resolution 1546 of June 2004. The period of interim and transitional governments is almost over. The elections are being held under the new constitution of Iraq, which was approved by the people in a referendum on 15 October. The new national assembly and government which will be formed following the elections will be fully sovereign and mandated for a four year term.

The Government and our partners in the EU have strongly supported the Iraqi people as they work to build a democratic society following years of dictatorship. I hope that they will exercise their democratic rights in large numbers tomorrow and that they will not be deterred from voting by those working to destroy the political process through the use of brutal violence against innocent civilians and government officials.

The political process in Iraq has resulted in very substantial progress, especially in recent months. However, nobody would underestimate the political challenges ahead. A key political priority will be to encourage the reconciliation to the new political structures of the minority Sunni community, which voted strongly against the new constitution in October. It is a positive development that tomorrow’s elections, unlike those in January, are being contested by the Sunni parties. It will be important that the Sunni community are democratically represented in the new assembly, in proportion to their numbers in the Iraqi population. There will be a short period of review of the new constitution, during which it is hoped that some of the outstanding concerns of the Sunni community can be met.

Against the background of this political progress, the security situation in Iraq remains a cause of grave concern. It continues to hamper the work of rebuilding Iraq’s economy, infrastructure and public services. Large scale bomb attacks against both Iraqi Government employees and Shia and Kurdish civilians continue on an almost daily basis. In recent weeks there has been an alarming new wave of kidnappings and abduc[967]tions, affecting large numbers of Iraqi families but also a number of foreign nationals.

I welcome the determination of the Iraqi authorities to ensure that former president Saddam Hussein faces trial for the terrible crimes of which he has been accused. His trial is now in recess for two weeks while the elections are held. I am aware that some observers, including a UN human rights officer in Iraq, have expressed concerns about the difficulty of holding a trial in Iraq which fully meets international standards. The murder of two members of the defence legal team has added to those concerns.

It is important that every effort be made to ensure that the trial of Saddam Hussein and his co-defendants meets international standards to the extent possible. Clearly this poses challenges for the Iraqi authorities and for the legal system. There can be no doubt that the defendants have a case to answer for very serious crimes and that the people of Iraq deserve to see these crimes accounted for. The trial is taking place in an open Iraqi court under Iraqi law and it is fully televised. The defendants have full legal representation and the judges give every appearance of taking their responsibilities very seriously.

Question No. 60 answered with Question
No. 51.

Question No. 61 answered with Question
No. 50.

62. Ms Enright asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the efforts being undertaken at European level to put in place protection for citizens in the event of an outbreak of avian flu; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39190/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The EU has undertaken a substantial volume of work on both the avian and pandemic influenza threats. This work aims to improve the capacity of the Union and its member states to prevent, prepare for and respond to these threats, both within the EU and through support for third countries.

Steps have already been taken by the European Commission in implementing protective measures, including the suspension of imports on account of outbreaks of avian influenza in Croatia, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. Import bans on poultry and poultry products have been imposed on those countries in which the virus has been confirmed. The Commission has also taken decisions banning the import of captive birds and pet birds from countries outside the EU except where they comply with certain conditions, including a 30 day quarantine period. These decisions will remain in place until 31 January 2006.

[968]The EU Commission has also adopted a series of biosecurity measures aimed at reducing the risk of transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza caused by the H5NI virus from wild birds to poultry and providing for an early detection system in areas of particular risk from avian influenza. Within the Council of Ministers, and as part of the EU wide co-ordination process, a special “Friends of the Presidency” group has been established at official level to focus on prevention, preparedness and pre-crisis action regarding avian influenza and the potential pandemic threat. This group provides a forum to improve co-ordination and the sharing of information between member states.

On 23-24 November, the Commission, member states, WHO, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, ECDC, and the pharmaceutical industry took part in a command post exercise on pandemic influenza. The exercise aimed to test communications, information exchange and co-ordination among member states, EU bodies and international organisations in a public health emergency. It also aimed to test the inter-operability of national pandemic preparedness plans. The results of the exercise are currently being evaluated.

At the 9 December Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs, ESPHCA, Council, Ministers had a detailed discussion on the human health aspects of pandemic influenza and the need to reinforce EU co-ordination in respect of pandemic planning.

63. Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of staff of Development Co-operation Ireland volunteering for decentralisation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39201/05]

93. Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the timescale for the decentralisation of DCI; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39200/05]

128. Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of principal and senior development specialists within Development Co-operation Ireland volunteering for decentralisation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39202/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 63, 93 and 128 together.

Under the Government’s decentralisation programme, the Development Co-operation Directorate of the Department of Foreign Affairs, currently based in Dublin, is scheduled to decentralise to Limerick. The transfer of the directorate to Limerick is due to take place in the first quarter of 2007. My Department has recently [969]notified the Office of Public Works of our agreement to accept an office accommodation proposal recommended by it. Subject to final completion of the premises within this period, I expect the above timetable to be met.

A total of 123 posts are attached to the directorate at headquarters. Already, 28 of the posts, including that of director general, are filled by officers who have applied to decentralise to Limerick. These 28 posts are made up as follows: 13 officers were already serving within the directorate and three were serving elsewhere in the Department; eight officers have been recruited from other Departments via the central applications facility, CAF, and four have been assigned from inter-departmental promotion panels. In addition, there are a further 18 officers serving elsewhere in the Department, including eight serving in aid missions abroad, who have expressed interest in decentralising to Limerick.

Twenty-four of the posts attached to the directorate are specialist posts, with three of these being designated as principal development specialists. No applications through the CAF have, so far, been received for these three posts. On the other hand, a combined total of eight senior development specialists and development specialists, currently serving in the directorate, have applied through the CAF for the 21 posts at these levels being decentralised to Limerick. In addition, four development specialists have been recruited since the announcement of the decentralisation programme.

In summary, arrangements are at present in place to fill some 12 of the 24 specialist posts. It would be my hope that a greater number of the specialists will volunteer to decentralise to Limerick as the date for the decentralisation of the directorate draws nearer.

64. Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, further to his statement that he would be very pleased if the UN Security Council was to consider the situation of Burma in reply to a parliamentary question of 10 November 2005, if the Government intends to urge such a consideration; if the Government supports the core findings of the report, Threat to the Peace: A Call for the UN Security Council to Act in Burma, commissioned by the former Czech President Vaclav Havel and Archbishop Desmond Tutu; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39278/05]

101. Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position with regard to Ireland’s diplomatic relationship with Burma; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39204/05]

127. Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the latest contacts that the Government has made with the military regime in Burma with [970]regard to the continuing detention of Aung San Suu Kyi; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39203/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 64, 101 and 127 together.

Ireland has a clear and strong position on Burma. Together with our EU partners we condemn the abuse of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Burma and deplore the lack of progress towards democracy. Our goal remains an end to human rights violations there, the release and restoration of liberty to Aung San Suu Kyi and all other political prisoners and the realisation of democracy, peace and prosperity for the long suffering people of Burma.

As Deputy Sherlock recalls, I said in reply to a parliamentary question on 10 November, on the report, Threat to the Peace: A Call for the UN Security Council to Act in Burma, commissioned by former President Havel and Archbishop Tutu, that I would be very pleased if the UN Security Council were to consider the question of Burma. Since my reply we have heard that the Security Council is expected to hear a briefing on the situation in Burma from the secretariat shortly. I welcome this as a positive step.

The Secretary General of the UN, Mr Kofi Annan, made a statement on 12 December commending the call by ASEAN — Association of Southeast Asia Nations — made during its 11th summit in Kuala Lumpur, for Burma to “expedite” both its political reform efforts and its release of political detainees, including Aung San Suu Kyi. The Secretary General welcomed ASEAN’s announcement that it would send Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar as an ASEAN envoy to Burma “to learn first-hand whether Burma is making steps toward democracy”. He commended Burma for its decision to accept the envoy. This is a potentially significant development and should be welcomed.

I have been deeply concerned about the recent reports that the Burmese régime has extended the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. I made a statement on Monday, 24 October, to mark the tenth anniversary of Aung San Suu Kyi’s detention under house arrest in which I called, inter alia, for her release and the release of all other political prisoners. In my statement on behalf of Ireland to the 60th session of the UN General Assembly in September, I referred to the continuing denial of human rights and democracy in Burma. I stated that this was most acutely symbolised by the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and that her ordeal was not forgotten by the people of Ireland.

While we have not had any recent direct contacts with the Burmese régime, we joined EU partners in issuing a statement on 28 November expressing deep concern about the reports that Aung San Suu Kyi’s detention had been extended. The statement called for the release of [971]Aung San Suu Kyi and all other political prisoners and said that this would help facilitate an open and genuine dialogue involving all ethnic and political groups in Burma in the interests of national reconciliation and the resolution of Burma’s long standing political and humanitarian problems.

An EU-Burma informal Troika meeting at official level was held in London on 30 November in the margins of the Asia-Europe senior officials meeting, at which my Department was represented. The EU side recalled our concern at the situation in Burma and the EU’s desire to see real progress in the road map towards democracy. The EU statement calling for the immediate release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, was recalled.

Ireland announced the establishment of diplomatic relations on a non-resident basis with Burma on 13 February 2004. However, given that the progress which had been anticipated in 2004, most notably the meeting of an open and unhindered national convention and the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, did not materialise, the Government decided to put on hold the exchange of ambassadors. Any decision to proceed with an exchange of ambassadors with Burma will have to await positive and significant moves by the Burmese Government.

65. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the British Government’s recently published Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill dealing with on-the-runs; if he has made the views of the Government known to the British Government regarding this legislation; if he had consultation with the British Government regarding the content of the legislation prior to its publication; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39273/05]

70. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the proposals for dealing with on-the-runs in this jurisdiction; the latest Government proposals in this regard; if presidential pardons are still considered the best option; the reason no scheme involving temporary licences has been considered; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39274/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 65 and 70 together.

Both Governments gave a commitment to address the issue of OTRs at Weston Park in 2001 and, as part of the Joint Declaration of 2003, undertook to bring forward proposals on the issue within their respective legislative and constitutional framework. In the context of recent acts of completion, both Governments were of the view that this issue had to be addressed.

[972]The British Government has recently published legislative proposals for dealing with OTRs in its jurisdiction. While this is a matter primarily for the British Government, I am aware that concerns have been expressed with regard to a number of aspects, including the decision to include the security forces within the scope of the legislation. The Government has conveyed its concerns about this particular aspect, which was not the subject of prior consultation, to the British authorities. The Government will continue to monitor the progress of the legislation and, in particular, seek to ensure that the ongoing work of establishing the truth with regard to the large number of unsolved cases arising from the conflict in Northern Ireland is not impeded.

The proposals to deal with the issue in this jurisdiction are the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I refer the Deputy to the Minister’s statement of 8 November on this matter.

Question No. 66 answered with Question
No. 43.

67. Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the details of requests or inquiries he has received from either the UN Committee Against Torture or the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment regarding Irish compliance with international obligations in the past three years; and the discussions or communications he has had with other parties in this regard. [39263/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): My Department has ongoing contact with the UN Committee Against Torture, CAT, and the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, CPT, regarding a range of matters. Requests for information from the CPT tend to arise from its programme of periodic visits to Council of Europe member states. The last such visit to Ireland was on 20-28 May 2002, though Ireland is among ten member states the CPT intends to visit in 2006.

The report compiled on the basis of the 2002 visit was transmitted by the CPT to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on 20 December 2002. The report looked at the living conditions, staff practices and legal safeguards in place at Garda stations, prisons, mental health establishments and detention centres for children. The response of the Government to the report was given on 18 September 2003 and addressed the issues raised in the report. The response also highlighted the actions taken by Ireland to implement the recommendations made by the committee. At the Government’s request, both [973]documents are available on the Council of Europe’s website.

My Department is in ongoing contact with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform regarding Ireland’s first report under the convention against torture, which is currently being compiled by that Department. The convention requires states parties to report to the CAT on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under the convention. When completed, Ireland’s report will be submitted to the UN Committee Against Torture and will be followed by an appearance by Ireland before the committee.

My Department avails of all appropriate opportunities to reiterate Ireland’s commitment to fulfilling its obligations under the convention against torture and the European convention for the prevention of torture.

68. Ms Lynch asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether the Government of Afghanistan is in a position to assure safety and security to its citizens; if there are areas of the territory which remain outside of its protective control; if there are groups of persons in respect of whom it is unable to provide such security; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39290/05]

83. Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the security situation in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39179/05]

211. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the extent to which the situation in Afghanistan has stabilised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39608/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 68, 83 and 211 together.

The security situation in Afghanistan remains a cause of serious concern and several further incidents of violence have occurred since I last reported to the Dáil on 10 November. Taliban militants and criminal groups are still active in parts of the southern and eastern regions, where the security situation remains particularly volatile.

The UN mandated international security assistance force, ISAF, in which seven members of the Irish Defence Forces have been participating, has been working to improve the capabilities of the Afghan police and armed forces. Some 40,000 of the projected 65,000 member police force have been recruited and training programmes are ongoing. ISAF, which operates in Kabul and northern and western Afghanistan, carries out one third of its patrols in the Kabul area jointly with the Kabul city police. Provincial reconstruc[974]tion teams, PRTs, have been deployed and work closely with local civil and military structures to help ensure a secure environment and develop regional capabilities. An expansion of ISAF operations to southern Afghanistan, involving the deployment of 6,000 troops, has been agreed in recent days. With this expansion, ISAF will be operating in three-quarters of the territory of Afghanistan.

The results of the parliamentary elections held on 18 September have now been certified for all provinces and the parliament is due to elect the chair of the Wolesi Jirga — lower house of parliament — shortly. The EU has welcomed the successful holding of the elections and noted that the Afghan people have shown once again their clear support for a democratic future. The statement added that the turnout and generally peaceful nature of the elections were a testament to the determination of the Afghan people to see their country succeed.

Inaugural meetings of the provincial councils have been successfully held and representatives to the Meshrano Jirga — upper house of parliament — have been elected by the councils. President Karzai will nominate the remaining one third of the representatives to the Meshrano Jirga. In electing a parliament, Afghanistan has taken a considerable step towards democracy and stability. Clearly there are still challenges facing the Afghan Government and support from the international community will be needed for some time to come.

The EU General Affairs and External Relations Council, at its meeting on Monday last, 12 December, welcomed the EU-Afghanistan joint declaration signed in Strasbourg on 16 November in the presence of Afghan President Karzai. The Council stressed its determination to strengthen the partnership with Afghanistan and its commitment to long-term support for the government and the people of Afghanistan. The joint declaration will form the basis for increased co-operation based on Afghan ownership across a range of areas, including support to political and economic governance, security sector and justice sector reform, counter narcotics, development, human rights, civil society, refugee return, and education and culture.

The joint declaration acknowledges the EU’s full support for Afghanistan’s sovereignty and agrees that EU member states will continue their substantial support to improve security, extend stability and encourage development across Afghanistan until such time as the Afghan security and armed forces are sufficiently constituted and operational. The European Union and its member states have contributed significant financial support to the stabilisation process in Afghanistan, pledging over €3 billion in aid from 2002-2006 and making a significant contribution to Afghanistan’s security and development.

Ireland welcomes the excellent work being done in Afghanistan by the office of EU Special [975]Representative Vendrell. In this regard, we have decided to finance the cost of the EUSR’s deputy, Mr. Michael Semple, an Irish national, to maintain the position for a 12 further months. A sum of €50,000, representing the first tranche of our contribution, has been paid in recent days.

69. Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the issues being considered as part of the ongoing discussions taking place between Turkey and the European Union with regard to EU membership; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39183/05]

74. Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the progress being made by Romania towards membership of the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39173/05]

99. Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding all countries seeking entry to the European Union; the next date at which enlargement will take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39193/05]

202. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the accession of Bulgaria and Romania is on target; when the accession treaties will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and the number of member state parliaments which have already passed these treaties. [39521/05]

206. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position in regard to European enlargement with particular reference to the resolution of the issue surrounding Turkey’s application for membership and the Cyprus issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39603/05]

213. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the extent to which countries aspiring to EU membership are achieving compliance with the acquis communautaire; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39610/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 69, 74, 99, 202, 206 and 213 together.

The Union’s current enlargement agenda consists of two acceding countries — Bulgaria and Romania — and two candidate countries — Croatia and Turkey. At the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 12 December, the Union also reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining a European perspective for the western Balkans.

[976]The Commission’s annual monitoring reports for Bulgaria and Romania were published on 25 October 2005 and provide a comprehensive overview of the progress made by both countries towards fulfilling the requirements of membership. For both countries, a number of “red flag” issues have been identified that will need to be urgently addressed before the date of accession. The Commission will closely monitor the steps taken to tackle these issues and will present a final recommendation to Council in April/May 2006 as to whether Bulgaria and Romania will be in a position to meet the full requirements of membership by 1 January 2007.

If sufficient progress has not been made, the Commission can recommend that the Council postpone the date of accession for both countries until 1 January 2008. However, the Commission has noted that, although urgent corrective action is needed in these areas, Bulgaria and Romania still “hold the key to their accession on time”.

In a decision dated 12 April 2005, the Government approved the terms of the Treaty of Accession for Bulgaria and Romania and authorised its signature, subject to ratification, on behalf of Ireland. The treaty was signed by the EU member states, together with Bulgaria and Romania, on 25 April 2005. To enter into force, the treaty must be ratified by Bulgaria, Romania and all the current member states by 31 December 2006. Both Bulgaria and Romania ratified the treaty in May 2005 while six EU member states have also done so.

Ireland’s ratification of the accession treaty will require an amendment to the European Communities Act 1972. Preparations for this are underway and it is hoped to put the relevant Bill before the Oireachtas during the spring session. In anticipation of this, the accession treaty for Bulgaria and Romania will be laid before the Dáil in the coming weeks.

The Commission published annual progress reports for Croatia and Turkey on 9 November. These reports fed into the accession partnerships for both countries, on which agreement was reached on 6 December. The Commission is currently engaged with both countries in conducting a screening process designed to assess their state of readiness in the various chapters of the accession negotiations. It is expected to take until autumn 2006 to complete the screening process for all chapters. After each chapter has been screened, the Council can decide, on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, whether negotiations can be opened in these specific areas.

The Commission has noted that Croatia has made some progress towards alignment with the EU legal order — the acquis— but that enforcement and administrative capacity need to be strengthened. Croatia’s continued co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is an important priority of the accession partnership. The arrest last week of [977]former General Ante Gotovina is a positive early development in this regard.

While Turkey’s alignment with the EU legal order has progressed in some respects, it remains at an early stage in most areas. Turkey needs to maintain its commitment to the full implementation of human rights and other reforms. Administrative and judicial capacity needs to be reinforced to apply EU rules. The accession partnership also notes that Turkey must take concrete steps for the normalisation of bilateral relations with all EU member states, including the Republic of Cyprus, as soon as possible. In September the EU issued a declaration recalling the status of the Republic of Cyprus as a member state of the EU and noting that recognition of all member states is a necessary component of the accession process.

An application for membership has been received from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, fYROM, which is currently being considered by the Council. As part of the Union’s commitment to maintaining a European perspective for the western Balkans, negotiations are also ongoing with Albania for a stabilisation and association agreement, SAA, and have recently been opened with both Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

At the GAERC on 12 December, the Council held a preliminary exchange of views on the Commission’s enlargement strategy paper, which was published in November 2005. The Commission paper laid stress on the need to communicate more effectively with EU citizens the objectives and challenges of the Union’s enlargement policy. This point was taken up in the Council conclusions of 12 December, which also stressed the need for rigorous conditionality at all stages of the accession process, bearing in mind the Union’s own capacity to absorb further members. It was agreed that the Council would further discuss the issue of enlargement during 2006.

Question No. 70 answered with Question
No. 65.

Question No. 71 answered with Question
No. 59.

Question No. 72 answered with Question
No. 42.

Question No. 73 answered with Question
No. 44.

Question No. 74 answered with Question
No. 69.

Question No. 75 answered with Question
No. 50.

Question No. 76 answered with Question
No. 54.

[978]Question No. 77 answered with Question
No. 51.

Question No. 78 answered with Question
No. 55.

79. Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding to the EU constitution; when the matter is next to be discussed with his European counterparts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39195/05]

218. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the nature of discussions he has had with his EU colleagues in the context of the future development of the EU with particular reference to the constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39615/05]

219. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the extent of the discussions which have taken place on the possible ratifications of the EU constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39616/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 79, 218 and 219 together.

Thirteen member states have so far ratified the EU constitution but it cannot enter into force without being ratified by all member states. Following the referendum results in France and the Netherlands, it is clear that the constitution will not enter into force by the target date of 1 November 2006. The June European Council decided to initiate a period of reflection with regard to the European constitution, allowing time for national debates.

Ministers of European Affairs met in Brussels on 7 November to exchange views on how the national debates are proceeding. The issue was subsequently discussed by Foreign Ministers at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 21 November. Member states have since contributed to a joint UK-Austrian interim report on the progress of national debates during the period of reflection. This report and the subject of the future of Europe were among the items covered by Foreign Ministers in Brussels on Monday in preparation for this week’s European Council.

During the Austrian Presidency, EU Foreign Ministers will be involved in preparing for a review by the heads of state and government during the first half of 2006, which will determine how the Union is to deal with the EU constitution.

80. Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the continuing unrest in Uganda; the efforts the Government has made to [979]highlight the plight of children in Uganda who are being kidnapped to fight in the Lord’s Resistance Army; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39311/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I remain gravely concerned at the long running conflict and related humanitarian crisis in northern Uganda, the deaths of many thousands of people and the displacement of over 1.5 million people. An estimated 20,000 children have been cruelly abducted by the Lord’s Resistance Army, LRA, during its 19 year campaign of violence. The situation is one which clearly merits increased international attention and this is something which Ireland, in collaboration with our EU partners, has been actively working to achieve.

The General Affairs and External Relations Council, meeting in Brussels on 7 November, discussed the situation in northern Uganda and expressed its grave concern at the deteriorating security situation there, which had led the UN and a number of NGOs to suspend temporarily their humanitarian operations. The UN has now resumed deliveries of humanitarian aid and has indicated that it intends to increase its international presence in northern Uganda in 2006. The primary responsibility for improving security in northern Uganda rests with the Ugandan Government and the Council has called clearly on the Ugandan Government in this respect to ensure urgently that all of its citizens are protected and provided for.

The recent upsurge in violence by the LRA appears to have been prompted by the issuing of indictments on 13 October 2005 by the International Criminal Court, ICC, for the arrest of five LRA commanders, including the leader of the LRA, Joseph Kony. This represents a historic development for the court and it is now incumbent on all those involved, including any neighbouring states in which the LRA leaders concerned may be sheltering, to facilitate the arrest of the individuals now indicted. The Government is strongly supportive of the International Criminal Court and would urge that its investigation into all serious violations of human rights committed in northern Uganda since 1 July 2002, the date of establishment of the ICC, should continue.

A recent positive development has been the call by the deputy commander of the LRA, Vincent Otti, one of those indicted by the ICC, for a resumption of peace talks between the LRA and the Ugandan Government. I encourage the Ugandan Government to respond positively to this overture. Independent mediation efforts are continuing to bring about a resumption of such talks, following a number of failed initiatives in the recent past. EU ambassadors in Kampala, including Ireland’s chargé d’affaires, have been actively involved in efforts to promote a peaceful [980]resolution of the conflict and will continue to lend what support they can to achieve this.

Ireland and its EU partners will also continue to encourage the Ugandan Government to do more to promote the much needed economic and social development of northern Uganda. The EU stands ready to provide further assistance to the humanitarian effort and to do what it can to support steps towards reconciliation in northern Uganda. Ireland has provided humanitarian assistance of €650,000 to date in 2005 to address the humanitarian situation and it is expected that further assistance will be provided to Irish NGOs operating in the region at an early date. Development Co-operation Ireland has also supported NGOs in northern Uganda providing shelter to the thousands of children and young people who are required to flee their homes each night, for fear of possible abduction by the LRA or worse.

81. Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in view of his statement to Dáil Éireann in answer to Question No. 11 of 10 November 2005 with respect to the treatment of African asylum seekers and refugees in Morocco, if, and in what capacity, the Government is involved in the exploration of measures at European Union level to respond to the increasing pressure of immigration from north and sub-Saharan Africa; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39282/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): Ireland agrees on the need to approach migration in a global context and to strengthen dialogue and co-operation on migration issues with all regions of the world, including north and sub-Saharan Africa. We also recognise that it is only through joint action that the European Union can successfully address migration issues.

Following the recent events at Ceuta and Melilla and discussions on migration at the informal meeting of the EU Heads of State and Government at Hampton Court on the 27 October 2005, President Barroso announced that “the Commission would develop a list of priority actions for improving global migration, with a special focus on the African region”. These actions include the strengthening of co-operation and action among member states on migration issues and increasing dialogue and co-operation with African states and neighbouring countries across the entire Mediterranean region. In a communication published on the 30 November 2005, entitled “Priority actions for responding to the challenges of migration: first follow-up to Hampton Court”, the Commission outlined the issues that need to be taken forward with regard to migration.

Justice and Home Affairs Ministers had an initial, strategic discussion of the Commission communication at the JHA Council on 1 and 2 [981]December. Building on these discussions, this week’s European Council will consider the adoption of conclusions on priority actions focusing on Africa and the Mediterranean region.

Question No. 82 answered with Question
No. 40.

Question No. 83 answered with Question
No. 68.

Question No. 84 answered with Question
No. 42.

Question No. 85 answered with Question
No. 40.

Question No. 86 answered with Question
No. 50.

Question No. 87 answered with Question
No. 42.

88. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the Irish, EU and UN relief effort following the earthquake in Pakistan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39316/05]

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. C. Lenihan): It is estimated that over 73,000 people in northern Pakistan lost their lives in the earthquake which struck south Asia on 8 October 2005. The earthquake severely affected the North West Frontier and Kashmir provinces of Pakistan, causing widespread structural damage and leaving an estimated 3.5 million people homeless.

Within hours of the disaster the Government pledged €1 million in humanitarian relief assistance. This funding was quickly increased to €5 million when the scale of the destruction became apparent. The moneys were quickly dispersed to United Nations agencies, the Red Cross family and non-governmental organisations, NGOs, which are providing life saving humanitarian assistance in the region.

Former Taoiseach, Mr. Albert Reynolds, represented Ireland at a donor conference convened by the Government of Pakistan on 19 November. Mr. Reynolds presented the report of his findings from that visit to me on Thursday last. I travelled to the affected region last weekend on a joint visit with my Dutch colleague. I met with the Pakistan authorities, the United Nations humanitarian co-ordinator for the relief effort, the Red Cross and Irish NGOs working in the region. I saw first hand the devastation caused by the earthquake and the logistical challenges facing the relief and recovery effort. Immediate relief priorities are shelter, food, health services and the logistical support to deliver these services. Ireland has now pledged an additional €5 million to the relief and [982]recovery effort. This brings to €10 million the funds made available by the Government and places Ireland as one of the highest donors per capita to this disaster.

The Department remains in close contact with the UN which, with the Government of Pakistan, is leading the relief effort. Key UN agencies, such as the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA, UNICEF and the World Food Programme, WFP, are working closely with the Red Cross and NGOs to provide urgently needed temporary shelters, food, medical care and water and sanitation services to the affected populations. They are also working to restore public services and, in particular, school services, which are crucial in bringing normality back to the lives of children affected by the disaster and their families. The UN in its flash appeal for the disaster has costed the emergency relief effort at US$550 million. This appeal remains underfunded.

The European Commission has agreed a €93.6 million package of aid, of which €43.6 million has been allocated to the immediate humanitarian effort and a further €50 million for reconstruction. As the affected communities move from emergency relief to recovery, we will continue to monitor the situation on the ground to ensure that Irish assistance is being spent to best effect.

89. Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the stance of the Government regarding the escalating human rights and humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe, including the fact that almost a quarter of a million of the poorest of the poor have been driven from their homes by a Government sponsored program of destruction of slums; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39283/05]

108. Mr. McEntee asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the situation in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39205/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 89 and 108 together.

The Government remains gravely concerned regarding developments in Zimbabwe, particularly in the aftermath of the clearance campaign known as Operation Restore Order launched by the Zimbabwean Government last May, which has resulted in over 700,000 people being left homeless. The disastrous humanitarian consequences of this clearance operation have been well described in the report prepared by Ms Anna Tibaijuka, the special envoy appointed by UN Secretary General Annan to examine the consequences of Operation Restore Order, which was presented last July.

This report makes clear that Operation Restore Order was carried out in an indiscrimi[983]nate and unjustified manner, with indifference to human suffering and in disregard of international law. It is regrettable that the Mugabe government has failed to respond appropriately to Ms Tibaijuka’s recommendations, including bringing to account those responsible for launching Operation Restore Order. There also continue to be reports of dismantling by security forces of temporary shelters erected by those made homeless as a result of government actions.

The UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, Jan Egeland, visited Zimbabwe from 3-7 December, during which time he inspected conditions for those made homeless by Operation Restore Order and also held two meetings with President Mugabe. Mr. Egeland has made clear following his visit that the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe remains extremely serious and is deteriorating, with life expectancy reduced by half over the past 15 years. He reported some progress in talks with the Zimbabwean Government on the provision of assistance by the international community to those made homeless by Operation Restore Order, with the UN now planning to build 20,000 housing units over the next few months. The UN and the Zimbabwean Government have also agreed to establish a task force to deal with the serious food insecurity now prevailing in Zimbabwe and which could lead to up to 4 million people in Zimbabwe requiring food assistance in the period up to next April.

The UN World Food Programme last week launched a global appeal for $276 million to help provide food aid and medical and general assistance for Zimbabwe’s people. Ireland has provided almost €2 million in emergency and recovery support, including food assistance, to the people of Zimbabwe during 2005. A further €1 million has been committed to help mitigate the impact of the AIDS pandemic. Total aid to Zimbabwe since 2004 stands at approximately €8 million. Ireland is committed to continuing to deliver assistance directly to those most in need through a broad range of civil and aid organisations and will obviously take account of the UN WFP appeal in deciding on allocations for 2006.

The political and human rights situation in Zimbabwe also remains of concern. Elections to the new senate established under constitutional amendments approved last August took place on 26 November. Most voters, however, boycotted the elections, with turnout estimated at only between 15-20%. Divisions within the main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, MDC, probably contributed to the low turnout. In the meantime, peaceful civil and trade union demonstrations continue to be suppressed. The Mugabe government has also begun identifying and confiscating the passports of those whom it regards as critics of the regime, following another constitutional amendment approved by the Zimbabwean parliament also August.

[984]It is clear that international pressure needs to be maintained on the Mugabe government to alter its current policies. The Government, in co-operation with our EU partners, will continue to do this. We also consistently urge African partners, and organisations such as the African Union, to use what influence they have on the Mugabe government.

Question No. 90 answered with Question
No. 40.

Question No. 91 answered with Question
No. 51.

92. Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the ongoing tensions in Ethiopia which have arisen following concerns that parliamentary elections were not held in accordance with international standards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39172/05]

131. Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the political and security situation in Ethiopia; the level of funding that Ethiopia will receive from Ireland in 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39169/05]

208. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the situation in Ethiopia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39605/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 92, 131 and 208 together.

In a meeting on 10 November 2005, the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, acting on my behalf, conveyed to the chargé d’affaires of the Ethiopian Embassy the Government’s grave concern at the unrest and loss of life which took place in Addis Ababa and some other parts of Ethiopia in early November 2005. The Minister of State condemned all the acts of violence which occurred, particularly the use of lethal force by the security forces, and urged that they be speedily and independently investigated.

Data provided by the Ethiopian authorities indicates that at least 45 people, including eight policemen, died and approximately 500 were injured during last month’s violence. However, the final death toll may be higher. On 6 November, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi expressed regret for the deaths and promised to establish an independent inquiry which would investigate the violence which occurred in June and November 2005. He gave a commitment that the government would correct any mistakes identified by the inquiry.

The Prime Minister stated that the Ethiopian authorities were prepared to continue dialogue with the parliamentary opposition parties and groups and to review the parliament’s procedures [985]to strengthen the role played by the opposition. He reiterated that all Ethiopia’s law enforcement agencies had been instructed to exercise maximum restraint and to increase their riot control capacities, with a view to minimising the risk to the lives of citizens. We understand that a number of police have already been arrested for using excessive force against demonstrators last month.

While no official total has been provided, we understand that possibly up to 35,000 people were detained in the first week of November and subsequently. Many have been released but we understand that up to 8,000 are still detained in prisons and detention camps around Ethiopia, sometimes in poor conditions. These detainees are being processed by the courts system. While the detention centres have been visited by the Ethiopian human rights commissioner and representatives of Ethiopian humanitarian organisations, despite repeated requests the international community has not yet been permitted access.

The Ethiopian authorities claim 58 people were responsible for launching and organising the riots, as part of an agenda to overthrow the government by force. This group comprises most of the leadership of the largest opposition party, the Coalition for Unity and Democracy, CUD, including ten MPs, some representatives of civil society and 14 journalists and newspaper editors. The Prime Minster has indicated that these 58 will be charged in a court of law and that all their rights as detainees will be fully protected. They may be charged with treason, which is a capital offence under the Ethiopian penal code. They are allowed legal representation, are being provided with humanitarian supplies and have been visited by their families, the Ethiopian human rights commissioner, representatives of Ethiopian humanitarian organisations and the media. They deny the allegations against them and 21 of the CUD detainees began a hunger strike on 28 November.

An investigation commission was established by the parliament on 29 November, which will examine the violence which occurred in June and November 2005, including whether excessive force was used by the police and army, and report back within 90 days. However, it will not seek to determine the causes of the violence. The commission is chaired by the vice-president of the southern regional Supreme Court and includes representatives of the main religious denominations, the private sector, civil society, the judiciary and a government adviser. Opposition MPs have questioned the impartiality of some commission members.

On 12 December 2005, a meeting took place between the Prime Minister and representatives of two opposition parties, to discuss the establishment of a Government/opposition dialogue. However, the Prime Minister indicated that he [986]was not prepared to engage in dialogue with the detained CUD leadership.

The establishment of the investigation commission, the release of many detainees and the beginning of a partial dialogue between the Ethiopian Government and opposition are positive developments. However, Ireland and the EU will continue to impress upon the Ethiopian authorities the need to strengthen the democratisation process by releasing the detained opposition leadership, civil society and media representatives as a confidence building measure; to allow opposition parties and civil society organisations operate freely; to open a non-conditional dialogue with the opposition parties; to allow the private media operate freely and develop a media code of conduct; to enhance public confidence in the national election board; and to respect human rights and the rule of law. These aims can best be achieved through continued active engagement by the international community with the Ethiopian Government and opposition parties.

Ireland has a strong commitment to the poorest and most vulnerable people in Ethiopia and the Government is working to help them through its aid programme. This assistance is making a real difference to the lives of poor people in Ethiopia, including in the areas of basic health and education. A sum of €32.5 million has been budgeted for Ireland’s bilateral aid programme in Ethiopia during 2006. Additional funding is expected to be delivered through Irish based NGOs and UN agencies.

Our aid programme is kept under constant review. Decisions about expenditure of the amounts budgeted will be guided by a number of factors, including political developments in Ethiopia, and will also take account of shared analysis with Ireland’s EU partners.

Question No. 93 answered with Question
No. 63.

94. Mr. English asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his Department has confirmed the whereabouts of the former Iranian Ambassador to Ireland, or made contact with the Iranian authorities on their behalf; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39189/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran informed the Department of Foreign Affairs on 2 November 2005 that the ambassador had been recalled to Iran and would be relinquishing his appointment as ambassador to Ireland.

95. Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of Irish nationals currently in Iraq; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39181/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I am aware of press reports indicating that there are a number of Irish nationals working in Iraq but the Department has no direct registration of Irish citizens working there. However, the British authorities have indicated that they are aware of the following numbers for the Basra area: 20 working for security companies; five working for DFID, the UK’s overseas development Ministry; four working as civilian police officers; one working for the British Government. The Irish Embassy in Iraq was closed in advance of the Gulf War in 1991. Given the dangerous security situation there, the Department is advising strongly against all travel to Iraq.

96. Ms Burton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will respond to representations made to him or his Department regarding the justice and peace law proposed in Colombia and the fears that it will confer impunity on persons accused of crimes against humanity and may confer a form of legitimacy on persons who have expropriated land and property illegally. [39276/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The General Affairs and External Relations Council at its meeting on 3 October 2005, agreed that the justice and peace law, if effectively and transparently implemented, will make a positive contribution to the search for peace in Colombia. It is important that the Colombian Government is now encouraged and supported by the international community in its efforts to implement the justice and peace law effectively. The law, which was adopted through a lengthy democratic political process, provides an overall legal framework for demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration of illegal armed groups into society and also includes a provision for sanctions against demobilised paramilitaries.

The Council conclusions adopted on 3 October also welcomed the continued involvement of the Organisation of American States, OAS, in supporting the demobilisation of paramilitary groups in Colombia. Ireland has committed €390,000 over a three year period to the OAS mission to support and verify the peace process in Colombia. Its mandate is to provide comprehensive support to the Colombian peace process with a focus both on the demobilisation process and on the strengthening of institutions concerned with the rule of law. Amongst our EU colleagues, the Netherlands and Sweden also fund this mission and Ireland will work closely with them, including in ensuring that the mission maximises its role in the peace process.

Ireland was actively involved in negotiating the chairperson’s statement on the situation of human rights in Colombia which was adopted on 22 April 2005 at the 61st session of the Com[988]mission on Human Rights in Geneva. The statement urged that dialogue and negotiations be pursued between the Government of Colombia and all illegal armed groups, aimed at overcoming the situation of violence stemming from the conflict and at reaching a lasting peace.

The situation in Colombia is undoubtedly complex and involves difficult choices and compromises. Nonetheless, the overall view of the Union, and of Ireland, is that we should remain positively engaged with the peace process. In representations made to me on this issue, I have conveyed Ireland’s and the EU’s position on the justice and peace law in the terms set out above.

97. Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his most recent diplomatic contacts with other EU states regarding possible Irish involvement in EU battlegroups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39309/05]

189. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his most recent diplomatic contacts with other EU states regarding possible Irish involvement in EU battlegroups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39682/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 97 and 189 together.

As reported previously to the House in reply to Questions Nos. 241 of 2 February, 36 of 28 April and 45 of 2 June, I met the Foreign Ministers of Sweden and Finland in January and the Foreign Minister of Austria in April of this year. I discussed a range of issues, including possible Irish participation in battlegroups. I have not had any more recent discussions with EU counterparts on the matter.

As Deputies will be aware from previous replies to questions on this issue, most recently by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, on behalf of the Minister for Defence, Deputy O’Dea, on 7 December, the question of participation by Ireland in battlegroups has been examined by an interdepartmental group established by the Minister for Defence. The legal, operational and other issues surrounding participation, which have been examined by the interdepartmental group, will shortly be considered by Government.

Question No. 98 answered with Question
No. 58.

Question No. 99 answered with Question
No. 69.

Question No. 100 answered with Question
No. 49.

Question No. 101 answered with Question
No. 64.

102. Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government considers that the regime pertaining at the United States prison at Guantanamo Bay is such that persons held there are likely to be subject to acts contrary to international law. [39270/05]

113. Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of his response to Question No. 86 of 10 November 2005, that inter alia the Government has, on a number of occasions, made known to the US Government its concerns regarding the treatment and status of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, the precise nature of the concerns which he expressed, and the response from US authorities which these elicited. [39291/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 102 and 113 together.

The Government has made known to the US Government its view that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay should be treated in accordance with the requirements of human rights and international humanitarian law. Our concerns are shared by our EU partners. They have been made known on a number of occasions by the Taoiseach, by my predecessor and by myself, and also through the Embassy of Ireland in Washington and with the US Embassy in Dublin. On all occasions, we have made clear that there is very real concern throughout Europe, including Ireland, about the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, and emphasised that it was essential that alleged abuses were fully investigated.

It is my understanding that the International Committee of the Red Cross has been regularly visiting the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay since early 2002 for the purpose of monitoring that persons held there are treated in accordance with applicable international laws and standards.

103. Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, further to his response to Question No. 2 of 6 November 2005, Ireland’s position and intention with respect to the discussions he references as ongoing in Europe on the reinforcement of the EU code of conduct on arms exports. [39277/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I assume that the Deputy is referring to Question No. 2 of 6 October 2005 in which I made reference to ongoing discussions on the possible reinforcement of the EU code of conduct on arms exports.

The review of the code of conduct was initiated during Ireland’s Presidency of the EU and takes [990]account of developments since the code entered into force in 1998. Several proposals have been made to strengthen and update the code, including a proposal to reinforce the status of the code by transforming it into an EU common position, which would be legally binding. Ireland is in favour of such a move.

The examination of the code of conduct by officials from member states is nearing finalisation at working group level. We believe that this, the first review of the code of conduct, is a very necessary and important undertaking for the EU and we have been supportive of efforts to strengthen the code.

There has also been discussion on a so-called “toolbox” which will consist of a set of measures to be applied to a country which was recently subject to an arms embargo. This essentially involves a much greater level of information sharing and enhanced transparency between EU member states concerning exports of military goods and equipment from the EU to a country following the lifting of the embargo.

104. Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his Department has raised the issue of the upcoming trial of a person (details supplied) with the Turkish authorities; his views on this trial taking place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39182/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): On 30 June this year Mr. Orhan Pamuk was charged by a local prosecutor under Turkey’s new penal code with insulting the country’s national character, following comments he made about the deaths of 1 million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds in Turkish history. The charge was brought under Article 301 (1) of the new code which covers, inter alia, “insulting being a Turk, the Republic, the organs and the institutions of the State”. The first hearing in the trial is due to take place on 16 December in Istanbul and the EU will be represented by the Commission and member states. The new penal code entered into force in June of this year.

Like other European partners, we would be very concerned if the code were used in a way which was detrimental to the promotion of human rights or freedom of expression in Turkey. In that regard, I have raised our concerns about the Pamuk case with the Turkish Government, including in my most recent meeting with Foreign Minister Gul at the United Nations in September. He indicated that he shared our concern, but that the Turkish Government could not interfere in the judicial process. Together with our EU partners, we will continue to monitor the situation closely and will urge the Turkish authorities to take any corrective action which may be necessary.

105. Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in the context of the occasion of last week’s fourth assembly of state parties to the Rome Statute held in the Hague, the Government’s priorities for the development of the International Criminal Court and the nature of the funding and other support provided by Ireland to the court. [39281/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The fourth session of the assembly of states parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court took place in The Hague from 28 November to 3 December 2005. Amongst other things, the assembly adopted regulations on the trust fund for victims and a code of professional conduct for counsel, and decided to proceed with the establishment of a New York liaison office. In addition, the assembly approved the programme budget of the ICC for 2006. The working group on the budget was chaired by Ireland’s ambassador to the Netherlands.

The assembly also welcomed Mexico as the 100th state to become a party to the Rome Statute of the ICC.

Together with our partners in the European Union, Ireland has been a consistent and strong supporter of the ICC, recognising it as an essential means to combating impunity for the most serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. This position has been recognised in the EU common position of 2001, amended in 2002, and comprehensively updated in June 2003.

The 2003 common position commits the Union and its member states to support the effective functioning of the court, and to advance universal support for it by promoting the widest possible participation in the Rome Statute. In this context, Ireland welcomes the fact that over half of the international community of states is now bound by the Rome Statute.

In addition to their efforts to promote ratifications of and accessions to the Rome Statute, the EU and its member states have been generous supporters of initiatives to promote the court in third states and to strengthen the capacity of states to co-operate with the court. In this context, Ireland is providing funds towards a conference, entitled The ICC and the Arab World, which will take place in Jordan in February 2006 and has contributed €15,000 in 2005 to the fund for the participation of least developed countries at the assembly of states parties.

Ireland’s assessed contributions to the ICC have been paid in full. In addition, this year Ireland contributed €100,000 to the trust fund for victims.

The International Criminal Court, while still young, is moving into its operational phase. During 2005 the court has almost completed its first investigation of a situation referred to it pursuant [992]to the Rome Statute in Uganda and has issued its first arrest warrants in this regard. Investigations are at an advanced stage in the Democratic Republic of the Congo situation, and, following a referral from the UN Security Council, an investigation is ongoing in Darfur, Sudan. The court expects the commencement of hearings and trials in 2006.

Ireland remains committed to working with the International Criminal Court in the challenging times ahead.

Question No. 106 answered with Question
No. 50.

Question No. 107 answered with Question
No. 54.

Question No. 108 answered with Question
No. 89.

109. Ms McManus asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the views of former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms Mary Robinson that the ambiguity which has been created by the Government of the United States with respect to the definition of torture, in particular the contention that the same acts carried out on the territory of the United States may be qualified differently when carried out extra-territorially, calls into question the reliability of United States' assurances as to compliance with international law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39265/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): Torture is among the most abhorrent violations of human rights. It undermines the inherent dignity of the person. The prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment admits of no exceptions and may not be derogated from, even in time of war or other emergencies. Torture is therefore unacceptable and unjustifiable under any circumstances.

I am aware of the comments of the former President and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Mary Robinson. I agree with her that the definition of torture should not be dependent on the location of its practice. Torture is, and will always be, unacceptable, no matter where or by whom it is practised.

Ireland accepts the definition of torture as set out in relevant international instruments such as the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I welcome the recent statement by the US Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, that the USA accepts that its obligations under international law apply extra-territorially.

[993]Question No. 110 answered with Question
No. 40.

111. Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his recent meeting in Washington with the US Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39308/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I met with Secretary of State Rice in Washington, D.C., on 1 December 2005. We discussed a number of bilateral and foreign policy issues.

The Secretary of State expressed the strong and continuing support of the United States for the peace process in Northern Ireland. She also conveyed the administration’s position on the undocumented, including the desirability of putting in place early, comprehensive immigration reform legislation. The Secretary of State and I reviewed the issue of extradition between Ireland and the United States.

On renditions, Dr. Rice confirmed the categorical assurances already received that Shannon Airport had not been used for this purpose and would not be so used without the permission of the Irish authorities. I set out the Government’s concerns at wider allegations regarding the possible abuse of human rights during the US Government’s counter-terrorism activities. We also discussed the prospects for progress in the Middle East peace process, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and in regard to UN reform.

112. Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when Ireland will sign and ratify the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in view of the fact that over 100 states are state parties; and the delay in this signature and ratification. [39271/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The United Nations Convention on the Law of Treaties was done at Vienna on 23 May 1969 and entered into force on 27 January 1980.

Ireland does propose to accede to the convention, but further consideration of its terms will be necessary due to their complexity. To this end, a detailed study of the terms of the convention is currently ongoing within my Department, which I hope will conclude shortly. Upon receipt of this study, I propose to put the question of accession before the Government.

I should point out that many provisions of the convention merely codify existing rules of customary international law by which Ireland is already bound in its treaty relations with other states. This explains why accession to the convention, although desirable, has not in the past been considered a matter of priority or urgency. I am satisfied that while it is preferable that Ireland [994]should in due course become party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, our international relations are not adversely affected by the fact that we have yet to accede to it.

Question No. 113 answered with Question
No. 102.

Question No. 114 answered with Question
No. 40.

115. Mr. Noonan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the recommendations of the task force on emigrants which will be prioritised for action in 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39191/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The high priority which the Government attaches to the interests of Irish people living abroad is reflected in the establishment of a dedicated unit in my Department, the Irish abroad unit. During 2006 the unit will continue to be active in encouraging progress on all areas identified in the valuable report of the task force on policy regarding emigrants.

Funding for emigrant services has never been higher. In 2005 my Department’s funding for supporting and developing services which benefit our community abroad reached the unprecedented amount of €8.273 million. I am delighted to have secured €12 million in funding for emigrant services for 2006, an increase of 45% on 2005. The substantially increased allocation is a clear expression of the strength of the Government’s continuing commitment to our communities abroad.

An important priority in the year ahead is to ensure the effective allocation of this increased funding. In doing so, we will continue to work closely with the excellent network of Irish community care agencies engaged in the provision of critical assistance to Irish people abroad, in particular to the more vulnerable members of our community. These agencies are active across the range of areas that the task force report identified as meriting additional support.

The needs of the Irish community in Britain, in particular older people and those at risk of social exclusion, remain a key priority. In 2005 increased funding has allowed us to respond positively to requests from organisations in Britain and to widen the eligibility criteria for support. While the primary emphasis of funding continues to be to support front-line welfare services, I am pleased that additional funding has made it possible to support a number of capital projects, as well as some projects of a social or cultural nature which help to foster a greater sense of community.

This year I have been happy to approve increased financial support to the Federation of Irish Societies in Britain and, for the first time, to [995]the Coalition of Irish Immigration Centres in the US. This is allowing them to develop the assistance that they give to their affiliates at the front line of community care so as to enhance service delivery, learn from best practices elsewhere, leverage other sources of funding and in this way maximise the impact of resources. I am confident that the activities of these organisations will continue to reap great benefits in 2006.

Another area to which I have attached particular priority this year, and which will remain a priority area in 2006, is the welfare of our undocumented community in the US. The legislative debate in the US is entering a critical phase. In the light of the high priority which the Government attaches to this issue, and supported by the valuable all-party resolutions passed recently in both Houses of the Oireachtas and by the very recent establishment in New York of the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform, we will continue to actively lobby for effective immigration reform legislation in the US Congress. In this regard, all sides of the House believe that the bill jointly sponsored by Senators Kennedy and McCain would provide an effective and balanced resolution of the difficulties of the undocumented.

Question No. 116 answered with Question
No. 57.

Question No. 117 answered with Question
No. 49.

Question No. 118 answered with Question
No. 43.

119. Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in view of the sacrifice made by emigrants who, through their well documented remittances, kept Ireland afloat in times of severe economic hardship and who in their twilight years need help and support from Irish welfare and advice agencies abroad, the breakdown of the task force recommendations that have been implemented and those which have yet to be implemented; when same will be implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39253/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The report of the task force on policy regarding emigrants provides us with a valuable framework for action. Its recommendations were far reaching and varied and, in view of their nature, the implementation of some of these will be, by necessity, on a phased basis over a number of years. Considerable progress has already been made, with action underway on over two thirds of the report’s recommendations. A great many of the recommendations in the report relate to issues of continuing importance which will require ongoing action from all partners, in Government and the voluntary sector, in Ireland and abroad.

[996]The high priority which the Government attaches to this area of national policy is reflected in the establishment of a dedicated unit in my Department, the Irish abroad unit, to work exclusively on the issues that impact on our community abroad. Officials of the unit are active in encouraging progress on all areas identified by the task force report. In doing so, they maintain close contact with agencies in the statutory and voluntary sectors engaged in emigrant services.

As the Deputy will be aware, funding for emigrant services has never been higher. I am delighted to have secured €12 million in funding for emigrant services for 2006. This significant amount represents an increase on 2005 of 45% and is 12 times greater than the 1997 allocation. It reflects, in the clearest possible way, the strength of the Government’s continuing commitment to our communities abroad.

Particular priority will continue to be to support our most vulnerable and marginalised communities abroad, such as our older community in Britain and undocumented Irish people in the United States. The Irish abroad unit and our network of embassies and consulates will work intensively with the front-line community care agencies to ensure that increased funding leads to enhanced services of benefit to our community abroad.

Question No. 120 answered with Question
No. 50.

121. Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the recent contacts which have been made with the US Administration regarding its request for the extradition of a person (details supplied); if same has been raised with Dr. Condoleezza Rice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39314/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The question of an extradition request for this individual has not been the subject of contacts with the US Administration, nor was it discussed with Secretary of State Rice. However, when the person concerned was previously arrested in Northern Ireland in connection with an extradition request from the US, the US authorities were aware of the interest of the Government in the case.

As in all such cases, if an extradition request were to be received from the US or other authorities, it would of course be considered by the appropriate legal authorities in this jurisdiction.

Question No. 122 answered with Question
No. 54.

123. Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when Ireland intends to make a dec[997]laration recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under Article 36, paragraph 2 of that instrument. [39272/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): Ireland became a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice upon joining the United Nations in 1955, an act fully consistent with Ireland’s commitment, under Article 29.2 of the Constitution, to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. In view of the possible implications of doing so at the time, Ireland did not then make a declaration under Article 36(2) of the statute accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the court.

In 1998, the Good Friday Agreement outlined an agreed position, based on the principles of self-determination and consent, on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The Agreement was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Ireland, North and South, in referendums on 22 May 1998. Since an international agreement, the British-Irish Agreement, now gives effect to the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, including on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, the Government is favourably disposed to accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The full implications of making such a declaration, and the question of what, if any, conditions or reservations should attach to it, are nevertheless complex matters which require careful study. Consideration of the modalities and implications of making such a declaration is currently under way within my Department.

It should be borne in mind that, pending the making of such a declaration, the court may nevertheless exercise jurisdiction in disputes where there is a specific agreement between the parties that the court should do so or where specific treaties so provide. It should also be borne in mind that other forms of dispute settlement may be more suitable in certain cases.

Question No. 124 answered with Question
No. 44.

125. Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government’s views on whether the millennium development goals will be achieved within the timescale envisaged; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39171/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): Ireland attaches the highest importance to the millennium development goals, MDGs, which were adopted by the United Nations in 2000. We have incorporated them as the overarching framework of our development co-operation programme. The goals, which include halving the proportion of people in extreme poverty and reducing child mortality by two thirds by the year [998]2015, correspond to our focus on reducing poverty and supporting the provision of basic services to the poorest people.

Deputies will be aware that the United Nations summit meeting in September conducted the first major review of progress towards the implementation of the millennium development goals. The summit unanimously acknowledged the MDGs as the international framework for development, together with the Monterrey consensus and the Johannesburg plan of implementation. The summit’s recognition of the need to accelerate progress towards the MDGs and to make progress on aid effectiveness and on debt relief was encouraging. I was particularly pleased by the acknowledgement of the special needs of Africa, which has long been the main focus of Ireland’s development co-operation programme.

Ireland played its part in the lead-up to the September meeting, including through my own role as one of the Secretary-General’s personal envoys. We worked to build the necessary support among countries in our own region and to restore momentum both towards the achievement of the MDGs and towards strengthening the United Nations system.

Deputies will recall that during the meeting the Taoiseach announced that Ireland has pledged to raise our official development assistance so as to reach the target of 0.7% of GNP by 2012, three years earlier than the agreed EU deadline of 2015. The timetable we have set ourselves places Ireland in the forefront of donors worldwide.

If the other major donors make equivalent commitments and the developing countries themselves play their part, the millennium development goals are indeed achievable within the timescale envisaged. Ireland will continue to play its part in this regard.

126. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the extent to which he, through the EU and UN, together with the international community are combating war and starvation on the continent of Africa; the country or countries to which it has not been possible to provide sufficient support to combat the problem; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39210/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): Ireland’s development co-operation programme has Africa at its core. Along with our partners in the international community, we are working to prevent or manage conflict wherever it occurs. As well as directly assisting many of the poorest countries in Africa, Ireland is a strong advocate for the developing world and for international peace and security through our membership of the EU and the UN.

Ireland provides assistance to vulnerable populations suffering the consequences of conflict, recognising that conflict is closely linked to poverty. We work with key partners such as UN [999]agencies and non-governmental organisations, NGOs, to effectively deliver humanitarian assistance to those most in need.

In 2005 alone, Ireland has provided emergency and recovery support to eighteen countries in Africa. This is in addition to core funding which Ireland provides to international agencies, including the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, the World Food Programme, WFP, the UN Children’s Fund, UNICEF, the UN Development Programme, UNDP, and the Red Cross family on an annual basis, for their efforts to assist vulnerable populations suffering the effects of conflict and food insecurity across the entire continent of Africa.

The EU is the world’s largest contributor of development co-operation. At the emergency humanitarian level, the EU strives to meet the needs of the most vulnerable and food insecure populations of Africa. In 2004, the European Commission’s Humanitarian Office, ECHO, provided humanitarian assistance of some €297 million to Africa. The EU’s long-term development programmes are aimed at rebuilding the social and economic infrastructure of Africa. Ireland supports this work and also the EU’s efforts in preventing and resolving conflicts on the African continent. We have supported the EU peace facility for Africa and have also assisted the African Union mission in Sudan, AMIS, as part of the EU’s joint actions to foster peace and security in Darfur, Sudan.

I am deeply conscious of the enormity of the challenges facing African nations as they strive to build the foundations of economic and social development, often in a climate of hunger and warfare. Conflict and the resultant human suffering present complex challenges for the international community. The underlying structural problems affecting poverty and stability must be addressed if we are to break the cyclical nature of food insecurity, disease and conflict in Africa. This is pursued through longer-term development assistance.

Ireland has strong development partnerships with six countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Through these partnerships, Ireland fully engages with the Governments, donors, EU and UN agencies on the basis of poverty reduction strategy plans, PRSPs. The PRSPs outline how each country prioritises resources and policies with the objective of reducing poverty. These programmes contain a strong governance element throughout to assist in the building of democratic structures, the rule of law and a culture of respect for human rights.

We face considerable challenges in working in Africa. However, I believe our approach stands the best chance of success in enabling a better future for all of the peoples of Africa.

Question No. 127 answered with Question
No. 64.

[1000]Question No. 128 answered with Question
No. 63.

129. Mr. G. Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government programmes which will operate in 2006 aimed at lowering the incidence of HIV and AIDS in the developing world; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39174/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): HIV/AIDS is the single biggest obstacle to reducing poverty and to attaining the millennium development goals, MDGs. Recent statistics published by UNAIDS indicate that despite decreases in the rate of HIV infection in certain countries, the overall number of people living with HIV has continued to increase. There were an additional 5 million new infections in 2005, mostly among women, bringing the number of people living with HIV globally to its highest level at over 40 million people. More than 3 million people died of AIDS-related illnesses in 2005 including more than 500,000 children. Sub-Saharan Africa continues to be the region most affected globally with 64% of new infections occurring there.

The Government remains committed to combating the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. It is a key priority of our overseas development programme and will remain so in 2006. The Taoiseach announced a doubling of funding to HIV/AIDS and other global communicable diseases at the millennium review summit in September. This will bring annual expenditure on HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases to €100 million.

In 2006 we will intensify funding to a number of the global initiatives currently supported, including the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Since its establishment in 2001, the global fund has led to an increase in the overall resources available to fight these diseases and is beginning to have an impact at country level on disease control.

Increased support will also be provided to UNAIDS. We will continue to contribute to the strategic priorities of the organisation and to monitor the implementation of its programmes. In particular, Ireland has a strategic interest in an expanded UN response at country level in Africa. We will continue to encourage a more co-ordinated response on the part of UNAIDS and its co-sponsors.

Ireland funds a number of organisations focusing on the delivery of HIV treatment and care, including the Clinton Foundation. We will intensify our engagement with the Clinton Foundation in 2006, primarily focusing on increasing HIV treatment access in Mozambique and will investigate how to strengthen our partnership in support of other countries in Africa most affected by HIV/AIDS.

HIV prevention will continue to be a core policy objective, and our support to global initiat[1001]ives focused on the development of HIV preventive technologies — vaccines and microbicides — will continue.

The coming year will see the scaling up of our support through the regional HIV/AIDS programme in southern and eastern Africa and through our programme countries. Increasing resources will be available for HIV prevention and care interventions in some of the worst-affected countries in the region. Strategic interventions concentrated on strengthening leadership, co-ordination and effective use of resources will also be funded both through national systems and NGOs.

Throughout the programmes funded and supported by Ireland, priority will be given to the needs of children made vulnerable by HIV and AIDS and to tackling the gender inequalities that compound women’s vulnerability to the disease.

Throughout 2006, Ireland will continue to work with the international community in advocating a sustained and resourced global response to HIV/AIDS that not only increases access to HIV prevention, treatment and care, but also addresses the longer-term structural causes contributing to the spread of the disease.

Question No. 130 answered with Question
No. 51.

Question No. 131 answered with Question
No. 92.

Question No. 132 answered with Question
No. 31.

133. Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the level of development aid spending for 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39199/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): In line with the Government’s commitment to increasing official development assistance, ODA, an allocation of €600 million has been provided in the Estimates for 2006 to my Department’s Vote for international co-operation, Vote 29. This represents an increase of €129 million,
27%, on the 2005 level. Taken together with the contributions of other Departments, total ODA is expected to reach a record €675 million in 2006 which, based on current anticipated growth rates, will bring the aid budget next year to 0.47% of GNP.

The following four key areas, as announced by the Taoiseach in his speech to the UN summit in September, will provide the basis for the immediate expansion of the programme. We will: double our funding for efforts to combat HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases to €100 million; provide extra resources to combat famine and hunger and improve our capacity to respond to disasters; provide support for an increasing role for the private sector in development efforts; and [1002]increase our support for efforts to strengthen governance and to combat corruption.

134. Mr. Wall asked the Taoiseach the agencies or bodies his Department provides funding to or is administratively responsible for, and those agencies and bodies that his Department is responsible for in respect of Government policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter [39411/05]

The Taoiseach: There are no agencies or bodies under the aegis of my Department for which I do not answer questions in some respect. However, there are a number of agencies/bodies in respect of which it would be inappropriate to respond to questions about their operational affairs and these are: the Moriarty tribunal; the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution; the Independent Commission of Investigation; the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk Bombings; the National Statistics Board; the National Economic and Social Development Office; the National Economic and Social Council; the National Centre for Partnership and Performance; the National Economic and Social Forum; the National Forum on Europe; the Ireland Newfoundland Partnership; and the task force on active citizenship.

135. Mr. Wall asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if her Department will provide funding to a project (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39406/05]

146. Mr. Wall asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if funding is available to a project (details supplied) from the Health Service Executive to ensure the project can be provided; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39404/05]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): I propose to take Questions Nos. 135 and 146 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 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.

136. Mr. Penrose asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if payment of outstanding moneys due to persons affected by the [1003]nursing homes subvention will be made during 2006 and, in particular, to psychiatric patients in low and medium high support hostels. [39331/05]

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.

All fully eligible persons who were wrongly charged and are alive and the estates of all those who were wrongly charged and died since 9 December 1998 will have the charges repaid in full. The scheme will not allow for repayments to the estates of those who died prior to that date. The repayments will include both the actual charge paid and an amount to take account of inflation, using the consumer price index, since the time the person involved was charged.

Draft heads of a Bill for a repayment scheme have been prepared and will shortly be submitted to Cabinet for approval. The legislation will be brought before the Oireachtas in the next parliamentary session to provide a clear legal framework for the scheme. It is the intention to have the repayments commencing shortly after the Bill is approved and signed into law. In the case of those who were charged and are still alive, the repayments will be exempt from tax and will not be taken into account in assessing means for health and social welfare benefits. The normal tax and means assessment arrangements will apply to those who benefit from repayments to estates.

The legislation will include appropriate safeguards to prevent exploitation of those who receive repayments and are not in a position to manage their own financial affairs. The scheme will include a provision to allow those eligible for a repayment to waive their right to a repayment and have the money assigned to fund one-off service improvements in elderly, mental health and disability services.

A national oversight committee representative of service users, including Age Action Ireland and the Irish Senior Citizens’ Parliament, has been appointed and has already begun its work. It will provide an independent input into the design of the scheme and monitor the operation of the scheme in order to ensure that it is being implemented quickly and in the most equitable and effective way possible.

The scheme will be designed and managed with the aim of ensuring that those who are eligible for repayments receive them as soon as possible and with the minimum possible imposition in terms of bureaucracy. Priority will be given to those who are still alive. Many of those eligible for repayments have already been identified under the ex gratia payments process. The scheme will include a transparent and thorough appeals process.

An outside company with experience in handling mass claims will be engaged by the Health [1004]Service Executive, HSE, to design and manage the scheme within the parameters of the key principles approved by Government. The company selected will work closely with the HSE to ensure that the necessary co-operation is forthcoming on records held by the health agencies. The HSE has received expressions of interest from a number of companies and these have been short listed. A negotiated tendering procedure was chosen as the best way forward with these companies and the HSE has informed the Department that the process of selection is at an advanced stage. It is anticipated that the successful company will provide an independent input into the design and administration of the scheme.

The national helpline set up by the HSE to allow people to register if they believe they are due a repayment will continue to operate but there is no need for anyone who has already registered using this facility to make contact with the HSE again to register for the scheme.

137. Mr. Perry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her views on the need for increased home help hours for a person (details supplied) in County Sligo; if she will intervene with the Health Service Executive north-west region and have same authorised; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39332/05]

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.

138. Mr. Ferris asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if she has received correspondence from a person (details supplied) in County Kerry; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39383/05]

Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The correspondence referred to by the Deputy was received in my private office on 9 November 2005. The Deputy will wish to note that this correspondence was subsequently acknowledged and referred to the parliamentary affairs division of the Health Service Executive for investigation and direct reply to the individual concerned.

139. Ms Enright asked the Tánaiste and Mini[1005]ster for Health and Children the reason a payment has been withdrawn from a foster parent in respect of a child (details supplied) in County Laois, even though the child remains in their charge; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39384/05]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. B. Lenihan): 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.

140. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if her attention has been drawn to the recommendations of the committee of management of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, Dublin 12, adopted at their meeting of 30 November 2005; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39389/05]

141. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her views on whether a greenfield site is a more acceptable option for the redevelopment of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, as recommended in the report adopted by the hospital committee of management on 30 November 2005. [39390/05]

142. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her views on whether a proposed new hospital on a greenfield site could be delivered in a timely fashion, three years from design to commissioning as recommended in the report adopted by the committee of management of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, at their meeting on 30 November 2005; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39391/05]

143. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her views on whether it would be appropriate for the proposed new hospital, Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, to be held in public ownership by the Archbishop and committee of management of the hospital, as recommended in the report adopted by the hospital committee of management on 30 November 2005; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39392/05]

144. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her views on whether it would be appropriate that the development partner for the redevelopment of [1006]Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, would not have to consult with hospital users, as is suggested by the committee of management in its agreed policy of 30 November 2005; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39393/05]

145. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her views on whether a hospital of 300 beds, as is being planned for with the redevelopment of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, is sufficient to cover the demand for beds and other capacity requirements of a modern paediatric hospital; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39394/05]

150. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if her attention has been drawn to the committee of management of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, Dublin 12, and its deliberations, in particular regarding hospital development; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39462/05]

151. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the communications she or her officials have had with the management of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, with the hospital’s committee of management, and with the Health Service Executive regarding the redevelopment of the hospital on a greenfield site as recommended by the committee of management. [39463/05]

152. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the commitments she or her officials have made with the management of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, the hospital’s committee of management and the Health Service Executive regarding the redevelopment of the hospital on a greenfield site as recommended by the committee of management. [39464/05]

153. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if approval has been given to proceed to develop a new hospital for Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, on a greenfield site; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39465/05]

154. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the meetings she or her officials attended at which the redevelopment of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, on a greenfield site was discussed; when same were held and the other persons who were present. [39466/05]

155. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if she has received a briefing document from the acting chief executive of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick [1007]Children, Crumlin; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39467/05]

156. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if the minutes of the committee of management of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, relating to plans to redevelop the hospital will be made public, in particular the meetings of 26 October 2005, 9 November 2005 and 30 November 2005, and subsequent meetings where this issue was discussed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39468/05]

157. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her views on whether it is appropriate that the committee of management of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, is planning that the construction of a new hospital for Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, will be largely dependent on significant public fundraising and donations from its overall fundraising package, rather than by Exchequer funding; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39469/05]

Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): I propose to take Questions Nos. 140 to 145, inclusive, and Nos. 150 to 157, inclusive, together.

The project team established to plan for the overall future development of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, has undertaken a detailed examination of the potential to redevelop the hospital on its present site. It concluded that the existing clinical services could be retained and developed on the present site, but also set out the implications of such an approach in terms of time, cost and disruption to services. As a consequence, it is my view that it is likely that the new hospital will be located at an alternative site.

I met with members of the hospital’s committee of management last September and they articulated the concerns of the hospital’s staff on the disruption to services that would be caused by redevelopment on-site.

I have asked the Health Service Executive to arrange for a review to be undertaken of highly specialised paediatric services to ensure that they are provided in the most efficient and effective manner. The outcome of this review will help to inform the decision on the range of services to be provided at the new Crumlin hospital. I expect this review to be completed as a matter of urgency.

It is proposed, when the review has been completed, that a site option appraisal study will be carried out, the focus of which will be to evaluate the options for the relocation of the hospital, leading to the acquisition of an alternative site if such is recommended by the process. This study will be subject to public tendering procedures.

[1008]I am aware that there is significant private sector interest in the redevelopment of the hospital and I have met with a number of the interested parties.

Question No. 146 answered with Question
No. 135.

147. Mr. Wall asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the agencies or bodies her Department provides funding to or is administratively responsible for, and those agencies and bodies that her Department is responsible for in respect of Government policy; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39412/05]

Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The information requested by the Deputy is being compiled by my Department and will be forwarded to him as soon as possible.

148. Ms C. Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if there are intentions or plans to increase staffing levels from 2006 onward where speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and psychological services are concerned in order to address the high demand for this service in County Kildare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39432/05]

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.

149. Mr. Morgan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the number of persons who are awaiting payments under the national repayment scheme throughout the State; the number in County Louth in particular; and the number in the Health Service Executive north-eastern area; when the necessary legislation will be in place to facilitate payments; and when she expects these payments to be made. [39433/05]

Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): Draft heads of a Bill for a national repayment scheme for long stay charges for publicly funded residential care have been prepared and will shortly be submitted to Cabinet for approval. It is my intention to have legislation brought before the Oireachtas in the next [1009]parliamentary session and to have repayments commencing shortly after the Bill is approved and signed into law.

It is estimated that approximately 20,000 people who are still alive and a further 40,000 estates will benefit under the scheme but exact figures will only become available when the repayment process has been completed. In light of difficulties emerging in respect of records and the existence of individual’s addresses, and given the movement of some patients within areas of the Health Service Executive, it may not be possible, therefore, to provide accurate figures on a specific area such as a county by county basis until the repayment process has been completed.

Questions Nos. 150 to 157, inclusive, answered with Question No. 140.

158. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the immediate and short-term funding needs of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin. [39470/05]

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.

159. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if her attention has been drawn to the fact that Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin has made the case to the Health Service Executive that to fund the hospital on the basis of 2004, capacity rather than the significantly increased activity of 2005, is wholly inadequate, and that such funding does not take into account additional capacity in cardiology, theatre and ICU, which the Health Service Executive stated should not be curtailed and for which the Health Service Executive has allocated resources; her views on the matter; and the steps she will take to address the shortfall. [39471/05]

160. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the proposed developments at Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, which have been approved in the past 12 months and which projects are pending; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39472/05]

162. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when approval of funding will be given for the fifth floor in the medical tower at Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin and a decision made regarding cardiac services; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39474/05]

Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): I propose to take Questions Nos. 160 and 162 together.

Pending final decisions with regard to the future location of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, three clinical departments have been identified as requiring urgent upgrade or expansion. The three departments are haematology-oncology, radiology — including MRI — and cardiology.

The haematology-oncology project consists of the provision of new accommodation for day and outpatient services. The radiology project will provide new MRI facilities in Crumlin. The cardiology project will provide dedicated inpatient cardiac beds, together with diagnostic, outpatient and administration facilities. My Department has requested the parliamentary affairs division of the Health Service Executive to arrange to have a reply issued directly to the Deputy in respect of the specific questions raised.

161. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the new developments that have taken place in the past ten years at Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin; the cost of same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39473/05]

Question No. 162 answered with Question
No. 160.

163. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if her atten[1011]tion has been drawn to the fact that there is a serious shortfall of funding from the Health Service Executive in respect of haematology in Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin; the steps she will take to address the shortfall. [39475/05]

164. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if her attention has been drawn to the fact that the growth in the haemoglobinopathy service in Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, has not been funded by the Health Service Executive or her Department; and the steps she will take to address the shortfall. [39476/05]

165. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if her attention has been drawn to the fact that the funding for the development of the transitional care unit in Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, is significantly short of requirements; and the steps she will take to address the shortfall. [39477/05]

166. Mr. McGuinness asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the reason a long stay patient (details supplied) at St. Canice’s Hospital, Kilkenny does not have a medical card; if same will be renewed; if the €300 paid by the [1012]person for glasses will be refunded; and if the matter will be investigated and a response issued. [39510/05]

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.

167. Mr. McGuinness asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the way in which the assessment was made in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny; if it is reasonable to ask a patient on €153.30 a week to contribute €119.30 for their keep; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39514/05]

Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): The charging for long stay care under the Health (Amendment) Act 2005 is being implemented by way of the Health (Charges for In-Patient Services) Regulations 2005. These regulations were signed on 14 June 2005 and reinstated charges for in-patient services and provided for the levying of a charge in respect of the maintenance of persons in receipt of inpatient services. The regulations were prepared following extensive consultation with the HSE and others.

Section 53 of the Health Act 1970 — as amended by the Health (Amendment) Act 2005 — provides inter alia for the levying of a charge where inpatient services have been provided for a period of not less than 30 days or for periods aggregating not less than 30 days within the previous 12 months. In this regard, charging of patients in long-term care commenced on 14 July 2005, which was after the expiration of 30 days after the regulations were signed.

The regulations, in keeping with section 53 of the Health Act 1970 as amended have provided for two different classes of persons on whom charges can be levied. Class 1 refers to people in receipt of inpatient services on premises where nursing care is provided on a 24 hour basis on those premises. In this case, a weekly charge can be levied of €120 or the weekly income of that person less €35, whichever is the lesser. Class 2 refers to people in receipt of inpatient services on premises where nursing care is not provided on a 24 hour basis on those premises. In this situation, a weekly charge can be levied of €90 or the weekly income of that person less €55 or 60% of the weekly income of that person, whichever is the lesser.

These regulations provide for the maximum charge to be levied on either class of person. The HSE has the power to reduce or waive a charge on the grounds of “undue hardship”. Under [1013]section 1 (b) of the Health (Amendment) Act 2005, the HSE can examine a person’s overall financial situation in view of the person’s reasonable expenditure in respect of themselves or their dependants, if any. The management and delivery of health and personal social services are the responsibility of the HSE under the Health Act 2004. It is a matter for the HSE, based on its own legal advice and taking into account the individual circumstances as well as the service being provided, to make a decision on any charges levied.

The Deputy’s question relates to a specific case that involves the management and delivery of health and personal social services and 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 a reply issued directly to the Deputy in respect of this case.

168. Ms C. Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if, in view of reports from the chairperson of the Irish Association of Suicidology that children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or Asperger’s syndrome are at a higher risk of suicide, she will increase the funding made available to the Health Service Executive to increase educational support services for children and teenagers in these categories in order to ensure that every opportunity and assistance is given to developing the social and communication skills of children and adolescents diagnosed with these conditions; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39557/05]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O’Malley): The multiannual investment programme, published last December by the Government, contains details of specific commitments in relation to the provision of certain high priority disability services, including mental health services, over the period 2006 to 2009. This programme, together with the enhancement of other support services, are key factors in building the additional capacity required to put in place the new framework provided for in the Disability Act 2005 and the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004.

Under the multiannual investment programme 2006 additional funding of €59 million is being made available to support and further enhance the service developments put in place as a result of the increase in the level of funding provided in 2005. A further €41 million is also being provided in 2006 to the disability and mental health services to enhance multidisciplinary support services for people with disabilities with a particular focus on enhancing services for children.

As the Deputy may be aware, the Tánaiste launched “Reach Out — National Strategy for Action on Suicide Prevention 2005-2014” in [1014]September of this year. To oversee the implementation of Reach Out, a new national office for suicide prevention, NOSP, has been established by the HSE. An additional €1.2 million has been allocated to NOSP to support the implementation of the strategy in 2006.

169. Mr. Wall asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the average cost of nursing homes in County Kildare; the average cost of nursing homes on a national scale; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39626/05]

170. Mr. Wall asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the average waiting list at Naas hospital for each of the past five years; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39627/05]

171. Mr. Timmins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children when she will publish the report on sudden cardiac death; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39645/05]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): In September 2004 a national task force on sudden cardiac death was established to address the problem of sudden cardiac death in Ireland. The task force, chaired by Dr. Brian Maurer, will make recommendations on the prevention of sudden cardiac death and on the detection of those at high risk. The task force will also advise on equipment and training programmes to improve the outcome in those suffering from sudden cardiac collapse and on the establishment of appropriate surveillance systems. I understand a report is almost ready for publication and it is my intention to have it published early in 2006.

172. Mr. Walsh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children her plans to approve a grant for a day care centre (details supplied) in County Cork to allow much needed refurbishment work commence. [39648/05]

Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children (Ms Harney): My Department received an application for a grant from the health and children allocation of national lottery funds from the organisation referred to in April 2005. There is a protocol in my Department for processing applications for national lottery grants. When the completed application form is received in my Department it is registered in the finance unit and forwarded to the relevant service division for their assessment, evaluation and recommendation. All applications are then considered in the context of the recommendation and the overall level of funds available to me. The application is one of many under consideration for a grant from my Department and the organisation will be informed as soon as a decision has been made.

173. Mr. Penrose asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the steps she will take to have a person (details supplied) in County Westmeath admitted to St. James’s Hospital; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39685/05]

174. Mr. Haughey asked the Minister for Finance the way in which information in respect of the rates of pay of everyone in public service can be obtained; if he will make these details available to this Deputy separately; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39380/05]

Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): Information on the main Civil Service rates of pay is contained in Department of Finance Circular 34/2005, which is published on the Department’s website www.finance.gov.ie under “Civil-Public Service Information — Circulars”. Details of other individual grades are available on request. Information on the rates of pay of staff of specific non-commercial State-sponsored bodies or North-South bodies may be obtained from the individual bodies.

[1016]Rates of pay for employees of the Health Service Executive are available from the Department of Health and Children or the Health Service Executive. Rates of pay for employees of local authorities are available from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Rates of pay for members of the Garda Síochána are available from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Rates of pay for members of the Defence Forces pay may be obtained from the Department of Defence website at www.defence.ie.

Pay rate information regarding the staff of the Commission of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Oireachtas Members is available from the Houses of the Oireachtas database, which is accessible to the staff and Members. Rates of pay for employees in schools, institutes of technology and vocational education committees may be obtained from the Department of Education and Science. The main rates of pay are on the Department’s internet site —www.education.ie— under the section “Education Personnel”. Salary scales for universities are maintained by the universities themselves and information on the salary scales is best obtained from each university. Some universities post details on their websites. Information on the rates of pay of the judiciary may be obtained from the courts policy division of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

175. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Finance the agencies or bodies his Department provides funding to or is administratively responsible for, and those agencies and bodies that his Department is responsible for in respect of Government policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter [39413/05]

Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): Apart from questions relating to grants and grant-in-aid payments, I have no responsibility for answering parliamentary questions in respect of the Institute for Public Administration and the Economic and Social Research Institute, both of which receive funds from my Department’s Vote. There are a number of bodies, such as the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland, the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority, the National Treasury Management Agency, the National Pensions Reserve Fund and so forth for which I have responsibility to Dáil Éireann in respect of the legislation governing these bodies and in respect of appointments to the relevant boards but I do not have responsibility for replying to parliamentary questions in respect of the day to day operation of these bodies.

176. Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Finance if the mobile telephone transmitters located (details supplied) in Dublin 6 have been switched [1017]off pending the report from the interdepartmental committee on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation; the contractual changes necessary with the telecommunications companies operating these transmitters in order to shut them down; if monetary or other compensation has been offered or given to those telecommunications companies; when he expects to receive the report of the interdepartmental committee on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39428/05]

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Parlon): The telecommunications equipment installed on the State owned building referred to is still operational. The two mobile phone operators who have equipment installed on Ardee House have informed the Commissioners of Public Works that they do not intend to comply with the request to deactivate their equipment. The commissioners have requested the companies to reconsider their decision and will not grant any further licences in respect of State buildings to them pending the report of the interdepartmental committee on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation.

Provided the companies are in compliance with the terms and conditions of their licence agreement, there is no contractual basis for the Commissioners of Public Works to insist that the equipment is deactivated. The question of paying compensation in any form to the companies has not arisen. The interdepartmental committee on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation is being established by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The publication of the committee’s report is a matter for that Department.

177. Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Finance the tax relief or other incentives available for widows and widowers aged under 66 on the non-contributory pension who wish to return to work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39489/05]

Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that there are no specific tax reliefs directed at widows or widowers under the age of 66 years on a non-contributory pension returning to work. [1018]However, the following tax credits and bands are available to widowed persons.

The values in brackets are those which will apply for 2006 and subsequent years. In the year of bereavement a widowed person may receive a personal tax credit of €3,160-€3,260, which is equivalent in value to the married person’s tax credit. For widowed persons with no dependent children, a tax credit of €400-€500, which is additional to the basic personal tax credit, is available after the year of bereavement. Such widowed persons would therefore receive aggregate tax credits of €1,980-€2,130 — comprising €400-€500 — plus the personal tax credit of €1,580-€1,630. The employee PAYE tax credit of €1,270-€1,490 may also apply as appropriate.

The non-contributory widows or widowers pension is paid by the Department of Social and Family Affairs and, in common with most other social welfare payments, is taxable. As such, circumstances could arise where the above tax credits would be reduced to cover the tax due on the pension and the net tax credits would then be available against the employment or other income of the individual. Following the year of bereavement, a widowed parent with a qualifying child or children may qualify for the one parent family tax credit of €1,580-€1,630, in addition to the personal tax credit of €1,580-€1,630.

A further tax credit, the widowed parent tax credit, is available on a sliding scale for the first five tax years following the year of bereavement as follows:

	2005	2006
	€	€
Year 1	2,800	3,100
Year 2	2,300	2,600
Year 3	1,800	2,100
Year 4	1,300	1,600
Year 5	800	1,100

Therefore, in the first year following bereavement a widowed parent is entitled to aggregate tax credits of €5,960-€6,360 — comprising a single personal credit of €1,580- €1,630 — a one parent family credit of €1,580-€1,630 and a widowed parent credit of €2,800-€3,100. The employee PAYE tax credit of €1,270-€1,490 may also apply as appropriate.

The tax rate bands applicable to widowed persons are:

	2005	2006
Widowed (without dependent children)	€29,400 @ 20%	€32,000 @ 20%
	Balance @ 42%	Balance @ 42%
Widowed (qualifying for one parent family tax credit)	€33,400 @ 20%	€36,000 @ 20%
	Balance @ 42%	Balance @ 42%

178. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Finance if representation has been made by the committee of management of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, Dublin 12 to amend the Finance Act 2005 to allow for the utilisation of capital allowances for the development of a public hospital; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39501/05]

Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): Neither I nor the relevant officials in my Department are aware of any such representations.

179. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Finance if an application has been made for charitable trust status by the committee of management of Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, Dublin 12; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39502/05]

Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin — formerly known as Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin — holds charitable tax exemption under charity reference number CHY 16735. A full list of bodies which hold charitable tax exemption is available on the Revenue website at www.revenue.ie under publications-lists of bodies and organisations.

180. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide the Estimate for the secret service for each of the past ten years; the amount expended annually; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39503/05]

Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): The allocation for secret service — Vote 12 — for the years in question is set out in a table. It is not the practice to divulge information or explanations relating to expenditure on this Vote.

Year	Allocation €000’s	Outturn €000’s
1996	660	386
1997	952	499
1998	946	396
1999	933	362
2000	933	385
2001	933	390
2002	900	362
2003	831	392
2004	767	350
2005	786	N.A.

181. Mr. McGuinness asked the Minister for Finance if the repairs to the houses at Johns Quay, Kilkenny, arising from the River Nore flood relief scheme have been agreed with the residents; the timeframe for the completion of the work; if the residents were contacted in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39513/05]

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Parlon): Contact has been made with the residents of Johns Quay in respect of the repairs to their houses. Each case is being dealt with on an individual basis and it is anticipated that agreement by mutual consent will be reached in the new year on the scope of the works required and the method of implementing the works.

182. Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Finance if a person who retired from farming and participated in the farm retirement scheme will gain the special exemptions attached to the capital gains tax computation (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39684/05]

Minister for Finance (Mr. Cowen): I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that it is not possible on the basis of the information supplied by the Deputy to confirm whether the taxpayer in question will be entitled to relief — known as retirement relief — from capital gains tax on the disposal of his entire landholding.

Land leased in compliance with the terms of the EU schemes of early retirement from farming is a “qualifying asset” for retirement relief purposes provided it was owned and used for farming purposes by the individual claiming relief throughout the period of ten years prior to it being leased. On a disposal of the land, full relief is available where the individual is 55 years or more and the consideration, inclusive of any earlier disposals of “qualifying assets”, does not exceed €500,000. Otherwise marginal relief may apply. Where the disposal is to a child or favoured nephew or niece of the individual the €500,000 threshold does not apply.

Retirement relief in the circumstances outlined above is conditional on an individual transferring an interest in his or her lands for the purposes of complying with the terms of the relevant scheme. Providing those terms were complied with, the non-receipt of a pension by the individual in question would not prevent him or her from availing of this relief. The taxpayer in question should contact the Revenue Commissioners if he would like further details on the availability of this relief.

183. Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if his Department approved a borrowing of €371,959.94 by a company (details supplied) for the purchase of a dredger; if he is satisfied that requirements under the code of practice for State bodies were met, including sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.4; when consent issued in this case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39427/05]

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher): Under the National Development Plan 2000-06, Dundalk Port Company was approved for grant aid at a rate of 40% up to a maximum of €1.2 million for the development of the port’s infrastructure. A letter of offer issued to the company on 23 July 2003. The company received estimates of €4.5 million to €7 million for the dredging element of the project. The company could not finance such expenditure and instead made the commercial decision to purchase a dredger to carry out the dredging work itself. The company proceeded to borrow the necessary funding for this purchase.

Section 23(1)(b) the Harbours Act 1996 gives the company the power to borrow funds only with my consent and that of the Minister for Finance. On 17 October 2003 the company requested such consent for borrowing of €400,000 but the company had already drawn a bridging loan of €371,959.94 on 1 October 2003 without the necessary consent. The company was requested a number of times to provide supplementary information in order to assess whether retrospective consent from the Minister for Finance and myself could be granted. However, sufficient information to allow me make that assessment was not forthcoming. In the course of this process, a number of other corporate governance breaches by Dundalk Port Company relating to other unauthorised borrowing and the unauthorised establishment of a subsidiary company came to light.

To date, €224,000 of national development plan funds has been approved for payment. Failure to regularise the corporate governance breaches outlined above has meant that a number of further applications from the company for drawing down of NDP funding have not been approved thus far. Together with difficult trading conditions for the port, this has resulted in a deteriorating financial situation for the company.

In early September 2005 I approved the appointment of a suitably qualified expert in finance and corporate governance matters to provide the Department with a report on the state of affairs of Dundalk Port Company on the grounds of persistent breaches by the company of the requirements of the Harbours Act and the code of practice for the governance of State bodies, the company’s demonstrable failure over [1022]time to effectively engage with the Department to rectify these breaches and to manage its affairs in compliance with the requirements of the legislation and the code of practice and an oral report by the company’s chief executive to the Department of the deteriorating financial situation of the company.

A firm of accountants — Baker Tilly O’Hare — was appointed on 16 September 2005. The final report was received on 24 October 2005. A procedure for implementing the recommendations of the report has now been agreed with the Department of Finance. The report contains a number of recommendations for the financial restructuring of the company and recommendations for improving the corporate governance of the company. The report also includes a recommendation for a restructuring of the company’s unauthorised borrowings.

The report has been sent to the chief executive officer and the chairman of the company. The chief executive of the company is meeting the Secretary General of my Department shortly and I am due to meet the chairman of the company. We will impress upon the company the gravity of the situation and inform the company how it is proposed to implement the recommendations of the report. The Department and I will closely monitor the implementation of the recommendations over the coming months. Proper implementation of the report’s recommendations over the coming months will enable the company’s situation to be regularised and will allow the port to develop further and continue to provide important port services to its hinterland.

184. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the agencies or bodies his Department provides funding to or is administratively responsible for, and those agencies and bodies that his Department is responsible for in respect of Government policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39414/05]

Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): The Department is currently responsible for 30 commercial, non-commercial and regulatory State bodies, ten port companies and 14 harbour authorities. The bodies are comprehensively listed in Appendix C of my Department’s Statement of Strategy 2005-2007. I have arranged for a copy of the statement of strategy to be forwarded to the Deputy.

185. Mr. Aylward asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if a seat on the National Salmon Commission will be allocated to the snap net fishermen’s alliance [1023]who have held a seat on this commission since its inception and who have no input into the current negotiations on salmon policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39479/05]

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher): In the exercise of the powers conferred on me, as Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, by section 55A, inserted by section 22(1) of the Fisheries Act 1999, of the Fisheries Act 1980, I included 34 organisations in the National Salmon Commission (Prescribed Bodies and Organisation) Order 2005, S.I. 626 of 2005, which I signed on 28 September 2005. I can confirm that the Barrow Nore Suir Snap Net Fishermen’s Alliance is one of these organisations.

The Fisheries Acts, however, provide that not more than 16 members of the commission shall be appointed from among those nominated by the prescribed representative bodies and organisations. As such, inclusion on the prescribed list cannot convey an automatic right for any particular body or organisation to have its nominee appointed to the commission.

As the Deputy can see, the number of bodies and organisations seeking to have representation on the National Salmon Commission was far in excess of the number of places available. As a result, it was not possible to appoint all nominees, including those of organisations previously represented on the commission. I believe however, that the selected membership will ensure that all relevant stakeholders, including snap net fishermen, are fairly represented at the commission.

The commission has the function of assisting and advising me on the conservation, management, protection and development of the national salmon resource in accordance with the detailed terms of reference set out in the National Salmon Commission (Terms Of Reference) Order 2005, S.I. 627 of 2005. I can confirm, however, that the terms of reference for the new National Salmon Commission provide that the commission will consult and engage as appropriate in a proactive dialogue with the Barrow Nore Suir Snap Net Fishermen’s Alliance and all of the other prescribed bodies and organisations listed in the 2005 order.

I am satisfied that through these terms of reference, all of the prescribed bodies and organisations will have the opportunity to have their interest recognised and that any proposals that they may have in regard to the conservation, management, protection and development of the national salmon resource will be fully considered and evaluated by the National Salmon Commission during its current term of office.

186. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, further to Questions Nos. 259, 260 and 261 of 6 December 2005, the precise location of the post offices already closed in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39577/05]

Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): The precise locations of post offices closed in the past 12 months are set out in the table. This pertains to post office closures from 1 December 2004 to 1 December 2005.

Sub-Office	County
Aghabog	Monaghan
Ardlogher	Cavan
Brickens	Mayo
Broadford	Kildare
Cadamstown	Offaly
Clooneyquinn	Roscommon
Coolbawn	Kilkenny
Cregganbaun	Mayo
Four Mile House	Roscommon
Inch	Wexford
Killiney	Dublin
Loughan	Meath
New Inn	Cavan
Rahara	Roscommon
Rathfeigh	Meath
Strand	Limerick
Tagheen	Mayo

Question No. 187 answered with Question
No. 49.

188. Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of states that remain non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39436/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT, is the most universal of all the multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation agreements. Of the 191 members of the United Nations, only three countries, India, Israel and Pakistan, have not signed the NPT. The NPT review conference in 2000, for the first time, named those states which were not party to the treaty and urged them all to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states, promptly and without conditions.

That conference also deplored the nuclear tests that had been conducted by India and Pakistan in [1025]1998 and declared that such actions did not in any way confer nuclear weapon state status or any other special status. The conference called upon these two countries to undertake the measures set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172, which, inter alia, called upon India and Pakistan to cease their nuclear weapon development programmes, to refrain from the deployment of nuclear weapons and to become parties to the NPT without delay and without conditions. The conference also urged all states parties to the NPT to refrain from any action that might contravene or undermine the objectives of that resolution as well as those of the treaty itself.

The conference also reaffirmed the resolution on the Middle East which had been adopted at its previous meeting in 1995 and which called on all states in the Middle East to accede to the treaty and to place their nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

At the last NPT review conference in May, I stated that it was a matter of serious concern that Israel, India and Pakistan continue to remain outside the NPT regime and I urged them to accede to the treaty unconditionally and at an early date. Such a call has also been made in recent statements by the European Union. All EU member states are legally obliged to pursue this objective in accordance with an EU common position, agreed in November 2003, promoting the universalisation of key multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation agreements, including the NPT.

We will continue to press for the universalisation of the treaty. Our most recent initiative in this regard was the submission of a resolution on the NPT with our partners in the new agenda coalition to the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly in October. A separate vote was called on the paragraph in the resolution which urged India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to the treaty. The paragraph was supported by 148 countries. Last Thursday, when the issue was taken up in the plenary of the General Assembly, some 158 UN member states endorsed this call.

Question No. 189 answered with Question
No. 97.

190. Ms Burton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the cost of the closure of APSO, including consultancies and reviews undertaken prior to its closure, and settlements to retiring staff; the number of staff who were absorbed into the Department of Foreign Affairs and the cost of their salaries on an annual basis from the closure, for each year to date in 2005; and the cost of related bodies or groups affected by the closure of APSO. [39329/05]

191. Ms Burton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of persons who were placed [1026]in overseas placements by APSO for each year from 1997 to date in 2005 of its closure; the categories of such placement, long-term, short-term and so on; the type of work undertaken, for example, full-time, part-time, mentoring and so on; and the cost and the agency operation cost. [39330/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 190 and 191 together.

The only review which had a direct bearing on the closure of the Agency for Personal Service Overseas, APSO, was that of the Ireland Aid review committee in 2002. The committee’s report recommended that APSO should be integrated into Ireland Aid, now Development Co-operation Ireland. The costs of this review are not directly attributable to the closure costs of APSO as it had a much wider remit, covering the entire Irish overseas aid programme.

The direct costs associated with the closure of APSO are set out in table 1 below. They include: the appointment of the liquidator, Grant Farrell Sparks, totalling €11,495; other related fees such as legal and audit fees amounting to €30,430; the cost of five international field staff redundancies amounting to €89,037; the cost of local field staff redundancies which amounted to €320,884 — see table 2; and the cost of surplus equipment donated to non-governmental organisations which amounted to €99,633. All direct development worker contracts were honoured until completion. There were no financial costs to funded organisations as a result of the closure of APSO. Also, no APSO headquarters staff retired at that time. The total estimated costs associated with the closure of APSO currently stands at €551,479. Eighteen former APSO staff members were absorbed into the Department of Foreign Affairs and the cost of their salaries on an annual basis in 2004 was €716,159. The allocation for 2005 was €784,281.

Table 3 indicates the number of persons who were assigned to overseas placements by APSO for each year from 1997 to the date of its closure. It includes the categories of such placement, whether long-term or short-term, the type of work undertaken and the costs involved. Further detail is available in the annual reports of APSO.

In addition to direct placements, APSO administered the personnel co-funding scheme for development workers in non-governmental organisations and missionary organisations as per table 4. Following the integration of APSO into the Department of Foreign Affairs, these personnel funding activities have been administered by my Department. In 2005, an allocation of €15 million was made to support over 1,350 development volunteers. It is anticipated that, when the company charged with liquidation has completed its work, and following the sale of all of APSO’s assets, there will be a net balance of receipts over expenditure. The provisional balance currently stands at €183,051.

Table 1 pertains to costs associated with the closure of APSO to date.

	Costs
	€
Grant Farrell Sparks — liquidator	11,495
Legal fees	30,430
International staff redundancies	89,037
Local staff redundancies	320,884
Equipment donated to NGOs	99,633
Total costs to date	551,479

Table 2 provides details of field staff redundancy payments.

Region or country	Total Paid
	€
Kenya — Regional office	38,065
The Gambia — Regional office	51,666
South Africa — Regional office	6,000
Central America — Regional office	105,000
Tanzania — Country office	41,147
Cambodia — Country office	55,136
Zimbabwe — Country office	23,870
Total	320,884

Table 3 provides details of APSO assignments.

Year	Number of long-term APSO assignments, two years or more	Short-term mentoring programme, one week to three months	Election monitors, average of ten days	Total overseas APSO assignments	Total cost of APSO related assignments
1997	483	81	120	684	7,148,332
1998	426	91	103	620	5,705,084
1999	355	87	19	461	4,544,788
2000	332	152	64	548	3,530,447
2001	210	134	60	404	2,899,295
2002	90	114	92	296	2,410,111
2003	15	110	29	154	528,867

Table 4 provides details of APSO personnel co-funding scheme.

Year	Total support to personnel related assignments including Missionary and NGO sector.
	€
1997	11,963,820
1998	11,777,365
1999	13,659,821
2000	11,416,485
2001	9,421,608
2002	10,755,609
2003	12,429,342

[1029]

192. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the agencies or bodies his Department provides funding to or is administratively responsible for, and those agencies and bodies that his Department is responsible for in respect of Government policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter [39415/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): There are four bodies which come under the aegis of the Department of Foreign Affairs and for which the Department provides funding, namely, the advisory board for Development Co-operation Ireland; the development education advisory committee; the board of the Ireland-United States Commission for Educational Exchange, that is, the Fulbright Commission; and the DION committee.

The advisory board of Development Co-operation Ireland works closely with that division in my Department to provide strategic direction to Ireland’s development aid programme and to maximise its quality, effectiveness and accountability. The development education advisory committee offers policy advice to me, and to Development Co-operation Ireland, on development education and on ways of increasing knowledge and understanding of development issues in Ireland. The Fulbright Commission finances study, research, teaching and other educational activities between Ireland and the United States of America. Finally, the DION committee is an advisory committee to the Government on the situation of Irish emigrants in Britain.

193. Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his response to recently planned guidelines for community restorative justice schemes in Northern Ireland; if he has met with Northern Ireland Minister, Mr. David Hanson, to discuss these schemes; if he has met with political parties from Northern Ireland on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39429/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The criminal justice review, established pursuant to the Good Friday Agreement, considered the question of community restorative justice schemes in the context of strengthening support for the criminal justice system. It concluded that, in certain circumstances, such schemes had a useful role to play, but emphasised the need to operate within certain well defined criteria. As part of the implementation of the review, the British Government undertook to prepare guidelines for the operation of restorative justice schemes, and these were published as a consultative document earlier this month.

In the context of ongoing discussions, we have had an opportunity to discuss this issue with the political parties and with the British Government, [1030]as well as with other interests. We are aware of the concerns expressed by various stakeholders, and will wish to ensure that any decisions in this area are consistent with the commitment to a widely supported policing service.

In considering proposals for change, the Government has emphasised its view that any programme should adhere to best international practice, must be human rights-compliant and have acceptable arrangements with regard to the handling of complaints. We have above all emphasised the need to operate in a manner which underpins the new dispensation in policing, and which contributes to the full implementation of the Patten recommendations. Indeed, it seems clear that progress on policing is inevitably closely linked with the scope for the development of community restorative justice and related programmes. We will remain in close touch with the political parties and the British Government on this matter.

194. Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he was present at the meeting between the Taoiseach and the SDLP in Government Buildings on 5 December 2005; if he will report on this meeting; his views on the SDLP’s specific proposals in regard to “on-the-runs”; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39430/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I participated with the Taoiseach at the meeting with the SDLP on 5 December 2005. We had a constructive meeting, during which we discussed the way forward for the political process. We also discussed a range of other issues, including North-South co-operation and the proposed British legislation dealing with “on-the-runs”.

With regard to the political process, the Taoiseach and I reiterated our commitment to work with all the parties to restore confidence and rebuild momentum. We made clear that our objective remained the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity next year.

The meeting also provided an opportunity to review recent encouraging developments in the area of North-South co-operation. We welcomed the momentum generated by the SDLP’s “North-South Makes Sense” campaign, which is having a positive impact. We also reviewed the scope for further work, including in the north west, given the recent joint commitment by the two Governments to work together to foster economic growth in the north-west region. With respect to the issue of “on-the-runs”, OTRs, the Taoiseach recalled the commitment of both Governments to address the issue of OTRs at Weston Park in 2001 and their undertaking, as part of the Joint Declaration in 2003, to bring forward proposals on the issue within their respective legislative and constitutional framework. In that context, the SDLP [1031]outlined its position with regard to OTRs, and indicated that the party would be seeking various changes to the draft legislation submitted by the British Government, during its consideration by the British Parliament. We agreed to keep in touch on these and other issues in the period ahead.

195. Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of his undertaking to monitor progress in implementing commitments from the British and Irish Governments arising from the joint declaration relating to community relations as ultimately expressed in the shared future initiative, his views on whether the Government approach to issues such as “on-the-runs” contradict the spirit of building good community relations in Northern Ireland; the extent to which the shared future initiative governs official policy on Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39431/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The importance of building trust and improving community relations, tackling sectarianism and addressing segregation in Northern Ireland was acknowledged in the rights, identity and community section of the Joint Declaration published by the two Governments in 2003. The British Government was specifically mandated in the document to review good community relations and to bring forward a strategic and integrated good relations policy. The shared future initiative referred to by the Deputy was developed in response to this mandate.

The most recent shared future document, which was published on 21 March 2005, lays out a comprehensive approach to the promotion of good relations between the communities in Northern Ireland. As I outlined in my reply to Parliamentary Question No. 336 of 2 November, the Government welcomes the overall approach recommended in the document and maintains an ongoing dialogue with the British Government on improving community relations in Northern Ireland. We also keep in touch with the situation at community level through regular engagement with local representatives, with members of the NGO and academic community and with representatives of the relevant official bodies.

The task of building a shared future is particularly important in dealing with the legacy of the conflict in Northern Ireland. In this regard, and in the context of acts of completion, both Governments gave a commitment at Weston Park in 2001, and in the Joint Declaration in 2003, to bring forward proposals within their respective legislative and constitutional frameworks to deal with the issue of “on-the-runs”. While I appreciate there are concerns with regard to certain aspects of the proposals, I believe it appropriate that these issues be addressed at this time. We [1032]will, of course, wish to ensure that the proposals do not impede the task of establishing the truth with regard to the large number of unsolved cases in Northern Ireland. I believe however that, properly handled, and in the context of a comprehensive approach, this process can help to bring about closure.

196. Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will raise the Miami five case with the US authorities; and if he will work with other states in highlighting their plight. [39458/05]

197. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will raise the refusal to grant a visa to a person (details supplied) with the US Government so they can visit their spouse. [39459/05]

198. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will raise the refusal to grant a visa to a person (details supplied) with the US Government so they can bring two children to visit their spouse. [39460/05]

199. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will raise the refusal to grant a visa to a person (details supplied) with the US Government. [39461/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 196 to 199, inclusive, together.

The case to which the Deputies refer relates to five Cuban citizens who were convicted in the US in 2001 on charges ranging from espionage to first degree murder. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta overturned the 2001 convictions on 9 August 2005 and ordered a retrial based on new evidence. The Miami District Attorney duly filed an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeals, and the court has set aside the week of 16 February 2006 to hear arguments from both sides.

As I have previously informed the House on a number of occasions, the Irish Government has no standing in this matter, which is a bilateral consular question between the US and the Cuban authorities. Visa applications from members of the families of the accused in order to visit the accused are also a matter for the US authorities, and it would not be appropriate for me to raise the matter with those authorities.

200. Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he intends raising, or has raised the plight of those born and raised in Estonia but of Russian ethnic origin who by virtue of their lack of fluency in Estonian are unable to avail of pass[1033]ports allowing them travel and work within the European Economic Area. [39500/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): Issues connected with Estonian citizenship are a matter for the Estonian Government. I have not, therefore, raised the matter referred to in the Deputy’s question with my Estonian counterpart.

201. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the amount of the 2005 estimate of €150,000 for spending on the referendum on the EU constitution was spent in 2005 and what same was spent on. [39520/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): Of the €150,000 allocated for spending on the referendum on the European constitution in 2005, a total of €71,532.65 has been spent to date. Within this overall figure, €65,178.20 was spent on the publication of the White Paper in English and Irish, €6,298.05 on the dedicated website on the European constitution, www.europeanconstitution.ie, and €56.40 on the purchase of additional copies of the Referendum Bill.

Question No. 202 answered with Question
No. 69.

Question No. 203 answered with Question
No. 50.

204. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs further to a statement in his general affairs briefing to the European Affairs Committee that support to the European Movement Ireland is set to be sharply increased in 2006, the funding that is to be given to the European Movement Ireland in 2006; the amount of funding; and if comparable funding will be made available to other groups offering an alternative understanding of the EU. [39524/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): It was announced in the Estimates, subhead E of Vote 28, that contributions to bodies in Ireland engaged in the furtherance of international relations will be increased from €170,000 in 2005 to €280,000 in 2006. This subhead provides for grant assistance to two bodies: the European Movement Ireland and the Irish United Nations Association. In 2006, I propose to provide a grant of €252,000 to the European Movement Ireland. This increased funding will enable it to work to enhance awareness in Ireland of what the EU does and how it does it. This is particularly appropriate during the current period of reflection when the future of Europe is being debated throughout the EU. The Estimates also provide for €205,000 to be available in 2006 under the communicating Europe initiative, CEI. The CEI [1034]aims to improve the information available to the public and to promote greater debate and awareness on European issues. The Department of Foreign Affairs, as a corporate member of the Institute of European Affairs, pays a membership fee which was €5,000 in 2005.

205. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the 12 December 2005 meeting of EU Foreign Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39318/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): I attended the meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council held in Brussels on 12 December. The main focus of the meeting was to prepare for the European Council on 15 and 16 December which will be dominated by the financial perspectives. There was a relatively short discussion on the financial perspectives as updated proposals from the UK Presidency had not yet been received. The Council examined and approved a series of draft conclusions for the European Council. The topics covered the future of Europe, a new Union strategy for Africa, an EU counter-terrorism strategy, sustainable development, climate change and sustainable energy, and growth and jobs. These conclusions will be forwarded for adoption at tomorrow’s meeting of the European Council. Ministers also discussed a Presidency paper entitled “Global Approach to Migration: Priority Actions Focussing on Africa and the Mediterranean”. The Presidency proposes that the European Council should adopt a set of priority actions for 2006 in the area of migration.

Ministers noted the draft annual programme for the Council submitted by the two member states holding the Presidency next year, Austria and Finland. The Austrian Foreign Minister highlighted the main themes of the incoming Presidency, which are employment and economic growth; maintaining quality of life without adversely affecting industry and growth; bringing EU citizens closer together and strengthening the role of the EU as a global partner. Other areas of importance for Austria will be the national debates on the constitutional treaty, the Lisbon Agenda, enlargement and the justice and home affairs agenda.

The GAERC had a preliminary exchange of views on the Commission’s 2005 enlargement strategy paper and adopted conclusions on developments with regard to Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Croatia. Ministers also reviewed recent developments in the western Balkans including in Kosovo. The Commission’s report recommending that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia be given candidate status was referred to the European Council for consideration.

[1035]The EU strategy for Africa, which Ireland strongly supports, was reviewed and forwarded to the European Council for adoption. Finally, the GAERC adopted conclusions on Ethiopia and Eritrea which expressed grave concern about the tense and volatile situation in the border region. The Council reiterated its full support for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1640.

Question No. 206 answered with Question
No. 69.

207. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the situation in Mozambique; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39604/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): Following the end of the civil war in 1992 and the first democratic elections in 1994, Mozambique has become one of Africa’s most successful examples of post-conflict reconstruction and development. Political stability has been underpinned by national reconstruction and relatively rapid economic growth. However, the transition is incomplete and residual mistrust remains between the ruling Frelimo and the opposition Renamo parties.

The third legislative and presidential elections took place in Mozambique in December 2004. President Chissano’s term of office expired in 2004 and he did not stand for re-election. An EU election observation mission, including five Irish observers, observed the elections. The opposition party, Renamo, contested the results which saw Mr. Armando Guebuza of the governing Frelimo party take 64% of the vote. The National Election Commission dismissed these complaints and in January 2005 Mr. Guebuza was sworn in as the new President of Mozambique. The EU mission found that the elections had been broadly conducted along the lines of internationally accepted standards.

In early September, 12 people were killed and 50 injured in a clash between Frelimo and Renamo supporters over disputed municipal elections in the town of Mocimboa da Praia. While calm has been restored, this incident confirms the continued need for the international community to support the democratic process in Mozambique.

The problem of corruption in the public service, the police and the legal system is widespread. However, the new Government is actively addressing this and has recently established a new central office for combating corruption. Political dialogue between the EU and the new Government of Mozambique under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement maintains the high level of constructive co-operation and good relations enjoyed with the former government. The EU’s [1036]firm and unified position regarding the transparent and correct conduct of the 2004 general elections is believed to have contributed to the Government’s speedy move towards electoral reform, and a parliamentary commission is reviewing the four main electoral laws. The EU also remains in close contact with the Renamo opposition party. With our EU colleagues, Ireland will continue to monitor the situation in Mozambique.

Mozambique is one of Ireland’s six ODA programme countries in Africa. Bilateral assistance began in 1996 and it is now one of our largest programmes. Approximately €28 million was spent in 2005 and €29 million is budgeted for 2006. In addition, funding will also be delivered through the Clinton Foundation, NGOs and UN agencies. Ireland helps Mozambique to reduce poverty through fostering economic growth, equitable social development and improved democratic governance. The programme focuses on the key sectors of health, governance, education and rural and provincial development. Since the HIV AIDS issue is of particular concern, Ireland, in partnership with the Clinton Foundation, is one of the biggest donors to Mozambique’s health sector response to HIV AIDS.

Question No. 208 answered with Question
No. 92.

209. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the progress in regard to the development of democracy in the Balkans; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39606/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The EU has taken the lead role in working with the countries of the western Balkans to consolidate peace and stability in the region and to promote economic development and respect for human rights and the rule of law. Progress and developments are reviewed regularly by the General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC.

The overall framework for relations with the countries of the region was confirmed at the EU western Balkans summit in June 2003. The summit confirmed that the future of the region lies in its eventual integration into European structures. The achievement of this aim will involve the fulfilment of clear and objective political and economic criteria by the democratically elected Governments of the region under the EU’s stabilisation and association process.

The following is the position for each country of the region with regard to the stabilisation and association process. On 3 October the Council agreed to open EU accession negotiations with Croatia. A screening process is under way and it [1037]is expected that negotiations on certain chapters could be opened in the course of next year. Negotiations for a stabilisation and association agreement, SAA, with Bosnia-Herzegovina opened on 25 November.

Following a Council decision of 3 October 2005 to authorise the Commission to open negotiations for a SAA with Serbia and Montenegro and Kosovo, the negotiations began on 10 October. An SAA with Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYROM, has been in force since 1 April 2004. Last month the Commission repeated that FYROM had made considerable progress in implementing reform. The question of whether FYROM should be granted candidate status will be considered further at this week’s European Council. Negotiations for an SAA with Albania began in January 2003. The Commission recently indicated that progress in Albania would pave the way for negotiations on the SAA to be concluded.

This progress reflects the effectiveness of EU policies, based on the fair and rigorous use of conditionality and a clear European perspective. While considerable challenges remain, the functioning of democratic institutions in the region is generally improving. Each country’s progress towards EU membership will, of course, depend on how quickly it conforms to the Copenhagen criteria and the requirements of the stabilisation and association process, including full co-operation with the tribunal in The Hague. In this context, the Deputy will be aware of the recent arrest of former Croatian general Ante Gotovina, which we welcome.

In the period ahead, the political process to determine the future status of Kosovo will be a priority for the EU’s policy towards the region. The EU has given its full support to this process and to Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, the UN status envoy who leads the discussions. The ongoing implementation of standards in Kosovo will continue to be of paramount importance and further progress will be required, including on protection of minorities, full respect for the rule of law and a transparent public administration free from political interference. The EU will participate fully in the process including through its representative, Mr. Stefan Lehne, who will continue to liaise closely with Mr. Ahtisaari’s team and other key international contacts.

While progress remains uneven and a number of severe challenges remain, it is clear that the region generally is moving away from instability and violence towards the consolidation of democratic structures. The Government, with our partners in the European Union, looks forward to continued positive engagement with the countries of the region in the period ahead.

Question No. 210 answered with Question
No. 40.

[1038]Question No. 211 answered with Question
No. 68.

Question No. 212 answered with Question
No. 57.

Question No. 213 answered with Question
No. 69.

214. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the progress to date in 2005 in the battle against AIDS in Africa; the targets achieved and identified; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39611/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The most recent information and statistics on the HIV AIDS epidemic are contained in the annual report, AIDS Epidemic Update 2005, released by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV AIDS, UNAIDS, and the World Health Organisation, WHO. This report noted progress in declining HIV infection rates in a number of countries and increasing access to HIV treatment.

Adult HIV infection rates have decreased in certain countries and changes in behaviour to prevent infection have played a key part in these declines. Kenya and some countries in the Caribbean region all show declines in HIV prevalence over the past few years, with overall adult infection rates decreasing in Kenya from a peak of 10% in the late 1990s to 7% in 2003.

The report also recognises that access to HIV treatment has improved markedly over the past two years, especially in developing countries. The number of people receiving combination anti-retroviral therapy, ART, for HIV AIDS has more than doubled from 400,000 in 2003 to approximately 1 million in 2005. In sub-Saharan Africa, the number of people receiving ART has tripled within a period of one year and now reaches approximately 500,000 people.

The reality, however, is that the AIDS epidemic continues to outstrip global and national efforts to contain it. The overall number of people living with HIV continued to increase in all regions of the world except the Caribbean. There were an additional 5 million new infections in 2005, the majority in women. The number of people living with HIV globally has reached its highest level with more than 40 million people now infected. More than three million people died of AIDS-related illnesses in 2005 including more than 500,000 children.

A rapid increase in the scale and scope of HIV prevention programmes is urgently needed to stop the speed at which new infections are occurring. This must take place in the context of a comprehensive response to HIV and AIDS which requires the simultaneous acceleration of treatment and prevention efforts with the ultimate goal of universal access to prevention, treatment [1039]and care. The latest UNAIDS estimates of the costs of a comprehensive response to HIV AIDS suggest that, in 2006, approximately $15 billion will be required in low and middle income countries, rising to just over $22 billion in 2008.

Ireland has a strong commitment to addressing HIV AIDS. It is a key priority for Development Cooperation Ireland’s policies and programmes. In 2005, financial allocations to the fight against AIDS constituted 10% of the total overseas development budget and reached €50 million. These resources are directed at a number of HIV AIDS activities at global, regional, national and community levels and are implemented through international and regional organisations and in our programme countries. The latter includes six highly-affected countries in southern and eastern Africa.

The Taoiseach in his speech to the United Nations in September reaffirmed Ireland’s commitment to combat HIV AIDS and announced a new initiative on HIV AIDS and other global communicable diseases. This will bring funding for these diseases up to €100 million. This new initiative will focus on tackling the major diseases affecting developing countries, including HIV AIDS. It will build on Ireland’s existing support at international, regional and country level and will afford Ireland a stronger voice in international policy dialogue and advocacy for co-ordinated and effective action on HIV AIDS. The Taoiseach indicated that up to 20% of the additional funding will be targeted at interventions that benefit children.

Ireland will continue to work with the international community in advocating for a sustained and resourced global response to HIV AIDS, strengthened leadership at all levels and improved co-ordination of resources and planning for HIV AIDS prevention and control.

Question No. 215 answered with Question
No. 57.

216. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if recent discussions have taken place in respect of the future of PfP; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39613/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The situation remains as set out in my reply to Question No. 138 of 10 November 2005. In addition to the discussions described in that reply, a meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, EAPC, in Foreign Ministers’ format was held on 8 December 2005 in Brussels. As my attendance at the meeting was not possible, I was represented by our ambassador to Belgium, who is also head of our PfP delegation. Among the topics discussed were Afghanistan, Kosovo and the role of values, such as respect for democracy [1040]and human rights in PfP. The latter discussion followed on an initiative of Austria, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland, aimed at ensuring that respect for such values would play an integral part in the development of PfP.

217. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the nature of discussions that have taken place or are likely to take place with regard to European defence and security arrangements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39614/05]

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): The European security and defence policy, ESDP, is an integral part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, CFSP, and serves the Union’s general objectives of peace and stability. These objectives and the provisions governing the ESDP are set out in the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice, which were approved by referendum. In this context, the European Union is increasing its ability to contribute to both the civilian and military dimensions of crisis management.

It is important to distinguish between the ESDP, which continues to develop, and the possibility of a common defence. Any move to a common defence would be for decision by the European Council acting unanimously and in accordance with member states’ constitutional requirements. At present, there are no proposals for such a move. In any event, Ireland’s position is clear. The amendment to Bunreacht na hÉireann in October 2002 precludes Ireland from participating in a common defence. As a consequence, the Irish people would have to amend Bunreacht na hÉireann before Ireland could take part in a common defence.

The Union continues to develop its capabilities for crisis management, both military and civilian. The objectives which it has set itself are clearly set out in the military headline goal 2010 and the civilian headline goal 2008. The General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting on 21 November reviewed the progress of activities in both of these areas. The Minister of State at the Department of Defence, Deputy Kitt, on behalf of the Minister for Defence, Deputy O’Dea, reported to the House on 7 December on the military elements of the discussion.

On progress towards the civilian headline goal, Ministers adopted a declaration in which they reiterated their strong commitment to the further development of civilian crisis management and noted with satisfaction the work undertaken to date. Ministers recommended that, for future action in this area, priority should be given to improving the EU's ability to react more quickly to crises, as well as to addressing issues related to the logistical support and financing of the EU's civilian crisis management actions.

[1041]An important aspect of ESDP is the development of a standby military rapid response capacity, in the form of battle groups. As the Deputy is aware, the establishment by the EU of such a capacity has received the strong support of the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and been endorsed in the outcome document of the world summit in September of this year. Ireland indicated to its EU partners a positive disposition to taking part in battle groups, and the legal, operational and other issues surrounding participation, which have been examined by an interdepartmental group established by my colleague, the Minister for Defence, will shortly be considered by Government.

Questions Nos. 218 and 219 answered with Question No. 79.

Question No. 220 answered with Question
No. 49.

Question No. 221 answered with Question
No. 40.

222. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the funding his Department has allocated for his Department’s capital fund allocation for the next phase of the Abbotstown development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39399/05]

224. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism when the next phase of the Abbotstown development will take place; the amount of funding which was allocated in the budget 2006 statement for the next phase; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39401/05]

Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism (Mr. O’Donoghue): I propose to take Questions Nos. 222 and 224 together.

The Government decided to proceed with the development of phase one of the sports campus project at Abbotstown. The estimated cost of the project at €119 million was provided in my Department’s Multi-annual Capital Investment Framework 2006-10. Specifically, a sum of €9.5 million was provided in my Department’s budget for 2006 to commence the project at the Abbotstown sports campus with the balance of the funding being provided over the period from 2007 to 2010. This is an affirmation of the 2004 decision by the Government to develop a range of sports facilities in a number of phases over a period of years on the State owned site at Abbotstown. Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited has been requested to proceed with the implementation of the Government’s decision.

[1042]

223. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the funding his Department has allocated for his Department’s capital fund allocation for the redevelopment of Lansdowne Road for 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39400/05]

225. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the position of the allocation of funding to the Lansdowne Road redevelopment project by his Department; when funding will commence; the reason there is a discrepancy of €10 million between the allocation as stated in the Book of Estimates of €30 million to that stated in the budget 2006 statement of €20 million; if this reduction indicates problems with the development or in regard to matching funding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39402/05]

Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism (Mr. O’Donoghue): I propose to take Questions Nos. 233 and 225 together.

The figure of €30 million referred to by the Deputy was originally set out in my Department’s capital envelope for 2005-09 published 12 months ago. It was reproduced in this year’s Abridged Estimate Volume on the basis that it would be subject to revision on budget day. Thus, the figure of €20 million provided for in the 2006-10 capital envelope for my Department is based on the most up-to-date estimate of the 2006 funding needs of the project as projected by the Lansdowne Road Stadium Development Company and its design and project management teams.

I assure the Deputy that the project is proceeding in accordance with the schedule set out for the project and the Government is fully committed to the funding which has been outlined for the development. Indeed, under the funding arrangements made with the Lansdowne Road Stadium Development Company the Deputy should be aware that the Exchequer funding for the project is front loaded. At the end of this year an amount of €10 million will have been spent on the project. I understand that a planning application will be ready for lodgement by the end of this month.

Question No. 224 answered with Question
No. 222.

Question No. 225 answered with Question
No. 223.

226. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the agencies or bodies his Department provides funding to or is administratively responsible for, and those agencies and bodies that his Department is responsible for in respect of Government policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39416/05]

Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism (Mr. O’Donoghue): As part of my wide ranging ministerial remit I am responsible to Dáil Éireann for the formulation, development and evaluation of policies for the arts, sports and tourism sectors. I am not, however, responsible for the day-to-day activities of the agencies under the aegis of my Department charged with the implementation of such policies.

The principal agencies in question to which my Department provides funding are set out in detail in my Department’s recent Statement of Strategy 2005-2007 which has been laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

227. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he will consider applications for grant aid from various towns and villages throughout County Kildare where the local communities are anxious to put on festivals or other supportive activities to coincide with the Ryder Cup; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39618/05]

Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism (Mr. O’Donoghue): There are no funds directly at the disposal of my Department under which financial assistance can be made available to support tourism related projects such as that for festivals or other activities intended to coincide with the staging of the Ryder Cup at The K Club, Straffan, County Kildare, in September 2006.

The Deputy might wish to note that Fáilte Ireland administers a festivals and cultural events initiative, a scheme which was set up some years ago to expand regional tourism through festivals and cultural events by both assisting with the marketing of existing festivals as well as promoting new events. Decisions in respect of individual applications for support under the funding scheme are a matter for Fáilte Ireland.

In this regard, however, I understand that Fáilte Ireland would consider an application for funding under the 2006 festivals and cultural events initiative for activities associated with the Ryder Cup as part of a co-ordinated effort by Kildare Fáilte, which, I am informed, plans to hold a “K County Festival” next year around the time of the Ryder Cup.

I also understand that Fáilte Ireland, in the context of increased marketing funds secured under the 2006 Estimates, is considering allocating additional marketing funds to support national and regional activities in 2006 to ensure the continued sustainability of Irish golf tourism both during and after the staging of the prestigious Ryder Cup event.

228. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the money allocated by his [1044]Department to sports organisations in Kildare for each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39625/05]

Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism (Mr. O’Donoghue): The information requested by the Deputy regarding the allocations to sports, community and voluntary organisations in Kildare under the sports capital programme for each of the past five years is outlined in the table.

Year	Funding allocated to projects in County Kildare
	€
2001	3,853,655
2002	4,870,000
2003	3,166,000
2004	3,357,000
2005	1,550,000
Total	16,796,655

229. Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of employees in the horticulture sector who are holders of work permits employed in companies in County Leitrim including companies with different divisions where they have 25 employees; the level of inspections which are carried out regarding pay and work conditions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39369/05]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The work permits section of my Department issued one work permit to employ a non-EEA national for one company within the horticultural sector in County Leitrim in the 12 months up to 30 November 2005.

The wages and employment conditions of workers employed in the horticulture sector are generally governed by the agriculture employment regulation order, which is enforced by the labour inspectorate of my Department. No complaints have been received by the labour inspectorate in respect of employees in the horticulture sector in County Leitrim and no inspections have been carried out in 2005 in that sector in County Leitrim.

Inspectors pursue allegations of worker mistreatment and when evidence of non-compliance with the relevant employment rights legislation is found, the inspectorate seeks redress for the individual or individuals concerned and, if appropriate, a prosecution is initiated. I urge anyone who has specific evidence of the mistreatment of workers to furnish all the relevant details and any related materials to the inspectorate with a view to pursuing the matter.

230. Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the cost of the National Competitiveness Council in salaries of Forfás staff and the staff of other Departments who service the council, of imputed office rental, printing, travel and subsistence, promotional and any other costs pertaining to the work of the council for the year 2004; if he will provide an estimate of costs for 2005 and the basis for this calculation; the full-time equivalent numbers of all public servants, by Department or State agency, who undertake work in any capacity for the National Competitiveness Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39388/05]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The National Competitiveness Council was established in 1997 in the framework of the national partnership process. Its reports are an important contribution to the development of policies that help sustain economic competitiveness, growth and employment.

The council’s essential administrative and research supports are provided by Forfás through its annual Vote from my Department. Given the relatively small nature of the council’s operations, and particularly the fact that many of its indirect spending expenses are shared with Forfás, and that its work volume can fluctuate from time to time, it is possible only to give a very broad estimate of its cost, which is as follows:

	2004	2005
	€000	€000
Total Pay Costs (2 Full-time Equivalents)	115	118
Research and Studies	37	29
Expenses (Meetings, Staff, etc.)	13	7
Printing, Publications, Website	45*	25
Direct Costs	210	179
Imputed Costs (Rent, Heat, Light, etc.)	50	51
Total Costs	260	230

[1045]

231. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the agencies or bodies his Department provides funding to or is administratively responsible for, and those agencies and bodies that his Department is responsible for in respect of Government policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39417/05]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): The bodies and agencies which my Department both funds and staffs are: the Companies Registration Office; the Registry of Friendly Societies; the Labour Court; the Labour Relations Commission; the Employment Appeals Tribunal; the Patents Office; the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs; and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement.

In addition, the following are the statutorily independent agencies and bodies coming under the aegis of my Department regarding which I retain policy responsibility although I am not responsible for their day-to-day operational activities: Forfás, IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, Shannon Development, FÁS, the Health and Safety Authority, the National Standards Authority of Ireland, city and county enterprise boards, the Competition Authority, InterTrade Ireland, the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, Science Foundation Ireland, and the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority, which [1046]will be established, under statute, in early January 2006.

232. Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will review his decision to give the enterprise function of promoting the Shannon free zone to IDA Ireland from SFADCo, in view of IDA Ireland’s poor record of job promotion in the remainder of County Clare since 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39491/05]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): My Department and the development agencies under its remit, Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, Shannon Development and the city and county enterprise boards, are committed to the economic and industrial development of the Shannon region, including County Clare, in line with national enterprise policy goals, and the achievement of balanced regional development, within the framework of the national spatial strategy.

I recently announced details of a new mandate for Shannon Development. Under the terms of the new mandate, the company is being given a more focused regional economic development remit that will complement the roles of the national agencies, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, in attracting foreign direct investment and developing the indigenous enterprise base in [1047]the region. The city and county enterprise boards will continue to provide supports to stimulate economic activity at local level and to promote the establishment of micro-enterprises in the region.

The new mandate is based on Shannon Development’s own future strategy proposals and has the support of the board and other stakeholders in the region. It is also in line with the recommendations of the enterprise strategy group and the decision to decentralise the headquarters of Enterprise Ireland to Shannon. The new arrangements will provide for a more logical delineation of responsibilities between the enterprise development agencies in the mid-west region and for greater clarity in relation to the economic development aspects of Shannon Development’s remit. I have asked the company to prepare a new three-year corporate plan to give substance to the mandate and I hope to receive this in the near future.

IDA Ireland’s strategy for the mid-west region places an emphasis on the gateway and hub locations of Shannon/Limerick, Tralee and Ennis. The location of new overseas investment in the gateway and hub locations not alone brings high wage jobs to these locations but also has knock-on benefits in other sectors such as supply, distribution and transport, thus creating further investment/employment opportunities for local people in the immediate vicinity and surrounding areas. IDA Ireland’s sectoral emphasis in the mid-west region is on attracting new knowledge intensive projects in information communications and technology, international services, medical technologies and life sciences. Over the past three years, employment has remained broadly constant in IDA supported companies. At the end of 2004, there were 917 people in permanent employment in eight IDA supported companies in County Clare, five of which are located in Ennis.

I do not accept that a comparison between Shannon Development’s job creation record in the Shannon free zone and that of IDA Ireland in the remainder of County Clare is valid. The Shannon free zone has been and continues to be an attractive destination for FDI companies contemplating setting up in the mid-west region or indeed elsewhere in Ireland and this situation will not change with implementation of Shannon Development’s new mandate. Unlike Shannon Development, IDA Ireland has a network of overseas offices and will use this network to aggressively market the zone. Its work in this regard will be complemented by that of Shannon Development, who will retain responsibility for ownership, development and marketing of the zone.

233. Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he is satisfied with the Health and Safety Authority’s response to the fatal car accident that took place on the N59 at Murrivagh, County Mayo, on 22 December 2004 (details supplied). [39492/05]

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen): I understand that the chief executive officer of the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, had a meeting recently with the family and representatives of the person who was killed in the car accident. As a result of the meeting, the CEO has informed me that the HSA is carrying out a review of the circumstances of the accident. Any further action by the HSA will depend on the outcome of the review.

234. Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views on the comments of a person (details supplied), that the drift in Government enterprise policy, as well as proposals to introduce intrusive corporate regulations into legislation, could combine to damage Ireland’s ability to attract US investment and ensure a return of the country to the ranks of Europe’s most impoverished nations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39508/05]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin): I am aware of the comments attributed to this person, which were circulated in the media. The policies of this Government are tightly focused on maintaining and strengthening the good health of our economy. The enterprise strategy group’s analysis of national enterprise policy recognized that we are broadly implementing the right mix of initiatives and policies to maintain economic growth. Where the group suggested policy refinements or enhancements these are being implemented in a progressive implementation process. Sustained economic growth, above the growth rates of our peer group within the most advanced economies of the EU, and the consistent expansion of employment and the labour force is tangible evidence that enterprise policies are delivering economic prosperity.

One of the strengths of the Irish business environment over the last decade has been the light administrative and regulatory burden faced by businesses, compared with other, particularly EU, countries. This is illustrated by the National Competitiveness Council annual competitiveness report 2005, which indicated that the level of regulation in Ireland is relatively low — Ireland ranks in fourth position out of 16. The report also states that current regulations do not significantly [1049]inhibit product market competition in Ireland while the efficiency of competition legislation in Ireland is regarded as average, coming eighth of 16.

Nevertheless, it is recognised that regulatory compliance requirements for business are rising in Ireland due to the increased levels of EU and domestic regulations coming on stream in the area of corporate governance. However a high standard of corporate governance increases investor confidence and supports the operation of financial markets. One of the concerns required to be examined by the Government is the impact recent laws relating to corporate governance are having on entrepreneurs and start-ups.

In July of this year I announced the establishment of a new small business forum to look at the environment in which small business operates in Ireland. This group will examine whether the strategies being followed to support and develop the spirit of entrepreneurship in Ireland are effective and appropriate and is also looking at regulatory burden on small businesses. This group is scheduled to report back to me in March 2006.

Also, in July the Taoiseach announced the establishment of a new business regulation group to tackle regulatory and administrative burdens faced by the Irish business community. The group, which is independently chaired by Donal De Buitléir of AIB Group, is composed of senior business leaders, public sector members, Departments, agencies and regulators. It will report to me on problems arising from outdated, inefficient or disproportionate regulation affecting business and has been operational since November 2005.

235. Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the basis for the policy of denying entitlement to former deserted wife’s benefit recipients as in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 9, whose material circumstances are the same now as they were when they left the payment; where this is specifically provided for in legislation; if he will have examinations made into the difficult transition arrangements faced by such applicants, in particular in relation to training, re-skilling, education, and income adjustment and undertake a policy review in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39387/05]

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mr. Brennan): Deserted wife’s benefit is a payment made to a woman deserted by her husband. Entitlement to payment is based on social insurance contributions paid by the wife or her husband. Following the introduction of the one-parent family payment in 1997, the deserted wives benefit scheme was discontinued with effect from 2 January in that year. The scheme for deserted [1050]wives under social insurance has been retained to the extent that existing entitlements already acquired prior to 1997 have been preserved.

A person who qualified for deserted wife’s benefit must continue to satisfy a number of conditions to retain entitlement to the payment. She must: have at least one qualified child residing with her if under 40 years of age or be over 40 if she has no qualified child; not have earnings exceeding €17,776.33 per annum, which applies only to claims for deserted wife’s benefit made on or after 31 August 1992; be inadequately maintained by her husband; continue to make appropriate efforts to obtain financial maintenance from her husband; not be cohabiting with any person as husband and wife; and not have resumed living with her husband.

Deserted wife’s benefit is payable for as long as a person continues to satisfy the qualifying conditions and is not disqualified for any reason. Once the benefit is terminated, a person cannot reapply again for this payment. However, there are two exceptions: where payment of deserted wife’s benefit is terminated because a person is under 40 years of age and she no longer has a qualified child resident with her, she can re-apply for deserted wife’s benefit when she reaches age 40; where deserted wife’s benefit recipients who are disqualified from receiving payment because they leave the State can again become entitled to the payment if the period of disqualification does not exceed 12 months. The conditions for receipt of deserted wife’s benefit are laid down in section 178 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005.

I understand that in the case to which the Deputy is referring, the applicant had her payment terminated after she informed my Department that she was cohabiting with her partner. There is no provision where someone who leaves the scheme can re-apply for deserted wife’s benefit when the condition which caused them to lose their entitlement — in this case, cohabitation — ceases, other than the two exceptions mentioned above.

236. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the agencies or bodies his Department provides funding to or is administratively responsible for, and those agencies and bodies that his Department is responsible for in respect of Government policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39418/05]

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mr. Brennan): The five statutory agencies operating under the aegis of my Department are the Pensions Board, the Combat Poverty Agency, Comhairle, the Social Welfare Tribunal and the Family Support Agency. In addition, the Pensions [1051]Ombudsman comes under the remit of my Department. Responsibility for replying to parliamentary questions about the above mentioned bodies comes within the remit of my Department. However, the Pensions Ombudsman is independent in the performance of his duties and his decisions are binding and are only appealable to the High Court. In the circumstances, it is not appropriate for my Department to answer questions about investigations being undertaken or decided on by the Pensions Ombudsman.

237. Ms Harkin asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the options which are available to a person (details supplied) in County Donegal to ensure persons are not discriminated against when in receipt of disability in Northern Ireland and living in the Republic. [39487/05]

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mr. Brennan): The EU rules on the co-ordination of social security schemes are contained in Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 and its implementing Regulation (EEC) No. 574/72. The EU rules on the co-ordination of social security schemes are binding in nature and ensure that people who have worked in a number of member states do not lose entitlement to benefits because they have exercised their right of movement within the EU. Under these rules, sickness benefits are paid according to the legislation of the member state where a person had last been in insurable employment, even if the person resides in a different member state.

I understand that the Deputy is referring to the circumstances of a person who is in receipt of sickness benefit from Northern Ireland and has as a result not been awarded invalidity pension. The award of invalidity pension is co-ordinated under the sickness benefit regulations. It is open to a person living in the State, who is in receipt of sickness benefit from the Department of Social Development in Northern Ireland, to apply for the social assistance based disability allowance as they may be entitled to a partial payment, subject to a means test and qualification on medical grounds. If awarded a partial payment of disability allowance, they may be entitled to additional benefits, for example, the household benefits package, free fuel scheme and so forth, again subject to certain conditions. I understand that the person concerned has been issued with a claim form for disability allowance from my Department.

If a person is in receipt of sickness benefit from Northern Ireland and living in the State in excess of 12 months, this payment will be recognised as an equivalent payment to the invalidity pension [1052]and may entitle them to the extra benefits as referred to above, subject to fulfilling the qualifying conditions. The individual may wish in due course to explore this avenue with my Department.

238. Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the moneys paid in respect of a programme (details supplied) in each of the past ten years; if annual reports have been furnished in respect of the programme; if he has satisfied himself in relation to these reports; if buildings are owned by his Department where the programme is centred; if not, the person who is the landlord; the extent of such buildings or other assets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39686/05]

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mr. Brennan): I understand the Deputy’s question refers to the Safe Home programme which is based in Mulranny, County Mayo. The Safe Home programme is core funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs, through the DION fund and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The main objective of the Safe Home programme is to help elderly Irish emigrants wishing to return to Ireland to live but lacking the resources to do so. My Department’s role in funding this programme is solely in respect of information dissemination to emigrants.

Over the period 2001 to 2005 my Department has provided grants to the programme to assist with the provision of good quality comprehensive information for Irish emigrants living abroad who wish to return to Ireland. In 2001, we provided a grant of £6,100 for the publication and distribution of a newsletter to Irish advice centres in the UK and to applicants on the Safe Home programme waiting list. Funding of €15,000 was provided in each of the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 towards the cost of the production and distribution of a monthly newsletter for emigrants abroad, advertising the services provided by the Safe Home programme in the Irish Post and the Irish World and the maintenance of the Safe Home website. In 2005 the allocation to the Safe Home programme from my Department was increased to €80,000 in line with the report of the task force report on policy regarding emigrants, which recommended increased funding for voluntary organisations involved in the provision of information services to Irish emigrants.

My Department has received regular reports about the activities of the Safe Home programme and confirmation has been received that the grants provided have been used for the purposes for which they were intended. My Department does not own the premises in which the Safe [1053]Home programme is located nor has it provided funding towards the rental or acquisition of premises or other assets by this voluntary organisation.

239. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Transport if funding will be provided to a scheme to ensure that it provides the best possible service to users (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39405/05]

Minister for Transport (Mr. Cullen): My Department has been operating the rural transport initiative, RTI, since 2002 under which funding is provided on a pilot basis to 34 community organisations throughout the country to address the particular transport needs of their rural area through the provision of local transport services. Pobal, formerly known as Area Development Management Ltd., administers the initiative on behalf of my Department and makes specific allocations to individual project groups from funding provided by my Department. Neither I nor my Department have any role regarding the specific allocations.

Earlier this year I announced the extension of the pilot phase of the initiative to the end of 2006. In this regard, I was taking account of the principal recommendation of the appraisal of the RTI, carried out in 2004. I also announced that from 2007 onwards I intend to put the scheme on a permanent footing.

This year I provided €4.5 million for the RTI which was a 50% increase over the 2004 allocation and I will be providing some €5 million for the initiative in 2006. I have already announced that, in parallel with the implementation of [1054]Transport 21, I will double the cash funding available to the scheme by 2007 and then steadily increase the funding available for rural transport services — ultimately to a cash level about four times what it is this year.

240. Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport if a person (details supplied) in Dublin 12 will be given an early driving test date. [39601/05]

Minister for Transport (Mr. Cullen): A driving test will be arranged in due course for the person concerned.

241. Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport the number of flights, as a percentage of the total number of flights, funded under public service obligation contracts for regional air services, which have been cancelled for reasons directly attributable to the air carrier for each of the six regional routes; the number of flights as a percentage of the total number of flights delayed by more than 30 minutes for similar reasons on each of the six regional routes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39381/05]

242. Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport the passenger numbers and load factors of each of the routes funded under public service contracts on a monthly basis for the years 2003, 2004 and to date in 2005 on each of the six regional routes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39382/05]

Minister for Transport (Mr. Cullen): I propose to take Questions Nos. 241 and 242 together.

The number of flights which have been cancelled for reasons directly attributable to the air carriers, for each or the six PSO routes, and the number of flights as a percentage of the total number of flights delayed by more than 30 minutes for similar reasons, as monitored under the new round of PSO contracts is as follows.

Route	Delayed by more than 30 Mins	Delayed by more than 30 mins1	Cancellations2
	Number of flights	% of total no. of flights	% of total no. of flights
Donegal	22	5	0.24
Sligo	43	11	0
Galway	31	5	0.16
Kerry	37	6	0
Knock	25	12	0
Derry	55	14	0.25

[1055]Monthly passenger numbers and load factors for each PSO route during 2003, 2004 and 2005 are as follows.

2003 Passenger Numbers.

2003	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Donegal	*	*	2,362	1,740	2,166	3,246	3,948	4,634	3,569	2,613	1990	2,379
Sligo	*	*	3,269	2,251	2,719	2,932	3,023	3,395	3,174	2,901	2,589	2,924
Galway	7,140	7,618	7,903	8,213	9,420	8,569	9,464	8,269	9,194	8,989	7,662	6,399
Kerry	7,102	7,754	8,402	9,191	9,252	8,893	9,282	9,774	9,615	9,484	8,352	7,968
Knock	876	1,003	993	1,136	1,380	1,149	1,233	1,476	1,371	1,349	1,149	1,218
Derry	2,025	2,162	2,356	2,430	2,624	2,650	2,551	2,592	2,707	2,586	2,379	2,248

2003 Load Factors %.

2003	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Donegal	*	*	85	64	72	64	66	77	62	66	65	64
Sligo	*	*	60	39	45	50	51	58	55	49	45	50
Galway	57	62	60	65	71	65	69	63	69	67	60	47
Kerry	65	73	74	77	75	72	70	76	76	73	72	68
Knock	32	37	34	42	46	40	43	52	47	38	42	44
Derry	52	59	58	60	63	68	61	63	66	61	58	65

2004 Passenger Numbers.

2004	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Donegal	2,086	2,324	2,300	2,405	2,415	3,220	3,974	4,191	3,603	3,092	2,474	2,431
Sligo	2,735	3,052	3,036	2,934	3,232	3,164	3,546	3,879	3,805	3,795	3,364	3,225
Galway	4,359	6,833	6,799	7,583	7,695	7,634	8,754	8,141	9,293	8,937	7,888	8,153
Kerry	5,351	6,885	7,727	7,445	9,049	7,584	8,999	8,927	8,764	8,323	8,476	7,829
Knock	1,186	1,378	1,008	1,184	1,183	1,582	1,677	1,827	1,758	1,745	1,714	1,613
Derry	2,103	2,195	2,667	2,405	2,673	2,592	2,699	2,485	2,706	2,594	2,855	2,390

2004 Load Factors %.

2004	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Donegal	54	65	60	64	64	60	66	70	61	61	66	65
Sligo	46	54	51	50	53	54	59	65	65	63	58	54
Galway	51	60	55	63	60	60	68	62	72	67	66	59
Kerry	57	74	71	69	69	69	67	78	76	70	65	65
Knock	41	48	34	40	41	51	54	60	57	58	47	53
Derry	55	58	64	59	63	64	65	59	66	63	71	60

2005 Passenger Numbers.

2005	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov
Donegal	1,880	2,031	2,253	2,373	3,190	3,745	3,828	4,109	3,696	3,321	3,123
Sligo	1,533	3,003	3,321	3,222	3,450	3,834	3,269	3,601	3,547	3,367	2,991
Galway	6,924	8,381	8,777	9,119	8,805	8,357	7,235	6,047	6,625	6,478	6,066
Kerry	6,359	6,885	7,932	8,376	7,954	8,372	7,656	8,055	8,025	7,806	7,441
Knock	1,151	1,486	1,596	1,617	1,668	1,551	1,293	1,272	990	895	669
Derry	2,068	2,315	2,331	2,492	2,543	2,530	2,177	2,352	2,613	2,407	2,446

[1057]2005 Load Factors %.

2005	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov
Donegal	47	56	59	61	58	63	62	68	63	55	53
Sligo	26	56	55	54	57	66	54	58	60	55	51
Galway	52	65	61	67	65	65	63	64	74	71	67
Kerry	57	74	65	71	66	68	65	69	71	68	69
Knock	37	51	50	54	54	54	54	64	53	45	39
Derry	56	61	59	61	62	63	52	54	62	59	64

[1057]The load factor percentages are based on the seat capacity of the particular aircraft utilised by the carriers on each route and aircraft types can vary from time to time for operational reasons. The capacity of the regional aircraft concerned ranges from 35-68 seats; the minimum aircraft size required under the PSO contracts is 30 seats.

243. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Transport the agencies or bodies his Department provides funding to or is administratively responsible for, and those agencies and bodies that his Department is responsible for in respect of Government policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter [39419/05]

Minister for Transport (Mr. Cullen): The agencies or bodies for which my Department is responsible are listed in the Department’s annual report and on my Department’s website, www.transport.ie. While my Department oversees the role of these agencies and bodies and has responsibility for the funding, policy and legislative framework in which they operate, day-to-day operational matters are the direct responsibility of the agencies concerned.

In addition, my Department provides funding to a variety of other bodies to assist in implementing transport proposals listed in the programme for Government. For example, my Department provides funding to the city councils in Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford with regard to traffic management projects and also provides funding to Pobal, which administers the rural transport initiative, RTI, on my behalf.

Funding is also provided to the regional airports in respect of infrastructural and operational improvements and to the Irish Road Haulage Association to help address the problems facing their industry. Again, while my Department is responsible for the implementation of the policies related to the provision of those funds, general day-to-day operational matters of the recipients of the funding are the direct responsibility of those bodies.

244. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Transport if a study has been carried out on the levels of disruption that persons will face due to the Transport 21 plan; the results of such a study; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39631/05]

Minister for Transport (Mr. Cullen): The number and scale of projects within the greater Dublin area is likely to pose complex challenges and will obviously need careful consideration in order to minimise disruption to transport users, businesses and the general public. In this regard I stated at the launch of Transport 21 that I was convinced that we need a new approach to transport in the greater Dublin area, delivered through a single authority with the power to ensure joined-up thinking and delivery across all transport modes. For this reason I have appointed a team chaired by Professor Margaret O’Mahony to finalise the remit, structures and human resource requirements of the proposed authority, and I look forward to receiving the report of the establishment team in the new year.

It is clear that the significant experience which transport agencies and contractors have gained in the past ten years in the management of major transport projects will be applied to the planning and implementation of future projects in order to minimise the level of disruption for everyone.

245. Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Transport the amount of funding which was spent of the rail line between Dublin and Rosslare since 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39646/05]

Minister for Transport (Mr. Cullen): Iarnród Éireann has supplied the following information in answer to the Deputy’s question. Total funding on the Dublin to Rosslare line since 1998 has amounted to €90 million. This includes renewal of all the track work, replacement of bridges, fencing, level crossing upgrading and coastal defence works. Some of the coastal defence works is on sections of line common with DART services, that is, at Killiney and Bray head.

246. D'fhiafraigh Aengus Ó Snodaigh den Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta an bhfuil aon deontais ar fáil do ghrúpaí pobail ón Roinn nóó na heagrais a dtugann sé maoiniú dóibh chun aosaigh a thabhairt ar chúrsaí Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht. [39364/05]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Éamon Ó Cuív): Faoin scéim chúrsaí Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht do dhaoine fásta atáá reáchtáil ag mo Roinnse, is féidir deontas a íoc le coistí iontaofa a bhíonn ag feidhmiú sa Ghaeltacht agus a eagraíonn cúrsaí Gaeilge do dhaoine fásta inti. Tá an scéim seo dírithe ar dhaoine a bhfuil cónaí orthu lasmuigh den Ghaeltacht go príomha agus a bhfuil suim acu sa teanga agus sa chultúr Gaelach. Deontas nach rachaidh thar €19.05 a bhíonn i gceist i leith gach rannpháirtí a fhreastalaíonn ar chúrsa nach lú ná sé lá agus deontas nach rachaidh thar €38.10 i leith gach rannpháirtí a fhreastalaíonn ar chúrsa nach lú ná 12 lá.

Maidir le heagraíochtaí eile faoi scáth mo Roinne-se, tuigim óÚdarás na Gaeltachta go gcuirtear tacaíocht ar fáil do réimse beartas foghlama Gaeilge do phobal na Gaeltachta agus go bhfuiltear páirteach i gcúrsaí iarchéime san aistriúchán agus sa Ghaeilge fheidhmeannach i gcomhar le hinstitiúidí tríú leibhéal. Glactar le hiarratais ó dhaoine laistigh agus lasmuigh den Ghaeltacht ar na cúrsaí sin. Maidir le Foras na Gaeilge, tuigtear dom nach dtugann an foras cúnamh díreach do chúrsaí ach go gcuirtear maoiniú ar fail d’eagraíochtaíáirithe — Oideas Gael agus Gael-Linn, mar shampla — a eagraíonn cúrsaí sa Ghaeltacht do dhaoine fásta.

247. Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will substantially increase the funding available for the delivery of the emerging needs fund in view of the fact that the budget of €1 million is inadequate to deal with the drugs crisis in local communities. [39395/05]

249. Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will implement the current round of the emerging needs fund in accordance with the criteria that were agreed and circulated in early 2005. [39397/05]

251. Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on the problems in the development of the emerging needs fund designed to tackle the drugs crisis; and the steps he will take to provide funds for the identified needs in local communities and to apply the criteria agreed earlier in 2005. [39480/05]

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Mr. N. Ahern): I propose to take Questions Nos. 247, 249 and 251 together.

As I pointed out in my reply to Question No. 336 on 13 December, it was brought to my attention last year that demands for services in a number of local drugs task force areas were arising in the context of changing trends in drug misuse. In view of this I announced an emerging needs fund earlier this year. The emerging needs fund represents an initiative to deal with different issues arising as the drugs misuse scenario evolves and a sum up to €1m has been earmarked to meet those needs. To date, I have allocated just under €200,000 to five projects and I hope to be in a position to make further allocations in the near future. The question of providing additional moneys to the fund will be considered in the overall context of budgetary allocations for 2006.

248. Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will give a clear mandate to the national drugs strategy team and local drug task forces to re-embark on a strategic planning process that would allow local communities to develop an efficient, integrated and co-ordinated approach to the drugs crisis, with realistic funding available on a planned basis. [39396/05]

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Mr. N. Ahern): The task forces are, for the most part, currently implementing their second round of action plans and it is only in the current year that full implementation of some of these plans has been achieved. Before even considering the development of further strategies I feel it would be prudent to evaluate what has been achieved by the local drug task forces to date. This matter is currently receiving consideration.

Question No. 249 answered with Question
No. 247.

250. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the agencies or bodies his Department provides funding to or is administratively responsible for, and those agencies and bodies that his Department is responsible for in respect of Government policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39420/05]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Éamon Ó Cuív): My Department’s strategy statement for 2005 to 2007 gives details of those State agencies and other bodies reporting to, or under the aegis of, my Department, for which I am appropriately accountable to the Oireachtas. There are many other bodies [1061]or groups which receive funding directly from my Department or, for example, through Pobal. While I am not responsible for these groups and am not required to account for them in Dáil replies, I am, of course, accountable to the Dáil in the normal way for all moneys expended from the Vote of my Department.

Question No. 251 answered with Question
No. 247.

252. D'fhiafraigh Aengus Ó Snodaigh den Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta cad é an céatadán de Chiste na Gaeilge a thagann ón gCrannchur Náisiúnta. [39497/05]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Éamon Ó Cuív): Tá Ciste na Gaeilge maoinithe go hiomlán ón gCrannchur Náisiúnta i láthair na huaire.

253. Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the reason given by a person (details supplied) for resigning from the national drug strategy committee; his response to the issues raised; if he will make efforts to resolve these issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39515/05]

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Mr. N. Ahern): As I said in my reply to question No. 334 yesterday, I received a letter from the individual concerned in which he indicated his intention to resign his position as representative of the community sector on the national drugs strategy team. His contribution to the national drugs strategy is acknowledged and appreciated.

The issues raised in his letter of resignation focus on the emerging needs fund, the level of funding available for local and regional drugs task forces and his views on the rate of progress on the implementation of some actions under the national drugs strategy. I confirm that appropriate action is being taken in regard to all these matters.

He previously indicated his intention to step down from his position to my Department in September and has offered to remain as a member of the national drugs strategy team until February 2006. He also intends to remain as the community sector representative on the inter-departmental group on drugs and on the national advisory committee of the young peoples facilities and services fund until community representatives are nominated.

254. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will [1062]consider applications for grant aid from various towns and villages throughout County Kildare where the local communities are anxious to put on festivals or other supportive activities to coincide with the Ryder Cup; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39619/05]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Éamon Ó Cuív): I have no function in supporting events to coincide with the Ryder Cup. I wish all associated with it every success.

255. Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she will take to ensure that the single farm payment due to a person (details supplied) in County Westmeath is awarded; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39321/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): The person named submitted an application under the single payment scheme inheritance category. This application has been successfully processed and his entitlements have been consolidated to the number of hectares submitted on his 2005 single payment application form. Payment will shortly issue to the person named.

256. Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she will take to ensure that the single farm payment due to a person (details supplied) in County Offaly is awarded; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39322/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): An application under the single payment scheme was received from the person named on 16 May 2005, with a declared area of 50.65 hectares.

While the person named had been advised that he had been allocated four entitlements, based on the farming activity during the reference years, a further 47.17 entitlements were also transferred to the person named, giving a total of 51.17 entitlements. In order to qualify, however, for full payment under the single payment scheme, an applicant must declare an eligible hectare to accompany each entitlement. This requirement was set out clearly in the documentation supplied to farmers on several occasions.

Therefore, the application of the person named is being processed for payment on the basis of the declared area. Payment is expected to issue shortly.

257. Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she will take to ensure that the single farm payment due to a person (details supplied) in County Offaly is awarded; [1063]and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39323/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): An application under the single payment scheme was received from the person named on 9 May 2005, with a declared area of 13.83 hectares. The person named had been advised that he had been allocated 3.48 entitlements, based on his farming activity during the reference years. The application of the person named has already been processed on this basis and payment will issue this week. As the person named is being assigned an additional 10.38 entitlements under the private contract clause procedure, a further payment will be made immediately this process is completed. It is expected that this payment will issue shortly.

258. Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if a person (details supplied) in County Kerry will qualify for entitlements under the single payments scheme from the national reserve; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39365/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): Following an unsuccessful application and appeal under the force majeure or exceptional circumstances measure of the single payment scheme, the person named was invited in August 2005 to submit an application for consideration under the national reserve measure of the scheme. My Department, however, has no record of receipt of an application form from the person named.

259. Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if a person (details supplied) in County Kerry will qualify under the single payment scheme for consideration as new entrant or inheritance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39366/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): The person named submitted an application for inheritance under the single payment scheme. My Department has been in contact with him regarding documentation needed in order to process his application. The required documentation has not been received to date. On receipt of this documentation my Department will process his inheritance application.

260. Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if a person (details supplied) in County Kerry will qualify for the single farm payment from the national reserve; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39367/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): The person in question submitted an application for an allocation of entitlements from [1064]the single payments scheme national reserve under categories A and D. Category A caters for farmers who inherited land or received land free of charge or for a nominal sum from a farmer who had retired or died by 16 May 2005 and who had leased out his or her holding to a third party during the reference period 2000 to 2002. Category D caters for farmers who commenced farming after 31 December 2002 or who commenced farming in 2002 but who received no direct payments in respect of that scheme year.

However, the rules governing the single payment scheme stipulate that an applicant who is found to be eligible under more than one category in the reserve may only receive an allocation of entitlements under whichever category is most beneficial to him or her.

The position is that over 23,000 applications for an allocation of entitlements from the national reserve were received when account is taken of farmers who applied under more than one category. Processing of these applications is continuing and the intention is to make allocations to successful applicants early in 2006. The Department will be in touch with individual applicants as soon as their applications are fully processed.

261. Ms Enright asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason a person (details supplied) in County Offaly cannot obtain a herd number in his own right; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39368/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): The person in question has been registered as keeper for all purposes related to the herd since the end of August 2005, but notification did not issue to him because of a difficulty regarding registration as herdowner for the purposes of payment. The person’s wife has been registered as the herdowner. The parties involved have now been informed of the decision and have consented to it.

262. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the breakdown of the €300 million package that was agreed at the EU agricultural Ministers meeting in Brussels in regard to the Irish sugar industry; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39442/05]

263. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her views on the effect of the recent meeting decisions of the EU agricultural Ministers in regard to sugar production will have an sugar beet producers in the midlands, north Leinster area. [39443/05]

264. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she has satisfied herself that the package proposed as a result of the recent EU agricultural Ministers meeting will assist farmers [1065]especially those with long distance travel costs and problems to continue beet production; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39444/05]

265. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the payments a company (details supplied) will receive in regard to the recent EU agricultural Ministers meeting proposals in regard to sugar production; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39445/05]

272. Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if account was taken of cereal growers needs during the recent negotiations on the European Community’s sugar reform compensation package in view of their reliance on sugar beet production to augment their income from tillage farming; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39558/05]

273. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her views on whether the compensation package from the EU will be sufficient to meet the needs of growers and workers in the beet industry here; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39622/05]

274. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason she intends to compensate a company (details supplied) for the decline in the sugar beet industry here; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39623/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 262 to 265, inclusive, and 272 to 274, inclusive, together.

The recent political agreement by the Council of Agriculture Ministers for the reform of the EU sugar regime was the culmination of a protracted and difficult negotiating process. During the negotiations, I availed of every opportunity to highlight the serious repercussions the reform proposals would have for the Irish industry. I pointed out that beet growing has long been a valuable cash crop for Irish cereal farmers, as well as playing an important role in the tillage cycle as a break crop.

Nevertheless the outcome, in my view, represents the best possible deal that could have been achieved for Irish stakeholders in the circumstances and is a considerable improvement on the Commission’s initial proposals of last June. The main features of the agreement include a lower reduction in the support price of sugar than the originally proposed 36% instead of
39%; a phasing-in of the corresponding reduction in the minimum sugar beet price over four years, instead of the two-step reduction originally proposed; an increased rate of compensation for beet growers of up to 64% of the price reduction, to be paid in the form of direct payments worth [1066]approximately €121 million to Irish beet growers over the next seven years; a once-off payment worth almost €44 million exclusively for beet growers in the event that sugar beet production ceases in Ireland, and an aid package of up to €145 million for economic, social and environmental costs of restructuring of the Irish sugar industry involving factory closure and renunciation of quota.

The entire compensation package for Ireland has an estimated value in excess of €300 million. It will be a matter for beet growers and Irish Sugar Limited to make decisions about sugar beet growing in light of the reformed sugar regime. In the event that sugar production ceases in Ireland, a once-off payment of almost €44 million would be available for growers. Also the restructuring fund of up to €145 million would become available to provide compensation for the economic, social and environmental costs arising from factory closure.

The agreement provides that at least 10% of the fund shall be reserved for sugar beet growers and machinery contractors to compensate notably for losses arising from investment in specialised machinery. This amount may be increased by member states after consultation of interested parties as long as the financial breakdown of the elements of the restructuring plan is kept balanced according to a sound economic proposal.

The formal legal texts giving effect to the agreement will be adopted by the Council of Ministers early next year after the opinion of the European Parliament has been received. The Commission will then come forward with proposals for detailed implementing rules. Pending the adoption of the relevant regulations it is not possible to give further definitive information. However, as with the earlier phases of Common Agricultural Policy reform, the Department of Agriculture and Food will make timely arrangements for implementing the new regime in due course. The new regime will come into effect for the 2006-2007 marketing year, beginning on 1 July 2006.

266. Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason the single farm payment has not issued to persons (details supplied) in County Mayo; and if they will receive their payment before Christmas. [39454/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): While an application under the single payment scheme was received in this case on 6 May 2005, no payment is due, as no entitlements were established during the reference period.

267. Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason a person (details [1067]supplied) in County Mayo has not received the single farm payment. [39455/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): The Department of Agriculture and Food has been in contact with the person in question in connection with an inheritance application. On receipt of additional information from the individual, this case can be processed by the Department.

268. Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if there was an error in the single farm payment received recently by a person (details supplied) in County Clare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39456/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): The applicants established 36.36 hectares entitlements for 2005. A single payment scheme application form was received on 4 May 2005 declaring a total of 33.97 forage hectares and 7.61 hectares for forestry.

Under EU legislation, an applicant, in order to draw down his or her full single payment, must declare an eligible hectare to accompany each entitlement. This requirement was set out clearly in the documentation supplied to farmers on several occasions. Therefore, the applicants were paid €6,349.31 based on 33.97 forage hectares declared on the 2005 single payment application form. If the applicants declare sufficient land on their 2006 single payment application, they will be in a position to claim full entitlements next year.

269. Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if an application for a national reserve allocation has been received from a person (details supplied) in County Donegal; if said application has been approved or rejected; if rejected, if an appeal has been submitted; if same is under consideration; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39478/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): The person named submitted an application for an allocation of entitlements from the single payments scheme national reserve under categories B (i), (iii) and D. Category B caters for farmers who, between 1 January 2000 and 19 October 2003, made an investment in production capacity in a farming sector for which a direct payment under livestock premia and-or arable aid schemes would have been payable during the reference period 2000 to 2002. Category D caters for farmers who commenced farming after 31 December 2002 or in 2002 but who received no direct payments in respect of that scheme year.

It should be noted, however, that the rules governing the single payment scheme stipulate that an applicant who is found to be eligible under [1068]more than one category in the reserve may only receive an allocation of entitlements under whichever category is most beneficial to him or her. The position is that more than 23,000 applications for an allocation of entitlements from the national reserve were received when account is taken of farmers who applied under more than one category. Processing of these applications is continuing and the intention is to make allocations to successful applicants early in 2006. The Department will be in touch with individual applicants as soon as their applications are fully processed.

270. Mr. McGuinness asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she will respond to a delegation met by her Department from Kilkenny who outlined their case for compensation arising from the affects of scrapie on their sheep flocks; and if a response will be expedited (details supplied). [39511/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): A response on the three cases in question has issued. With regard to one of the cases my Department has agreed in principle to arrange for full depopulation of the flock which was the preferred option of the flockowner. In the other two cases the specific arrangements sought by the flockowners concerned are not possible within the terms of the agreement on scrapie. However, I have decided to make a significant improvement in the level of compensation available under this scheme and this will be a major benefit to the flockowners concerned.

271. Mr. McGuinness asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if an appeal can be arranged in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny; if a decision can be made in the case; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39512/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): A single payment scheme application was received from the person named on 5 May 2005, declaring a total of 42.7 hectares of forage lands. The person named had been advised that they had been allocated 52.07 entitlements, based on the farming activity during the reference years. To qualify for full payment under the single payment scheme an applicant must declare an eligible hectare to accompany each entitlement. This requirement was set out clearly in the documentation supplied to farmers on a number of occasions.

While payment has been made to the person named on the basis of the lands declared on his single payment scheme application form, it is open to him to make contact with my officials, [1069]outlining the circumstances, which caused him to declare insufficient land to fully activate his entitlements. The person named should write directly to the SPS Payments Unit, Portlaoise, clearly outlining his case.

Questions Nos. 272 to 274, inclusive, answered with Question No. 262.

275. Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she has satisfied herself that all poultry sold and exported from here, with Ireland as the country of origin, was produced here; her views on whether some of the product was produced elsewhere; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39647/05]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan): The general food labelling legislation, as set out in EU Directive 2000/13/EC and implemented in this country by the European Communities (Labelling, Presentation and Advertising of Foodstuffs) 2003 regulations, S.I. 483/2002, requires that the labelling of foodstuffs must not mislead the consumer as to various properties of the food including origin. There is, therefore, a legal prohibition on claiming that any product, including poultry meat, is Irish if it is not. These rules apply throughout the Community.

The EU poultry meat marketing standards regulations require that all unprocessed poultry coming from a non-EU country must bear an indication of that country on its label. Officers of my Department check that this law is being complied with. There is no requirement to indicate the country of origin on poultry meat produced in an EU country. When such meat is imported into Ireland and is cut up and-or repackaged here before being placed on sale the poultry will be stamped with the oval IRL health mark. This is a requirement of veterinary legislation in place throughout the EU and an essential tool in facilitating traceability in the event, for example, of product recall. The IRL health mark must not be interpreted as an indication of Irish origin. Officials of my Department monitor the correct application of health marks to meat.

276. Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of gardaí serving in each of the Garda stations in Connacht for each year since 1997 and to date in 2005; the population served by each Garda station in 1997 and to date in 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39338/05]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): The information sought by the Deputy is contained in the responses to Questions Nos. 192 of 7 December 2005 and 371 of 13 [1070]December 2005. As I stated in reply to Question No. 371 yesterday, I expect to be in a position to respond to the Deputy next week.

277. Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his Department’s plans for a plot of land (details supplied) in Dublin 8; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39363/05]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): I am considering how this site might best be utilised. My Department has held discussions with officials from Dublin City Council on possible uses of the property. The current position, however, is that a number of legal formalities remain to be completed before I am in a position to make a final decision on the matter.

278. Mr. Aylward asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if the appeal by a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny to extend their visitors visa to allow them permission to remain in the State will be considered. [39385/05]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): The person concerned was granted a C visit visa to enter the State to visit her friend for a period of three months. It now appears that she is seeking an extension of her permission to remain in the State.

An examination of the papers on the case indicates that the person concerned sought an extension of her C visit visa with the immigration division of my Department and was refused. Notification of this decision issued on 30 November 2005. This decision was subsequently appealed, to which a refusal also issued on 7 December 2005.

A wrap-around information sheet accompanies every visa application form. That sheet makes it clear to the applicant that, in general, persons granted visas for particular purposes are not permitted to remain in the State for any purpose other than that for which the visa was granted. Every visa applicant is required to state on the application form the dates on which he or she proposes to enter and leave Ireland. He or she is also required to declare that the information supplied is correct and complete.

A C visa is granted for visits of less than 90 days. As a consequence, it is not the general policy to extend permission to remain to persons who are admitted initially for a period of 90 days or less on a C visa, save in exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. The person concerned must leave and reapply from outside the State, should she wish to return. She should include in [1071]her new visa application the purpose and duration of her intended stay.

279. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the agencies or bodies his Department provides funding to or is administratively responsible for, and those agencies and bodies that his Department is responsible for in respect of Government policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39422/05]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): A wide range of agencies and bodies fall within the ambit of my Department. These agencies and bodies perform a wide variety of functions, some of which are independent of my Department. For example, the Human Rights Commission is an independent human rights institution. However, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I have certain legal responsibilities concerning the financing and staffing of the commission and the laying of its reports before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The reception and integration agency of my Department, RIA, provides some funding to the Health Service Executive, HSE, for the provision of accommodation for separated children seeking asylum — that is, unaccompanied minors, children below the age of 18. Under the Refugee Act 1996, as amended, and the Child Care Act 1991, the care of these children is statutorily the responsibility of the HSE. However, because these children are asylum seekers, the RIA provides funding towards the cost of their accommodation. In 2004, this funding amounted to approximately €4.9 million.

My Department provides funding for a number of schemes, the day to day operation of which is performed by Pobal — formally Area Development Management Ltd. — on my Department’s behalf. I have no responsibility to the Dáil in respect of Pobal as an organisation. However, both my Department and myself respond to queries and parliamentary questions regarding these schemes. Currently these schemes include the equal opportunities child care programme, the equality for women measure and community CCTV projects.

280. Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding the framing of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry by senior gardaí and the new evidence from a Garda who did not want to be associated with conspiracies to frame persons; and his role in this cover-up and miscarriage of justice case. [39451/05]

281. Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason no action was taken on the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry during his term of office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39452/05]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): I propose to take Questions Nos. 280 and 281 together.

I am aware of the allegations made by and on behalf of the person in question but the mere assertion of wrongdoing does not progress the matter in any constructive manner. In this regard, it should be noted that the Garda Síochána complaints board investigated a complaint made by the person in question on the matter. The complaints board found that neither an offence nor a breach of discipline on the part of any member of the Garda Síochána had been disclosed.

Nevertheless, I have contacted the person’s representative seeking any available documentary or other forms of information which that person considers would support the stated allegations. I am currently awaiting a response and, upon receipt, I will consider the matter further. I do not accept the contention that no action has been taken in the matter.

282. Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if the Garda Síochána has intelligence to the effect that, or if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a Member or Members of Dáil or Seanad Éireann are or have been members of the IRA, the IRA Army Council or any other illegal organisation in the past three years. [39481/05]

283. Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if the Garda Síochána has intelligence to the effect that, or if his attention has been drawn to the fact that persons (details supplied) are or have been members of the IRA, the IRA Army Council or any other illegal organisation. [39482/05]

284. Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if the Garda Síochána has intelligence to the effect that, or if his attention has been drawn to the fact that persons (details supplied) are or have been members of the IRA, the IRA Army Council or any other illegal organisation. [39483/05]

285. Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if the Garda Síochána has any intelligence to the effect that, or if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a member or members of any local authority here, are or have been members of the IRA, the IRA Army Council or any other illegal organisation in the past three years. [39484/05]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): I propose to take Questions Nos. 282 to 285, inclusive, together.

I have already placed on the public record my knowledge of the status of certain named persons and I do not propose to go further in this regard.

286. Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he showed Garda documentation concerning a person (details supplie