Da´Il E´Ireann

Vol. 685 Wednesday, No. 1 17 June 2009

DI´OSPO´ IREACHTAI´ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

DA´ IL E´ IREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIU´ IL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Wednesday, 17 June 2009.

Leaders’ Questions ……………………………… 1 Ceisteanna — Questions Taoiseach ………………………………… 5 Order of Business ……………………………… 16 Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion ………………… 26 Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009 — Committee Stage ………… 37 Ceisteanna — Questions (resumed) Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs Priority Questions …………………………… 42 Other Questions …………………………… 51 Message from Select Committee ………………………… 65 Adjournment Debate Matters …………………………… 65 Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (resumed) ……… 65 Visit of Chinese Delegation …………………………… 69 Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009 — Committee Stage (resumed) and Remaining Stages ……………………………… 69 Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report Stage (resumed) ………………… 84 Private Members’ Business Unemployment Levels: Motion (resumed) …………………… 113 Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report Stage (resumed) ………………… 139 Adjournment Debate Cancer Treatment Services ………………………… 160 General Medical Services Scheme ……………………… 162 Health Service Reform …………………………… 164 Post Office Network …………………………… 166 Questions: Written Answers …………………………… 169 DA´ IL E´ IREANN

DI´OSPO´ IREACHTAI´ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

TUAIRISC OIFIGIU´ IL OFFICIAL REPORT

Imleabhar 685 Volume 685

De´ Ce´adaoin, 17 Meitheamh 2009. Wednesday, 17 June 2009.

————

Chuaigh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m.

————

Paidir. Prayer

————

Leaders’ Questions. Deputy Enda Kenny: The Taoiseach is aware that my party has a very different view from the Government’s on the proposals to deal with the banking crisis, in particular with regard to the National Asset Management Agency or NAMA. Obviously, the confusion that surrounds this is a cause of major concern, particularly when bodies like the IMF say that the difficulty for Government is in determining the extent of the valuation of assets to be acquired. This could have disastrous consequences for taxpayers and the economy generally. Will the Taoiseach clear up this confusion? Given where the Government is in its preparations for NAMA, what is the Government’s assessment of the amount of discount to be applied in respect of assets to be acquired by NAMA?

The Taoiseach: There is no confusion whatever on the Government’s part with regard to the establishment of this agency, which is a necessary response to ensure that we have sufficient liquidity in the economy for the supply of credit to businesses both large and small. This is an arduous and complex task and it is being proceeded with as a priority. The question of valuation will be part of that process when we get NAMA up and running. There are EU guidelines on the valuation of impaired assets to which we will be working, both through the ECB and the expertise that will be employed by NAMA for that purpose. That process has just begun.

Deputy Enda Kenny: That does not answer the question. I recognise, as does the Taoiseach, the absolute importance of having a banking system that works whereby credit can flow to 1 Leaders’ 17 June 2009. Questions

[Deputy Enda Kenny.] small businesses, which is not happening now. We have a different view as to how that should happen. Be that as it may, bank shares are now beginning to climb and the country’s credit rating is continuing to decline. This is because the banks have been saying to their shareholders that the discount will be 20%. Following discussions with the banks, J.P. Morgan is saying this morning that the amount of discount will be 20%. This has massive implications for the taxpayer. The Taoiseach is aware that land valuations and many other asset valuations have declined by 60% to 80%. There are no Green Party Members here this morning that I can see——

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: They are outside.

Deputy Enda Kenny: ——yet the Green Party said six weeks ago that the discount would be 40%. So if the banks are telling their shareholders the discount will be 20%, the Government does not have a view on this, the Greens are saying 40% and international financial houses, after discussions with the Irish banks, are saying 20%, is this not a case of a massive transfer from the taxpayer to bank shareholders? With bank shares beginning to climb as a consequence of those discussions, the country’s credit rating is going down. We all understand the importance of having a banking system that works, but it is about time the Government cleared up that element of the confusion applying here. What is the discount to be approximately? Is it 20%, 30%, 40% or 50%? I am aware that when loans were acquired in the beginning, certain equities would have been put up by those who drew down those loans and many of those are technically bankrupt. However, we do not want a situation whereby bank shares are continuing to rise while the country’s credit rating is going down. This only gives credence to the belief that what is involved here is a massive bailout of banks at taxpayers’ expense. Can the Taoiseach clear up that confusion? Does the Government intend to apply a discount rate of 20%, 30%, 40% or 50% to the assets to be acquired?

The Taoiseach: I refute Deputy Kenny’s continually irresponsible approach in suggesting that what is being done on behalf of the Irish banking system is some kind of bailout of banks.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Dinny McGinley: There has been irresponsibility for the past 20 years over there.

The Taoiseach: This continuous mantra of a populist message is, of course, something that he feels will give him some sort of political advantage. I do not know, but the real issue here is——

Deputy Enda Kenny: That is a transfer from the taxpayer to the banks.

The Taoiseach: The whole purpose of the Government’s action is to ensure there is adequate capital in our banks thus ensuring there is sufficient confidence both domestically and internationally, so that they can get access to the funds that are necessary for them to conduct business and for Irish business to conduct its business, since that is a prerequisite of any modern economy.

Deputy Enda Kenny: We know that.

The Taoiseach: As regards the question of who takes the hit in the first instance, obviously it is the owners of the loans and, indeed, the banks who take the first hit.

Deputy Frank Feighan: Small businesses are taking the hit. 2 Leaders’ 17 June 2009. Questions

The Taoiseach: The continual portrayal by Deputy——

Deputy Frank Feighan: The terms of reference are protecting builders, but are not protecting small businesses.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Feighan has no locus standi here whatsoever. I will have to ask him to leave in a moment if he keeps it up.

Deputy Frank Feighan: Small businesses in this country are going to the wall. The banks are telling small businesses to close up shop. The terms of reference have to be changed.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is not entitled to interfere.

Deputy Frank Feighan: What is happening in this country is outrageous.

An Ceann Comhairle: I will have to ask the Deputy to leave if he keeps this up.

Deputy Frank Feighan: Every business is being thrown to the wolves. The Government is not protecting the small businesses of this country.

An Ceann Comhairle: I will have to ask the Deputy to leave if he keeps it up. He will have to leave. If a question is asked of the Taoiseach he must be allowed to reply. This is a democratic forum.

Deputy Pa´draic McCormack: If he is not replying, what can you do?

The Taoiseach: The continual portrayal by Deputy Kenny in the past was, of course, that there was no discounting taking place and that the book value of \90 billion was the amount to be mostly undertaken by the banks.

Deputy Enda Kenny: The Greens are saying 40%, while the banks are saying 20%.

The Taoiseach: After the elections, he has a totally different point of view. That concerns the level of discount, which was the point we were making all the time. The ultimate discount depends on asset quality and many other criteria, which will be decided by NAMA in the first instance, and not by anyone outside the House.

Deputy Enda Kenny: So the Green Party is wrong and the banks are wrong.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Has the Taoiseach seen the speech made yesterday by the Arch- bishop of Dublin, Dr. Diarmuid Martin? The archbishop stated it is no longer tenable to have 92% of the primary schools in the country managed by the Catholic church. He described that situation as an almost monopoly that is an historic hangover which does not reflect the realities of today’s Ireland. He went on to suggest that there should be new models for the management of primary schools that would provide for parental choice and which would reflect the diversity of life in today’s Ireland. Archbishop Martin has suggested that there should be dialogue between the State and the Catholic church on this matter. He has also suggested that there should be a national forum to discuss new models for the patronage and management of schools. Does the Taoiseach agree with the archbishop’s general assessment? Will he take up the suggestion made by the archbishop for dialogue between the State and the Catholic church on the patronage and management of schools? Will he agree to establish the national forum on education and on the future patronage and management of schools advocated by the archbishop? 3 Leaders’ 17 June 2009. Questions

The Taoiseach: I have not had the opportunity to study what Archbishop Martin had to say yesterday, although I recall him speaking on this matter before when dealing with fast developing areas in Dublin, for example. He had much to say about that, which would be broadly welcomed. I had the opportunity to meet with Church of Ireland archbishops this week on church-State dialogue, something with which I am anxious to continue. An opportunity to meet with members of the Catholic hierarchy could include some discussion on this matter as well. I welcome Archbishop Martin’s general approach and indication of his views on these matters. Dialogue can best be conducted on the basis of mutual respect. The question of the right to denominational education remains an important part of the Catholic church’s view, and the view of churches in general. That was reiterated by the minority churches and the Church of Ireland archbishops who met me this week. From reports of what Archbishop Martin had to say, he spoke about this being a deliberative and gradual process, something that needs to be examined and discussed with thoroughness. Having studied what he had to say, I will take up the opportunity what he had to say and obtain the views of the Minister concerned, and see what way I can proceed with this matter in terms of church-State dialogue.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: We have had church-State dialogue for some time. The Taoiseach will recall that his predecessor put in place a process for the holding of church-State discussions and talks of a general nature. This is not the first time that Archbishop Martin has expressed these views on the patronage and management of schools. It would appear to me that he is far ahead of the Government on this issue. For example, he was able to outline in his speech yesterday the details of ownership of schools and school properties, something which the Mini- ster of Education and Science was unable to provide in a reply to a Da´il question tabled by Deputy Quinn a few weeks ago. He has specifically suggested a mechanism for the conduct of talks about schools, and that is the idea of a national forum on education, education management and patronage. Will the Government agree to the setting up of such a forum? It would allow for discussions to take place in a reasoned way and over a period of time between the State, the churches, the various educational interests, the various bodies that are currently patrons of schools or that wish to be patrons, and which can be open to hearing the views of the different stakeholders in the education system, such as parents, teachers and so on. The suggestion of a national education forum by the Archbishop of Dublin is very progress- ive. I ask the Taoiseach to agree to it and to set it up as soon as possible.

The Taoiseach: As I have already stated, I will study the archbishop’s speech, but I have not yet had a chance to do so. I already acknowledged in my first reply many of the things that Archbishop Martin has had to say on these issues, and I welcome them. There have been developments in the governance of our school system over time which have seen a much greater degree of parental representation and involvement in school management. This has not been a static process, as perhaps has been suggested. Various State models on patronage and school management have been brought forward, depending on different circumstances. As chief patron of Catholic schools in the Dublin Archdiocese, the archbishop’s openness to consider different governance structures has been refreshing. That openness is obviously still consistent with his aims on these matters. It is only on the basis of mutually respectful dialogue that progress will be made in this area. I emphasise once again that this is a matter than can be examined under church-State dialogue, and I will soon have an opportunity to meet with members of the Catholic hierarchy. Deputy Quinn seems to have a problem with that.

Deputy Ruairı´ Quinn: The Taoiseach is kicking the issue to touch. 4 Ceisteanna — 17 June 2009. Questions

The Taoiseach: I am not kicking it to touch. What I am not doing is going straight to the Deputy’s position. I am ensuring that we will proceed with these matters in an appropriate way——

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: The Taoiseach is not proceeding.

The Taoiseach: Excuse me. A speech was made yesterday and I have not had the opportunity yet to read it. I do not make up policy on the basis of not having read what a person has to say.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: What is the Taoiseach’s policy?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Taoiseach, without interruption.

The Taoiseach: I have indicated my general disposition on these matters. I have welcomed much of what has been said, and I have said that the Government will consider this matter and proceed. I am sorry if we do not make it up on the hoof overnight.

Ceisteanna — Questions.

————

Ministerial Travel. 1. Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Taoiseach his plans, in view of the cutbacks being imposed within the Defence Forces, to restrict the use of Air Corps aircraft by Ministers, particularly for travel within Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17774/09]

2. Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach his plans to change the regulations governing the use by Ministers of Air Corps aircraft in view of the cutbacks in public spending; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22278/09]

The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together. Air Corps aircraft are only used by Ministers where I consider it appropriate. This has always been the case during my time as Taoiseach and the position has not changed. Procedurally, requests for use of the service are made by Ministers’ private secretaries to my office and are dealt with, in the first instance, by the staff of my office. Requests are examined by my staff with regard to the need for and purpose of travel, the destination and other logistical details. Any necessary clarification or further information is sought at this point. All screened requests are then submitted to me for my consideration and approval, if deemed appropriate. Once approved, all operational matters are settled directly between the office of the Minister in question and the Department of Defence or Air Corps. No changes are proposed in the procedures for the use of the ministerial air transport service. All applications for use of such services are considered in the context of costs and efficiencies.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Given the cuts taking place all over the public service, and specifically the cuts in the Department of Defence including the closure of Army barracks, is there any cutback in the use of air travel by Ministers within the country? Has the Taoiseach issued new guidelines in that regard? Can he inform the House of the number of times in the past year that Air Corps aircraft have been used by Ministers travelling within the country?

The Taoiseach: I will have to come back to Deputy Gilmore with that information, I do not have it to hand. The service is used sparingly, as required. I outlined the procedure in my primary reply. I have had to say “No” on occasion. 5 Ceisteanna — 17 June 2009. Questions

Deputy Enda Kenny: The cost of the ministerial use of the three planes, the Gulfstream, the Learjet and the Beechcraft, between 2006 and November 2008 amounted to some \9 million. This included a failed mission to Texas at a cost of \164,000. If the two Ministers involved had flown on a commercial flight it would have cost between \1,000 and \1,500 to fly business class. Deputy Gilmore pointed out that military helicopters have been used on a regular basis by Ministers for internal travel. This racked up over 52.5 hours of travel and cost the taxpayer over \116,000 in 2008. The door fell off a helicopter in an infamous circling of Killarney golf club. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, who is not present and is never here——

Deputy Trevor Sargent: He is doing his job.

Deputy Enda Kenny: ——even though it is national bike week——

Deputy Trevor Sargent: He cycled in today as well.

Deputy Enda Kenny: ——said that most in Government are coming to the realisation that we can save money and that from speaking to other Ministers he knew that money could be saved by using commercial airlines. What has been the cost on commercial airlines as opposed to jet travel? I remember flying in the Beechcraft over 12 years ago. I understand it is grounded because of old age, leaving just the Learjet and the Gulfstream.

An Ceann Comhairle: Like all of us.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: Deputy Kenny should be careful what he says.

Deputy Enda Kenny: I am sure the Ceann Comhairle was in it in his days as a Minister. The Gulfstream was out of commission for several months last year, due to essential maintenance and refurbishment that cost \1.8 million in the US. Three weeks after that it had to have further treatment and maintenance because of technical difficulties. What was the cost of the second operation on the Gulfstream? The cost of scheduled maintenance for the jet in 2009 is \2 million. It appears that a jet that is 17 years old costs more to maintain than when it is flying its passengers. Has the Taoiseach considered disposing of the craft if it is more feasible for Ministers to fly commercial airlines? We will not have the Presidency of the European Union for a number of years. The requirements of Ministers in these straightened economic times might be more feasible if they flew by commercial flights. Has the Taoiseach considered this?

An Ceann Comhairle: I remind Members that statistical questions must be tabled because it is impossible for the Taoiseach to have answers to statistical questions when the initial questions are general.

The Taoiseach: These are matters that must be dealt with by the Minister for Defence. I do not have information that goes beyond the remit of the original question. One must be mindful of the costs involved in conducting Government business and that is done. It is not possible for any Government in modern times to do its business without the availability of its own craft. The idea that we should be unique in that respect by not having one is incorrect. It sends a nice populist message but does not increase the efficiency of Government business in terms of the demands on officeholders. They must be doing business at home and abroad. The Gulf- stream is the longest serving of its type. It requires maintenance because we decided not to buy a replacement. It is important that it is safely used. 6 Ceisteanna — 17 June 2009. Questions

Deputy Michael Ring: Does the Taoiseach consider it appropriate that officeholders are using Air Corps helicopters to go to provincial football finals? At the Connacht final last year I saw a Government helicopter arriving. The State car went around the back and brought the person in to attend a football match. I heard the hissing and booing and people giving out that this was their money. The Taoiseach should send out a directive to Ministers, the President and everybody in this country that they should not be using helicopters for Connacht, Munster or Leinster football finals. We cannot afford it any longer.

The Taoiseach: I do not believe they were used specifically for that purpose. If a person was on official business that Sunday——

Deputy Michael Ring: The Connacht final was not official business. Or was it?

The Taoiseach: I am not suggesting it was but if Deputy Ring will listen to what I say he might have an understanding of my point of view. If people are on official business in the morning and the helicopter is returning to base and someone wants to be dropped off at a match I do not see that as outrageous. If people are using the helicopter for official business and it is going back to base people can be dropped home unless we insist that people return to the base and wait for a car to bring them back home. We can get quite petty about it.

Deputy Michael Ring: Going to a football match in Castlebar on the third Sunday in July is not official business and the Taoiseach should condemn it.

The Taoiseach: I have not suggested it is official business. Helicopters are only used when Ministers are on official business but a person may be dropped off as the helicopter is returning to base.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: On occasions there may be justification for use of these aircraft. What is galling is when the junior partner in Government, in the personage of Deputy John Gormley, who is the leader of the Green Party and who is given to flights of fancy——

Deputy Trevor Sargent: He is trotting after Deputy O´ Caola´in.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: ——indicated that the Green Party Ministers do not use the Government jets. It was a clear, blunt statement in response to a question. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, indicated in response to a parliamentary question in March that he had used the Government jet on at 11 o’clock least two occasions. I am not questioning his use of it and I have no doubt he would use it only if appropriate. It is not appropriate to make the claim that as a rule, one party in Government does not use the Government jet at all despite facts contra- dicting this. In putting forward proposals to Cabinet for restricted use of the Government jet or jets, would the Taoiseach be good enough to ensure there is an acceptance of this in all parties currently making up the Government?

The Taoiseach: It is available for official business and we all have a view to use it to the minimum requirement. There are times when it is essential to doing business. That applies to all Ministers and all of us seek to utilise these facilities bearing in mind the taxpayer and the need to do one’s job.

Freedom of Information Requests. 3. Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests 7 Ceisteanna — 17 June 2009. Questions

[Deputy Enda Kenny.] received by his Department during March 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18627/09]

4. Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department since January 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22279/09]

5. Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department in the first four months of 2009; the way these compare with the same period in each year since 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22355/09]

The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together. My Department received two freedom of information, FOI, requests in March 2009, 31 in the first four months of this year and 37 between the start of the year and the end of May. In response to the second part of Deputy Gilmore’s question, I have included below a table showing the numbers of FOI requests received in my Department each month from January to May for the years 2002 to 2009. All freedom of information requests received in my Department are processed by statutory designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 and 2003. In accordance with the Acts, I have no role in processing individual applications.

Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Jan 20 21 1 2 9 14 4 8 Feb12298311514 March 14 30 214812 April 10 10 427457 May10111262126

Deputy Enda Kenny: The number of requests in general increased by 18% last year and more than 12,500 requests were made in 2008, which was the first increase since 2005. I assume the Taoiseach’s Department does not apply a ruling which has apparently occurred in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It directed staff in July last year to stop approving citizenship applications until new regulations came into force.

An Ceann Comhairle: That has nothing to do with questions to the Taoiseach.

Deputy Enda Kenny: I draw this to the Taoiseach’s attention because it came to light under freedom of information material supplied to RTE. The reason for the instruction being given was indicated when an official at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated that approval letters should not be issued until further notice because of regulations due to come into effect shortly which will amend fees for naturalisation certificates. In Ireland, these fees range from \650 to \950. In Canada, the charge is Canadian $127 Canadian dollars and in Australia it is Australian $136 Australian dollars. Will the Taoiseach make inquiries to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform as to why that kind of instruction was given to an official?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Taoiseach will deal with matters relevant to his own Department. 8 Ceisteanna — 17 June 2009. Questions

Deputy Enda Kenny: It only became available under the Freedom of Information Acts.

An Ceann Comhairle: The scale of fees is a matter for the Department of Finance. We have been through this before.

Deputy Enda Kenny: The delay in approval certificates for naturalisation was being used as a method of fundraising in the Department.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should put down a question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Taoiseach will not be able to help the Deputy.

Deputy Enda Kenny: I have asked my next question before. In 2005, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service met with representatives of the Information Commissioner and assessed the impact of fees on the Freedom of Information Act. The committee wrote to the Taoiseach when he was Minister for Finance to have the matter addressed by way of legislation at the first available opportunity as it considered, as a representative of the people here, that the fees were excessive. Nothing has happened since. Does the Taoiseach consider that the fees applied are excessive? Is he willing to change them?

An Ceann Comhairle: The scale of fees is a matter for the Minister for Finance and unfortunately the Taoiseach has no role in it.

The Taoiseach: In my then capacity I did not believe them excessive, nor do I believe them to be excessive now.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: The Information Commissioner has expressed on a number of occasions concern about charges, particularly those relating to appeals. She has suggested that there should be a fundamental review of the freedom of information legislation. What consideration has the Taoiseach given to the Information Commissioner’s opinion?

An Ceann Comhairle: This should be a matter for the Department of Finance.

The Taoiseach: The greatest extension we have ever seen of freedom of information took place during my time at the Department of Finance in terms of the number of agencies and organisations now subject to its requirements. We are in a position to consider many recommendations favourably but I do not agree with the commissioner on the question of fees.

Official Engagements. 6. Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his participation in the Eastern Partnership summit in Prague on 7 May 2009. [18646/09]

7. Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at last month’s EU leaders meeting in Prague; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19790/09]

8. Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if the agenda has been finalised for the June 2009 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19792/09]

9. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in the Eastern Partnership summit in Prague; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20716/09]

9 Ceisteanna — 17 June 2009. Questions

10. Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the June 2009 EU summit; if he has received an agenda for the summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21027/09]

11. Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his plans to meet other EU leaders in advance of the June 2009 summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21028/09]

The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 11, inclusive, together. I attended the Eastern Partnership summit in Prague on 7 May. The summit marked the formal launch of the European neighbourhood policy, Eastern Partnership, by the heads of state and government of the EU member states and the six partner countries. Under the initiative, the EU will develop relationships, including trade, with the six partner countries and provide a framework to promote democracy; good governance and stability; economic integration and convergence with EU policies; energy security and greater contact between our peoples. Ireland fully supports the European neighbourhood policy, ENP, including the Eastern Partnership initiative, and is particularly supportive of the objective of promoting reform in all ENP countries. We recognise that the differing capacities and needs of individual partner countries will of course influence the development of their individual relationships with the EU. I recently received a copy of the agenda for the European Council, which I will attend tomorrow. The main topics for discussion are institutional issues; the economic, financial and social position; climate change and sustainable development; and external relations. The Euro- pean Council will take a number of important decisions on future financial regulation within the Union. Ireland fully accepts the need and the urgency of putting in place the proposed new system. However, this view is not unanimously held. There will also be discussion of the Euro- pean economic recovery plan and on employment in particular. With regard to climate change, the main goal is in bringing the global negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion at Copenhagen in December and this week’s Council will take important steps towards ensuring that the EU continues to give leadership on that front. The Council is also expected to discuss illegal migration. From an Irish perspective however, the key focus will be on gaining agreement for the guarantees which forms part of the agreement reached last December when I undertook that we would hold a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty provided we retained a Commissioner per member state and secured satisfactory legal guarantees. The guarantees are intended to provide reassurance to people about concerns which they were shown to have about the Lisbon treaty. There are currently no firm arrangements agreed for meetings with other EU leaders ahead of the June European Council. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and I, as well as our officials, have been in intensive contact with our counterparts in recent weeks and I expect that we will have a busy few days ahead.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: During the course of the Prague summit, Commissioner Spidla, who deals with employment matters, gave an interview in which he suggested the Government should follow the example of Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands in considering introducing innovative work practices and retraining schemes to combat unemployment here. Those suggestions are fairly similar to some of the proposals advocated by the Labour Party for some time. What consideration has the Taoiseach given to those suggestions? With regard to the summit tomorrow and Friday, does the Taoiseach expect to have a conclusion that will provide the legal guarantees being sought over a number of areas? Will that be sufficient for the Taoiseach to propose the holding of another referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

10 Ceisteanna — 17 June 2009. Questions

The Taoiseach: Independent of Commissioner Spidla’s views, which we welcome, we are involved in trying to work with social partners in devising a scheme helpful to viable but vulnerable businesses. We shall see how that can be developed and discussion is ongoing. We are trying to make some progress in the area. With regard to increased training places, we are providing an increased allocation of funding to the skills training area, which is providing tens of thousands of extra places in our training authorities’ placement schemes and other skills programmes which have been devised to help those who have unfortunately lost their jobs recently. That is an ongoing challenge of which we must be aware at all times. We must continue to work with those involved in this area and assist as much as we can. Regarding engagements with our EU partners concerning the requirements we have set for the Lisbon treaty, the decisions of the Heads of Government and State at the European Council and our guarantees will be legally binding and constitute an international agreement lodged with the United Nations. It will take the effect of the date of entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, if the second referendum is successful. The instrument of ratification by Ireland will be lodged with the Italian Government and will refer to both the treaty and that decision. It is also agreed that we would get legally binding guarantees at the European Council. This is not disputed by anyone and the proposed decision is part of this. We will be seeking to ensure further legal effect is given to it in due course.

Deputy Billy Timmins: The Taoiseach stated external relations would be discussed at the forthcoming Council meeting during which, I am sure, the issue of the recent Iranian elections will be raised. What is the Government’s position on the conduct of the elections? What are the Taoiseach’s views on the recent comments by the US President that the USA should not meddle in the Iranian election results? It has been reported legislation will be introduced concerning Ireland’s participation in the European Defence Agency. Accordingly, does the Taoiseach expect all Government parties to campaign for a “Yes” vote in the next Lisbon treaty referendum, unlike the last occasion when the Green Party failed to do so?

The Taoiseach: Concerning the members of Government who were in favour of the last referendum, there are internal party rules that must be adhered to for a party’s position to be established. That is a matter that must be respected and understood. I appreciate the support of the Green Party’s Government colleagues in our efforts on a range of European issues, including this particular matter. The issue of the European Defence Agency was raised, and misinterpreted and misrep- resented, in the debate during the last referendum. As part of the process of giving reassurance to those who voted “No” to Lisbon because of concerns relating to the maintenance of our neutrality and fears of European militarisation, the Government has decided to set out the parameters of our membership of the agency in legislation. To date, we have participated in an agency research programme, following Cabinet approval. The proposed legislation will have the requirement of both Cabinet and Da´il approval along the lines of other aspects of our foreign policy engagements. Ireland will only participate in those projects that benefit and support our ability to provide peace support under the UN mandate, which is the current position of the Army. Ireland participated in one agency project on the improved protection of personnel and force protection. That has been the limit of participation so far. The Government wants to give reassurance in legislative form to the public and confirm our involvement in this aspect of common foreign and security policy is in line with our own traditions as outlined in the treaty texts.

11 Ceisteanna — 17 June 2009. Questions

[The Taoiseach.]

One hopes it can de demonstrated clearly that the recent Iranian elections were fair and transparent and the result reflects the will of the Iranian people. The Iranian authorities have given a commitment to have at least a partial recount. One must wait to see how extensive and adequate this will be. There is a concern within Iranian public opinion about the accuracy of the election result. That is a matter that needs to be resolved by the Iranians themselves to their satisfaction. I noted the US President’s concerns over the violence that has erupted in parts of Iran over the elections results and the need to ensure human rights and freedom of expression, which he regards as universal values — a view to which I subscribe, are respected in the working out of the democratic will of the Iranian people.

Deputy Enda Kenny: I thank the Taoiseach for the briefing he gave yesterday to me and Deputies Timmins and Creighton on the preparations for the Lisbon treaty referendum. Fine Gael will support approval of the Lisbon treaty referendum when the Government sets a date for it. I will travel to Brussels today for the run-up to Friday’s EU Council meeting. As I said to the Taoiseach yesterday, I will undertake to speak to the Heads of Government who are members of the European People’s Party grouping in respect of gaining agreement for the declarations put forward in Ireland’s interests. Yesterday, there was a successful meeting of EU ambassadors with almost unanimous agreement on the Irish proposals for what has to be done with the Lisbon treaty. What are the Taoiseach’s hopes for Friday’s summit and what does he expect to get from it? I noted the US President’s recent speech on the Middle East. Ireland has held a position on the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Has the Taoiseach read the recent speech by the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, in which he said the two-state solution is, in principle, supportable but with the Palestinian state being demilitarised? This condition was rejected by the Palestinian authorities. Was this raised at the recent Prague EU summit? The difficulties between Israel and Iran are real and will have consequences in the partial recount of the recent Iranian elections.

The Taoiseach: I thank Deputies Kenny and Gilmore who have indicated their willingness to speak to their respective EU colleagues at the meetings they will attend in the run-up to the European Council on Friday. It is important everyone understands the Irish position is about seeking substance and status of the language in the treaty and to provide reassurance to our people regarding certain concerns raised in the last referendum. The Middle East issue came up at recent talks between the US President, Mr. Obama, the European Council and certain invited states. I was asked by the EU Presidency to say a few words on it. I emphasised the need for a comprehensive approach to include Syria. I believe engagement with Syria is important in finding a comprehensive solution to this problem. I welcome President Obama’s recent statement in Cairo. It was an important statement with the clarity and balance required for the Untied States to be an effective partner in this process. It will put it centre stage with the influence it can apply. He was unambiguous in calling for a stop to the continuing expansion of settlements in the occupied territories, which I welcome. The Israeli Government needed to hear this message. I also welcome the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, publicly stating for the first time that he would support a two-state solution. However, as the Deputy noted, the conditionality attached to that statement drew a highly negative response from Palestinians. This conditionality seeks to impose conditions on the so-called state of Palestine that might deny Palestinians the right to defend their territory in the same manner that Israel would expect to be able to defend its own territory. The entire purpose of a peace process is to ease tensions and to find a just way forward. In my opinion,

12 Ceisteanna — 17 June 2009. Questions what one has heard from the Obama Administration thus far bodes well for its effective engagement in that process.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: Following the people’s rejection in the referendum of the Lisbon treaty, the Government’s own research indicated that a considerable factor in the people’s decision to say “No” pertained to concerns regarding workers’ rights and public services. Why are so-called legally binding guarantees in the areas of neutrality and taxation being considered but only a declaration in respect of the areas of workers’ rights and public services? How did it come about that there are two tiers in the approach to the critical issues that informed the people’s choice in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty? How exactly will this twin-track approach work? Regarding the so-called legally binding guarantees, must they be approved by the parliament of each member state before gaining the status of legally binding guarantees?

The Taoiseach: First, the basis upon which engagement has taken place with colleagues is that there can be no re-ratification of the Lisbon treaty by other national parliaments. This, therefore, involves the Government obtaining clarifications and confirmation from its colleagues on what is the position in respect of the Lisbon treaty text on those important issues about which very different interpretations were put by the “No” side on the last occasion. Certain fears were raised and certain scenarios were painted suggesting that, for example, the Lisbon treaty meant an involvement in militarisation of the European Union and that our traditional policies of neutrality were being compromised and undermined. Moreover, it was suggested that the prospect of the privatisation of public services was imminent. Many worst case or false scenarios were painted by the “No” side in an effort to gain support. While I have no problem with the “No” side seeking support for its disagreements with the treaty’s contents, I have no time for the intellectual dishonesty that characterised much of the argumentation from the “No” side. It now is being confirmed by these guarantees that such arguments have no relevance whatever to the treaty itself. The Government will be able to state clearly to the Irish people that nothing in this treaty attributes legal status to the Charter on Fundamental Rights. Similarly, in respect of the provisions of the treaty on freedom, security and justice, there is nothing whatever that affects in any way the scope and applicability of the protection of the right to life in the relevant articles of the Constitution. The same is true in respect of the protection of the family in Article 41 and of the protection of rights in respect of education as provided for by articles of the Consti- tution. Nothing whatever in this treaty affects in any way the scope and applicability of those provisions as they apply in Ireland. Second, it will be confirmed that the Treaty of Lisbon contains nothing that makes a change of any kind to the extent and operation of the competence of the European Union in respect of taxation. This was another matter that was suggested by the “No” side on the last occasion. This constitutes confirmation by all member states that were signatories to the treaty and which are in the process of ratifying it, that it contains nothing that affects the operation or competence of the European Union regarding taxation. On security and defence, it will be set out clearly that the common security and defence policy is an integral part of our common security and defence policy. It gives an operational capacity to the Union to undertake missions outside the Union for peacekeeping, conflict prevention and for strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. It does not prejudice the specific character of Ireland’s security and defence policy. There is nothing in here in which Ireland is required to be involved about which it has any disagreement or problem. It is a completely permissible facility for Ireland to dis-

13 Ceisteanna — 17 June 2009. Questions

[The Taoiseach.] charge its obligations in the international arena in a manner that is completely consistent with its traditional policies of neutrality. Ireland’s policy of neutrality is not based on isolationism but on engagement. It is based on involvement, through the United Nations, with various activities of which as a people we all are deeply proud and which will continue. In a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to that traditional policy, Ireland can determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a member state that is the object of a terrorist attack, etc., or the victim of armed aggression. Consequently, nothing prejudices our policy in these matters. As for the question of the solemn declaration on workers’ rights and social policy, in respect of the political agreement that was reached last December, it was clear that such a solemn declaration was what was available on these matters. The European Union is not disposed, as a union of 27 member states, to engage itself in a protocol in this particular area. The benefit of the declaration is that it confirms what is contained in the treaty on these matters. I, of course, am aware that within the trade union movement in Europe, there are people who quite rightly wish to advance these aspects in due course in subsequent treaties and that argument and case will continue to be made. However, there are protections and there are issues within the Lisbon treaty itself on these matters, which again will be outlined in detail in order that there will be no misrepresentation as to what the treaty contains. Deputy O´ Caola´in should note that these will be the clarifications and statements that I hope will be forthcoming when the European Council arrives at its conclusions. They will be of considerable assistance to many who were given to understand that all these issues were affected by the Lisbon treaty when clearly they are not.

An Ceann Comhairle: While I will try to come back to Deputy O´ Caola´in, I call Deputy Gilmore.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: I had a supplementary question. Will the Ceann Comhairle accommodate me?

An Ceann Comhairle: I certainly will. I will try to revert to the Deputy but Deputy Gilmore is next.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Does the Taoiseach expect there will be discussion at the summit about the appointment of the new Commission? I refer to two issues in particular. First, I understand the current President of the Commission has indicated his wish to serve a second term. Does the Government support such a second term? Does the Taoiseach expect that the issue will be discussed at the summit? The second issue relates to the appointment of the wider Commission. My understanding is that it is intended that each member state will appoint a Commissioner if the Lisbon treaty is ratified. Does the Taoiseach expect there will be discussion with regard to the timing of the appointment of the new Commission? Does he expect that arrangements will be put in place for the appointment of an Irish Commissioner and, if so, when?

The Taoiseach: First, I have indicated my support to President Barroso in respect of his reappointment as President of the Commission. I believe he has been an effective President of the Commission and I support his candidacy. Second, it is envisaged that the method of appointment of the Commission will be proceeded with under the Swedish Presidency. It is envisaged that the Commission will be appointed on the conclusion of the tenure of the current Com- mission. Obviously, the question of the appointment of the President of the Commission is an important part of that process, because once appointed, he or she then will take on the role of

14 Ceisteanna — 17 June 2009. Questions working out the cabinet arrangements for his or her Commission. The question of President Barroso’s appointment at this Council is a matter that is under discussion at present and is one that I would support.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: Is it the case, as has been widely reported, that were the so- called legal guarantees to be agreed at this weekend’s summit, they would not have legal status and would not come into effect until the next European Union treaty but would be incorporated in a future European Union treaty? At this point in time, it is expected that the next treaty will be that providing for Croatia’s accession to the EU in 2011. Can the Taoiseach clarify whether that is the case? What will happen if all member states do not sign off on the proposed legally binding guarantees and the much less reassuring declarations that are to be made in areas like workers’ rights and public services? Does the Taoiseach have a contingency plan if circumstances arise in which the unanimous support of all the other member states is not secured? When I have raised this issue with the Taoiseach on previous occasions, I have not resorted to arguing why I and others voted “No” last year. By contrast, the Taoiseach has always been keen in his responses to bring his perspective to the “No” vote. I suggest, with respect to the Taoiseach, that his comments have been disrespectful to the majority of the people who voted “No” for sound reasons, based on their real concerns.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy cannot pre-empt the Taoiseach’s answers.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: It is not appropriate for the Taoiseach to continue to berate and lecture us as if the position we took made us lesser beings.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy cannot engage in a critique of the Taoiseach’s answers.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: That is far from the case. The Taoiseach’s pursuit of legally binding guarantees, etc., must demonstrate to him that some elements of the original document were flawed and inappropriate.

The Taoiseach: I do not agree with Deputy O´ Caola´in’s characterisation of the “No” campaign. It is not accurate to suggest that his view of events convinced everyone who voted “No”. People voted “No” for many reasons. Some people were concerned about the doubts that were raised about various aspects of the treaty. It was claimed that certain things were in the treaty, but they were not in the treaty at all.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: I have heard exactly the same thing said about people on the “Yes” side. The Taoiseach was certainly the least convincing proponent of the “Yes” position.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to allow the Taoiseach to proceed.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: Before the Taoiseach throws a stone somewhere, he should examine his own role.

The Taoiseach: I intend to win the next referendum campaign.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: I think Deputy Kenny reckons he is going to do it.

The Taoiseach: We will all do it. That is the whole approach we are taking to this issue of national importance, which goes beyond party politics. It is vital for the future of this country, particularly in the circumstances in which we currently find ourselves. Anyone who has a cur- sory understanding and knowledge of our economic situation will be aware of the role the EU institutions have played over the past six months. The many benefits that have accrued to

15 Order of 17 June 2009. Business

[The Taoiseach.] Ireland since it joined the EU in 1973 are testimony of the importance of our decision on this issue. It is in our national interest to seek to ratify this treaty, on the basis of the assurances we are now obtaining.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: We will be punished if we do not ratify it.

The Taoiseach: That will be the approach we will adopt.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: Is that what the Taoiseach is suggesting?

The Taoiseach: I am saying, as Taoiseach of Ireland, that it is in our national interest to ratify this treaty. If we get the assurances we are seeking—Iamconfident we will do so — I will put that question to the people. It is not correct for the Deputy to suggest that what will be obtained by way of a decision from the European Council will not have legal effect. It will have legal effect. The decisions of the Heads of State and Government will constitute a legally binding international agreement. We will make it clear that the current situation, with respect to our national position on taxation, neutrality and ethical issues, will be unchanged by virtue of the entering into force of the Lisbon treaty. People will be able to vote “Yes” to that treaty with confidence that the protections they enjoy under the Constitution will continue after the Lisbon treaty enters into force. It is not correct to say that the Council decision will not have binding legal effect.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: We will have to see.

The Taoiseach: It does have binding legal effect.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: The Taoiseach has not presented us with the text.

The Taoiseach: I am setting out the international legal position, regardless of the text. If a positive decision on these matters is made by the Heads of State and Government at the forthcoming meeting of the European Council, that will constitute a legally binding text. That is what I am saying. The suggestion made by the Deputy in his opening question — that it is of no legal effect — is factually and legally incorrect.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: I never said that.

The Taoiseach: I will refer the Deputy to the Official Report.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: I did not say that.

The Taoiseach: The Deputy can send me a letter confirming he said that.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: I have yet to see what the Taoiseach will get.

The Taoiseach: I listened attentively to what the Deputy said. Perhaps he was not listening to himself.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: We will wait and see.

Order of Business. The Taoiseach: It is proposed to take No. 10, motion re Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998; No. 4, Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009 — Committee and Remaining Stages; and No. 24, Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad] — Report

16 Order of 17 June 2009. Business

Stage (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) the Da´il shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m.; (2) the proceedings on No. 10 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 45 minutes and the following arrangements shall apply — the speeches shall be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and to the main spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Fe´in, who shall be called upon in that order and who may share their time, and which shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; (3) the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages of No. 4 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 p.m. tonight by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance; and (4) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for taking Private Members’ business, which shall be No. 73, motion re unemployment levels (resumed), Standing Order 117(3) shall not apply and Private Members’ business shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes.

An Ceann Comhairle: There are four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for the late sitting agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10, motion re Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, agreed to?

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: It is not agreed. We have again been presented with a motion proposing the renewal of the Offences against the State Act. It is proposed to provide 45 minutes to address this draconian legislation. As we have said time after time in this House, now that many years have passed since the negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement, we believe it is inappropriate to retain this legislation on the Statute Book of this State. Regardless of the merits of any other legislation on the Statute Book that is aimed at addressing any matters of this nature that may present themselves, it is clear that the Offences against the State Act is wholly and absolutely inappropriate. We have opposed it from the very beginning. I have opposed it in this Chamber since I was elected to this House in 1997. If we are to properly address this offensive legislation, it is inadequate to offer 45 minutes for a debate on this motion. I ask the Government to rethink its position on this proposition and to come to the conclusion that it is high time for it to decide to remove this legislation from the Statute Book forthwith. It should not be proposed to renew the legislation in the manner outlined in the motion before the House. I oppose the proposition and will oppose the motion, if it is taken in the manner proposed on the Order of Business.

The Taoiseach: I do not agree with what Deputy O´ Caola´in has said. It is important for the operation of this legislation to continue. Many people with subversive intent and serious criminal intent are seeking to undermine not only the security of the State, but also the integrity of our judicial institutions and those who serve in those institutions, including witnesses and jury members. They will not be tolerated in this democracy.

Question, “That the proposal for dealing with No. 10 be agreed to,” put and declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with No. 4 agreed to?

Deputy Emmet Stagg: This seems to be the guillotine season. Five guillotines have been applied to debates on legislation this week and most of them were unnecessary. The Taoiseach more or less acknowledged that in respect of the application of one yesterday, but guilloting the debate on this Bill is clearly unnecessary. There are only two amendments proposed to the

17 Order of 17 June 2009. Business

[Deputy Emmet Stagg.] Bill and plenty of time is available to debate them. One is in the name of the Minister and the other is in the name of the Labour Party’s spokesperson, Deputy Burton. There is no need for the debate on this Bill to be guillotined. I ask that the guillotine would be used only where it is necessary and where there is some urgency and requirement for legislation to be passed in a short space of time. Otherwise, we will get into the habit of simply rubber-stamping legislation that has not even been read in the House. I ask that this not be done. We can fairly well guarantee that this Bill will be passed today, given that only two amendments are proposed to it. Irrespective of how long Members wish to discuss them, the rules of the House will allow them only a certain length of time to do so. The Bill will be passed within the time allowed or, as I believe, well before that time. Therefore, there is no need to guillotine the debate on it.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: To add to what Deputy Stagg said, a recent guillotine proposed to the debate on legislation that we opposed on the Order of Business proved unnecessary, as the record will show the debate on that legislation concluded well before the time proposed in the Order of Business for the application of a guillotine. What is proposed regarding this legislation is another such example. It is foolhardy that guillotining the debate on legislation would become almost the norm. That should not be the case. The time allocated for legislation to be debated should accommodate the natural debate on it and allowing Members the opportunity to participate in it. In the case of this legislation, as in other instances, it will be shown that the time allocated is often adequate to deal with it.

The Taoiseach: The order of the House states that if the proceedings are not previously concluded they will be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 p.m. If they are previously concluded, the guillotine will not come into operation. The reason we have to insert this provision is because of the weight of business the Whip has to deal with in the remaining time available to us while at the same time, as is this case, being able to give what would be regarded as a reasonably adequate time for the consideration of these proceedings.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is this proposal agreed?

Deputy Emmet Stagg: No. Question, “That the proposal for dealing with No. 4 be agreed to”, put and declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members’ business agreed to? Agreed.

Deputy Enda Kenny: I have two questions for the Taoiseach. First, has the Government formed a view as to when it intends to hold the referendum on the Lisbon treaty? Second, is it intended to bring forward legislation to deal with greenhouse gas commitments in domestic law requiring a 3% annual reduction in emissions? This proposal is coming from the absent Green Party Ministers who seem to be putting pressure on the Government that this be done.

Deputy Trevor Sargent: I am here.

Deputy Enda Kenny: Is it intended to bring forward legislation to give effect to that proposal, which will have serious consequences for some? If the Green Party is claiming victory over its senior partners on a range of other matters, it also seems to be doing so in this respect.

18 Order of 17 June 2009. Business

An Ceann Comhairle: The Taoiseach to reply on proposed legislation on the referendum Bill.

The Taoiseach: On the question of legislation arising out of, hopefully, what will be a successful outcome this week, we can only do that upon return from the Council meeting. The Govern- ment, at its next meeting, will examine what arrangements should be made in the event of a successful outcome.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I ask the Taoiseach for clarity regarding the legislation to establish the National Asset Management Agency. It was first announced on 7 April, the day of the announcement of the supplementary budget. We were told on that occasion that the legislation would be produced as a matter of urgency. Now it appears it is not clear as to whether it will be produced before the House rises for the summer recess, whether it will be introduced after the summer recess or whether the Da´il will be recalled to deal with it. Could the Taoiseach clear up the position regarding the legislation on NAMA? When exactly will it appear? When will it be dealt with in the House? Will it be dealt with before the summer recess? Will the House be recalled at some stage to deal with it or will it be dealt with after the summer recess?

The Taoiseach: The Minister for Finance has indicated that it has priority in the Department. It is an arduous and complex piece of legislation. It is being proceeded with as quickly as possible. The question of the legislation being published before the recess begins is a target set by the Minister but if not, he has said he maybe prepared to come back to deal with it in September. It will be closer to the end of the recess before we will be able to make a definite statement on that matter.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: This is arguably one of the most important pieces of legislation the House will deal with for some time. I appreciate there are complexities in the drafting of it, but it is now two months since it was announced. We do not know yet whether it will be produced before, during or after the summer recess. We are still unclear as to when it will be produced and when the House will deal with. At this stage there should be some clarify as to when it will be dealt with. If the legislation is produced before the summer recess, is it intended the House will continue sitting until the legislation is dealt with? If it is not produced before the summer recess, is it intended that the House will be recalled to deal with it when it is ready? I am trying to establish what is the Government’s intention in regard to dealing with it.

The Taoiseach: I believe it is more likely that it will be taken on the basis of a recall of the Parliament.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: The Minister for Health and Children indicated that she will introduce legislation to ban female genital mutilation. Has any such proposal come before the Cabinet?

The Taoiseach: I have no information on that, I will have to come back to the Deputy on it.

Deputy Ruairı´ Quinn: The Minister for Education and Science has said on a number of occasions that in respect of the reintroduction of fees at third level it was his intention to bring forward a memorandum to Government outlining the options that he would recommend. Has such a memorandum been brought to Cabinet?

An Ceann Comhairle: Questions on memorandums being brought to Cabinet are not in order on the Order of Business.

19 Order of 17 June 2009. Business

The Taoiseach: If it were, it would be a matter of waiting for the deliberative process to be completed before it would be brought to Government.

Deputy Ruairı´ Quinn: As the Labour Party Leader has said, many families are trying to figure out whether they will be able to afford to send their children to third level——

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot go into that now, as the Deputy well knows.

Deputy Ruairı´ Quinn: When will a decision of any kind on this matter be made by the Government?

An Ceann Comhairle: Is legislation promised in this area, Taoiseach?

The Taoiseach: Many decisions have been made in the Department of Education and Science under the present incumbent, many of which, although necessary, have not received much support from the other side of the House. In this respect, the Minister will bring the matter to the Government, it will consider the matter when it arises and deal with it accordingly. When a decision is taken it will be announced. That is the way governments work.

Deputy Ruairı´ Quinn: Waiting for Batt will be like waiting for Godot.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: I wish to raise three issues. Given that alcohol can be bought anywhere today by young people, when will the sale of alcohol Bill be brought before the House? On the matter of the difficulties facing those engaged in agriculture and to allow us to the opportunity to discuss them, when will the Animal Health and Welfare Bill be brought before the House? Given that patients on arriving at the gates of hospitals are being brought to other hospitals and patients who are in what is known as centres of excellence in Our of Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda cannot be looked after, when will the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill be brought before the House? An invalid man was given his breakfast last Saturday morning but it was hours before he could eat it because he could not reach it and there was nobody to help him. He was in a semi-private ward paid for by the VHI.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy must confine himself to the legislation.

The Taoiseach: As I said last week, there is no date as to when the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill will be ready. The legislation on the sale of alcohol will not be ready until the second half of the year.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: What about the animal health and welfare Bill?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Taoiseach to reply in respect of the animal health and welfare Bill.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: On that same outstanding legislation——

An Ceann Comhairle: It is not possible to indicate.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: Not possible to indicate?

The Taoiseach: I was talking to Deputy Crawford.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: I know that, but it is on the same legislation that I wish to seek clarification.

20 Order of 17 June 2009. Business

The Taoiseach: The animal health and welfare Bill?

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: As we speak there are 20 patients in Loughlinstown hospital in south County Dublin on trolleys and chairs——

Deputy Denis Naughten: I do not think that comes under the animal health and welfare Bill.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: ——while St. Brigid’s ward in that hospital, which contains 22 beds, remains closed as a result of cutbacks.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy will have to ask a question on legislation.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: In that context, I want to ask——

An Ceann Comhairle: Please do.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: Will the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health and Children end the charade of the year-on-year promises——

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot discuss that.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: ——about the eligibility for health and personal social services Bill?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy cannot ignore the Chair in this fashion. It is not possible.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: The answer “It is not possible” has been given for years.

An Ceann Comhairle: I told the Deputy we cannot have critiques of the answers. I can only deal with the questions, and the Taoiseach must give the answers.

Deputy Ruairı´ Quinn: That is lucky.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: I do not believe the answers we are getting in any way reflect the real intent of the Government.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy can expand on the answers later on.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: The Government does not want the legislation to be introduced because it would compel it to do what it is currently refusing to do, which is to give us the health service we deserve.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Taoiseach on the legislation.

The Taoiseach: Work is being done on the Bill, but it is not possible to indicate when it will be completed.

Deputy Denis Naughten: My question is about the child care (collection and exchange of information) Bill. In light of the fact that a laptop went missing in County Roscommon yesterday——

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot go into that now. The Deputy has another way of raising the issue.

21 Order of 17 June 2009. Business

Deputy Denis Naughten: ——which appears to have contained confidential information with regard to protection of children, can the Taoiseach at least ensure the HSE clarifies the data that is on the laptop? The matter is causing major concern and consternation locally and there is much speculation regarding it. Ireland was criticised in the US State Department Trafficking in Persons report, which was published yesterday. In light of this and of the fact that the State has lost 23 children from HSE accommodation since 1 January 2009, I ask the Taoiseach when Ireland will ratify the 2000 UN trafficking in persons protocol.

The Taoiseach: I do not have a date for that. The Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act has only been in force for the last 12 months and investigations into suspected trafficking are inevitably complex. Since the introduction of the Act the Garda has launched around 80 investigations of trafficking. Work is being undertaken on an operational basis under existing legislation, so it cannot be said there is nothing happening in the area.

Deputy Denis Naughten: Can the Taoiseach come back with the information about the protocol?

The Taoiseach: On the other matter, I will have to check with the office of the Minister of State with responsibility for children.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I am sure the Taoiseach has answered this question in the course of ordinary questions, but some of our colleagues have been in committees and so on. When will the negotiations begin on the review of the programme for Government and when is it intended that they will finish?

An Ceann Comhairle: I do not think that is in order.

Deputies: Of course it is.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: We are entitled to ask.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: We are entitled to ask a question about the programme for Government.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: It is difficult for us to ask questions here on legislation if we do not know which programme for Government we are following. The negotiations might already be ongoing for all I know.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is being mischievous.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: Never.

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot discuss this now.

The Taoiseach: During the course of the summer.

Deputy George Lee: My question concerns the legislation on the National Assets Manage- ment Agency, which is in preparation. The legislation and the idea of NAMA came from the report of an economic consultant, Peter Bacon, on dealing with the banking crisis. As the Taoiseach is aware, it is probably the biggest potential liability for taxpayers that we have ever taken on. Thus, we must proceed with a great deal of caution. People need to be fully informed of the issues regarding NAMA and its alternatives so they can understand and contribute to

22 Order of 17 June 2009. Business the legislation. So far we have had the publication of a small summary — around 11 pages — of the report, explaining the NAMA approach. Can the Government publish the full Bacon report on the banks, out of which came the proposal for NAMA, so that Members of the House can fully understand the issues rather than relying on the short summary that has been issued? This would be helpful for everybody in advance of the legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle: As this was the Deputy’s first intervention on the Order of Business I hesitated to interrupt, but we can only deal with promised business of the House at this time.

Deputy Joe Carey: The Bill on NAMA is on the list.

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot enter into other debate.

Deputy Charles Flanagan: Is the legislation on NAMA no longer promised?

An Ceann Comhairle: I will ask the Taoiseach. I am sure he will try to be of assistance.

The Taoiseach: There is much commercially sensitive information attached to the report.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: What about a redacted report?

Deputy Denis Naughten: The Government has experts that will black it out. There is no problem doing that.

The Taoiseach: One would understand why it would not be publicly available. The policy behind the introduction of NAMA is established not only here but also abroad. The legislation will afford an opportunity for everyone to give their views on it. In the meantime, the Deputy can put questions directly to the Minister for Finance during parliamentary questions and other procedures in the House which would allow him to articulate aspects of the report while leaving it short of full publication.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: I have regularly raised the issue of management companies for the last five years. There is legislation in this regard in the Upper House at the moment, but it does not deal at all with the reason I have been raising this repeatedly. I seek a mechanism to abolish management companies where they should not exist and to prevent their 12 o’clock formation where they should not be formed; namely, in standard housing estates, where they are currently being used as financial providers for the developers who set them up. There are instances in which families in housing estates are paying \1,500 a year and receiving no service except that the grass is cut. Last week the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, asked the Taoiseach whether it was intended to bring in further legislation to deal with this problem and the Taoiseach responded that he was not certain but he would obtain the information for the Deputy. Has there been any development in that regard? Further legislation is required because the current legislation would need to be amended significantly to deal with the problems we have.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Bill is before the Seanad, not the Da´il, at the moment. Is further legislation promised?

The Taoiseach: The Bill is before the Seanad. The Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, which was published on 3 June, might facilitate further debate on the matter in the House.

23 Order of 17 June 2009. Business

Deputy Ciara´n Lynch: The Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill went through Committee Stage last week. When will Report and Final Stages be taken? Significant amendments to the legislation were made by the Minister on Committee Stage, particularly with regard to the sale of local authority flats. Given the significance of these substantial changes, can a further explanatory memorandum be provided to Members of the House to update them on the Bill?

An Ceann Comhairle: That is not strictly in order. I ask the Taoiseach about the remaining Stages of the Bill.

The Taoiseach: It is hoped to bring the Bill before the House before the summer recess. If the Deputy contacts the Minister’s office with queries about changes that were adopted on Committee Stage in preparation for Report Stage I am sure he will be facilitated.

Deputy David Stanton: The Government established a committee around five months ago which was to bring proposals before the House to amend Standing Orders to reform Da´il procedures. Will we see these proposals before the summer recess, and will we have time to discuss and decide on them before the House rises for the summer?

The Taoiseach: I understand the Whip intends to bring some proposals to the House before the end of the recess.

An Ceann Comhairle: Before the recess.

The Taoiseach: Before the end of the recess.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I ask the Taoiseach about the negotiations with Vietnam on inter- country adoption.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy may ask about legislation or secondary legislation but she cannot ask about negotiations.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: It is an international agreement.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: It is an international agreement that the Minister allowed to slip through his fingers, much to the dismay of hundreds of families in

An Ceann Comhairle: That cannot be discussed on the Order of Business.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: The Taoiseach should intervene to address this situation.

An Ceann Comhairle: Does the Deputy have a question on secondary legislation?

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I wish to raise another issue. In September, classes for children with special educational needs will be abolished in schools throughout the State.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy knows that cannot be discussed on the Order of Business.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: My question relates to legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is unfair to other Deputies if I allow Deputy Lynch to raise issues that are not appropriate to the Order of Business. I cannot have a situation where I am seen to allow Deputy Lynch to raise issues which other Deputies are not permitted to raise.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: The cutbacks in provision for special educational needs will affect vulnerable children throughout the country.

24 Order of 17 June 2009. Business

An Ceann Comhairle: Detailed matters must be raised with the appropriate Minister in the appropriate way. This matter cannot be dealt with now.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: My question relates to legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle: What is the legislation to which the Deputy refers?

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 was suspended after the last budget. This is the first time in my recollection that legislation has been suspended.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to be fair.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: When will this suspension be lifted and when will the limited rights for pupils with special needs be restored?

An Ceann Comhairle: Is there legislation promised in this area, Taoiseach?

The Taoiseach: I do not accept the contention that the Minister of State with responsibility for children let anything slip through his fingers. There are issues which——

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I can name four crucial issues.

The Taoiseach: These issues did not slip through his fingers. He is in the process of dealing with another Government to ensure the arrangements to which we all subscribe work effectively, ethically and on an above board basis. That is something which is as important to the parents who are expectant and hopeful that these matters can be resolved quickly as it is to the Irish and Vietnamese people. We must ensure the arrangements we enter into uphold and respect ethical issues and the rights of parents and everybody involved. These are matters of huge import about which there can be no ambiguity. It is important that they are resolved to everybody’s satisfaction, including the sovereign Government of Vietnam and this Govern- ment. We must not end up in a situation which none of us wants to see. That is the context in which these discussions are taking place. We are anxious to obtain finality to the discussions as soon as is possible and feasible——

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Can the Taoiseach offer any timeframe?

The Taoiseach: ——while being respectful of the need to ensure any concerns that have been raised are dealt with adequately and in a way in which everyone in this House expects them to be dealt with. While we understand the frustration of people in this situation generally, quite apart from the specific issues that have arisen in regard to the international agreement with Vietnam, this matter must be handled with care, deliberation and with all due speed as is appropriate. That is the situation.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: What about the suspension of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004?

The Taoiseach: There are no proposals to proceed with that aspect of the Act.

Deputy Charles Flanagan: I am not sure whether the Taoiseach has indicated to the House the date upon which he expects the Da´il to rise for the summer recess. Included in the list of legislation is an important Bill in the context of the current banking crisis and the damage to our reputation internationally. I refer to the criminal justice (money laundering) Bill, which

25 Offences against the State 17 June 2009. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion

[Deputy Charles Flanagan.] will enshrine in law the third EU directive on money laundering, which has been promised for some time. I am not sure whether the timeframe will allow us to proceed with that between now and the summer, but perhaps it could be done by way of all-party agreement. It is important that it be done.

The Taoiseach: A recent decision in the United Kingdom has implications for our preparation of the secondary legislation in respect of this matter. It is at an advanced stage but I understand it is unlikely to be taken before we rise for the summer.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: I have three questions. First, when does the Government propose to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? Second, when is the foreshore (amendment) Bill likely to be brought before the House? Third, that legislation relates to our discussion of the Harbours (Amendment) Bill 2008, in the course of which the Minister for Transport announced his intention to transfer functions and powers in regard to property previously held by the Minister to An Bord Pleana´la. He indicated that this change would require legislation in regard to planning. When may we expect the amending planning legislation that was promised on Second Stage of the Harbours (Amendment) Bill 2008? Will it be brought forward at the same time as the foreshore (amendment) Bill, which I understand is a matter for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

The Taoiseach: The foreshore (amendment) Bill is due later this year. It is on the list, as the Deputy said. I do not know when the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will be ratified. I will check that for the Deputy, but a parliamentary question to the relevant Minister would provide him with the exact situation. I will have to check the third issue the Deputy raised. The planning and development (amendment) Bill, which has been published, will address some of these issues, although I am not sure whether it will specifically address the point raised by the Deputy regarding ports policy. I will check that and get back to the Deputy.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: I am grateful to the Taoiseach for his reply. This is a matter of some urgency even during the summer, as several property transactions are likely to take place in anticipation of legislation which does not exist.

Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I move:

That Da´il E´ ireann resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for the period of 12 months beginning on 30 June 2009.

This motion seeks the Da´il’s approval to continue in operation for a further 12 months several sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. The sections in question, which I will refer to in some detail later, will otherwise cease to be in operation after 30 June. An identical motion is being debated in the Upper House today. The 1998 Act was enacted in the aftermath of the bombing in Omagh in August of that year. I, and many other Members of this House, have roundly condemned this atrocity which claimed so many innocent lives and ruined many more. Its effects continue to have repercussions to this day. It was clear from the moment it was carried out that the brutal attack in Omagh was a calculated attempt by desperate criminals to undermine the Northern Ireland peace process,

26 Offences against the State 17 June 2009. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion which had resulted from long and testing negotiations. The process was still, in 1998, a fragile one. It was this fragility that the bombers tried to shatter. However, time and endurance have shown it was stronger than they imagined. The response to the bombing showed the resilience of communities on all parts of this island and of all traditions. It showed that their determination to have a future based on peace, co-operation and the rule of law won through in 1998 and will continue to win through. The Government of the day, and this House, also showed its determination in enacting the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act to equip the Garda with the tools necessary to defeat the bombers and their fellow travellers. I was pleased to note the recent notable victory won by the families of the Omagh victims in the High Court in Belfast. The Government facilitated the relatives and the Northern Ireland court in having some of the evidence taken in this jurisdiction. The investigation into this atrocity remains open on both sides of the Border, and there continues to be excellent co- operation between the Garda authorities and the PSNI in this regard. Given the exceptional circumstances surrounding its enactment, the Oireachtas decided that it should revisit certain of the Act’s provisions and decide whether they are still necessary. This allows the Oireachtas to consider whether current circumstances justify the continuance in operation of those provisions. Both Houses must take a view, therefore, on whether the situation warrants the continued operation of these provisions for a further period of 12 months. I have no doubt that it does and I will outline my reasons for this shortly. As part of the process and to support consideration of the matter by Deputies, I am required to lay before the Oireachtas a report on the operation of the relevant provisions. The current report covers the period from 1 June 2008, the date of the previous report, to 31 May this year. The report was laid before the House on 11 June 2009. My assessment, as set out in the report, is that the relevant sections of the 1998 Act should remain in force for a further 12 months. I have come to this view based on the current security situation, the advice of the Garda and the information contained in the report. The House will scarcely need reminding of the reprehensible murders of two soldiers, Sapper Mark Quinsey and Sapper Patrick Azimkar, at the Massereene Barracks in Antrim and of a PSNI constable, Stephen Carroll, in Craigavon in March of this year. These murders came in the wake of a series of attacks on PSNI officers which could have proved fatal and which demonstrated the warped determination of those involved to kill at any cost. Shortly before these murders, there was an incident involving an abandoned bomb in County Down which, had it exploded, had the potential to kill scores of people. Those who made that bomb and those who carried out the earlier attacks have nothing positive to offer this country. It is this sad reality that compels us to take the measures necessary to protect innocent lives. The 21st report of the Independent Monitoring Commission, which I published last month, makes it very clear that the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA, the INLA and some other smaller dissident groups remain committed to violent paramilitary action in pursuit of their ends. We should not be under any illusion that these groups are involved in a noble struggle for freedom. We can never ignore the terrible acts of brutality they have perpetrated in no one’s names but their own. Nor can we ignore the criminal behaviour of these groups. They rob and extort money, deal in drugs, smuggle cigarettes and exploit women for prostitution. These criminal activities are carried out as much for personal gain and to support individual lifestyles. I know Deputies will agree that great progress has been achieved in establishing peace on this island. However, we should not imagine that a substantial threat does not remain from these dissident groups, which remain implacably opposed to democracy and peace, which have

27 Offences against the State 17 June 2009. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion

[Deputy Dermot Ahern.] no morality or mandate and which stand ready and willing to cause mayhem and murder. The State must have at its disposal the means to counteract their destructive aims. We should not, therefore, underestimate the importance of these legislative provisions in facing up to their activities. The motion before the House is concerned primarily with provisions aimed at the threat posed by domestic terrorism. However, we cannot ignore the growth in recent years of the wider, international threat. Although the extent and nature of this terrorist threat varies greatly from one state to another, it would be naive to think that Ireland could be immune from these new forms of terrorism. As a result, we should not be complacent in response to them. We must continue to act, in particular with our EU counterparts, to defeat them. The 1998 Act is an essential part of the effort to counter terrorism in all its forms and to protect the people of this country. It is my firm view and that of the Garda Sı´ocha´na that the Act continues to be a most important tool in ongoing efforts to counter the threat from terrorism. The Garda authorities state unequivocally that in the current circumstances it is essential that the Act’s provisions should remain in force in order to support the ongoing investigation of terrorist activity. It is a sad and harsh fact that those who carried out the Omagh bombing, and others like them, continue to pose a substantial threat as they pursue their subversive aims and activities. The Real IRA, the Continuity IRA and the INLA still aspire to commit serious acts of terrorism. These organisations still plan and pursue campaigns of violence and they continue to engage in various acts of criminality. I will now deal with the provisions that are the subject of the motion. As already stated, I have laid before the House a report on the operation of the relevant sections since June 2008. This report demonstrates the value of these provisions to the Garda. Section 2 of the 1998 Act allows a court, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, to draw appropriate inferences where an accused person fails to answer or gives false or misleading answers to questions. However, a person cannot be convicted of an offence solely on the basis of such an inference. There must be some other evidence which points towards a his or her guilt. The section was used on 20 occasions in the period covered by the report. Section 3 requires an accused, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, to give notification of an intention to call a person to give evidence on his or her behalf. This section was used on 12 occasions. Section 4 provides that evidence of membership of an unlawful organisation can be inferred from certain conduct, including matters such as “movements, actions, activities, or associations on the part of the accused”. This section was not used in the period covered by the report. Section 6 creates the offence of directing the activities of an organisation in respect of which a suppression order has been made under the Offences against the State Act 1939. It was used on one occasion. Section 7 makes it an offence to possess articles in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that such articles are in possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of specified firearms or explosives offences. The section was used on 28 occasions. Section 8 makes it an offence to collect, record or possess information which is likely to be useful to members of an unlawful organisation in the commission of serious offences. It was not used in the period covered by the report.

28 Offences against the State 17 June 2009. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion

Section 9 makes it an offence to withhold certain information which might be of material assistance in preventing the commission of a serious offence or securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person for such an offence. The section was used on 137 occasions. Section 10 extends the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act from 48 hours to 72 hours, but only on the express authorisation of a judge of the District Court following an application by a garda of at least superintendent rank. Furthermore, the person being detained is entitled to be present in court during the application and to make, or to have made, submissions on his or her behalf. The section was used on 41 occasions and extensions were granted in all 41 cases. Section 11 allows a judge of the District Court to permit the rearrest and detention of a person in respect of an offence for which he or she was previously detained under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act but released without charge. This further period must not exceed 24 hours and can only be authorised where a judge is satisfied, on information supplied on oath by a member of the Garda Sı´ocha´na, that further information has come to the knowledge of the force regarding that person’s suspected participation in an offence. This section was used on 18 occasions. Section 12 makes it an offence for a person to instruct or train another person in the making or use of firearms or explosives or to receive such training without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. It was not used in the period covered by the report. Section 14 is, in effect, procedural in nature and makes the offences created under sections 6 to 9 and 12 of the 1998 Act scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the 1939 Act. This means that persons suspected of committing these offences are liable to arrest under section 30 of the 1939 Act. Section 17 builds on the provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1994 providing for the forfeiture of property. Where a person is convicted of offences relating to the possession of firearms or explosives and where there is property liable to forfeiture under the 1994 Act, the court is required to order the forfeiture of such property unless it is satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice if it made such an order. The section was not used in the period covered by the report. Section 5 of the 1998 Act was repealed by the Criminal Justice Act 2007. This section was reported on last year as its repeal fell part-way during the reporting period and it had been in use up to that point. The section provided for the drawing of adverse inferences in certain circumstances where an accused relied on a fact in his or her defence that he or she could reasonably have been expected to mention during questioning or on being charged, but did not do so. Part 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 provides for a broader treatment of this issue, including the particular circumstances set out in the repealed section 5. Accordingly, section 5 does not fall to be renewed. I have no doubt that some Deputies will consider the advances that have been made in promoting and securing peace on this island, particularly in the past decade or so, and will argue that we no longer require this legislation. I cannot agree with them. So-called dissident groups remain the enemies of democracy; they oppose everything for which the British-Irish Agreement stands, the aspirations it represents for the future and the peace to which it has given rise. These groups remain ruthlessly determined to undermine that peace, if at all possible, and they are quite prepared to kill indiscriminately in order to achieve their destructive ends. The Government is equally determined to prevent them realising their objectives. The State must have at its disposal robust laws to defeat them.

29 Offences against the State 17 June 2009. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion

[Deputy Dermot Ahern.]

It is only by good policing — by the Garda Sıóchańa and the PSNI — supported by strong legislation, that the murderous activities of these paramilitary groups can be defeated. I pay tribute to the ongoing work of the Garda, in co-operation with the PSNI, in facing up to the threats posed. On the basis of the information set out in the report, it is clear that the 1998 Act continues to be an important element of the Garda response to terrorism. From the advice given by the Garda Sıóchańa on the value of the provisions to them, together with the ongoing threat from terrorist groups, I consider that the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act should remain in operation for further 12 months. I have no doubt right-thinking Deputies on all sides will agree. I commend the motion to the House.

Deputy Charles Flanagan: At the outset, it is regrettable if not shameful that the Da´il has a mere 40 minutes to discuss this important anti-terrorist motion. Indeed, the information circulated beforehand by the Minister’s office is very weak and lacking in information. The Offences Against the State Act is extremely important legislation, reflecting as it does the ongoing battle the State has waged throughout its history against those who would seek to subvert the democratic process, thereby inflicting terror on this island. It is most regrettable, therefore, that renewing the legislative provisions should be treated by the Minister as something akin to a necessary inconvenience rather than an opportunity to brief the Da´il in a meaningful way on relevant matters. I recognise that anti-terrorism operations are very sensitive and secretive by nature, but a broad overview of the effectiveness or otherwise of the legislation and the situation pertaining to the type of organisations that the Act in question seeks to tackle would not only be appropriate, but helpful. We are well aware that the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was introduced in the wake of the Real IRA atrocity in Omagh which resulted in the death of 29 people, including a mother pregnant with twins. This month, in a landmark judgment, the High Court in Belfast declared that Seamus McKenna, Michael McKevitt, Liam Campbell, Colm Murphy and Seamus Daly were responsible or liable in some way for the Omagh bomb. This case was the first time that any alleged individual terrorists had been sued individually for a specific terrorist act. As a result of the ruling, all other members of the army council of the Real IRA in August 1998 are liable for damages awarded to the relatives who fought the case. The relatives of those murdered in Omagh turned to the civil courts when the criminal courts let them down. In this jurisdiction, we must ensure that our legislation is robust enough to tackle terrorism in a head-on manner. The nature of republican terrorism means that we face the same challenges as our counterparts in Northern Ireland. Working together is essential and I welcome the co-operation to date — I hope it can continue — even in the face of stringent cuts to Garda budgets. I welcome the precedent set by the decision of the Belfast High Court and I hope it gives comfort to victims of terrorism everywhere. However, there is no substitute for a criminal conviction and we, as legislators, must ensure that our laws are robust enough to meet the terrorist threat. Although 11 years have passed since the Omagh atrocity, terrorism remains a serious threat. This is evident from official figures released by Europol which show that 52 people were arrested for terrorist-related activities in Ireland in 2008. Of the 52, some 49 were arrested for dissident republican activities, while three were arrested in relation to suspected Islamic terrorism. The Europol report, entitled The EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2009, is particularly helpful as it provides us with a comparative international context. The report shows that

30 Offences against the State 17 June 2009. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion

Ireland had the fifth highest number of terrorism arrests in the EU last year. The number of arrests has jumped from four in 2006 to 24 in 2007 and 52 last year. While the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will no doubt argue that a rise in arrests is solely due to Garda diligence, we cannot avoid the inference that dissident republican groups are becoming more and more active in this and the neighbouring states. Indeed, the report gives the breakdown of the dissidents arrested in 2008 as follows: some 28 were members of the INLA, nine were members of the so-called Real IRA. and four were linked to the Continuity IRA. The report said Ireland was one of just seven EU states which recorded a terrorist attack in 2008. In Ireland’s case the blame was attributed to the INLA, an organisation which allegedly is in a period of ceasefire. The attacks are symptomatic of the INLA’s involvement in the drug trade in this country, and in Dublin in particular. The ease with which the INLA was able to become a major player in the drug trade is a cause of some concern. In March this year the INLA announced that it had stood down its entire Dublin brigade, including its leader, Declan Duffy. The statement went on to deny any INLA involvement in drug dealing, contract killings, tiger kidnappings and extortion. This was despite frequent reports of INLA involvement in such activities, and particularly its involvement in planting pipe bombs in relation to drug feuds. It has also been reported that the INLA manufactures pipe bombs and sells these to other drug gangs in this city and beyond. The involvement of the INLA in the drug trade has had disastrous consequences for this State and continues to do so. It has recently been reported that subversive prisoners in Portlaoise Prison are marching, holding parades and forcing prison staff to withdraw from certain landings. It is outrageous that criminals put in prison for paramilitary activity should be able to glory in their paramilitarism within prison and use their status to intimidate prison officers. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform argues that special conditions for paramilitary prisoners is long established but we are now in a different juncture in our history and it is high time that such special treatment was reviewed. The Minister should give the matter his close attention in the context of the current prison crisis. I welcome the fact that Declan Duffy is currently imprisoned in Portlaoise and the reports that the INLA in Dublin is no longer on active service, although I doubt the veracity of this claim. I would like the Minister to clarify whether the INLA remains active in Dublin. I ask him to give the House his view on the threat the INLA currently poses to the State as a terrorist organisation and a significant player on the drugs scene. Does the Minister accept that the failure of his Government to deploy adequate customs resources to ports, along the coastline and to smaller and private airports has given the INLA a lifeline by providing easy access to drugs? The same applies to the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. By failing to stem the tide of drugs flowing into the State, dissident republican terrorists have a lucrative area of activity to turn their attention to and perpetuate their existence. Like the INLA, the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA continue to exist and, therefore, threaten the pillars of democracy in this State. Tom Clonan describes the Real IRA and its counterpart, the Continuity IRA, as “a nucleus of hardened criminals whose ‘republican’ pre- tensions are in the main a front for organised crime in the Border area and in some inner city areas north and south of the Border”. These individuals enjoy the power and prestige that comes with membership of a dissident republican organisation. It is widely believed that attempts by civil authorities such as the PSNI to tackle these gangsters and target their ill-gotten assets led to the recent flare-up of violence and murder in the North. Drugs and dissident republications clearly go hand in hand. Offences Against the State legislation will take us so far, but unless the Government agrees to dedicate

31 Offences against the State 17 June 2009. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion

[Deputy Charles Flanagan.] the requisite resources to tackling drugs at the point of entry to the State, terrorist criminal gangs will continue to thrive. I do not have time to go into detail on the drastic effects the \35 million cut in Garda overtime will have on the level of intelligence and Border security. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform’s briefing note for this motion refers to the importance of a prompt renewal in the context of “the importance of these provisions to the Garda Sıóchańa in coun- tering the activities of a number of dissident subversive groups”. Will this surveillance be ham- pered by a swingeing cut to the Garda budget? I am concerned about early retirements being encouraged by the Government at present to save money. The Garda representative bodies have warned of a brain drain being the likely outcome of early retirements and noted recently that of the 181 superintendents in the force, 101 were eligible to retire immediately if they so wished. At least 11 superintendents have retired already this year. A large spate of retirements within An Garda Sıóchańa would have disastrous consequences in respect of expertise and experience and this is of great significance in the context of the renewal of the legislation. I affirm Fine Gael’s support for the renewal of the provisions before the House today. Fine Gael has always supported strong measures to combat terrorism and we continue to put the safety of the people of this island first. This issue is not aired frequently enough in this House. We need to deal with the problem of dissident organisations, including the INLA, the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. Offences Against the State legislation can only be truly effective if it is complemented by a drive to tackle the availability of drugs to criminal gangs. I ask the Minister to reassure the House that the consequences of Garda cuts and changes in personnel will not give rise to a reduction of experience and expertise that will allow terrorist organisations of the type envisaged under this legislation to flourish in our communities.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I agree with everything the Minister and Deputy Charles Flanagan have said about the origins of these measures, the gruesome circumstances of the Omagh bombing and their condemnation of the organisation responsible and associated dissident organisations who continue to operate in the jurisdiction and outside it. I join with the Minister in congratulating the gardaı´ on their continued vigilance and commending the co-operation that exists between the PSNI and the Garda Sı´ocha´na on these important matters. Having said that, I repeat what I have said in previous years in what has become a routine, brief and inadequate debate on these issues. I am not in possession of the intelligence information the Minister has. The Minister makes no attempt to brief Opposition spokespersons on the quality, nature, scale and significance of the intelligence information he has. We got a very slight communication on a half page from the Department or the Minister on today’s debate. Unless one was very alert one would miss the laying of the report before the Houses, as required by legislation. Usually it would go unnoticed. I find it very difficult to second guess the Minister, who has the information. My party would be very reluctant to go against the advice the Minister offers the House. The Minister has this information. He says there is a real and definite threat from the dissident groups referred to and I find it difficult to gainsay that. However a great many people will be very disappointed that so many years after the Good Friday Agreement and relative normality returning to Northern Ireland and this island as a whole, we are still in a situation, as a modern, liberal democracy, where we have to rely on draconian measures that are not consistent with people’s civil and human rights in normal circumstances. In one international instrument, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one article permits a state to derogate in certain circumstances but only “in time of public

32 Offences against the State 17 June 2009. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially pro- claimed, and only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”. Only the Minister can say if the intelligence he is in possession of is consistent with our meeting our obligations on that. If the Minister advises the House of a real and definite threat from dissident groups we must have regard to that, however I refer to the warning of Mr. Justice Anthony Hederman in the famous Hederman report: “Emergency legislation may be abused for pragmatic political purposes; special powers, introduced for special reasons, may continue to be used when those reasons no longer justify this, or for purposes extending beyond those that warranted their original introduction; and powers of detention or interrogation may be used cruelly or inhumanly upon innocent (or even guilty) people”. I am not saying that is happening here but the learned judge charged with chairing that committee and making his findings about the fact that such laws are extant on our Statute Book issued that warning. Last year in the Da´il I said the Hederman report acknowledged that the issues are complex and fundamental and said:

The authors of the report, under the direction of Mr. Justice Anthony Hederman, detailed widely divergent views on the necessity for and use of the Acts under review. The main recommendations included the proposed repeal of the existing Offences against the State Acts and the introduction of new legislation which would keep in place some of their key elements. There was also a minority report, headed up unusually by Mr. Justice Hederman, which favoured dismantling much of the existing legislation because it was seen as incompat- ible with a modern democratic state. Therefore, having requested the Hederman committee to report, which it did in great detail, we find the substantial measures in the legislation, such as the continued existence of the Special Criminal Court, its use for non-terrorist “ordinary” crime, the statutory provisions for internment, whether inferences should be drawn from a suspect exercising his right to silence and so on, are the subject of different conclusions by the majority and minority in the report.

That is far from a clear conclusion on these issues and whether in peace time there is an argument consistent with human rights and civil liberties that can be made for their continuation. The Supreme Court has held that the DPP has discretion on resort to the Special Criminal Court for matters other than subversive crime and that this occasionally happens. We know from the Minister’s public statements that he is considering the extension of that power to attempting to deal with gangland crime in the jurisdiction. We need to have a major debate on that. Nobody on this side of the House is soft on crime, particularly gangland crime, which is motivated mainly by drugs trafficking, pushing and abuse. All reasonable measures should be taken to try to gain control of that phenomenon, but a debate needs to be had on whether resort to the Special Criminal Court gives us any hope of better success than we have had by using normal procedures. I note in passing that the Green Party now in Government is on the record in successive debates on this provision. For example, in 2003, Deputy Cuffe argued that “we should drop the use of the Offences against the State Act”. He also said that “the Green Party... does not want to see the use of the Special Criminal Court continue”. It may be that the Green Party has changed its view on that matter. If the Minister is able to bring before the House his package to deal with serious crime, we obviously will have an opportunity to debate it. I cannot put my hand on my heart and say if the Minister says that the dissident republican groups referred to and their links with in some cases criminal gangs remain a threat to this country that we can do other than for the time being continue in force the measures that would

33 Offences against the State 17 June 2009. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion

[Deputy Pat Rabbitte.] otherwise fall if we did not pass this motion. I note the Minister’s remarks about significance of these measures in the context of international terrorism. I am somewhat puzzled that countries, which for obvious reasons would be on considerably higher alert than Ireland, do not seem to require extraordinary measures like this in order to deal with that aspect of it. If the mindless individuals engaged in threatening mayhem in Northern Ireland and threatening the peace process that is working out reasonably well in this country could be got under control, the time will come for us to look seriously at whether the measures here encompassed ought to continue.

Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh: Once again I am imploring all Deputies to consider the highly corrosive effect of the renewal of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act on human rights, democratic life and the safety and well being of citizens in this State before voting today. I will be giving Members of the House an opportunity to vote on this motion because I believe it is important that we are on the record on any occasion when human or democratic rights are being challenged in this way. As we discuss this motion today, the spectre of paramilitary violence — criminal and sectarian violence — still hangs over our society. We have seen the fatal consequences of that with the brutal battering to death only three weeks ago of Kevin McDaid in Coleraine — someone who has not been mentioned to date. Others have mentioned the killing of PSNI officer, Constable Stephen Carroll, and two British soldiers, Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar, and the ongoing criminal feuds in this State using high-powered weapons and explosives. Another matter that has not been mentioned in this House for a long time is the man- oeuvrings of the British secret services on this island. Dissidents — some call them dissident republicans, but they besmirch the name of republicanism — by their actions have fallen into the trap of playing to the British securicrat agenda. They seem to want to perpetuate the conflict, the emergency and the repressive legislation and regimes we see on this island. The actions of those dissidents have included attacks on Irish republicans. So much for their claim that they want to reunite Ireland. They have no mandate, no support, no political strategy and no logic. They are dancing to the British piper’s tune. It is quite clear to all that elements of Britain’s intelligence service are running agents provo- cateurs in these organisations. One such agent was exposed recently. Patrick Murray who lived in Antrim had set about undermining and destabilising support for the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process, and fomenting sectarian divisions in Ballymena, County Antrim and County Derry. When he was exposed, the British state jumped in to protect him. There are others and we have seen it over the years, including the Mount Vernon UVF, which was run by British intelligence for many years and was linked to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and the attempted mass murder at The Widow Scallon and the death of volunteer, Martin Doherty. I call on the British Government, as a partner in the peace process, to call its dogs to heel and declare that the provocative actions of its agents in these dissident and loyalist groups are contrary to the peace process and perpetuate conflict on this island. I ask the Minister to categorically state that no State agents are working in dissident groups, that British agents operating in this State are targeted and expelled, and their activities exposed. The UN fundamental human rights instruments to which this State has signed up make it very clear that fundamental rights protections may be derogated from only in times of emergency. No such emergency that could possibly warrant these draconian legislative measures exists. Sinn Fe´in has not been alone in demanding an end to these annual renewals. The UN Human Rights Committee agrees with me and has called year-on-year for an end to the juris-

34 Offences against the State 17 June 2009. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion diction of the Special Criminal Court. Nor was I alone in this House. Six years ago the Green Party spokesperson for justice, Deputy Cuffe, said: “...the state of emergency is over... we should drop the use of the Offences Against the State Act... the Green Party... does not want to see the use of the Special Criminal Court continue.” Each subsequent year the Green Party Deputies rightly voted against the renewal. They did that until they entered government and threw away their principles. However, I will not labour my condemnation of yet another human rights abandonment by the Green Party. The public has issued its judgment loud and clear on that party. It is not only our international commitments that necessitate opposition to the motion before us today, but also the Government’s own obligations under the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement places the onus on the Government to deliver security normalisation. Hence, scrapping the Offences against the State Acts is a pressing goal for all in this House. The provisions up for renewal and, indeed, the Offences against the State Acts in their entirety have no place in the present or future of this island. The Garda special branch still operates as a political police force that systematically harasses citizens engaged in open, legal and democratic political activity, including people attending Easter commemorations or engaged in trade union activities. The Garda Sıóchańa Ombudsman Commission has no power to hold the special branch to account. The Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform have the power to deny the ombudsman commission access to anything they deem to relate to State security, which needs to be addressed. This year again the report that is laid before us by the Minister is grossly insufficient for the purposes of scrutiny. Time does not allow us to address in detail the limited report. Simply listing the number of occasions on which the various provisions have been used does not allow for informed democratic scrutiny of their operation. There is not time available to me to discuss the various sections and the manner in which they breach fundamental human rights in detail. Sparse as it is, the report does at least demonstrate that sections 4, 8, 12 and 17 were not used in the past year. Section 12 has not been used since 2001 and section 17 has never been used. At the very least, they should be repealed. This brings into question any argument about necessity. During the period from 1 June 2008 to 31 May 2009 the number of persons arrested under the Act was 930. However, the total number of convictions secured under the Act for the same period was just 39. There is no information on whether the convictions were on the basis of that section alone or if the same person was convicted under several sections. There is a huge discrepancy between the annual arrest and conviction rates, which strongly suggests the possibility that the provisions are being used for trawling exercises or are being abused by gardaı´ engaged in harassment in circumstances similar to those in County Donegal, as uncovered by the Morris tribunal. If the Government wants to promote and protect the safety of the public it would financially and practically resource the Garda Sıóchańa, the forensic laboratory, the DPP and the courts in order to enforce ordinary criminal justice legislation. Instead, however, the Minister is today proposing the lazy and unsafe continuation of emergency legislation. The Fianna Faíl-Green Party Government has approved the drafting of a Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill which will further extend the use of the Special Criminal Court. I call on the Government to use the opportunity to live up to its commitments under the Good Friday Agreement. Other parties should bring pressure to bear on the Government in this regard. The full delivery of the Good Friday Agreement would do more to end paramilitary, criminal and sectarian violence on this island than all the repressive legislation ever will. It did not succeed in the past and will not do so in future. A properly resourced Garda

35 Offences against the State 17 June 2009. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion

[Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh.] Sıóchańa and courts service, in addition to a properly working witness protection system, will address in some way the criminality of those who currently come before the Special Criminal Court. Normal courts and normal laws can deal with these cases if they are properly resourced. Sinn Feín has consistently called on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to bring forward a robust package of realistic and effective measures to tackle serious crime, but we are extremely disappointed with the package the Government announced in May. Alongside it the Government has imposed restrictions on Garda overtime and a ban on recruitment and promotions. There is no logic to that. The force is to remain dependent on outdated and inadequate equipment. The anti-crime measures proposed by the Government constitute a lesson in how to lose the war on gangs.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Noel O’Flynn): The Deputy’s time has expired.

Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh: Go raibh maith agat. Rather than addressing the real reasons gangland criminals seem to enjoy impunity for their crimes — by, for example, introducing and resourcing practical and sustainable measures to protect individuals, families and whole communities from intimidation — the package attacks fundamental justice rights. In addition, it rehashes old ideas that are already on the Statute Book in varied forms, or that even the former Minister, Michael McDowell, acknowledged were unworkable in the past. I urge the House to reject the motion before it. We should end emergency legislation and start to build a normal society on this island by dealing with these matters through the normal courts instead.

Acting Chairman: We have gone over the allocated time, but I now ask the Minister to reply.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I will reply briefly to the remarks Deputies have made, although I cannot agree with anything the last speaker has said. I will not go into the detail of what he said, but I implacably disagree with everything he has said and particularly his reference to the Garda special branch, as he calls it. He said it was being used as a political police force, which I vehemently deny and reject.

Deputy Martin Ferris: It is.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: I thank Members of the House who spoke in favour of renewing the provisions of the Act. I accept that in the circumstances in which Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform find themselves, they cannot divulge to other Members the precise details as to why, other than the type of details we have given in this report, which has been laid before the House. Suffice it to say that it is not just my word or that of the Garda Sıóchańa; one only has to read the remarks of the Independent Monitoring Commission specifically answering the question Deputy Charles Flanagan raised concerning the existence of the INLA. I suggest that Deputy O´ Snodaigh should re-read the most recent report of the monitoring commission, which clearly says that these groups, including the INLA, continue to represent a substantial threat to the security of our people in this State. I again wish to thank Deputies who have supported this motion. As I outlined in my introduction concerning the use of the provisions by the Garda Sıóchańa, in conjunction with the DPP and the courts, given the level of activity on some, but not all, of the sections in this Act, it is right and proper that this House should resolve to renew it for another year.

Acting Chairman: Is the motion agreed to?

36 Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee 17 June 2009. Scheme) Bill 2009 — Committee Stage

Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh: It is not agreed.

Question put, “That the motion be agreed to.”

Deputies: Vo´ ta´il.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Will the Deputies claiming a division please rise?

Deputies Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in, Aengus O´ Snodaigh, Arthur Morgan and Martin Ferris rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: As fewer than ten Members have risen, I declare the question carried. The names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Pro- ceedings of the Da´il.

Question declared carried.

Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009 — Committee Stage.

Question proposed: “That section 1 stand part of the Bill.” Deputy Richard Bruton: Can the Minister provide the House with the value of the eligible deposits that will be covered by this new regulation? Can he provide the value of other elements that were guaranteed in September, as well as the elements of the banks’ liabilities that are not guaranteed? It would be useful to the House to have a tabular state- \ 1 o’clock ment of all the deposits, such as the deposits covered by the 100,000 guarantee, the deposits and other liabilities covered by the September guarantee, as well as details of the liabilities in the banks’ balance sheet that are not covered. That would be useful information. If the Minister does not have the material today I would be happy for him to furnish it subsequently.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Noel O’Flynn): Deputy Burton tabled an amendment to this section, amendment No. 2, which seeks to insert a new section that would apply the Freedom of Information Act 1997 to the Central Bank, the Financial Regulator, the NTMA, the National Development Fiance Agency and the National Pensions Reserve Fund. The provisions of the Bill do not include any reference to freedom of information or any of these agencies except the Central Bank. The amendment is out of order because it is outside the scope of the Bill.

Deputy Joan Burton: The Bill contains extensive references to the Central Bank and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland, two of the institutions the Labour Party proposes should be subject to freedom of information legislation. This country is guaranteeing debt to an unbelievable extent, at least \440 billion, with the guarantee of last September. We do not yet have a complete analysis of the composition of the guarantee other than knowing the names of the institutions it covers. The Minister announced in the budget that between \80 billion and \90 billion of impaired loans would be transferred to NAMA at an unknown cost to the taxpayer but which stockbrokers suggest would be transferred at a discount of only 20%.

Acting Chairman: I had to rule on this point and we cannot have a debate on it.

Deputy Joan Burton: I want to make this point briefly. It is extraordinary that the biggest financial deal ever entered into by an Irish Government, on the back of the taxpayer, for unknown quantities of money should be entirely exempt from the right of those of us in this House or under freedom of information legislation to obtain information. This is in direct contrast to what happens in the US, where the maximum amount of information is made

37 Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee 17 June 2009. Scheme) Bill 2009 — Committee Stage

[Deputy Joan Burton.] available, including particular facilities such as congressional oversight committees and freedom of information legislation. Part of the difficulty is that financially we are seriously impaired as a consequence of the Government’s action. Taxpayers are seriously impaired and are paying extra taxes. This Government wants to have a complete blanket ban on giving information except the information it chooses to give. I accept that Deputy O’Flynn is just in the Chair now but I have no idea why the Ceann Comhairle has made the ruling, given the extensive references in the Bill to the Central Bank and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland. They are mentioned all over this Bill, as are financial instruments and deposits etc., which are included in the guarantee scheme. There is also reference to the covered institutions, those subject to the guarantee and those not subject to the guarantee. The argument put forward by the Department of Finance is entirely specious and unfair. It is in the tradition of the Department of Finance to refuse any reasonable amendments to finance legislation on the grounds that the Department of Finance does not do amendments.

Acting Chairman: We are now discussing section 1.

Deputy Joan Burton: If we are discussing section 1, I would like to make a contribution on the section after Deputy Rabbitte.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I support the request by Deputy Bruton for the tabular breakdown. The Minister cannot rhyme it off but it would be of great assistance to us. In the case of one of the institutions encompassed by section 1, Anglo Irish Bank, the Taoiseach and the Minister have taken to using a figure of over \60 billion as the cost of winding it down. The figure has come under attack by those who could broadly be called experts in respect of the breakdown between commercial deposits by large corporations, retail deposits from non-corporates and whatever moneys are available from the interbank market, perhaps of the order of \30 billion. I would like to see these figures because it is time we made a decision on it. I watched Alan Dukes, the public interest director, on “Questions and Answers” on Monday night. He is a man for whom I have a lot of regard but I was unnerved by his performance. It seems he has become a captive of the institution and faithfully rhymed off the official position. His attempt to explain how the bank has deteriorated dramatically in six months was not convincing. Six months ago it reported a profit of \784 million, six months later there is a \4.1 billion deficit. The impaired loans shot up by a factor of ten. Alan Dukes’s explanation was that although this was known at the time, the laws of accountancy — his phrase, not mine — prevented it being reported. I have great difficulty if that is the public interest position being vindicated. Whatever the laws of accountancy say, if that was the state of the bank six months ago, we ought to have been told that in the public interest. Whatever the formal requirements of the rules of accountancy, the public and the reputation of the country stands to lose so much and the implications for the rest of the economy and the banking system are such that we should have been told this. I had some hope that when public interest directors were sent in, they would function in the public interest and be seen to do so. Deputy Bruton’s proposal on the tabular statement is necessary because it is difficult for the rest of us to come to terms with this huge elephant in the room that is staring us in the face concerning Anglo Irish Bank. Depending on how one looks at the figures of Brian Lucey, in a recent article responding to the Minister, the figure seems closer to \32 billion or \33 billion than \60 billion or \62 billion. If it is a choice between supplying \4 billion or forgoing \33 billion, I am with the Minister. More fundamental questions are raised and we do not know where we are going, what is the plan or the intention for the future. We will be stuck with the effect of these decisions for

38 Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee 17 June 2009. Scheme) Bill 2009 — Committee Stage between 20 and 30 years. A great number of Members are at sea in terms of the facts and being able to assess them. We should be in possession of the real information if we are to make these decisions.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: When the Minister is considering providing tabular information, can he examine the breakdown between credit unions, the banks, the covered and uncovered institutions and provide the average range of deposits per institution so that we can get an idea of the level of deposits per institution?

Acting Chairman: If Deputy Burton wishes to see the Ceann Comhairle about her amendment, it will arise in section 12 and the Deputy will be able to speak on it then. She has until that time to see the Ceann Comhairle about his decision.

Deputy Joan Burton: Yesterday we discussed how the Labour Party called for the extension of the deposit guarantee scheme some time before the Government acknowledged there was a serious financial crisis in our banking system last September and before it rushed into the ill- fated guarantee. The Labour Party is on record as proposing a significant increase in the deposit guarantee structure in Ireland. The Minister did not respond yesterday on the problem in this Bill. This legislation is simply one part of a strategy to address the consequences of the guarantee from last September, which is to split as many of the consequences of the scheme into separate pieces of legislation and bring them separately before the House so we do not have a comprehensive picture of what the Minister and his officials are proposing. For example, either next week or the week after there will be another miscellaneous financial provisions Bill before this House which will include an extraordinary proposal to give the Minister, among other powers, a right to extend the guarantee after September 2010 indefinitely — for as long or short a period as he so wishes — by way of a ministerial order. As people in this House know, this means, in effect, the Minister will have that power to himself. I presume that Bill will come in next week. Like today’s Bill, Second Stage will be taken on one day and Committee and Remaining Stages will be taken on the next day. We will not get any of the financial details we require to make a judgment as a responsible Opposition and Members of the Da´il. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, Deputies Cowen and Brian Lenihan, claimed last September that this was a milestone in international banking because of the cleverness of the guarantee. It has gone from being a milestone to being a millstone around the neck of every man, woman and child in this country for this generation and possibly the next. This finance Bill contains no figures other than the amount of the guarantee. This comes from the same people in the Department of Finance who told us the fundamentals were fine and who fell over each other before the finance committee to say so on various days. There was a chorus of cheerleaders in the Central Bank, the Financial Regulator and the financial institutions but it was led by the Department of Finance, which indicated that the fundamentals were fine and we were well prepared to weather the storm. We are now getting the first in a series of different pieces of legislation to, in effect, create the NAMA structure in perpetuity so that not only will this Government have a policy but in the event of a change of Government, a subsequent Government will have its hands tied because much of the policy will have been undertaken by then. There will have been very little detailed financial information except for what is gleaned in a piecemeal fashion.

39 Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee 17 June 2009. Scheme) Bill 2009 — Committee Stage

[Deputy Joan Burton.]

This amounts to an act of bad faith by the Department of Finance and the Minister with respect to Da´il E´ ireann because we are not getting the required information. We have not been told of the level of deposits. I told the Minister I asked questions about this early last year and I have the replies of the then Minister for Finance regarding deposit levels in credit unions and banks in the jurisdiction. It is wrong of the Minister to come here without a financial brief telling us the level of deposits covered through this Bill in covered and other institutions. What is the composition of those deposits? This legislation as it relates to deposit insurance essentially arises from European regulation and legislation and we have no proper definition in the Irish context of what it means. For example, can a group of bond holders move deposits from a category of bond or secured instrument into and out of deposits? Yesterday I raised with the Minister the specific issue of the former managing director and chairman of Anglo Irish Bank, who we know owes significant millions to the bank in property loans. It was reliably reported in newspapers a few weeks ago and not denied that this gentle- man also had deposits amounting to a number of millions in Anglo Irish Bank, and there was no recourse to these deposits in regard to the lending undertaken by this man from Anglo Irish Bank. We were told by Mr. O’Connor before an Oireachtas committee and in the recent report of Anglo Irish Bank that directors’ loans amounting to \31 million were being categorised and essentially written off as bad debts. That is where we are today. Directors’ deposits are subject to the guarantee in so far as they are deposits below the \100,000 mark. The taxpayer, who now owns Anglo Irish Bank and is writing off tens of millions of euro in bad debts — some in respect of the same director — has no recourse between the debts and the deposits. I asked the Minister about this yesterday and it is wrong of him not to explain it. For the ordinary people on the street, a deeply unfair aspect of this is that they see their taxes going up and their take-home pay going down while at the same time, the directors who ran this bank off the cliff and on to the rocks have special arrangements. The Minister is not prepared to tell us what the arrangements are. If the public is bailing out this bank to the tune of \60 billion——

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): Did the Deputy say \60 billion?

Deputy Joan Burton: The Minister indicated the cost of winding up this bank immediately could be as high as \60 billion.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: That is up-front.

Deputy Joan Burton: Various people speaking on behalf of the bank have said the cost could be as high as \60 billion, with newspaper articles echoing that. Nevertheless, the Minister is refusing to tell us what the ordinary person on the street wants to know. The Minister will immediately commit \4 billion in extra equity to Anglo Irish Bank and everybody agrees that although that money has pretty much gone down the drain, it is keeping the bank afloat. The Minister is still not prepared to tease out and give us the detailed information on who are the depositors and beneficiaries.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I do not have that information.

Deputy Joan Burton: What is the classification of the different types of debt in the bank?

40 Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee 17 June 2009. Scheme) Bill 2009 — Committee Stage

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I do not have such information and the Deputy knows I should not have it.

Deputy Joan Burton: The Minister should have it. Why should he not? He is the Minister and it is our money. He carries the responsibility for it.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I am the shareholder in this bank. Deputy Burton has often boasted of her accountancy and commercial knowledge in this House and should be aware that I do not have that information at my disposal.

Deputy Joan Burton: I have never boasted about anything. Why does he not have the information?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: My Department does not have it.

Deputy Joan Burton: Why?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: A shareholder in a bank is not entitled to confidential bank or customer information, which Deputy Burton knows perfectly well.

Deputy Joan Burton: So the Minister does not know anything about the bank but we are bailing it out.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: We know a great deal about this bank, unfortunately.

Acting Chairman: The Minister, without interruption.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Shareholders of any bank are not entitled to find out personal information about customers, which Deputy Burton knows perfectly well. I agree that the request for a tabular breakdown is very sensible and I would like to put on the record as much as I can in that regard. The Central Bank has indicated it is only possible to roughly estimate the value of deposits covered by this scheme in this legislation, where the compensation limit is \100,000. Its estimate is based on the total value of deposits surveyed for the 11 institutions which were potentially eligible for the Government guarantee, which was approximately \170 billion. The Central Bank indicates that these form the vast majority of the deposits covered by the deposit guarantee scheme and estimates that approximately 40%, or \70 billion, of these deposits would be covered by the deposit guarantee scheme. On top of this we can add the \12.4 billion of deposits held in credit unions, thus giving an overall figure of approximately \82 billion covered by the deposit guarantee scheme. The deposit guarantee scheme does not cope with a systemic financial crisis. In such a scen- ario, a Government intervention to restore confidence might be necessary, as we have seen both here and in other countries over the past year. Deposit guarantee schemes are more likely to be used in once-off positions and can be seen as just one part of the financial safety net. However, they can be helpful in protecting an otherwise solvent institution from failure.

Debate adjourned.

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

41 Priority 17 June 2009. Questions

Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed).

Priority Questions.

————

Decentralisation Programme. 24. Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will provide a progress report on the decentralisation plans for his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23141/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): The Depart- ment of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs is scheduled to relocate under the decentralisation programme to offices at Na Forbacha, Galway, and Charlestown, County Mayo. Our commitment to Na Forbacha has been met in full with ten staff now relocated to the Depart- ment’s offices at that location. Significant progress has been made to date with decentralisation of the Department’s headquarters to Charlestown. From a total of 140 staff due to decentralise, 100 staff have relocated to an interim location in Tubbercurry, County Sligo, where two properties are being leased by the Office of Public Works to accommodate the staff concerned. A significant number of departmental business units, including the full rural, community and finance divisions, are now operating successfully from Tubbercurry. The eventual destination identified by the Government for the Department is Charlestown, County Mayo. The Office of Public Works has been engaged in the process of selecting and purchasing a permanent site for the Department’s headquarters at that location. The Office of Public Works is liaising with the Department of Finance and relevant authorities on a particular site in Charlestown, identified as being suitable. The Department of Finance was recently approached by a community development organisation concerning a property in Kiltimagh, County Mayo, with turn-key potential as a headquarters building. On foot of this approach, the Office of Public Work is examining the property in question to ascertain its suitability. This is a sensible and prudent response to the approach that has been made and implies no decision.

Deputy Michael Ring: A site for the departmental headquarters was identified in Charles- town, County Mayo, but the planning application for it was refused by An Bord Pleana´la. A second site was identified in Charlestown but no contract with the owner would be entered into until planning was approved. Last July, Cairn International Trade Centre, a company owned by IRD Kiltimagh Limited which administered the Leader programme and rural social scheme, made an approach concerning a site it has in Kiltimagh. The Minister has informed me that to date \400,000 has been spent on refurbishing offices in Tubbercurry and \200,000 leasing them. Cairn International Trade Centre has already received over \20,000 of Leader funding to complete a feasibility study on the building. It has also drawn down a loan of \1 million from the Western Development Commission, which falls under the Minister’s brief. If the Kiltimagh office were chosen, will it be a case of the Department paying for the buildings twice? To me this resembles “Fawlty Towers” where the Department gives moneys to the Western Development Commission which, in turn, gives it to Cairn International Trade Centre to build offices which then expects the Department to pay rent for. Has Charlestown or Kiltim- agh been chosen as the site for the decentralised departmental offices?

Deputy Jack Wall: What about Tubbercurry?

42 Priority 17 June 2009. Questions

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: Decisions in the Leader programme are made in what is termed the bottom-up development. The Deputy is correct that IRD Kiltimagh Limited made moneys of \12,000 and \9,675 available to Cairn International Trade Centre for a feasibility study. The Western Development Commission made a loan on certain terms to the building which is secured on properties in Kiltimagh. The issue raised by the Deputy would only come into play if there were a decision to purchase the building in Kiltimagh. The process was that the Office of Public Works would buy a site in Charlestown. An approach was made to the Department of Finance by the owners of the Cairn International Trade Centre in Kiltimagh. The Office of Public Works is still examining if it is a suitable building. Until then, the other issues raised by the Deputy would not even come into play.

Deputy Michael Ring: I thank the Minister for making this and much more information on this matter available to me. He claims the Kiltimagh group did not make an approach concerning the building until July last year. How was it able to draw down a loan of \1 million from the Western Development Commission?

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: I am anxious that we would give as much information as is possible. Decisions of the Western Development Commission on any amounts up to \1 million are separate from me. It is also important that the Deputy is made aware that the group in question applied for dormant accounts funding. This was initially recommended by Pobal. It came to the committee I chair which believed there were issues under the relevant Act. The matter was reviewed and it was decided not to give funding under the dormant accounts fund. I can make those papers available to the Deputy so that he has the full picture. I have treated this matter at arm’s length. I will not deny people approached me about the building. It is also a fact that I pushed the matter to the right place because, as Minister, I have no function in property acquisition whatsoever. The Office of Public Works decision to examine the suitability of the Kiltimagh building is its own and not mine. My concern is to proceed with the full decentralisation of my Department to east County Mayo. Until this issue was raised, and which now has to be resolved, I was happy with the progress made with the Charlestown site. The original site was to be at Knock Airport. Except for an unusual decision by An Bord Pleana´la the offices would be there today. My focus is in getting a permanent headquarters for my Department. Until recently, the site at Charlestown was the only one in play. This other building at Kiltimagh has come into play. It raises all sorts of issues, which have been legitimately raised by Deputy Ring. These will all have to be taken into account but only if the Office of Public Works were to consider the Kiltimagh building suitable.

Deputy Michael Ring: It raises many questions about the use of \1 million of Government moneys.

National Drugs Strategy. 25. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the number of meetings he or his departmental officials have had or are proposing to have with national sporting organisations to discuss the proposed new national drugs strategy; the results of such meetings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23139/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy John Curran): I am highly aware that involvement in sport can be a key factor in helping to prevent young people from becoming involved in problem drug taking. In this context and

43 Priority 17 June 2009. Questions

[Deputy John Curran.] because of the other health and well-being benefits involved, I wholeheartedly support participation in sport. Under the current drugs strategy, a number of initiatives were developed on a local basis to promote sport among young people. In addition, 14 of what are termed “Football in the Com- munity” development officers are employed under the young people’s facilities and services fund, ten of whom are in Dublin and four in Limerick. Such initiatives are likely to continue under the new drugs strategy. Neither my officials nor I have had direct meetings with national sporting organisations to discuss the proposals for the new strategy. However, the steering group set up to develop proposals in this regard undertook an extensive consultation process in mid-2008 and I person- ally participated in many of the meetings involved. This process included 15 public consultation meetings nationwide, as well as meetings with relevant Departments and agencies, key sectoral representatives and organisations and targeted focus groups. Submissions in writing also were received from the public and various other bodies, including the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, which submitted views that emphasised the importance of sport. I also should mention in this context that the national co-ordinator of the GAA’s alcohol and substance abuse prevention programme was a member of the steering group. However, his membership was as a representative of the voluntary sector rather than as a direct sports- focused participant. The steering group recognised the capacity of sports organisations to posi- tively affect and influence the attitudes and behaviour of many people, particularly children and young adults. This is being achieved through both the provision of diversionary sport and recreational activities and the spread of health, prevention and awareness messages in regard to problem drug and alcohol use. The group was highly conscious of the opportunity to build on the valuable prevention work being done by the various sports organisations, both at a broad level and through individual volunteers. In this context, the new strategy proposes the putting in place of substance misuse policies and the development of a brief interventions approach, where appropriate, in youth, sport and community organisations. In that regard, it is important to acknowledge that some organisations, such as the GAA, already have in place substance misuse policies. I believe that sport will continue to play a very positive part in our efforts to tackle problem drug use in our society over the lifetime of the new strategy.

Deputy Jack Wall: I find it very difficult to understand how, while discussing the strategy, alternatives are never discussed. In this context, I fail to understand the reason that all sporting organisations have not been contacted. Something must be put in place to attract young people away from the misuse of drugs. Given that so much money has been spent on grants to various sporting organisations, those facilities should be used to attract young people away from the drug barons who are trying to destroy their lives on a daily basis. Although I am deeply involved in the GAA, I have yet to visit a GAA facility or attend a meeting at which I have heard a single word about a local drugs task force, a meeting or anything similar. It is difficult to understand that although so much money is spent in capital outlay to the aforementioned organisations, the two matters do not appear to be tied together. This Department pertains to community matters and to providing for the community and I fail to understand why attempts are not made to try to drive an alternative to get the youngsters involved. While I acknowledge the associations can only do so much in this regard, a combination of all groups is required.

44 Priority 17 June 2009. Questions

Before the announcement of the strategy, I ask the Minister of State to facilitate the holding of a seminar on this issue, to which all sporting organisations are invited. He should demonstrate his willingness to lead on this matter because that is his job. He should provide a lead in combining all sports organisations to ensure that progress will be made.

Deputy John Curran: First, to clarify a number of points, there was a fairly extensive public consultation period. While individual sporting organisations were not contacted directly, many may have attended public meetings. The debates held in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and in the Seanad all highlighted the issue of sport. Government policy has recognised clearly that the problem relating to drugs is at its worst in areas of high disadvantage and additional incentives have been provided in such areas, by which I mean top-up funding for sports capital programmes from this Department and so forth. Various programmes are in place and I acknowledge fully the importance of sport. The drugs strategy is now at an advanced stage and further consultations will not be held. However, this strategy is on an interim basis. Arising from the Government’s decision of 30 September to include alcohol, a new joint substance misuse strategy will be drawn up and in that regard I will consult specifically, at Deputy Wall’s request, with the sporting organisations.

Deputy Jack Wall: If no further consultations in this regard are to be held, a major opportunity will have been missed. In tandem with the strategy’s launch, the Minister of State still should go ahead and organise a seminar to highlight what has taken place and to ensure that everyone is on board in this regard. Otherwise, I believe this constitutes a missed opportunity.

Deputy John Curran: I reiterate that the new national strategy is an interim drug-related strategy. On 30 September last, the Government made the decision to have a joint drug and alcohol substance misuse strategy and work will begin on that process in September 2009. During that process, in specific response to Deputy Wall’s remarks, I will consult with the sporting organisations as requested.

Deputy Jack Wall: Very well. I thank the Minister of State.

26. Deputy Catherine Byrne asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if, in view of recent cuts to the national drugs strategy budget, he will investigate alternative sources of funding to ensure that community groups and projects under the national drugs strategy can continue their work to combat the drug problem here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23301/09]

Deputy John Curran: As the Deputy will be aware, the majority of expenditure allocated through my Department to community groups involved in drugs initiatives is channelled though the local and regional drugs task forces. Of the total drugs funding in my Department’s Vote in 2009, more than 92% is targeted at task force-related activities. The revised allocation, following the supplementary budget in April, for community-based initiatives in the local and regional drugs task force areas is \32.5 million, which will support approximately 530 projects. No area is immune to cost cutting measures in the current economic environment. It is in this context that all drugs task forces must live within the budgets allocated for their areas of responsibility and I fully appreciate this involves a requirement to make some difficult choices. Sustained incremental funding over recent years has facilitated, amongst others, the strengthening of existing projects in the local drugs task force areas, the rolling out of a range of

45 Priority 17 June 2009. Questions

[Deputy John Curran.] projects and initiatives in regional drugs task force areas, the introduction of new initiatives and responses to address cocaine usage and to support rehabilitation, as well as ongoing investment in capital projects. These are recognised by the Government as key areas to support communities to address the harm caused by problem drugs use and to deliver meaningful solutions. I assure the Deputy that my primary concern has been and continues to be the protection of front line community-based services delivering vital programmes and initiatives in areas worst affected by problem drug use. I am acutely aware of the challenges that reduced budget allocations pose. Other Depart- ments and agencies also are aware of this issue in the context of their engagement in the drugs strategy and the available funding to them for the mainstream drugs projects and services. However, we must take account of the current economic reality and of the pressure on the public finances. Inevitably, this means that some schemes will be affected. Properly managed, however, this also may lead to improved efficiencies in services and may foster better interagency working to the benefit of all.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House. The Deputy also should note that drugs task forces have benefitted from funding under the dormant accounts fund, DAF. In addition to supporting the dial to stop drug dealing campaigns in task force areas, 80 projects in 23 of the task force areas were recently approved funding from the DAF for initiatives aimed at improving services for families of drug misusers. There have also been many calls to ring-fence and use assets seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau to fund drug services and I spoke in the Da´il about this recently during an Adjournment debate. While the suggestion is interesting, it raises a number of difficulties. The Constitution requires, and Government accounting principles provide, that public moneys be spent as voted or approved by Da´il E´ ireann unless otherwise provided by statute. It would be contrary to the normal Estimates process were one to ring-fence moneys obtained by the Exchequer and reallocate them for a specific purpose. The variable nature of the value of the assets seized by the CAB in any given year also could cause problems as funds must be provided on an ongoing basis for drugs programmes. Difficulties also might be caused if delays arose as a result of legal challenges to court disposal orders. Such an unstable revenue source would not facilitate the proper planning of drug programmes by organisations involved in delivering such services. The Deputy will be aware that a number of difficult decisions are being taken across the Government. However, its approach is to do this in as balanced a way as possible. There is a critical need to ensure that resources are directed in a targeted and effective manner and that the maximum benefit is achieved. I am confident that the funding in 2009 will enable the delivery of meaningful and viable community-based initiatives to address problem drug use.

Deputy Catherine Byrne: I thank the Minister of State for his reply and wish to raise a few points. In recent weeks, many groups have approached Members to discuss the lack of funding and how they will be obliged to cut their budgets. My primary concern pertains to the small community groups that are funded from the task force and that I have discussed previously with the Minister of State. The people who have got off lightly in this regard are the drug barons, who have taken huge sums of money from communities and from those who live in the less well-off areas in particular. Will the Minister of State commit himself to ring-fencing some of the money accruing to the Criminal Assets Bureau in order that it can be put back into communities and into some of the local drugs task forces in order that the aforementioned services can be kept in place? The Minister of State has acknowledged these services are on the front line and each community

46 Priority 17 June 2009. Questions group continues to use its programmes in a particular way. The people who will lose out are not the drug barons or the drug users, but people who are at the lower end of the scale, namely, extremely young children, who are now becoming deeply involved in drugs.

Deputy John Curran: I am not in a position to ring-fence funds from the Criminal Assets Bureau. I cannot give such a commitment. I have answered questions in this regard previously in the Da´il. While funding from the Criminal Assets Bureau would be highly symbolic, by its nature this is not easy to do. There is an onus on the State that funding is made available through the normal Vote and that the income comes into the Exchequer, including the Criminal Assets Bureau funding. Not all the funding that accrues to the Criminal Assets Bureau comes from drug-related crime. That is also an issue. If the Deputy’s proposal were accepted, the amount of funding provided would vary from year to year. In my view, such variations in funding would cause greater difficulties than the difficulties we are facing at the moment. I will put it into context. While the level of funding has been reduced in the current year, the reduction is not as great as the reduction that has been seen in other areas. We have worked hard to ensure that the level of funding provided to drug task force projects throughout the country remains at the maximum level. I reiterate that the relevant figure has decreased from \34.6 million last year to \32.5 million this year.

Deputy Catherine Byrne: While I accept what has been said, I insist it is time for some of the money that accrues from criminal activities to be invested in poorer communities, thereby assisting those who are at the bottom of the food chain when money is passed down. The Minister of State is not responsible for the Criminal Assets Bureau, but he can use his position as the officeholder with responsibility for the drugs strategy to influence Cabinet Ministers. This is a serious matter at a time when money is very limited and groups are struggling. The Minister of State has the power to influence his colleagues and thereby make the changes I am calling for. That is what he should be doing.

Deputy John Curran: I reiterate that the funds collected by the Criminal Assets Bureau are returned to the Exchequer, which funds many of the initiatives for which I have responsibility. I refer not only to the drug task forces, but also to a range of other facilities and funds that are aimed at safeguarding the well-being of society. Deputy Wall spoke about the importance of sport, which is generally funded through the Exchequer, which derives some of its income from the Criminal Assets Bureau. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for Deputy Byrne to direct her specific request to the Minister for Finance. In these difficult and challenging times, it is important to examine the effectiveness of the more than 500 projects which are funded through the drug task forces. While I understand the difficulties faced by task forces, I am afraid they will have to prioritise those projects that are delivering the effective outcomes needed in communities and make choices on that basis.

Official Languages Act. 27. Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will inform all of the bodies which come within the remit of the Official Languages Act 2003 that an electronic copy of the Irish version of the various documents which come within the remit of the Act is sufficient to meet the statutory obligation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23140/09]

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: Deputy O’Shea is aware that since the enactment of the Official Languages Act 2003, I have made it clear that certain documents should be published on compact disc or on the Internet, rather than in hard copy, to the maximum extent possible. I

47 Priority 17 June 2009. Questions

[Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v.] refer to those documents, such as annual reports and strategy statements, which are required by section 10 of the 2003 Act to be published simultaneously in both official languages. They should be produced in a manner that is consistent with the over-riding requirement to meet the needs of all customers, including those who do not have access to the Internet or have genuine reasons for preferring a paper copy. I assure the Deputy that every organisation that comes within the scope of the 2003 Act is aware of this. An Coimisine´ir Teanga advised all public bodies of the preferred approach in the guidebook on the Act that his office published and circulated to them in 2008. It is essential that both official languages are treated equally and the same quality of customer service is provided in both languages. It is not sufficient to publish an electronic copy only of one language version, for example, while giving the customer in the other language a choice of electronic or paper copy. It should be acknowledged that some documents, such as application forms that enable the general public to make applications or receive benefits, may require continued availability in hard copy format for the foreseeable future. It is important, in the interests of providing the customer with a quality service, that hard copies of such documents continue to be accessible in both official languages, ideally within the one cover.

Deputy Brian O’Shea: I thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to give an example of my concerns in this regard. I was contacted in connection with the recently published report of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. I am the Labour Party’s spokesperson on such matters. The person who contacted me, who could not be said to be unfavourably disposed to the Irish language, told me they threw the Irish language version of the report in the dustbin. Much of the stuff that is being published is of interest to very few people. The manner in which that is being done is leading to antagonism towards the Irish language. The approach of the Minister, Deputy O´ Cuı´v, to the revival of the Irish language is putting him at risk of being described as a “flat earth” Minister. He needs to examine what is happening. At a time when the only Irish language newspaper in the country is facing extinction, money is being wasted in this manner.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is the subject of the next question.

Deputy Brian O’Shea: Go raibh maith agat. It is not good enough for the Minister to say he has given advice — he needs to take stronger action to make sure this sort of thing stops before it gets any worse.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: Any waste of money is wrong. If money is wasted on printing, it does not matter whether the material being printed is in Irish or in English. I have complained in this House on many occasions about the number of unsolicited reports, etc., that are sent to my office. Most of them are in English only. They go immediately into my waste paper basket because I know I will not get a chance to read them. There are too many of them. Like everyone who checks his or her post, I can remember a time when every county enterprise board sent its annual report to me. I do not get any of those any more. The debate we have had on this issue has helped enormously to dissuade bodies from sending this type of docu- mentation to us, in either of the official languages. All of us know that if we want to access a report, we can get it on the Internet. This is not a language-specific issue — it should be addressed as a waste issue. The document referred to by Deputy O’Shea had a particularly fancy cover. We have said time and again that all these issues should be examined. The number of documents that have to be translated is quite limited. I estimate that 90% of the cost of preparing documents involves preparing them and just 10% of the cost relates to translating them. The vast majority of documents in this country are produced, quite legally, in English

48 Priority 17 June 2009. Questions only. I agree it is about time we cut down on the size and number of documents that are produced. Documents are eating up huge sums of money.

Deputy Michael Ring: The Minister could make a ministerial order to prevent such waste.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to allow Deputy O’Shea to have his questions answered.

Deputy Michael Ring: I will.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: Deputy O’Shea knows I am more than willing to debate this issue in detail at the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Two legitimate issues arise in the context of Deputy O’Shea’s question. The Official Languages Act 2003, which was introduced on foot of the O´ Beola´in judgment, which would have forced us to translate every document in the country into Irish, requires us to translate a limited number of documents. We need to consider how we can provide documents in two languages at a minimum cost. We can publish them on the Internet, we can reduce the size of documents and we can use standard templates for the purposes of translation.

Deputy Brian O’Shea: As usual, the Minister has gone all around the shop. We need to get down to the basic point. We want to promote the use of the Irish language. We are not helping the language by publishing a pile of stuff that very few people read. The point I am making is that money which could be better spent on other aspects of the Irish language is being wasted. The Minister needs to have a good look at this. The country is in a bad state at the moment. Things are not going well for the language, which is being hindered by delays. We have to stop wasting money. The Minister is well aware that this sort of thing is antagonising people and causing them to move away from the Irish language. It is about time the Minister got real by starting to eliminate waste and getting rid of some of his obscurantist ideas.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: I did not come up with any of the ideas we are talking about in this case. We are talking about the law of the land, as passed by the Oireachtas.

Deputy Brian O’Shea: The law can be changed.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: The Deputy can make proposals for a change in the law any day he likes.

Deputy Brian O’Shea: It is obvious that the Minister does not have any proposals of his own.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: Some English speakers seem to want to deny this country’s Irish speakers their right to read basic documents in Irish. The Act requires annual reports and policy proposal documents to be published in Irish. All other documents can be published in English only in this State. I believe Irish speakers have a right to access certain documents in the Irish language. The Deputy can disagree with me on that point if he likes. Those who are antagonised by the fact that Irish speakers, including native speakers, are being given their rights relating to a limited number of fundamental documents are entitled to their opinions. I do not agree with them. The majority of the Members of this House concurred with me, thankfully, when they voted for the legislation in question.

Nuachtaín Gaeilge. 28. D’fhiafraigh Deputy Dinny McGinley den Aire Gno´ thaı´ Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta cad iad na hiarrachtaı´ ata´ a´ ndeánamh chun a chinntiu´ go leanfar d’fhoilsiu´ an nuachtaín

49 Priority 17 June 2009. Questions

[Deputy Dinny McGinley.] sheachtainiu´ il Foinse, an t-aon nuachtań seachtainiu´ il Gaeilge sa tı´r; agus an ndeánfaidh se´ raíteas ina thaobh. [24035/09]

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: I dtu´ sbaíre, ba mhaith liom a ra´ go bhfuil se´ fıór-tha´bhachtach don teanga agus don tı´r, dar liom, go mbeadh nuachtań Gaeilge ar faíl. Beidh me´ ag casadh le Bord Fhoras na Gaeilge go luath agus beidh me´ ag glacadh leis an deis chun e´ sin a chur in iu´ ldo´ ibh. Ar ndo´ igh, ta´ Foras na Gaeilge neamhspleaćh o´ thaobh a gcuid gno´ a bhainistiu´ i gceart agus deimhin a dheánamh de go bhfuil luach ar airgead a´ fhaíl acu. Chomh maith leis sin, tuigfidh an Teachta nach feídir le hAire cur isteach ar phro´ iseas tairisceana ar aon bhealach. E´ sin raíte, ta´ su´ il agam go mbeidh Foras na Gaeilge in ann an cheist seo a reíteach I dtreo is go mbeidh nuachtań Gaeilge ar faíl gach seachtain do´ ibh siu´ d ata´ a´ lorg.

Deputy Dinny McGinley: D’eíst me´ leis an Teachta O’Shea agus e´ ag deánamh tagairt do na foilsiu´ chaín Gaeilge a cuirtear ar faíl ag eagraithe an Staít agus ag bord Staít la´ i ndiaidh lae, seachtain i ndiaidh seachtaine agus is beag duine a leánn iad. Ar an la´mh eile, ta´ paípeár seachtainiu´ il naísiu´ nta Gaeilge againn agus ta´ geárcheím — agus muid ag caint 3 o’clock — faoi an mairfidh se´ no´ nach mairfidh se´.Ta´ an paípeár seo a´ chur ar faíl le 13 bliain agus ta´ se´ a´ leámh go rialta gach seachtain ar fud na tı´re. Nı´l aon guarantee againn go mbeidh an paípeár ann ach seachtain amhaín eile, deireadh na mıósa seo. Chomh fada agus a bhaineann se´ linn, d’fheádfadh deireadh a bheith leis an paípeár sin. An aonto´ dh an tAire liom go bhfuil rud eígin cearr lena gcuid priorities nuair nach feídir leis paípeár seachtainiu´ il a choinneaíl ag dul ar aghaidh o´ sheachtain go seachtain — paípeár ata´ a´ leámh ag pobal na Gaeilge agus ag scolaírı´ Gaeilge sna meańscoileanna ar fud na tı´re? Ar an la´mh eile, ta´ tuarasca´la, mar a du´ irt an Teachta, a´ chaitheamh isteach i gciseaín nuair a thagann siad. Ba mhaith liom go dtabharfadh an tAire tacaıóchth iomlań don phaípeár seo agus nach mbeadh se´ ag dul o´ la´ go la´. Ba mhaith liom go mbeadh leanu´ nachas ann agus go mbeadh deireadh leis an eíginnteacht.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: Ta´ me cinnte go n-aonto´ dh an Teachta liom go bhfuil agus go mba ceart go mbeadh Foras na Gaeilge neamhspleaćh o´ n Aire o´ la´ go la´.Ta´ me´ cinnte freisin go n-aonto´ dh se´ liom go mba ceart don Fhoras na gna´th rialacha maidir le tairiscintı´ a leanu´ int agus iad ag bronnadh conartha. Ta´ me´ cinnte go n-aonto´ dh se´ liom nach ceart domsa cur isteach ar co´ ras tairiscintı´ poiblı´, mar da´ gcuirfinn isteach air, bheadh me´ mıćheart ar fad agus is e´ an Teachta is tu´ isce a sheasfadh suas sa Teach agus a deireadh liom nach bhfuil se´ ceart ag aon Teachta na´ Aire cur isteach ar thairiscintı´ poiblı´.Dereír mar a thuigim o´ n bhforas, is e´ an rud ata´ i gceist na´ go ndeachaigh se´ amach ar an margadh ag lorg tairisceana. Thairg se´ conradh do chomhlacht aírithe agus ta´ comhraítı´ fo´ s ar bun agus go dtı´ go mbeidh na comhraítı´ sin thart, nı´ bheadh se´ ceart agamsa cur isteach ar an gco´ ras tairisceana. Ta´ me´ tar eís a ra´,ar bhonn polasaı´ de, go mba ceart go mbeadh nuachtań Gaeilge ann.

Deputy Dinny McGinley: Sı´lim go bhfuil ro´ lnıós mo´ sa cheist seo ag an Aire na´ mar a fho´ graıónn se´ sa Daíl. An aonto´ dh se´ liom gurb e´ an deacracht mo´ r ata´ ag Foras na Gaeilge na´ maoiniu´ agus acmhainnı´ a chur ar faíl sa do´ igh gur feídir leis an bhfoilsiu´ chań seo dul ar aghaidh? An mbeidh an maoiniu´ agus na hacmhainnı´ a´ gcur ar faíl ag an Aire d’Fhoras na Gaeilge sa do´ igh gur feídir leis an phaípeár dul ar aghaidh? Is e´ sin ro´ l an Aire — na hacmhainnı´ agus an maoiniu´ a chur ar faíl sa do´ igh gur feídir linn an gheárcheím seo a sheacaint.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: Is e´ mo thuiscint, nach easpa airgid an fhadhb ar chor ar bith. Tuigim gur se´ard a tharla na´ go ndeachaigh an foras ar an margadh agur gur lorgaı´odh tairiscintı´ suas

50 Other 17 June 2009. Questions go teorann aírithe airgid, go ndearna an foras a bhreitiu´ nas agus go bhfuil comhraítı´ ar bun. Tuigim nach easpa airgid an fhadhb o´ thaobh an fhorais de agus nıór ardaigh an foras riamh ceist liom maidir le heaspa airgid a bheith mar cna´mh spairne.

Deputy Dinny McGinley: Laghdaı´odh an deontas o´ ——

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: Nı´lse´ sin fıór. Tiocfaidh me´ ar ais leis an eolas cruinn. Nı´ raibh´ ısliu´ o´ \400,000 go \300,000 no´ cibe´ figiu´ r a bhı´ raíte. An rud a tharla na´, lorg an foras tairiscintı´ agus chuir se´ sı´leaíl le uasmheíd do mheíd na tairiscintı´ go bhfeádfadh comhlacht a fhaíl. Nuair a rinne an foras scru´ du´ ar an tairiscint, facthas do´ , bunaithe ar an tairiscint a bhı´ deánta, go mba ceart deontas nıós lu´ na´ an uasmheíd a bhfeádfadh se´ a bhronnadh a bhronnadh. B’shin ceist gno´ don fhoras, bunaithe ar na tairiscintı´. Bhı´ an conradh deiridh nıós lu´ na sin. Freisin, bhı´ se´ 16% nıós lu´ na´ an tairiscint a rinneadh. Ach is ceist gno´ a bhı´ ansin; nı´ laghdu´ deontais a bhı´ i gceist.

Other Questions.

————

National Drugs Strategy. 29. Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views, in view of the economic situation, on whether funding for the interim national drugs strategy and the follow up national substance misuse strategy will be limited; if he has investigated alternative sources of funding as a consequence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23900/09]

36. Deputy Paul Kehoe asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he has sought approval from Cabinet for the establishment of a dedicated office of the Minister for drugs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23873/09]

50. Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs when he expects the new national drugs strategy to be completed and published; the discussions he has had with community organisations on this strategy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23850/09]

52. Deputy Catherine Byrne asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will provide a timeline for the publication of the new national drugs strategy and the new national substance misuse strategy; the stakeholders who are involved in the development of these strategies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23918/09]

53. Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his proposals to implement the combined substance misuse policy agreed by the Government at its meeting on 31 March 2009. [23856/09]

Deputy John Curran: I propose to take Questions Nos. 29, 36, 50, 52 and 53 together. I am pleased to say that at yesterday’s Cabinet meeting a new national drugs strategy for the period 2009 to 2016 was approved by Government. The new strategy, which will be published shortly, includes a provision to establish a dedicated office of the Minister for drugs. Arising from the Government decision of 31 March 2009 to include alcohol and drugs in a combined national substance misuse policy, it is envisaged that the new strategy will be an interim policy pending the development of the broader strategy, which is expected by the end of 2010. The

51 Other 17 June 2009. Questions

[Deputy John Curran.] focus at the outset of the implementation of the new strategy will be on the optimum use of the current resources, currently in the region of \266 million per annum, allocated to tackling the drugs problem across a number of different Departments and agencies. The steering group, set up to develop proposals on a new strategy, comprised representatives of the community, voluntary and statutory sectors involved in addressing problem drug use. Thus, a community input was facilitated and supported throughout the process. The group undertook an extensive consultation process in mid-2008. This process included 15 public consultation meetings across the country and meetings with relevant Departments and agencies, key sectoral representatives and organisations and targeted focus groups. Submissions in writing were also received from the public and from other bodies. Many community organisations contributed to this process through specific meetings and submissions as well as through the attendance of members at the various public consultation meetings. The new strategy will build on the existing partnership approach across the statutory and community and voluntary sectors while further developing governance, management and overall effectiveness. It is envisaged that the new national substance misuse strategy will incorporate the already agreed drugs policy element. A further steering group, or similar mechanism, will be utilised to develop proposals and make recommendations in this regard. It is likely that the group will begin work in autumn 2009, with a view to finalising the strategy by the end of 2010. While the establishment of this group has yet to be addressed, I fully expect it to include appropriate representatives from across the sectors.

Deputy Michael Ring: I wish to ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle a question. I tabled a number of questions on rural transport services, for which the Minister, Deputy E´ amon O´ Cu´ iv, has responsibility, and I contacted the questions office about them. I heard a senior citizen complain this morning about this matter, but that is not the issue I wish to raise. The issue is that I tabled questions on a matter, for which the Minister has responsibility, and was appalled that the questions office ruled them out of order. It is difficult and I find all the time——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy will be aware that the questions office does not rule anything out of order. That is a matter for line Ministers. If the Deputy contacts the Ceann Comhairle’s office——

Deputy Michael Ring: I have already done that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: ——in this regard, I am sure he will get a full explanation.

Deputy Michael Ring: It is unsatisfactory.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I do not want to use up the limited time available to the Deputy now.

Deputy Michael Ring: I ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to bring this matter to the attention of the Ceann Comhairle and I will also write to him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I will alert the Ceann Comhairle to the Deputy’s concern.

Deputy Michael Ring: I have had the same experience in tabling questions to the Minister of State, Deputy John Curran. I have been told that the matters concerned are not ones for him and they have been passed to the Minister for Health and Children, even though they relate to matters for which the Minister of State has responsibility.

52 Other 17 June 2009. Questions

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy should put his question on this important issue.

Deputy Michael Ring: I appreciate the Leas-Cheann Comhairle listening to what I had to say because I find such treatment frustrating. The Comptroller and Auditor General’s report on drug treatment and rehabilitation services was damning about the way in which funding for these services has been cut back. The number of people using cannabis and cocaine here has increased out of all proportion. We have an epidemic on our hands, yet the Minister of State has cut the funding for the local drug task forces and the national advisory committee by 20% and 23%, respectively. People are waiting for beds for detox treatment. Some have been waiting a year for such treatment and some have been waiting even longer for services. A new drugs strategy will be published shortly. It will be a glossy document and I discussed such documents earlier in regard to the Irish language. A big press announcement on it will be made by the Minister of State and his colleagues advising the people that the Government will tackle the drugs problems, yet at the same time the budgets allocated to the people who deal with this problem have been cut back. Has he had meetings with the Minister for Finance in this regard? There is a serious budget coming up in December and he will be announcing these strategies, but we already have cutbacks. Is there any point in announcing the strategies if the Minister is not going to put the funding in place?

Deputy John Curran: The Deputy is well aware of the financial situation. In advance of the previous budgets we had meetings with the Minister for Finance and we will do so again in advance of this year’s budget. The establishment of the office of the Minister for drugs will have one significant effect, namely, it will allow greater governance. This has been raised before by the Committee of Public Accounts. It will also allow for more effective spending of funding in this area, which is considerable at \266 million. We are constantly considering new and innovative ways of dealing with the drugs problem, whose seriousness I recognise. There is a difference between the current strategy and the previous one because, over time, what had previously been a Dublin issue has become a national issue. One key focus in the new strategy will be to increase the range of services outside the Dublin area, in particular, where the problems of providing treatment and rehabilitation are greater.

Deputy Jack Wall: To whom will the Minister of State be responsible in his new position? Will it still be the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs or will it be the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? What cost factor has been determined for personnel? Will there be a secretary for the unit, as is attached to other such ministerial positions? When will this be implemented?

Deputy John Curran: An interim arrangement is in place at the moment. Following the Government decision yesterday, I hope the new office will be established in as short a time as possible, by which I mean within a number of weeks. Not dissimilarly to the arrangements for the previous national drugs strategy, staff will come in from the other key Departments on a shared basis and we will also have the current staff from the drugs strategy unit within my own Department. I hope this will be up and running within a few weeks.

Deputy Jack Wall: To whom will the Minister of State be responsible? Is it the same senior Minister?

53 Other 17 June 2009. Questions

Deputy John Curran: I will be the Minister of State with responsibility for the drugs strategy and will have the same senior Minister.

Deputy Michael Ring: The Minister of State said that the central funding would come from the Minister for Finance. My colleague, Deputy Byrne, raised the issue of the Criminal Assets Bureau and she has a valid point. The people selling drugs are the ones creating havoc on the streets. The Minister of State should talk to the Minister for Finance about taking funding from the proceeds of CAB to pay for the recovery of people who have serious drug problems. It could be used for detox beds and other facilities. These people do not get the same support as those in other sectors of the community because of the problems they have. That is not right, because the issue affects everybody in their communities, including their families, neighbours and friends. It is important that funding is put in place for this. It should be the number one priority. There is to be a dedicated office, but there is no point in setting it up if the funding is not there to run the office and the services.

Deputy John Curran: To reiterate, spending on the drugs programme across Departments in the current year is quite substantial, at \266 million. The main focus behind the establishment of a dedicated office is to ensure we avoid duplication, deliver effective outcomes, and base our decisions on evidence. That is important. The message should not go from here today that the drugs issue is not being tackled seriously. The changes we are making are to reflect the current environment and the fact that we are dealing with a national problem. Money alone is not enough; it is about how we deliver and target it. We must be able to get measurable, effective outcomes for the money we are spending, and having a single dedicated office will give us greater clarity in evaluating and monitoring a range of programmes. It is separate from the money we spend directly. Apart from the community sector — we talked about community projects earlier — the voluntary sector has played an increasing role and will continue to do so in the future.

Deputy Catherine Byrne: I welcome the establishment of the office of the Minister for drugs and I hope it happens sooner rather than later. In the past, when Fine Gael and the Labour Party were in government, it was considered important that there was somebody in charge who could hold the reins. Drugs should not be a side issue for a Minister. My hope is that the Minister of State will consider a number of the issues raised today but also, importantly, reflect on recent events in this area. A few weeks ago an inquest found that another young person had died due to illegal selling of magic mushrooms in head shops. I hope the Minister will take this on when he takes over his new office. It is important because there are vulnerable people out there. We should be getting back to basics. People and children matter. I welcome this development and the sooner it happens the better.

Deputy John Curran: The establishment of the new office will facilitate much better coordination over a range of issues. With regard to head shops, the Deputy understands my personal view. I have grave concerns about these shops. As the Deputy knows, we have taken action on BZP and we will be considering other substances that are available. In case there is any misunderstanding, I will clarify that I am currently the Minister of State with responsibility for the national drugs strategy and I will continue to be on establishment of the new office. It is important that the interim arrangements, which have been working for the last six or eight weeks, are brought to a conclusion. It is important that we have finality and that a proper structure in place. The Government decision of yesterday will allow us to establish this. I hope it happens within a matter of weeks; I am not talking about postponing it. The net

54 Other 17 June 2009. Questions effect will be the targeting of our considerable resources in a much more effective way, clarity in what we are doing, and effectiveness in evaluating and monitoring outcomes.

Polasaı´ don Ghaeilge. 30. D’fhiafraigh Deputy Brian O’Shea den Aire Gno´ thaı´ Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta ceń comhra´ a bhı´ aige leis an gCoimisineír Teanga maidir lena thuarascaíl bhliantu´ il don bhliain 2008; agus an ndeánfaidh se´ raíteas ina thaobh. [23838/09]

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: Mar is eol don Teachta, ta´ an Coimisineír Teanga neamhspleaćh i gcomhlıónadh a chuid feidhmeanna agus nı´ raibh ple´ idir me´ feín agus an coimisineír maidir le ha´bhar a bhı´ beartaithe ag an gcoimisineír le haghaidh a thuarascaíl bhliantu´ il 2008. Ta´ dualgas reachtu´ il ar an gcoimisineír, de reír alt 30 d’Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiu´ la 2003, a thuarascaíl bhliantu´ il a ullmhu´ agus a thabhairt don Aire, agus ta´ dualgas ar an Aire an tuarascaíl sin a leagan faoi bhraíd gach Tı´ den Oireachtas. Ar bhonn nıós leithne, tig liom a dhearbhu´ go mbıónn teagmhaíl rialta, mar is cuı´, idir mo Roinnse agus Oifig an Choimisineára maidir le reímse leathan a´bhar a bhaineann le feidhmiu´ an Achta.

Deputy Brian O’Shea: Ba mhaith liom an a´bhar imnı´ a luaigh an coimisineár ina thuarascaíl a chur os comhair an Aire, is e´ sin nach raibh an dul chun cinn gur co´ ir a´ dheánamh leis na sceímeanna le trı´ bliana anuas, no´ nach bhfuil na sceímeanna nua curtha i bhfeidhm. An bhfuil fa´th le sin? An bhfuil na comhlachtaı´ eágsu´ la ag eírı´ tuirseach den Acht no´ an bhfuil an locht ar an Roinn mar nach bhfuil an tAire ag cur na hoibre sin chun cinn chomh luath agus is co´ ir?

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: An sceál ata´ ann na´ go bhfuil an Roinn ag daingniu´ sceímeanna an t-am ar fad. Ta´ cuid mhaith oibre i gceist leis na sceímeanna seo. Maidir leis an dara sceím, fanann an cheád sceím i bhfeidhm go dtı´ go dtagann an dara sceím i bhfeidhm. Ceann de na rudaı´ a bheidh muid ag cur beíme orthu sna dara sceímeanna na´ go mbeidh a fhios ag an bpobal go bhfuil na seirbhı´sı´ ar faíl. Mar adu´ irt daoine ar ball, ta´ se´ ta´bhachtach, nı´ amhaín go mbeidh na seirbhı´sı´ ar faíl ach go mbainfear leas astu. Mar sin, is toisc na sceímeanna nua go mbeidh foraíl ann maidir leis an pobal a chur ar an eolas faoi na sceímeanna ata´ ann. Ta´ mo Roinn ag leanacht leis ag daingniu´ ceád sceímeanna agus, freisin, ag ple´ le dara sceímeanna.

Deputy Brian O’Shea: Maidir le comhlachtaı´ ata´ ag teacht ar ais chuig an Aire anois go bhfuil trı´ bliana imithe o´ cuireadh an sceím in aít, an bhfuil comhlacht ar bith ag iarraidh nach mbeadh na coinnıóllacha chomh daingean agus a bhı´ siad? An gceapann aon chomhlacht go bhfuil na coinnıóllacha ro´ -dhian air, go bhfuil costas ro´ -mho´ r air no´ nach bhfuil aon tairfe le baint as na haistriu´ chaín ag na custaimeírı´ ata´ aige?

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: D’aontaigh siad feín go deonach gach sceím. An tuiscint ata´ agamsa na´ nach feídir cu´ lu´ o´ aon ghealltanas a thugtar i sceím teanga. A mhalairt ata´ fıór sa mheíd is gur co´ ir don dara sceím to´ gaint ar an dul chun cinn ata´ deánta sa cheád sceím agus mar sin de. Go simplı´,ise´ ceann de na bun prionsabail a bhaineann leis na sceímeanna teanga na´ go ndeánfar dul chun cinn thar treímhse roinnt sceímeanna maidir le raon agus caighdeańna seirbhı´sı´ ata´ ar faíl o´ chomhlachtaı´ poiblı´ i nGaeilge, le su´ il agus go mbeidh gach seirbhı´s ata´ dı´rithe ar an bpobal i gcoitinne a´ shola´thar trı´ Gaeilge amach anseo. Ta´ sin sonraithe sna treoirlıńte reachtu´ la a d’eisigh me´ i 2004. Ar ndo´ igh, eascraıónn sin as breithiu´ nas na Cu´ irte Uachtaraigh agus seasamh bunreachtu´ il na Gaeilge, nach feídir, go gineara´lta o´ thaobh na Gaeilge, a bheith ag dul siar, go gcaithfear a bheith ag dul ar aghaidh.

55 Other 17 June 2009. Questions

Deputy Dinny McGinley: Ce´ nach bhfuil co´ ip den tuarascaíl is deireannaı´ agam anseo, chomh fada agus is eol dom sı´lim go raibh roinnt gearaín ag an coimisineár maidir le cur chun cinn na teanga agus le cloı´ leis an Acht i roinnt de na Ranna Staít. Muna bhfuil dul amu´ orm, sı´lim go bhfuil an Roinn ar a bhfuil an tAire feín i gceannas luaite sa tuarisc chomh maith. Ar mhiste leis an Aire a thuairimı´ faoi sin a thabhairt?

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: Is do´ igh go dtaispeańann se´ sin go soileír go bhfuil an coimisineár neamhspleaćh agus go ndeánann se´ inscru´ duithe. Tagann sin lena bhreithiu´ nas. Ghlac mo Roinn leis a bhreithiu´ nas sa gca´s a tho´ gse´ leis an Roinn. Bhı´ ple´ ann agus thaínig seisean ar a thuairim. Ta´ an rud ata´ i gceist aige a´ fheidhmiu´ ag an Roinn anois. Nı´ rud an-mho´ r ata´ ann. Rud a bhain le ceapachań a bhı´ ann, ach ghlac muid le toradh an inscru´ duithe agus feidhmeoidh muid da´ reír. Sin an fa´th go bhfuil an coimisineár ann.

Tourism Support Services. 31. Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the position in regard to recreational walkers in each county; if they have been appointed; if so, the counties in which they have been appointed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23870/09]

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: I take it the Deputy is referring to the appointment of rural recreation officers, RROs, who have been appointed to promote walking tourism and to assist in the implementation of the walks scheme. Twelve RROs were appointed in 2008 to act as contact persons for walking tourists and to provide a broad range of support and advice in this area. The officers are employed by the following local development companies: County Kilkenny Leader Partnership; Donegal Local Development Company Limited; Laois Community and Enterprise Development Company Limited; County Sligo Leader Partnership Company Lim- ited; Roscommon Integrated Development Company; South Kerry Development Partnership Limited; South Tipperary Local Development Company Limited; West Cork Development Partnership; Wicklow Rural Partnership; Meitheal Forbartha Na Gaeltachta Teoranta; South West Mayo Development Company Limited; and Clare Local Development Company Limited.

Deputy Michael Ring: I welcome the appointment of 12 rural recreation officers, which is good news for those seeking to promote walking holidays in Ireland. Tourism is of great importance for rural areas and one of the largest sources of employment. What is the position in regard to the 200 looped walks that were promised by 2009? We are fortunate in Ireland to have wonderful countryside. The Minister has dealt with the issue relating to farmers, which was a significant issue for many years. Is it time now to get local authorities, Bord Fa´ilte, the Leader companies or some other agency to take responsibility for developing the proposed looped walkways, ensuring they are properly maintained and seeking out new routes? Walking tourism is a growing industry which attracts thousands of people every year.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: I will get the detailed information the Deputy has requested and pass it on to him. There has been significant progress in this area. One of the most gratifying aspects of recent developments in rural tourism is the substantial increase in the number of tourists who include walking as a particular objective of their holidays. In 2003, this number was 168,000, increasing to 511,000 in 2007. I understand the figure increased again in 2008, even though the number of tourists did not increase. The work we are doing in this area is having a significant effect in two ways. First, walking tourism has become a good news items as we move away from the confrontation and negative

56 Other 17 June 2009. Questions newspaper headlines which were destroying the industry. The second aspect is the physical development to which the Deputy referred. One of the conditions of the walkway scheme, whereby farmers are paid to maintain specific walkways, is that the National Trails Office inspects the walks and lays out the work the farmer has to do every year. He or she will not get paid unless the walk is maintained to the required standard. This is where the rural social scheme and so on are so important. In the past, we built car parks and other facilities but there was no maintenance of walkways and they went to rack and ruin. The whole thrust of what we are doing is to maintain facilities to a high standard. We must keep repairing and maintaining; that is a fundamental part of the scheme.

Deputy Jack Wall: What is the situation in regard to the use of canal banks as designated walkways? In my area, significant progress has taken place in developing walks alongside the canal. However, there is no linkage with other areas throughout the State, with only certain sections of the canal being developed in this way. Such development is of major benefit to local communities, providing an important amenity. The continuation of such development on a nationwide scale is an important aspect of the development of designated walkways.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy’s query is well beyond the scope of the question, but the Minister may respond if he wishes.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: As one of the sponsoring Ministers, I have encouraged Waterways Ireland to look at waterways in an holistic fashion, including their development for the purposes of walking and recreation. A plan is currently in place in Dublin in which many of the statutory agencies, including Dublin City Council, are involved to develop the amenity value of the canals as far as the city boundary. Much of the usage of the canals is not for boats but for ancillary, and equally valid, activities. I cannot provide an answer as to why certain sections may have been developed further than others. The general encouragement from me as Minister is that they should be utilised as far as possible. In addition, Waterways Ireland is in possession of dry canals. One way of maintaining the rights of way attaching to them is to use them for rural recreation, including walking. I am interested in any specific proposals the Minister may have in this area. I would also like to see partnerships between communities so that a linkage can be developed between different walkways.

Dormant Accounts Fund. 32. Deputy Alan Shatter asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the position in regard to his recent announcement of funding from the dormant accounts fund to support homelessness and substance misuse; the level of funding allocated to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23888/09]

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: The Government approved allocations, on 28 April 2009, of \1.56 million to support 80 family support services, and \1.5 million to support 20 projects under the homeless measure. The mid-term review of the national drugs strategy in 2005 identified the provision of family support services as crucial in delivering the strategic aim of reducing harm to families. The funding of \1.56 million from the dormant accounts fund will support 80 such projects. My Department is the lead Department with responsibility for this measure. Under the homeless measure, \1.5 million has been allocated to 20 projects for services to meet the needs of homeless persons. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is the lead Department with responsibility for this measure.

57 Other 17 June 2009. Questions

[Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v.]

A list of projects approved under each measure is provided in the following tables. Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

Dormant Accounts Fund: Family Support Measures

Projects Supported Listed by Drugs Taskforce Area

Drug Task Force Project Name Total Grant \

East Coast Area RDTF Joint Family Support Initiative — Bara Project 45,281 East Coast Area RDTF Greystones Ecumenical Group 1,000 North Dublin City & County RDTF Swords Family Support Group 8,400 North Dublin City & County RDTF CAD/CIC Training programme 29,600 South-Western Area RDTF Kildare West Wicklow CAT/Abbey project 35,000 South-Western Area RDTF Cuan Mhuire 19,300 South-Western Area RDTF Kildare Community Education Partnership 9,400 Midlands RDTF Ashdale/ Woodlands Grove Residents Association 500 Midlands RDTF Edenderry Addressing Substance Abuse — EASA 43,540 Midlands RDTF Harmony Community Development Project 10,000 Midlands RDTF National Association for Parent Support 4,960 Midlands RDTF Longford Acorn Project 8,500 Midlands RDTF Midland Regional Youth Service 5,000 Midlands RDTF Arden View Community & Family Resource Centre 2,500 Mid-West RDTF Tipp Regional Youth Service 20,000 Mid-West RDTF Southhill Family Resource Centre 9,550 Mid-West RDTF Bushypark Treatment Centre 44,920 North-Eastern RDTF North East Family Support Network 70,000 North-Western RDTF Letterkenny CDP 10,140 North-Western RDTF North West Alcohol Forum 30,000 North-Western RDTF Moville & District Family Resource Centre 9,785 North-Western RDTF Tubbercurry Family Resource Centre 10,000 North-Western RDTF Ballymote Family Resource Centre 12,000 North-Western RDTF Dunfanaghy Community & Family Resource Centre 5,000 Southern RDTF Listowel Family Resource Centre 10,800 Southern RDTF Cobh Community Drugs Initiative 7,200 Southern RDTF Tabor Lodge 67,000 Southern RDTF Matt Talbot Adolescent Service 44,966 South East RDTF South East Region Family Support Network 41,748 South East RDTF Kilkenny Family Support Group 3,680 South East RDTF Waterford CBDI 3,000 South East RDTF You are Not Alone Family Support Group 3,355 South East RDTF Aislinn Family Support 15,000 South East RDTF Suir Valley CBDI 3,250 Western RDTF Strengthening Families Programme (SFP 65,450 Ballyfermot LDTF Ballyfermot STAR 41,700 Ballyfermot LDTF Familiscope 30,000 Ballymun LDTF Star Ballymun 35,000 Ballymun LDTF Ballymun Youth Action Project 10,000 Blanchardstown LDTF Blanchardstown LDTF 43,355

58 Other 17 June 2009. Questions

Drug Task Force Project Name Total Grant \ Blanchardstown LDTF Coolmine Therapeutic Community 10,000 Blanchardstown LDTF Sibling Support Programme 8,000 Canal Communities Canal Communities Task Force 70,000 Clondalkin LDTF Families First Team 35,000 Clondalkin LDTF CUMAS 7,140 Cork City LDTF Gurranabraher/Churchfield CLDTF Community 7,680 Project- Parents Support Group Cork City LDTF Cork Gay Community Dev Co. Ltd. — Parents 3,000 Support Series of Workshops Cork City LDTF Cork City Partnership Ltd 10,200 Cork City LDTF FADA — Farranree Alcohol & Drug Awareness 1,550 Cork City LDTF NeCodrA — New Community Drug Awareness Group 3,200 Cork City LDTF Bridge Recovery Group 9,370 Cork City LDTF Hillgrove Outreach Project — North Side Family 8,000 Support Services Cork City LDTF Ballyphehane Action for Youth — Bay Project 7,000 Cork City LDTF Churchfield Community Trust 7,000 Cork City LDTF Ballincollig Youth Initiative 8,000 Cork City LDTF Sunday’s Well Life Centre 5,000 Dublin North East LDTF Dublin North East Family Support Network 51,700 Dublin North East LDTF Childcare Bureau 6,700 Dublin North East LDTF Kilbarrack Coast Community Programme 7,200 Dublin 12 LDTF Addiction Response Crumlin — ARC 10,000 Dublin 12 LDTF Addiction Response Crumlin — ARC 7,000 Dublin 12 LDTF D12 Task Force 8,000 Dublin 12 LDTF D12 Task Force 20,000 Dublin 12 LDTF Loreto Centre 15,000 Dublin 12 LDTF Walkinstown Greenhills Resource Centre 10,000 Dun Laoghaire / Rathdown LDTF DROP — Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Outreach Project 32,108 Dun Laoghaire / Rathdown LDTF Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Community Addiction 24,892 Team Finglas / Cabra LDTF Millennium Carving 14,300 Finglas / Cabra LDTF Finglas Addiction Support Team 30,000 Finglas / Cabra LDTF Fingal Centre 35,000 North Inner City LDTF Inter Agency Drugs Project 75,000 South Inner City LDTF Whitefriar/Aungier Area Community Council — 18,080 WAACC South Inner City LDTF Exchange House Traveller Centre 34,920 South Inner City LDTF Community Awareness of Drugs — CAD 2,400 South Inner City LDTF Community Addiction Program — Oliver Bond 8,000 South Inner City LDTF Coolmine Therapeutic Community 6,600 Tallaght LDTF SWAN FSO — peer led family support group 35,000 Tallaght LDTF JADD — Outreach: High Support Families 30,308 Tallaght LDTF Prisoners Families info line 8,000 Tallaght LDTF Tallaght Travellers Youth Service 4,000

Total 1,564,228

59 Other 17 June 2009. Questions

[Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v.] Funding to Support Homeless People

County Name of Project Address Total Grant

Carlow Society of St. Vincent de Paul, St. John The Monastery Hostel, Dublin Road, 80,000 Vianney Conference Carlow Cork Cork Simon Community St. Nicholas House, Cove Street, Cork 48,437 Cork City Council (Foyer Project) Cork Foyer, Assumption Road, 82,642 Blackpool, Cork. Cork City Council C/O Recreation Amenities & Culture 114,700 Department, Cork City Council, City Hall, Cork. Dublin Focus Ireland 9-12 High Street, Dublin 8. 229,900 The Depaul Trust Ireland 18 Nicholas Street, Dublin 8. 98,000 Merchants Quay Project Limited 4 Merchants Quay, Dublin 8. 113,000 Merchants Quay Project Limited 4 Merchants Quay, Dublin 8. 90,000 Dublin Central Mission 9c Lower Abbey Street, Dublin 1 32,340 CROSSCARE The Red House, Clonliffe College, 49,800 Dublin 3. Miss Carr’s Home Housing Association 5 Northbrook Road,Ranelagh,Dublin 6. 53,200 Coolmine Therapeutic Community Coolmine House, 19 Lord Edward 58,737 Street, Dublin 2. Threshold Limited 21 Stoneybatter, Dublin 7. 71,500 Stepping Stone Accommodation Ltd. 1 Lower Galloping Green, Stillorgan 50,000 Road, Blackrock, Co. Dublin. Galway COPE Galway 3-5 Calbro House, Tuam Road, Galway 55,000 Kerry Arlington Novas Ireland (Operating as Killarney, Co. Kerry. 45,000 Novas Initiatives) Kildare Youth for Peace Ltd. Mount Offaly House, Carlow Road, 37,700 Athy, Co. Kildare. Kilkenny The Good Shepherd Centre Kilkenny Church Lane, Kilkenny, County 72,000 Ltd. Kilkenny. Louth Drogheda Homeless Aid Association 35 North Strand, Drogheda, Co. Louth. 26,844 Westmeath Midlands Simon Community PO Box 27, Athlone, Co. Westmeath. 91,200

Total 1,500,000

Deputy Michael Ring: I welcome the dormant account funding for this initiative. The families of drug addicts are often forgotten and there are insufficient supports for them. The reality is that the families are often left homeless because of drug addiction. I am pleased the Minister is already supporting various groups, but I hope he will extend that support. This is no longer merely an urban problem but is also an issue in rural areas. In other words, it is a nationwide problem. I hope the Minister will examine whether the next round of dormant account funding can be used for projects outside urban areas. Will the Minister consult with the Ta´naiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employ- ment with a view to making a certain number of community employment places available for recovering drug addicts? Such persons need as much support as possible after treatment in order to re-enter employment and society in general. A certain quota of community employment places should be set aside for them. Places should be also set aside for them on the rural social scheme. 60 Other 17 June 2009. Questions

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: When the Deputy sees the list, he will discover that funding was spread throughout the county and not confined to urban areas.

Deputy Michael Ring: We have not yet seen the list.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: I accept that. However, when the Deputy does see it, he will discover that what I am saying is true. Some 1,000 places are reserved for recovering drug addicts on community employment schemes. In addition, such individuals are also included in the community services programme. Subject to the necessary funding being available, I would like to examine the possibility of making further places available under the programme to recovering drug addicts. I agree with the Deputy that it is important that they should be catered for. However, any progress in this regard will be dependent on the necessary moneys being available.

Deputy Jack Wall: I would appreciate it if the Minister would also provide me with a copy of the list to which he refers.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: There is one for everyone in the House.

Deputy Jack Wall: I welcome the funding provided in this regard. Cuan Mhuire which is situated in my constituency and run by Sr. Consilio is a wonderful centre. I accept that some individuals who take part in treatment programmes have improved their standard of living, etc., but they still appear to be loners within their communities. Perhaps, as Deputy Ring suggested, places could be set aside for them on community employment and other schemes. It might be possible to operate a scheme in this regard in conjunction with the centres run by Sr. Consilio in Limerick, Cork, Down, etc. Will the Minister investigate whether organisations such as that run by Sr. Consilio might be able to provide job or training opportunities? This would be of major assistance to those who were unfortunate enough to become involved in drug misuse.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: I concur with the Deputy. There is a need for joined-up thinking in order to ensure the different agencies work together. As stated, 1,000 places have been set aside for recovering drug addicts. These schemes have been incredibly important for people recovering from other forms of drug misuse such as alcohol misuse. We must ensure the most vulnerable in society obtain places on the schemes mentioned. One of the challenges to be faced by those who operate the schemes is that they may be tempted to pick the most able for them. I would be interested in hearing suggestions with regard to how we might ensure those who are most vulnerable obtain places, while also ensuring the schemes remain viable. The Deputy’s question in this regard is very valid.

Deputy Catherine Byrne: The \1.5 million to which the Minister refers is welcome, but it is still only a small drop in the ocean when one considers the number of vulnerable people, particularly those who are homeless, in our society. There are a number of homeless agencies in the south-west inner city and I am aware that those who are homeless, because of the nature of their existence, are not able to access the relevant service. There is a reluctance among these individuals in becoming involved with projects or schemes. One of the entities which provide a great deal of assistance for homeless people and their families is the Merchant’s Quay Project. I accept that the latter has major resources at its disposal, but encouraging the homeless to avail of services remains a problem. I agree with Deputy Ring’s comments on community employment projects. The Minister is aware of the Liberties Recycling Training and Development and how important it is to many

61 Other 17 June 2009. Questions

[Deputy Catherine Byrne.] of those who were forgotten by society and who need to be challenged in taking their lives in a different direction. The project is really just another way of considering how things can happen and is aimed at improving the lives of young people who have endured the misery of drug misuse and are now on methadone. I reiterate that there is still a need to investigate how we might bring certain individuals, particularly the homeless, into the services available. Consideration must be given to this matter.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: When the Deputy sees the list to which I referred, she will be pleased to discover that Merchant’s Quay Project Limited received two sums, \113,000 and \90,000, and Youth for Peace in Kildare received \37,700. I do not believe any money was allocated in County Mayo. I accept that these are small sums. However, I am a great believe that the ocean is full of drops and that if one provides enough of them, one will make a difference. One is often approached by groups and informed that small amounts of money which are very well targeted and in respect of which they have a great deal of discretion can have a significant effect. These groups also indicate that they sometimes find it difficult to obtain small amounts for tightly focused projects. The great thing about the dormant accounts fund is that those involved with allocating the moneys it contains are not engaged in run of the mill initiatives. The projects involved are one-off and would not be considered mainstream. We should consider the matter in that context.

33. Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the number of persons, in respect of his Department and each of the State agencies or boards for which he has responsibility, who are working on temporary contracts; the number of such contracts that are due to expire by the end of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23855/09]

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: My Department currently employs 14 people on temporary contracts. Three of these contracts are due to expire in 2009. Information furnished to me on temporary contracts in agencies-boards funded from my Department’s Vote group is set out in the following table:

Agency/Body No. of temporary No. of contracts to contracts expire in 2009

Commission of Charitable Donations and Bequests Office 1 Nil Foras na Gaeilge 4 Nil U´ dara´s na Gaeltachta 5 5 Ulster-Scots Agency 3 Nil Waterways Ireland 7 7 Western Development Commission 3 Nil

Deputy Jack Wall: Is the Minister in a position to provide information on cutbacks in the Leader programme? I received representations from people in County Donegal who are concerned that such cutbacks will affect their groups. To what positions do the temporary contracts at Waterways Ireland relate? Are those involved canal-keepers or lock-keepers or are they more general employees? 62 Other 17 June 2009. Questions

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: The Leader companies are independent. There has not been a cutback in the Leader programme which, in fact, has been expanded considerably. Money for the partnership programme has been reduced and perhaps it is to this that the Deputy refers. However, that matter is not really the subject of this question. It may also have come to his attention that it is my intention to transfer the functions of Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta, MFG, to U´ dara´s na Gaeltachta over time because I do not see the need for two community- based organisations to be operating in the Gaeltacht. As a result, I am of the view that it would be better to rationalise the position. Due to the special status of the North-South bodies which are co-funded with the Northern Ireland authorities, the moratorium does not currently apply to them. I understand discussions are under way between the Department of Finance and the Department of Finance and Person- nel in Northern Ireland on whether the moratorium should apply and other related personnel and resource issues such as finalising the 2009 budgets for the North-South bodies and the question of the application of an efficiency saving in Northern Ireland and the early retirement scheme announced by the Government.

Deputy Michael Ring: A number of the partnership and other groups which come within the remit of the Minister’s Department and employ people on temporary contracts have expressed concerns. I am aware that the Minister recently met some of their representatives at his office in Connemara. Many are concerned because their contracts are due to finish in December and they do not know whether they will be renewed. Those in the voluntary sector want to know what will happen and what the Minister intends to do. I accept that there are budget constraints. However, it is almost July and the people to whom I refer should be informed before the summer holidays about what is going to happen. They should be made aware whether their contracts will be renewed in order that they might enjoy some degree of security.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: Is the Deputy referring to those at MFG?

Deputy Michael Ring: Yes.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: In the first instance, the companies to which the Deputy refers are not the subject of the question. The second point I would make is that they are private companies and, therefore, it is their own business as to who they hire and fire, etc. As I informed Deputy O’Shea, it is intended that over time and as the various contracts for the programmes in which we are involved with them are terminated to transfer responsibility for the programmes to U´ dara´s na Gaeltachta. The rural social scheme will be the first such programme to be transferred. I seem to remember Deputy Ring — and the House — being very much in favour of this rationalisation on the basis that both of us recognised having duplicate organisations in the one area is superfluous. We could mention a certain town in County Mayo that has a good many offices belonging to various agencies, all funded by my Department.

Deputy Michael Ring: I agree with the Minister and perhaps he will tell the House what is happening.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: On the question of engagement from MFG, to have a preliminary discussion on this issue I asked the two chief executives involved to meet me, last November. I have tried, time and again, to get engagement from MFG and a process. It is inevitable that we have to make savings. MFG has lost opportunities and done no service to its workers because we could have progressed much further, acting in their interests, if there had been

63 Other 17 June 2009. Questions

[Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v.] proper engagement by the senior management and the board earlier as regards what is an inevitable process. I am appealing once again to MFG to engage constructively in the process so that we try to get the best information and make the best arrangements for the employees over time. I have also spelt out that the LEADER element which MFG runs has to go on until 2013 because it has a contract with us until then. We want to figure out how we can go forward and there are opportunities there if only it will engage. However, MFG is not engaging, and that is my problem.

Deputy Brian O’Shea: Part of my question has been answered by the Minister. Is the Minister saying that, essentially, this will entail the slimming down and death of MFG, even if it lasts in some form until 2013? Will he eliminate MFG over time if he gets time to do it, which I doubt very much? I am aware that partnerships as such is a separate issue to some extent, but will there not be substantial losses of positions and across the whole community and voluntary group area? The Minister avoided that, somewhat, in replying to this question.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: In the wider scheme all I can do is work with the budget I have this year. None of us knows where we will be until the Estimates process is completed at the end of the year. We are living at a time when money is short and all of us have been told by the Opposition many times that we should do all in our power to reduce overheads. The Minister of State and I are trying to ensure that the bulk of the savings are made in administration. As the Deputy knows there has been a severe cut in Pobal, as well as in the partnerships. There were two cuts, one earlier in the year as well as a subsequent cut following the supplementary budget. They are not disproportionate to the cuts across the system but they have been made and we must find out how the frontline service may best be delivered to the recipient, as efficiently as possible, while making our savings in the overheads. However, making savings in overheads includes people, and that cannot be avoided. We are being told all the time to cut down on public expenditure. As soon as we do so it affects somebody and we are then told not to do it again. The Deputy is right regarding the position of MFG. U´ dara´s na Gaeltachta is unique in that it is an elected authority for the Gaeltacht with a wide socio-economic and linguistic remit. It develops small and larger industries and so on. I cannot justify two similar bodies operating in the Gaeltacht with fairly similar remits. On that basis it is my intention to transfer the contracts MFG now has, as they come to termination, to U´ dara´s. However, I want to do this in an ordered fashion and deal with the human resources issues in a sensitive and understanding manner. For that to happen I need MFG and U´ dara´s, which has been very co-operative in this, to co-operate with my Department. I met the two boards — MFG and U´ dara´s. When I met the board of MFG with the board of U´ dara´s I found that there was joint membership of both boards in a number of cases. On that basis one would not have thought it should be difficult to get synergies between the two bodies — with four members on both boards as well as the fact that one of the U´ dara´s employees is on the board of MFG. That effectively makes five with a type of common membership.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

64 Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee Scheme) 17 June 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Message from Select Committee. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Select Committee on Health and Children has completed its consideration of the Health Insurance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008, and has made amendments thereto.

Adjournment Debate Matters. 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 Alan Shatter — the urgent need to construct a replacement school for St. Colmcille’s primary school, Knocklyon, Dublin 16 and to permit the school to seek planning permission; (2) Deputy Joe Costello — the need for the Department of Education and Science to open a book of condolence for the victims of child abuse arising from the revelations of the Ryan commission; (3) Deputy Frank Feighan — if the Minister will ensure special needs assistants already in place in both national schools and second level in County Roscommon and County Leitrim will remain in place for September 2009 and whether the Minister is aware every SNA plays a vital role in the classroom as any reduction will be a retrograde step for these pupils; (4) Deputy Jimmy Deenihan — the failure of the Government to roll out the national speed camera programme despite the fact that the successful tenderer was approved over 12 months ago; (5) Deputy Ulick Burke — the Minister’s plans for University College Hospital Galway, as a centre of excellence for the provision of cancer treatment in view of proposed financial cutbacks; (6) Deputy Pa´draic McCormack — the centralisation of medical card services; (7) Deputy Michael McGrath — the provision of capital funding in respect of a new health centre at Carrigaline, County Cork; (8) Deputy Pat Breen — anti-social behaviour in Ennis and the need for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to clarify whether the necessary resources are being made available to An Garda Sı´ocha´na to deal with recent incidents in the town; (9) Deputy Chris Andrews — the action being taken to combat social isolation in urban communities and in particular to ensure that people have access to vital infrastructure; (10) Deputy Tom Sheahan — to ask the Minister for Education and Science to explain his decision on the cutting of a special needs class at St. Oliver’s boys’ national school, Ballycasheen, Killarney; (11) Deputy John Perry — to ask the Taoiseach whether he will make a statement on the introduction of new bilingual recordings for voice annunciators in lifts and pre-recorded telephone messages in public buildings including Leinster House, a matter first raised with the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works by letter, dated 19 September 2007, and later by follow-up telephone calls and another letter, dated 11 November 2008, with no reply to date. The matters submitted by Deputies Ulick Burke, Pa´draic McCormack, Michael McGrath and Chris Andrews have been selected for discussion.

Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: “That section 1 stand part of the Bill.” An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We are on section 1 and I understand the Minister is in possession.

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I am in possession and a number of points were made in speaking to section 1 by a number of Deputies. I was in the course of beginning to deal with them.

65 Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee Scheme) 17 June 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.]

I had outlined the statistical data available to the Central Bank with regard to the estimate of the sums covered by this legislation. On the more general question raised by Deputy Burton about the sums covered by the guarantee under the credit institutions legislation, statistical data from the Central Bank and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland shows that as of March 2009, the total deposits in the Irish banking system amounted to \275 billion of which approximately \170 billion was owned by Irish residents. With regard to the numbers of accounts, evidence from a 2007 survey would suggested that about 8 million deposits were owned by Irish residents. Information from the Registrar of Credit Unions shows that 2.93 million members held \12 billion of deposits in the credit unions at the end of last year. Disaggregated deposit data is not collected on a routine basis. However, data collected last year on an ad hoc basis would suggest that practically all deposit accounts by number would have a balance of less than \100,000. A survey of the main Irish domestic banks which was undertaken in June 2008 indicated that 97% of accounts by number had a balance of less than \50,000 and that 26% of accounts had, by value, a balance of less than \50,000. This suggests that while only a small fraction of accounts, by number, have a balance in excess of \50,000, those make up a large proportion of the value of total deposits. Some 3% of accounts by number account for almost 75% of the value of accounts. This points to the fact that both the total value of accounts over \50,000 and the average balance in these accounts is extremely large. From the survey it is not possible to do the above analysis with regard to \100,000, but it is possible to estimate roughly the value of deposits covered by a scheme with a compensation limit of \100,000. I outlined the total values in the earlier part of my reply before I moved the adjournment. I will provide more detailed tabular breakdowns as requested by Deputy Bruton and Deputy Burton. Deputy Rabbitte referred to the position and status of Alan Dukes as a member of the board of Anglo Irish Bank and described him as a public interest director. He is not, of course, a public interest director because the bank was nationalised by legislation enacted by this House earlier this year. Hence, he is a director of the board appointed by the Minister, as are all the directors of Anglo Irish Bank. That is his position. He spoke and wrote about the subject for the bank recently, because evidence was given to an Oireachtas committee by the directors of the bank who explained the position of the bank to members who questioned them. Deputy Burton raised the question of next week’s proposal on the extension of the guarantee beyond the guarantee period for some categories of medium-term debt, which is in separate legislation. I have checked out the matter in the interval and this Bill stands as a separate Bill on the advice of the Attorney General, who believes a permanent feature of our banking landscape such as a deposit guarantee scheme should be kept separate from measures which were occasioned by the banking crisis or the financial emergency. It is not part of any deep- seated political or administrative conspiracy. Likewise, the ruling of the Chair on what is acceptable as an amendment is not something my Department ever influences or seeks to influence. We had no function on this matter so it was not a “traditional attitude of the Department of Finance”, to quote Deputy Burton, which resulted in her amendment being ruled out of order. It is simply the procedures of this House, for which I am not accountable, although I am accountable for many matters, which I accept. Like the guarantee, the legislation on the extension of the guarantee is commonplace in the sense that the strategy has been adopted by virtually every other country in the EU and it will be the subject of a separate debate next week. I made an announcement about it in the budget.

66 Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee Scheme) 17 June 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Richard Bruton: Did the Minister indicate——

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I read much of that information into the record of the House and I undertook to provide the Deputy with a more detailed statement. The record will show a substantial amount of information about the value of the deposits concerned and the numbers we estimate are at home and abroad. One of the difficulties is that the exercise last year was done on a limit of \50,000 rather than \100,000 so the information is approximate, but I have undertaken to write to Deputies Bruton and Burton with the information.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: “That section 2 stand part of the Bill.”

Deputy Richard Bruton: Could the Minister explain the significance of 31 December 2010 in this section?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: It is a transposition from the relevant EU directive. It is the requirement that the Minister’s power to prescribe a higher level of coverage is up until 31 December 2010. That was a compromise arrived at by the finance Ministers when they were drawing up the directive.

Deputy Richard Bruton: Does that mean that from 2010 the coverage will diminish to some lower level?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: At that stage the extent of the coverage will be subject to a review by the EU Commission but there will be no question of an immediate reduction in the coverage.

Deputy Joan Burton: I have a general question which may arise later in the sections. Under this Bill the responsibility for the guarantee scheme reverts to the Central Bank rather than to the Financial Regulator. Is that part of the proposed new architecture on regulation where the Central Bank is to be the main authority? We have had no discussion in this House on the architecture of regulation, although the Taoiseach promised a banking commission at the time of the Fianna Fa´il Ard Fheis and, as I said previously, the Labour Party had proposed a banking commission. From a structural point of view what is the role of the Financial Regulator in this? Is the Central Bank to acquire pre-eminence vis-a`-vis the regulator?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: There are two distinct issues, namely, the reform of the regulatory structures and the Central Bank, and this precise section. They are not connected. The reason for this precise section is that the Central Bank holds the general account from which a payment would be required to be made in the event of this guarantee being called upon. The view of my advisors is that the appropriate agency to designate to make the payment is, therefore, the Central Bank since under current law and practice it holds the account. Naturally and understandably Deputy Burton has asked wider questions on the regulatory system and the role of the Central Bank and the regulatory authority. The Government has considered these issues and a statement will issue in due course. The crucial issue is the recruitment of a new regulator and that process is well under way but we may have to be patient because it is vital we secure the right person for the job.

67 Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee Scheme) 17 June 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I am anxious that we do not have a general debate about extraneous issues on each section.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: The Government’s proposal is to unify the two boards that exist separately for the regulator and Central Bank into a unified Central Bank commission. The Governor will preside over the commission, but accountable to that will be separate independent offices, one on the Central Bank side and the other on the regulator’s side, the supervisor of regulation. One of the key issues we will have to consider in the enactment of the legislation, and I welcome views from all parts of the House on this, is how we make that system accountable to this House and what further check we insert into that system to ensure its robustness. A considerable discussion is taking place and general conclusions will be arrived at by Heads of Government later this week on the future of the European regulatory system and the establishment of a college of supervisors at European level. A more robust supervision from Europe would be welcomed by the Government. We have supported the initiatives of the French and Government Governments on that. That is our international position on the question. Until we see the precise shape of the European supervision it is not possible to arrive at a final conclusion of what additional safeguards need to be written into our system regarding the Central Bank commission. I am committed to the need for more intense Oireachtas supervision of the Central Bank commission. Whatever Oireachtas committee is designated as the body that should call the Central Bank commission or Governor for the purpose of hearing their views should have the capacity to sit in private as well as in public so a frank exchange of views can take place. I agree with Deputy Burton that one of the difficulties in this area has been the tendency on all sides to deny a problem exists. This is not a new problem. It has happened in every banking crisis the world has seen, going back to the South Seas bubble, which was a stock market crisis. The denial of a problem becomes part of the problem. The Oireachtas should have a part to play in assessing the Central Bank commission’s work but that will be worked out in the details of the legislation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The scope of this debate has been broadened and I do not want to exclude Deputy Bruton from making observations on it.

Deputy Richard Bruton: I want to revert to the original point I made. The Minister needs greater clarity on the significance of December 2010. If he is withdrawing this cover, even if not abruptly, if there is a hint that something will change in 2010 we need to know the criteria against which it changes. This, we understood, provides cover for people. People 4 o’clock in this area need certainty above all else. If a review process is to be triggered in 2010 we need clarity on the exact nature of that review, whether the Irish Govern- ment has complete control over it and the Minister can make amending regulations, or whether there is a possibility with the new framework we will have from Europe that the Irish system may be told by Europe what the provisions are to be. We need clarity and I was not quite happy with the Minister’s answer. On the wider issue, the taxpayer is shouldering more responsibility, even in this measure, as well as in other measures we have yet to discuss. There is the sense that there must be a quid pro quo in this. One of my lingering feelings on this is that the offences are far from clear in our law. The long period during which the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement is assembling the case and the doubt as to whether some things that, to the layman, seem clearly wrong may have escape hatches based on strong legal advice suggest to me that, as one of the

68 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009 quid pro quos, we need to tighten our law. There needs to be a much clearer black and white definition as to what is unlawful. It would seem that regulators were in some doubt themselves and activities that, to the layman, were appalling seem to regulators to be in a grey area. It is very unsatisfactory if the professionals see things that we see clearly as black as being grey, which seems to have been the case. I do not pretend to have an encyclopaedic knowledge. The way in which it developed where explanations were offered and appeared to have been accepted, and legal advice was offered and appeared to have been accepted, seem to an outsider to be appalling practice and designed to conceal rather than reveal what was going on. The Minister talked about the architecture of regulation and the role of the Oireachtas within that architecture, which is important. However, as he said in his closing comments, the architecture is considerably less important than the policies and the people who police them. We need a statement from Government as to the new policy, the new types of offences and the new approaches to operating that policy as well as Oireachtas oversight. The issue of Oireachtas oversight arose when we discussed the Central Bank of Ireland legislation. Plainly, the Oireachtas did not have the forensic skills. We were presented with a much rosier view of what was going on than was the case by Central Bank of Ireland officials. There was a sense that they were also wearing the green jersey. The Central Bank of Ireland regulators felt it was their duty to tog out and show they would not undermine the international view of Ireland’s system. That seems to be an inherent problem that needs to be overcome. I do not know whether it was unwillingness to look hard or they felt that patriotism dictated that they should present things in a certain way. That issue will remain as a problem that we will need to address. The architecture could be a major distraction from what the real issue should be, which is the policies and the people and the whistleblower attitude rather the donning the green jersey attitude.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Visit of Chinese Delegation. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Before proceeding with business, I wish on my own behalf and on behalf of the Members of Da´il E´ ireann to offer a cead mile fa´ilte, a most sincere welcome, to a delegation from the National People’s Congress of China led by Mr. Zhang Bolin, MP. I express the hope that they will find their visit enjoyable, successful and to our mutual benefit.

Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009 — Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages.

Question again proposed: “That section 2 stand part of the Bill.” Deputy Joan Burton: The basic purpose of a deposit guarantee scheme is to prevent a run on a bank. The most pertinent example in Ireland’s case was that of the British Government stepping in to protect Northern Rock. Based on the provisions of the Bill, responsibility for preventing a run on a bank now resides with the Central Bank of Ireland, which is given the role of advising the Minister for Finance. What does that mean for the regulator? Does it mean that we will now have a structure where the Central Bank of Ireland retains, if one likes, control of the prudential aspect of regulating banks and preventing runs on banks? Is this recognition by the Minister that the regulatory system, which we had been assured was fine, failed utterly? I certainly believe it failed dramatically and it is costing our taxpayers a vast amount of money. The Minister spoke about greater Oireachtas oversight. In the United States, the legislative arrangements for future regulation are being published at present. Public disclosure and trans-

69 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009

[Deputy Joan Burton.] mission of information, including to markets, is at the heart of those proposals. However, this short Bill makes no provision for public disclosure. The Minister talked about more Oireachtas oversight and then suggested that oversight should be in private.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Not entirely in private.

Deputy Joan Burton: When it comes to the private affairs of banks, we have a culture of total secrecy. However, this culture of absolute secrecy in our banks, where there is no requirement for freedom of information, allowed individuals in banks, particularly in Anglo Irish Bank, to behave like those in The Bonfire of the Vanities. They had complete licence to do whatever they wanted and to maintain right up to the last moment of the last hour before the bank’s collapse that everything was really fine and they would pull through. While I agree with the suggestion that the Oireachtas should have more oversight, I am concerned at the suggestion that the bulk of that additional oversight might be in secret meetings. I thought the purpose of the EU college of regulators, etc., to which the Minister referred was to try to get information about a bank that is going bad and where there might be a run on the bank. The purpose of this legislation is to put mechanisms in place in circumstances where there might be a run on a bank in the future. I do not see how copper-fastening the culture of secrecy that exists in the Department of Finance, the Central Bank of Ireland and the regulator can benefit us. That culture of secrecy was what allowed these banks to make ridiculous decisions on investments and go mad on property speculation, and to claim to the outside world that everything was grand. I fundamentally disagree with the Minister in that regard.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): I am advised that we are allowing the debate to wander somewhat from the subject matter of the section.

Deputy Joan Burton: It is difficult because it is a short Bill and some of this is dealt with later on. However, the role and approach of the Central Bank of Ireland are critical.

Acting Chairman: The Chair will be as accommodating as is allowed.

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): Deputy Bruton must construe section 2 in the context of the directive, which requires us to implement this legislation. Under the directive, member states are obliged to ensure that coverage shall be at least \50,000 and that by 31 December 2010 all member states are obliged to ensure that the aggregate deposit coverage for each depositor shall be set at \100,000. We intend to implement our obligations immediately rather than to wait until that date. This legislation will stand beyond that date, providing this exact coverage. I am glad the Deputy has given me the opportunity to put that on the record of the House. However, the Commission is also empowered by the next provision of the directive to prepare a report. If the report concludes that the increase to \100,000 and the harmonisation are inappropriate and not financially viable for all member states, it may bring a fresh proposal on the coverage limits to the Council. Therefore, the Commission is given an option to bring a proposal under the directive. It is envisaged that we in Ireland have made the guarantee and will stand by it. Clearly, there can be evolutions in the light of the Commission proposal. The answer to the question as to what happens after the date referred to in the Act is that the guarantee will remain in force. Clearly, the Commission may have some ideas about that in the light of the prevailing banking position in Europe.

70 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009

Deputy Burton asked about the Central Bank of Ireland, which is addressed in section 11. The question of how this issue is addressed in this legislation is distinct from whatever proposals the Government brings forward on the regulatory system. The reference to the Central Bank is a technical issue as to the appropriate place in which the payment out will be made in the event of the guarantee being called. It does not necessarily prejudge any question about the regulatory system which will be decided upon by this House when the Government brings forward legislation on that subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question put: “That Section 4 stand part of the Bill.”

Deputy Richard Bruton: Section 4 contains the proposal whereby those that are covered will be required to maintain a deposit, the amount of which will be prescribed from time to time. There are criteria against which this judgment will be set out. Is it the intention that this system would be designed or seen as part of a tool for regulating behaviour? Will this be a way in which the Central Bank will flag a signal to banks that it is unhappy with some of their complexity or liquidity? Or will it solely be a formula set in stone and everyone will know their place within the formula? To what extent will credit ratings of institutions be one of the issues considered when it comes to deciding what level of deposit applies? I am aware that credit ratings have become discredited in recent times but on the other hand they are an independent body taking a picture of an institution’s risk. They give the public some way of seeing what the bank is charging in terms of the deposit required for this sort of protection. It gives one the sense that the Central Bank is applying rules that are largely similar to what an independent rating company looking at the very same sort of portfolio of behaviours, assets and liabilities would judge. I would be interested to know the philosophy behind this and what scale of deposit is envisaged. If I am not mistaken, I think it was 0.2% when it was \20,000 so does that mean it will be 1% when it is \100,000 with variations around that level of deposit, or does the Minister have a different concept in mind? In the crazy times people ignored a lot of these requirements for maintaining deposits, and requirements for capital and liquidity ratios. In the current hard times, however, central banks and regulators are repairing their hand by being tough on capital ratios. To some degree the time to be tough with capital ratios was in the past because the same rules do not apply now. Having recognised the enormous failures of the past, there is no point in imposing a straight- jacket now at a time when the issue is whether there is any credit at all, not whether people are running away with risk. The problem is probably the opposite in that people have become so risk averse in the banking system that there may be a case for relaxing some of these ratios to make banking more pro-risk when looking at some of the business proposals. I worry that the exercise of some of these, smarting from the criticisms that they were too loose in the past in setting capital ratios, liquidity ratios or deposit requirements, may — at the very time when the country is crucified for lack of credit — swing to imposing straight-jackets that are inappropriate to the present credit situation. That is not to say that we must take a loose view with regard to the mistakes, including toxic loans, and the people who are responsible, but we may see the pendulum swing too far and create a highly risk-averse system. It may be so anyhow because banks are motivated by self-preservation to shrink their balance sheets and avoid the

71 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] threat to their independence. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view both on this specific section and the wider context within which this will be drafted.

Deputy Joan Burton: I referred earlier in the debate to section 4(4) which basically gives the Minister the right to vary the amount. In a uniform credit deposit protection scheme a good bank, which is well regulated and well run, ends up reserving exactly the same amount as a bank which is indulging in risky behaviour. Can the Minister clarify what his approach to that will be? The Anglo-Irish Bank model was to offer very high rates of interest and return by risky short-term borrowing. When the balloon went up, the bank was left with a fundamentally dangerous structure. In many ways, that was the reason the State — the Minister’s party — stepped in with the overall guarantee.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: A weak funding base, Deputy.

Deputy Joan Burton: Similarly, Irish Nationwide was the other example of a building society which was behaving in an incredibly risky business manner. All the institutions which are covered by this deposit guarantee scheme will face the same requirements concerning the scheme. Surely, however, it would make sense that if a bank is engaging in a risky or bad business model, it should be more penalised than a bank which is being more conservatively governed, and therefore perhaps not making the exotic income and returns that, for example, some of our credit institutions were claiming and which then crashed so spectacularly. Section 4(4) refers to the bank advising the Minister, but the critical thing is whether that information gets out to the market. Historically, in all the institutions dealing with credit in public authority in Ireland — the Department of Finance, the Central Bank and the regulator — we have seen an extraordinary reluctance to be in any way openly critical. Mr. Hurley, the governor of the Central Bank, has attended various committees and if one reads the small print it states in words to the effect, “I did warn...”, but who will notice in the stampede of a bubble? It is like the footnote on travel insurance that people do not examine. What will the bank do now about the actions that are set out in the subsection concerning the adequacy of internal controls, including procedures relating to risk management and miti- gation, and arrangements for financial stabilisation? That is the core reason why Anglo Irish Bank went down the tubes. That was the job of the regulator, but under this legislation it will now be the primary job of the Central Bank, even if part of the task may be given to whatever form of modified regulator we have in future. I would like the Minister to comment on that.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: The Minister said 0.2% of the reserve would be charged but will that apply to credit unions also? Is that the Minister’s intention? A position may arise where it might be more costly in terms of credit unions overall than the banks, so perhaps the Minister can expand on that.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: There is power not to apply it to smaller credit unions in the event that it imposes a disproportionate burden on them. I understand the statute covers that point. On the philosophy of the section, the first point to notice is that it empowers the Minister to prescribe by regulation the amount of the deposit which a credit institution shall lodge to the deposit protection account. The power is in fact conferred upon the Minister, although clearly the Minister must act on the advice of the Central Bank. There is an element of political accountability when the power is conferred upon the Minister, which is valuable in this context. The current rate is 0.2% of overall deposits under the existing regulations, and the Minister is given power to vary by order the amount payable by a credit institution or credit institutions,

72 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009 or a class or classes of credit institution. In response to Deputy Burton’s query as to whether a particular bank could be charged a higher rate due to the greater perceived risk of that institution, the answer is “yes”. That is possible under this Bill, although the Minister would have to act on the basis of a report submitted to him by the Central Bank. After appropriate consultation with the Central Bank, the Minister could decide to increase or decrease the amount which a particular credit institution or class of institution must deposit with the bank for the purposes of this scheme. That is an important power because it provides the Minister with the means to introduce a more risk based deposit guarantee scheme, if he deems it appropriate. The assessment of risk is always a difficult question in banking matters. It is worth analysing the types of risk to which the Irish banks exposed themselves in recent years, and Deputy Burton referred to a number of institutions. The reality is that the risks taken by institutions were of two varieties. The first was the risk of excessive dependence on short-term and international borrowing, and that was on the borrowing side of the account. To a greater or lesser extent, different Irish institutions engaged in this. The second variety of risk was an excessive amount of lending to persons with too optimistic an assessment being made of their prospects. That again took place to a greater or lesser extent in all the institutions, from the level of the consumer seeking finance for a house transaction, right through to the developer seeking to acquire land.

Deputy Richard Bruton: I do not think the Minister responded to any of the issues I raised.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I thought the Deputy wanted me to explain the philosophy of the section and to outline my intentions as a Minister regarding its operation. I have explained the philosophy of the section, but my initial intention is to state the 0.2% for all institutions. By virtue of the section, the Central Bank will be in a position to do a far more detailed assessment of the position of different financial institutions and their relative risk character. In that context, it would be open to me in the future to vary the amounts that are to be paid.

Deputy Richard Bruton: That is a fair approach. People who are running tight operations should not find that they are being charged the same as people who are being more risky. The wider point I raised concerns the Minister’s view that there is a risk that one of the problems inhibiting the availability of credit at the moment is that regulators are moving towards taking a fairly tight view of things. I could understand if this was a risky class of investment, such as more development investment, because we are already so exposed in that area that the notion of investment in development land would certainly constitute an area where very high capital ratios should be applied. On the other hand, can we say that one of the reactions to this is too tight an approach to credit? Maybe there is a case in looking at liquidity ratios, capital ratios and so on in respect of new credit. Maybe now is the time to be supporting the issue of credit, making the banks more willing to take risks rather than being more willing to avoid risks.

Deputy Joan Burton: This is a deposit guarantee scheme. For the foreseeable future in the Irish economy, many people will have a very high propensity to save, due to their personal finances, jobs and so on. Interest rates are on the floor at the moment, so the ordinary depositor will want safety and will also look for rates of return. By and large, the people offering greater rates of return in Ireland in recent years — we will not bring Icelandic banks into this — are the people who have been having——

Deputy Brian Lenihan: They were in a league of their own, even by our standards.

73 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009

Deputy Joan Burton: I agree. If the Minister has the power to be advised by the Central Bank and we will move into a new regime where we will all be more sensible about our financial affairs, what does he say to the ordinary saver who is receiving a redundancy lump sum, retirement lump sum and so on? These sums are individually small, but they constitute an enormous and important reserve for the Irish banking system. If everybody is charged exactly the same, that is harsh on credit unions because they are mandated to be very careful and limited on where their money can be deposited. I have spoken about an investment bond that could be used by the credit unions with the NTMA. The Labour Party also mentioned other bonds that could be raised by way of a State investment bank. I want to know about the old system which allowed a bank to act recklessly and carelessly with a business model that was unsustainable. The deposit rates for Anglo Irish Bank are very attractive, yet we will still be bailing it out. How will all these things be married? While we want competition in the sector, we live on a small island and there is a limited number of institutions. We also want maximum safety for the security of the system. Surely the Central Bank, as the Minister’s principal adviser on this, ought to be putting this information and rating out in the public domain. Many of the international rating agencies have been appalling. I do not think Ireland deserves to have higher bond spreads than Greece, yet we do. Will there be differentiation between good behaviour and the risky behaviour which stands to make a killing out of this?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I did not reply to Deputy Bruton’s wider question. I gave a detailed reply on the section, but he raised the wider question about the danger of excessive regulation in the current banking system. In one sense, the question is highly theoretical, given the current state of our banking system, as the core issue is securing funding for the system. Every decision we make must have as its lodestar the need to maintain and sustain funding in the system. That said, I share some of the general views expressed by the Deputy. Rating agencies shared in the worldwide irrational exuberance of recent years and made greatly over optimistic assessments about financial institutions. They have had to rue their assessments and are now engaged in excessive caution when making assessments. They have since become very difficult to deal with. There is a similar international pattern on regulatory authorities, where regulation has become discredited worldwide because of the failure of regulators to forestall the banking crisis. The danger in our case is that light touch regulation will be replaced by heavy-handed regulation that will deter inward investment in the internationally traded financial services sector and inhibit lending. The crucial issue for regulation in Ireland is to improve the competence and leadership of the institutions concerned. That is why the search for the new regulator is the most important issue. We need a lead personality who will inject an entirely new ethos into the regulatory system. The system must be informed by a far greater level of competence and ability than shown to date. We referred to public sector reform in this House. The practice of having an exclusively public sector organisation to manage the regulatory system is clearly one of the problems that arose here. The failure to recruit expertise from those with knowledge and practical experience of banking was a key difficulty in the evolution of our regulatory system. All matters must be addressed in the context of reform of the regulatory system. Regarding the suggestion that there was a danger in raising capital ratios, the UK raised them to give confidence to markets in respect of the banks. We did not follow suit, keeping with the minimum capital ratios. I do not propose to change that because I agree with Deputy Bruton that if one raises capital ratios too high we will inhibit lending. We must have a minimum and that must be adhered to.

74 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009

Regarding Deputy Burton’s questions, the rate of interest is the key issue for the depositor with State investment bonds or infrastructure bonds, however the financial bond is designed and whether sold through a savings bank or a financial institution. That applies to various proposals for State infrastructure bonds and for the NTMA to fund itself. The NTMA cannot offer a better rate of interest than the State can obtain on world money markets. There is a question of whether domestic depositors would be interested in investing at those rates. Deputy Burton raised the important question of the actual rates of deposit offered by particular institutions. Some institutions in Ireland offered more generous rates of interest than others. That becomes a cost for the entire banking system. If some offer rates that are out of line to an extent that is utterly disproportionate to world market conditions, this is a penalty the domestic banking sector must carry collectively. It is worth bearing in mind that we are part of a wider market in terms of the provision of banking services. Financial institutions from other countries can offer depositors generous deposit rates.

Deputy Joan Burton: Hence my reference to Iceland, the most extreme example.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: It is a good example because it was not a member of the eurozone. The more direct and immediate competition here has been provided by institutions in member states, in respect of deposits and risky lending. Leaving aside Anglo Irish Bank because it was not a domestic mortgage lender, although I understand why the Deputy likes to dwell on it, when one looks at the history of events in the domestic mortgage market, it is clear that the pressure for risky lending came from overseas institutions that established here. The Irish institutions had to respond to the competitive pressure. A similar difficulty can develop on the deposit side. While this section will be valuable in giving me a power to put some limit on this, on the advice of the Central Bank, I am a passionate believer in European regulation. If we have a wider marketplace, the wider marketplace must be regulated. It cannot be regulated on a national basis.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I refer to the credit unions. If Irish institutions had taken a more prudent view and had not followed some of the international competitors, we would not be in the mess we are in with the banking sector. It is not the case that they had to follow international trends.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: That was just in the case of the mortgage market. I qualified my remarks to refer to the mortgage market.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Equally that applies because Ireland is in this mess as a result of the housing market. Referring to credit unions and section 4, the majority of the credit union movement has been extremely prudent in how it lent money and retained its deposit base. It seems a little unfair in a situation where they will be levied on a higher deposit base to a loan base over the normal banking institutions. I note that the Minister is in discussions on the administration of the scheme. The Minister mentioned that where credit unions are unable to meet the 0.2% of the prescribed deposit base, leniency could be applied but he might consider this as a general perspective for the credit union movement.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: This is the first time the credit union movement has been brought into the deposit guarantee.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I welcome that.

75 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009

Deputy Brian Lenihan: That is right because there is a level playing field. In that case there must be a level playing field all round so there must be some element of contribution. I will discuss this with the credit union movement and if the movement demonstrated a low element of risk to the Central Bank, that could be reflected in the appropriate levies. I have already made it clear that I am sensitive to the difficulties of smaller credit unions. A later section deals with bulk payments to ease the administrative burden that may arise.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I note that and welcome it.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Deputy O’Donnell should remember that stabilisation within the credit union movement has been a divisive subject. The credit unions are not of one mind on this matter. I must ensure that those who deposit moneys with credit unions are secure.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: No one disagrees with that but we are into a new area. I welcome the fact that the deposit protection scheme has been extended to credit unions. Many smaller credit unions in cities, towns and villages throughout the country were the backbone of small savings, small loans and small business. We are entering a new era of the credit union movement and we must find something reflective of the risk they are taking and a charge com- mensurate with their lower level of risk relative to larger banking institutions.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I will examine that.

Deputy Joan Burton: Credit unions operate the savings protection scheme. The Minister said that they have some \13 billion in deposits at various credit unions. He suggested he might exempt some credit unions, on a selected basis and perhaps only smaller ones, from the requirements of this. Can the Minister clarify that this is what he said? Is the savings protection scheme of the Irish League of Credit Unions going in aggregate into the scheme, as suggested in section 7? Will the Minister have ministerial discretion under section 4 to exempt some smaller credit unions from the scheme? As well as providing a countrywide savings system that is very popular, many people who approach the Money Advice and Budgeting Service to sort out financial affairs are first advised to join a credit union and make regular savings so that they qualify for loans. It has been suggested that some credit unions have financial difficulties and some have had the bad experience of being sold bond investments that did not turn out very well. Credit unions must keep a relatively large proportion of savings on deposit and are more restricted in that respect than banks. I welcome the fact that credit unions are included in the scheme. Will the Minister vary the terms and conditions for them? Will he apply the 0.2% rate on a blanket basis for them or will it be varied?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I mentioned this in the course of the debate and did not clarify fully what was envisaged. The minimum contribution is currently \25,400, but I do not propose to apply the minimum to credit unions. If the minimum were to be applied, smaller credit unions would have to pay a disproportionate amount if I imposed the 0.2% rate on them.

Deputy Joan Burton: The \25,400 figure as applied from the 0.2% rate would suggest a total deposits figure of \12.7 million.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I believe that is correct. I will accept the Deputy’s figure for the purpose of the argument.

Deputy Joan Burton: The issue is with small credit unions.

76 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009

Deputy Brian Lenihan: A small credit union will not be hit with a minimum. It is my intention with regard to the regulations I will draw up not to apply the minimum to credit unions, so smaller credit unions will not have to pay the minimum figure, which would exceed the percentage contribution otherwise.

Deputy Joan Burton: The Minister will publish a separate schedule of regulations dealing with credit unions.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Yes, or there will be a separate provision within the regulations dealing with the issue. It is important for credit unions, with which we are engaged in a very intensive discussion on the subject of general stabilisation. One would need the skills of a Kofi Annan to fully resolve the issue.

Deputy Richard Bruton: I agree with the Minister’s attempt to grope towards a fair balance. There is no doubt that the credit unions have had much lower loan to deposit ratios and would be less risky in that sense, so they should qualify for a lower percentage charge. I hope that when the Minister scrutinises the matter, he can come to that view. Like him, I have concerns that some credit unions may not be managed to the highest standards. In section 5 he envisages that each year the Central Bank will look afresh at each institution and see how they are behaving, but under section 7 he does not intend applying that to groups of credit unions. Will the umbrella groups do what the Central Bank has indicated it will not be doing? Will there be some scrutiny of individual management and approaches if the group charge and therefore the exemption from the section 5 provision occurs? The last thing we need is for savers in a credit union to be worried, even with this, about the profession- alism of management. The Minister is trying to evolve a system and to some degree there is an inconsistency between sections 5 and 7. Section 5 envisages annual scrutiny by the Central Bank and section 7 indicates that this will not happen in the case of credit unions. That is probably a sensible balance but we need some reassurance that somebody will carry out invigilation of individual unions. That is where the successor to the registrar will be involved.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: There is a registrar of credit unions under the IFSRA legislation and it is his function to maintain the invigilation which Deputy Bruton referred to. In a sense, this legislation deals with payments on foot of the requirement. There is the wider question of stabilisation and traditionally the league has supported a position where it manages the stabilisation fund. That is a very strong view entertained by the league, which it sees as part of the ethos of self-reliance implicit in the credit union movement. On the other hand, a number of larger credit unions have disaffiliated from the league and are anxious to maintain a direct stabilisation deposit in the Central Bank because of the volume of their operations. They believe they would give more confidence to depositors by doing so. It is a delicate question because of the divergence of views between credit unions and I have left myself enough leeway in this legislation to work out a compromise between these views, which will at the same time ensure a minimum level of protection for depositors.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: “That section 7 stand part of the Bill.”

77 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Has section 7 been discussed already?

Acting Chairman: We will deal now with section 7 but there were discussions on issues relating to section 7.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I thought I heard Deputy Burton speaking on it.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: We discussed issues related to the section.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I was outside the Chamber and I thought the Deputy spoke on the section.

Deputy Joan Burton: What is the Minister’s timeframe for bringing the credit unions into this structure?

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: With regard to the credit union movement, it is proposed under this section that: “A group or groups of credit unions may, subject to the prior approval of the Minister, make an aggregate payment or payments on behalf of each credit union which is a member of such a group in satisfaction of the amount of a deposit in the deposit protection account.” Considering the charge to be levied on credit unions, will that be a standard charge on the group or will specific credit unions be considered?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: That is what we were discussing in the Deputy’s absence. There is a minimum charge in the existing regulations which will not be applied to credit unions, so a smaller credit union will simply pay the proportionate amount rather than the minimum amount. That was the point raised by Deputy Burton earlier. The section permits the payment of aggregate contributions on behalf of a group of credit unions and that facilitates the existing structure and the administration of the scheme at the Central Bank. It will facilitate a bulk payment in lieu of a plethora of small payments by individual credit unions. With regard to Deputy Burton’s query, the guarantee already stands on the basis of ministerial assurance for the credit unions but we envisage the practical administrative arrangements will take three months to complete.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: To clarify, will the rate to be applied to the group of credit unions coming together be subject to negotiation? How is it proposed to deal with the matter? There is an anxiety there and I appreciate the Minister referring to the fact that the credit union movement may not have a consistency of thought. There is anxiety among many smaller credit unions, which we represent, because of the potential level of charge. Will the Minister elaborate on whether it will be subject to further review by him?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: This will be determined by regulations. Credit unions, like other credit institutions, at this stage will be required to pay 0.2% of total deposits. However, they will be exempt from the minimum payment deposit provision which is currently set at \25,400, as that could have a disproportionate impact on smaller credit unions. The initial intent related to a 0.2% rate and as I indicated in the debate, I am open in the context of the risk assessment procedure to varying it in future.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: So the position is that the \25,400 minimum will not apply to the credit union movement.

78 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009

Deputy Brian Lenihan: It will not apply to individual credit unions. It is not my intention to do that.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: The same rate of 0.2% will apply but with a lower base figure.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Precisely.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, lines 11 to 21, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:

“(1) If the Bank charges on the deposit protection account any payment out of the Bank’s own funds in accordance with the Deposit Guarantee Regulations, the amount of the payment shall, with the approval of the Minister, be repaid to the Bank out of the Central Fund or the growing produce of that Fund within 3 months.”.

The purpose of section 8 is to deal with a position where the Central Bank has indicated it is prepared to cover a shortfall with its own resources on a short-term basis where there are insufficient funds in the deposit protection account. It must be made clearer than was perhaps the case with the initial text that the Central Bank is not obliged or required to fund any shortfall that may arise in a deposit protection account. Under the rules of the European Central Bank, which has requested this amendment, the Central Bank cannot be obliged to fund any such shortfall as that would breach a prohibition on national central banks relating to monetary financing except in exceptional circumstances and on a strictly short-term basis. The regulations will contain a provision permitting the Central Bank to fund a shortfall at its discretion, where the bank is of the opinion that it is in the interest of financial stability to do so. Where the Central Bank does provide funding, it must be reimbursed by the Exchequer. It is a technical amendment which is required by the European Central Bank.

Deputy Richard Bruton: I understand this is a technical amendment. However, section 8 provides for the Central Fund repaying the Central Bank within three months while the deposit fund makes up to the Central Fund this amount. How will this unfold? Will it become a premium charge against all the institutions, other than the one that failed or caused the payment to be made? Would it be a recoupment from that institution when it got back on its feet? Will it be somewhat like the levy to make up NAMA? Will those who broke all the rules and, as a result, created the problem have to pay more than those who were prudent in running their businesses? Will every institution be treated equally or will the offending institution make good to the others over time?

Deputy Joan Burton: In the case of a run on a bank in which it became necessary to use the fund to protect one institution, if that institution subsequently collapsed would the other institutions have to meet the deficit in the fund or will the Government step in with other mechanisms to limit runs on banks?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: The power would have to be determined by a future Minister for Finance after consulting with the Government. He would have wide powers and he could propose to levy the entire system or could make it more specific to a particular institution.

79 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.]

The fundamental procedure when dealing with a run on a bank is the injection of liquidity back into it by a central bank. As Ireland is in the eurozone, the European Central Bank is the ultimate protection against a run on a bank as it will pump money into the affected bank. The surest remedy against a run on a bank is the continued provision of cash. In this case, we are dealing with the question of solvency and the depositors not being paid. It is not simply a matter of a temporary run on a bank caused by some short-term panic but at a more deep- seated problem in the institution which means it is insolvent. Under a deposit guarantee scheme, the State ensures savers up to a limit have an absolute assurance their deposits will eventually be paid. The fund exists to meet that liability. If it is insufficient to meet the liability, the Exchequer must top up the fund to the extent required. The question then arises as to how to levy the institutions to recoup the money from them over time. I am attracted by Deputy Burton’s proposal that there should be some element of disproportionality in the imposition as the moral hazard is eliminated entirely from the equ- ation if there is an equal levy on all institutions. That will be determined by a Minister making a proposal to the Government under the Act.

Deputy Richard Bruton: The Minister may not be correct in claiming it is up to the Minister in the future. Section 8(3) states, “the Minister shall determine the period over which the payment required ... is to be made”. It does not, however, state he or she can decide the rules at that point. The Minister does not have discretion in deciding how the share will be determined. I presume it will be the Central Bank advising the Minister. Will the Minister reflect on an amendment for Report Stage to provide for a penal charge on the institution that causes the problem?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Section 4(4) refers to a wide range of matters which the Central Bank can use to advise the Minister. If an institution were insolvent, the Minister would not be in a position to impose a levy on it. It would be the other institutions that would have to carry it. I was referring to the association of the other institutions with the degree of risk engaged upon by the errant institution. There could be a variable geometry in terms of the culpability of the other institution. Section 4(4) gives the Central Bank powers to examine that issue.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed: “That section 9 stand part of the Bill.”

Deputy Joan Burton: This section deals with penalties for offences under this Bill in which a bank, acting in a quasi-fraudulent or risky way and of which there have been many examples, puts deposits at risk. The penalties comprise, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding \5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, and, on conviction on indictment, a fine not exceeding \250,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years. Consider- ing what some guys have made with our banks, such penalties might be worth the risk to them. The Residential Institutions Redress Act contained a gagging clause to prevent residents, many of whom were treated horrifically, from disclosing their cases. The fines and terms of imprisonment are not too far off these — six months on summary conviction and two years in jail on conviction on indictment. Are we proposing a penalty regime as light as this for “bank-

80 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009 sters” — that is bankers who have turned into gangsters? Is there a reason for this tenderness towards our banksters? We have been very tender to our recent banksters to whom we are all now in hock. I do not want to be vindictive and would not like to see anyone going to jail. However, those in the redress scheme, many of whom must give evidence and can be cross-examined, face virtually the same penalties if they speak about their cases as does a person found guilty of an offence under this Bill. Where is the proportionality in that? What is the reason for such tenderness towards banksters?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I am unsure that there is much tenderness in this provision because it applies to section 4. Section 4 is the only provision that creates an offence within the Bill. The offence created by the Bill is that a credit institution shall not carry on the business of a credit institution unless it maintains a deposit with the bank. Consequently, the 5 o’clock offence is that it failed, as a credit union, to maintain a deposit with the bank. The failure of a bank to so do must be criminalised. I am not aware of such an offence ever having been committed. Clearly, a standard provision was provided to back up the prohibition in section 4(1) with a proper criminal sanction. Moreover there is provision, on indictment, for a fine not exceeding \250,000 or imprisonment at the discretion of the court. This would apply to a director, manager, secretary or any other officer of the body who committed the offence. In my view, this constitutes sufficient protection for the public in respect of this matter. While many offences may have been committed by bankers in recent years, I am unsure whether this was one of them and the prescribed penalty is adequate for the purpose.

Deputy Joan Burton: The point is about proportionality with other offences on the Statute Book. Last week, the House held a harrowing debate on the Residential Institutions Redress Act and whoever drafted that Act provided extraordinarily severe penalties for breaches of confidentiality in respect of people’s own personal circumstances and the awards they received. This legislation goes to the heart of Ireland’s financial security by preventing, in so far as possible, runs on banks. It exhibits a very soft attitude to people of the banking fraternity who abuse public trust on foot of their extraordinary power. One fact that drives people mad at present is that the people who did this to Ireland earned enormous sums of money. One man was heard to complain that he earned less than \2 million a year. Others were obliged to get by on \4 million or \5 million, very large pensions and so on. They feel hard done by because their financial genius has not been sufficiently rewarded by the ordinary PAYE-paying citizen of this State. If the Attorney General’s office contains a wall chart showing offences under different schedules, there is an argument for a degree of proportionality. As the Minister is aware, it has proven extraordinarily difficult in Ireland either to institute prosecutions for white collar, bank or corporate crime or to secure convictions. My point is that this is extraordinary when one considers other schedules. The Minister is a barrister and I am sure he could reel off many laws whereby someone who stole a loaf of bread, as opposed to a bank, would face tougher penalties than are provided for in this legislation.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: There are far wider sanctions available in other banking legislation, including fines of up to \10 million.

Deputy Joan Burton: However, they will not apply. The Minister should tell the House whether anyone has been taken up under such legislation. Has anyone been convicted or taken to court under such legislation?

Acting Chairman: The Deputy has exhausted this point.

81 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009

Deputy Brian Lenihan: If the Deputy is aware of any matters, she should bring them to the Garda herself and get it to investigate them.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Acting Chairman: Amendment No. 2 has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Question proposed: “That section 12 stand part of the Bill.”

Deputy Joan Burton: I wish to ask the Minister one question on this section and the Schedule to the Bill. The Minister should outline how the deposit guarantee scheme relates to the Mini- ster’s proposal to allow the extension of the bank guarantee under the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 and the proposal to extend it indefinitely by ministerial order under legislation that will be debated next week. Will this affect the required level of contributions to the deposit protection account? Will new deposits be covered by the bank guarantee scheme for a five-year period?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: There is no relationship between this Bill and the proposal that will be contained in next week’s measure because this Bill relates to deposit protection. The issue that will be debated in the House next week is the question of medium-term debt and guarantees to the banks of medium-term debt. As the Deputy is aware, the present position is that the guarantee will lapse on 29 September 2010. Clearly, unless the banks are in a position to have their medium-term financing needs guaranteed beyond that date, they will have serious funding difficulties as a funding gap would arise in their arrangements. Members can discuss the details of that legislation next week. I announced the principle underlying that Bill in my budget speech. It will not apply to dated subordinated debt or to securities of that character. It will relate to medium-term financing for the banks and this is a measure that has been taken in every other European country since Ireland’s guarantee was made. In effect, when the Government gave its guarantee, it was a blanket guarantee to a designated date. One difficulty with so doing is that as and from the designated date, the banks have no guarantee whatsoever. Consequently, since then other European institutions have introduced more selective guarantees that in effect guarantee medium-term financing needs beyond that date. It is important that our banks are not put into an uncompetitive position vis- a`-vis other European institutions. While that is the purpose of next week’s legislation, I do not wish to anticipate it too much today as it has nothing to do with this Bill.

Deputy Joan Burton: I will repeat a question that has been asked of the Minister previously. In advance of next week’s debate, can he provide Members with an analysis of exactly what he means? Members have held arcane debates in the House about exactly what is covered by the guarantee. While I do not wish to reopen the issue of bondholders, the Minister is aware there are many ways of defining bondholders, classes of bondholders and maturity dates. It is almost impossible for Opposition Members to enter the House and play blind man’s buff in this regard. They do not know what exactly is covered, its make-up, the running order or the maturity dates.

82 Financial Services (Deposit 17 June 2009. Guarantee Scheme) Bill 2009

The Minister spoke earlier of oversight by the Oireachtas. However, unless Members are provided with analysis in some detail of what exactly is proposed in what one might call next week’s parallel suite of measures, because all these matters arise out of the bank guarantee, it will be very difficult to make sense of it. The Minister referred to five-year maturity. Does that mean, for instance, that the bonds in Irish Nationwide will come within the terms of the five year period? If so, how many of them and for how much? Similarly, does it mean that what might be described as different types of bonds debt within Anglo Irish Bank will be included? If so, for how much, what type are involved and for what period?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: While I do not wish to anticipate next week’s debate, this would not apply to existing advances of bonds. It would be in respect of fresh——

Deputy Joan Burton: I know that. I refer to a potential roll-over.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I understand an official briefing has been arranged for later this week. If this is the case, these questions can be explored there.

Deputy Joan Burton: The point is that Members are aware that various institutions, namely, Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide in particular, as well as all the other covered institutions, have maturity dates on certain types of debt that will expire after a period and they will renew or roll over that debt. I assume the Minister intends to extend the guarantee to some of it on its renewal.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Not as I understand it. Again, this is a technical issue and it might be better for the Deputy to wait for her official briefing on Friday. However, this pertains to fresh issuance, rather than existing roll-over extensions.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I welcome the Minister’s decision to provide in section 12(2) that “Section 4, in so far as it applies to credit unions, shall come into operation on such day as the Minister may appoint by order.” I hope a consensus will be reached on foot of the deliberations with the credit union movement. I hope the rate that is charged in the credit union sector will be low enough to reflect the relatively low risk involved in the sector.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Acting Chairman: As there are no amendments on Report Stage, we will proceed to the Fifth Stage in accordance with an order of the Da´il of this day.

Question proposed: “That the Bill do now pass.”

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I thank the Deputies who attended and contributed to the debate on this legislation. I thank the Whips for agreeing that the Bill should be treated as a priority so that Ireland can meet its obligations under EU law. The debate ranged widely, as all our debates on banking do, and overlapped into other aspects of financial services. We can consider such matters next week in the context of the Financial Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009. I believe the discussion on this Bill was constructive. The European Commission has embarked on consultation on possible amendments to the

83 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.] Community’s deposit protection arrangements. I thank the staff of the Chief Whip’s office and the Houses of the Oireachtas for the hard work they did to make progress with this legislation. It is important to respond to the point made by Deputies Bruton and Burton during the debate about the provision of the maximum possible amount of information on the banking system. If the specific items of information that are required can be put into the public domain, it is important that we do so as quickly as possible. If such information can be disclosed, I am open to disclosing it as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman: The Bill will now be sent to the Seanad.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: The Acting Chairman is playing a blinder.

Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 43: In page 45, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following: “(g) that advertising, teleshopping material, sponsorship and other forms of commercial promotion employed in any broadcasting service, which relates to the promotion of alcoholic beverages, in particular beverages with a high alcohol content, shall have regard to general public health concerns,”. —(Deputy Simon Coveney). Acting Chairman: I remind the House that amendments Nos. 43, 45 and 47 are being discussed together.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I am trying to remember where we finished our discussion on this.

Acting Chairman: I am advised that Deputies Coveney has made his second contribution on these amendments. Deputy McManus was making her second contribution when the debate adjourned. Perhaps Deputy Coveney will wrap up the debate.

Deputy Simon Coveney: Yes. We debated these amendments, but no final decision was made. My amendments propose the establishment of a code of conduct on alcohol advertising that will give the broadcasting authority the same powers, in terms of alcohol advertising, that the Minister is giving it in terms of junk food advertising for children. I argued that powers that are appropriate to junk food are also appropriate to alcohol. I hoped the Minister would take that argument on board and thereby decide to accept the amendments.

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): I accept the Deputy’s point about the need for strong regulation of alcohol advertising. As I said during the earlier debate on these amendments, mechanisms in this area are set out in the existing codes that govern the standards and practices that are to be observed by broadcasters, particularly relating to children and the general area of alcohol. Further developments are being co-ordinated by the Department of Health and Children, which is the lead Department taking responsibility in this regard. The measures I have outlined have the support of my colleagues in that Department. I will support them when they take further measures in this area. I cannot accept Deputy Coveney’s amendments.

84 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Simon Coveney: I accept that I will not get anywhere with my alcohol proposals, unfortunately. I would like the Minister to have the final word on my proposals in amendment No. 46, which relates to religious advertising. He is familiar with my arguments in that respect.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: We had a good debate on this issue. I intend to give the broadcasting authority greater freedoms in the area of religious advertising. It is seeking such freedoms to reflect the complex variety of issues it needs to address. We are not providing for a complete blanket ban, which might be one approach. If we were to prescribe which advertisements are acceptable, we would not meet every possible circumstance. I am vesting greater authority in the broadcasting authority to make some of the difficult judgment calls that are necessary. That is why I am satisfied my proposals will meet with some success on the part of the regulator, which is looking for a reflective and flexible approach.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I move amendment No. 46:

In page 46, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:

“(5) A broadcasting code prepared by the Authority under subsection (2)(j) may prohibit advertising in a broadcasting service of religious advertising considered by the Authority to be intolerant of diversity, or divisive in its content or message, indeed the Authority shall reserve the right to prohibit all forms of religious advertising, as was the case prior to the Broadcasting Act 2009, should the Authority deem it necessary to introduce a new code to do so.”.

Acting Chairman: How stands the amendment?

Deputy Simon Coveney: This amendment relates to religious advertising and I want to press it.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments No. 47 not moved.

Acting Chairman: Amendment No. 48 in the name of Deputy McManus is related to amendments Nos. 49 to 52, inclusive. Therefore, amendments Nos. 48 to 52, inclusive, may be discussed together.

Deputy Liz McManus: I move amendment No. 48:

In page 49, line 40, to delete “on” and substitute “including”.

This is a modest proposal. It seems the Minister is being excessively cautious in not accepting it. It relates to a person making a complaint. There is a tendency in legislation on occasion to specify what people can do but by being so specific it may mean that certain areas of concern are not included. We should not claim to have ultimate wisdom. The amendment proposes that the word “on” should be replaced by the word “including”. It means that the specific areas that can be subject to complaint are included in but are not exclusively the only grounds on which people can make complaints. It seems to be a more advanced way of dealing with the complaints process.

85 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Liz McManus.]

As regards people making vexatious or frivolous complaints, that is allowed for in the legislation. Often we spend our time amending legislation because areas that need to be dealt with in law are omitted from it. This amendment proposes a small change but it is a basic approach that I recommend the Minister might adopt, rather than simply setting out specific areas under which complaints can be made and stating that they cannot be made under any other areas. He should acknowledge that complaints can be made for perfectly valid reasons and can come from quarters and be about issues that may not have been thought of. The world is full of surprises. We should allow for a certain element of range in our legislation.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Section 47 for the first time statutorily requires broadcasters to develop and apply basic procedures in respect of complaints handling, including providing information to the viewing and listening public as to how to go about making a complaint and giving a sense of how long they can expect to wait before receiving a response from the broadcaster. It limits the duty of broadcasters to consider complaints to complaints made in writing and complaints that fall within one of the grounds for complaints to the compliance section set out under section 48. It does so in order to ensure that the burden placed on broadcasters is proportionate and not undue or unnecessary. Amendment No. 48 proposes to broaden the scope of complaints that must be addressed in the first instance by broadcasters. I fear this amendment would impose an unnecessary open- ended burden on broadcasters, in effect requiring them to consider a wider range of grounds for complaint than currently exists for the Broadcasting Complaints Commission or for its successor, the compliance committee under section 48. As such, I do not propose to accept the amendment. The Acting Chairman might advise if I may also deal with my amendments Nos. 49, 51 and 52 or if I should return to them later.

Acting Chairman: Amendments Nos. 48 to 52, inclusive, are being discussed together.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I will deal with them now and move them later. Amendments Nos. 49 and 51 are minor drafting amendments, which seek to ensure consistency of language in sections 48 and 49 in respect of the compliance committee. Amendment No. 52 in respect of section 49(24) removes the requirement for right of reply cases heard by the High Court to be heard by a judge sitting alone. Given the specialist nature of the right of reply mechanism, the amended text provides the High Court with the flexibility to use an expert assessor in coming to a decision regarding a request for a right of reply, perhaps leading to speedier decisions, a key element of an effective right of reply system. The text also provides that the High Court may make an order compelling a right of reply, make an order varying the terms of any right of reply required by the compliance committee or make an order refusing the compliance committee’s application. In respect of amendment No. 50, as proposed by Deputy Coveney, I fully understand his concerns regarding the negative impact on the family of a deceased person of the broadcast of inaccurate facts about that person. However, we have to balance those concerns against the chilling effect of any expanded statutory right of reply on the freedom of expression of the press. As such, I do not propose to accept this amendment.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I raised this issue on Committee Stage because it is one about which I feel strongly. I was disappointed the Minister did not bring forward any improved wording in regard to the right of reply of relatives of deceased people. We are talking about cases such

86 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed) as that of the late Liam Lawlor. Following his death, inaccurate, unfair and scurrilous reports were made as to the circumstances around his death, both in the print media and, from what I remember although I stand to be corrected on this, in the broadcast media. It is not acceptable that we are now passing legislation that does not give a right of reply to a family member or legal representative on behalf of a family when a clear mistake has been made. The Minister will not get a stronger advocate for freedom of the press than me. I have experience of this issue as well in the print media more so than in the broadcast media. This legislation should contain an element that would allow a family to correct the record, particularly in tragic circumstances such as those experienced by the Lawlor family. There are many other potential cases in respect of which families should have a legal right to set the record straight, as opposed to hoping that the broadcaster will set the record straight when facts are clarified. The relevant section 42(2) states, “Subject to this section, any person whose honour or reputation has been impugned by an assertion of incorrect facts or information in a broadcast shall have a right of reply.” My amendment No. 50 proposes to add to that subsection the wording “and should such a person be deceased, then a family member or legal representative shall have the right of reply on behalf of that deceased person”. Is the Minister effectively stating in this legislation that once a person is deceased, he or she loses his or her rights in terms of protecting his or her good name? That is the interpretation of what is provided in this section. This is a problem in regard to legislation involving the print media as well. A reasoned amendment to the section could be inserted that would not damage freedom of expression or freedom of the media to report on whatever case it may be dealing with. We should not treat a person’s relatives or good name any differently once the person is deceased from when the person was alive. Essentially, in this amendment I am seeking to ensure that people can set the record straight if there has been false reporting around the circumstances of a death or about a person in terms of how he or she behaved when he or she was alive when the person is not there to defend himself or herself. I cannot accept the Minister’s point that such a provision would in some way limit the freedom of the press. This issue is about accuracy. It is about people protecting their good names and being required to provide evidence in doing so. This section clicks in only when a broadcast has been shown to be false. Is that not the correct reading of the section? It is only relevant when it has been shown that the broadcast is inaccurate. How does that pertain to freedom of expression in the media? It does not. If there is a report that is inaccurate, impugns a person or damages his or her reputation, there should be a right of reply to correct it, whether the person is alive — as the Minister has rightly proposed in this legislation — or deceased. Otherwise we have the same situation that we have in law, in which the family of a person whose reputation has been damaged cannot sue because a dead person cannot sue. The same flaw is now in this legislation; the family does not have the right to correct the record in cases in which it has been proven to be incorrect. I am appealing to the Minister to think about this. I am not asking for a lot. If my wording is slightly clumsy, so be it. The Minister has introduced new wording at this late stage for other sections, as I will mention later. I ask him to consider this section. I do not think the wording is particularly clumsy; it limits the provision specifically to the family or to a legal representative acting on behalf of the deceased person. It does not make it any broader than that. We must balance the responsibility for accuracy within the media with freedom of expression and freedom of the press. In the case of people who are deceased we are not getting that balance right, unless I am missing something elsewhere in the legislation that covers the point I am making.

87 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Liz McManus: I support Deputy Coveney in this regard. We all recognise that, generally speaking, standards in Irish broadcasting are good, and long may it remain so. Occasionally, however, people have made mistakes, and sometimes that can be extremely distressing for those affected. If that were not the case, there would not be provision for a complaints procedure or right of reply. Of those of us who operate in the public sphere, there are few who have not at some time felt the media have been unfair to us in terms of intrusion into our private lives and so on. However, in this instance, as Deputy Coveney said, it is a clear issue of something factually incorrect having been said. To a family member, it adds to the distress if the person concerned has died and there is no right of reply for the family who are left behind. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. It is up to the authority to design the actual scheme and it can consider any difficulties. The one difficulty I see, to be fair to the Minister, is the absence of a timeframe within which the provision could apply. Perhaps there is one, but I cannot see it in the Bill. This could mean a complaint from somebody whose great-grandfather had been a sheep stealer, for example, if it was covered in a history programme. However, the principle that Deputy Coveney has espoused is an important one and we should not lose sight of this. Television is a powerful medium, but when somebody is dead there is no right of reply. It is important that we find some way to establish a right of reply to defend people when they have been maligned, consciously or unconsciously, by a broadcaster.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I understand fully the views of the Members opposite. One of the reasons we are taking this approach is to maintain a certain coherence across the various pieces of legislation that relate to how deceased people are treated in matters such as this. In the Defamation Bill, which recently went to Committee Stage, a similar provision has been maintained whereby the right of reply does not apply to a deceased person. We must be cognisant of the need for consistency across the various Bills and Acts in terms of the treatment of dead versus living persons with regard to complaints. In the current BCI code of programme standards, which we are hoping to strengthen, the section on news, current affairs and documentaries states, “Factual programming shall ensure that the dead are treated with respect”, and there are a number of different aspects to this. Thus, there are certain codes in place that provide controls. As I said, because of the historical precedent that defamation does not apply to those who are deceased, we do not want to have a two-tier approach, and thus I am reluctantly unable to accept Deputy Coveney’s amendment.

Deputy Simon Coveney: That is unfortunate. I do not say this very often, but the Minister is misguided in this case. The Minister’s mention of the BCI code that requests that broadcasters treat the dead with respect misses the point totally. We are talking about reporting, potentially, on the death of a person or actions that took place immediately before his or her death. Are we seriously saying we will not allow correction of the record because someone has died? Are we enshrining this in legislation instead of asking the authority to come up with a scheme to deal with the issue? As Deputy McManus said, there is no definite timeframe, but it is stated in subsection (5):

In preparing a scheme the Authority shall ensure that—

(a) a right of reply shall be broadcast—

(i) within a reasonable time period subsequent to the request for a right of reply being made, and

(ii) at a time and in a manner appropriate to the broadcast to which the request refers”.

88 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

I am sorry for harping on about this but I feel we are making a mistake and I want that on the record. We have much to do today with regard to the Bill and I will not call a vote, although I would like to. The Minister is making a mistake and this is regrettable.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I hear what the Deputy is saying and he is entitled to his opinion but, as I said, that is the decision we have taken.

An Ceann Comhairle: We must deal with amendment No. 48 first as Nos. 48 to 52 are being discussed together.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 49:

In page 51, line 15, to delete “its” and substitute “their”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I move amendment No. 50:

In page 53, line 23, after “reply” to insert the following:

“and should such a person be deceased, then a family member or legal representative shall have the right of reply on behalf of that deceased person”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 51:

In page 55, line 16, to delete “it considers” and substitute “they consider”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 52:

In page 57, to delete lines 11 to 17 and substitute the following:

“(24) The High Court may, as it thinks fit, on the hearing of the application make an order—

(a) compelling compliance with a decision under subsection (17),

(b) varying a requirement under subsection (17),or

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 53 to 55, inclusive, and 57 and 58 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 53:

In page 59, line 9, to delete “subsection (1)” and substitute “subsection (2)”.

89 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Eamon Ryan.]

Amendments Nos. 53 and 55 deal with incorrect subsection references in the text of sections 50 and 52, while No. 54 excises text in section 51(1)(b) rendered superfluous as a consequence of amendments on Committee Stage. Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 relate to section 56, which outlines the matters to be taken into consideration by the High Court and the broadcasting authority of Ireland when determining the amount of any financial sanction to be imposed on a broadcaster. The amendments rectify the text by substituting the word “co-operate” with the word “comply” in the context of consideration as to whether a broadcaster has co-operated with an investigation under Part 5 of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 54:

In page 59, lines 24 and 25, to delete “, as the case may be,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 55:

In page 60, line 24, to delete “55(2)” and substitute “55(3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 56:

In page 60, line 36, to delete “or 106(3)” and substitute “106(3) or 127(6)*”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 57:

In page 64, line 36, to delete “comply with an” and substitute “co-operate with the”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 58:

In page 65, line 40, to delete “comply” and substitute “co-operate”.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendment No. 59 arises out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 59:

In page 70, line 31, to delete ”section 179(2))” and substitute “section 180 (3))”.

Section 62 effectively precludes persons who have been convicted of an offence in respect of illegal broadcasting under wireless telegraphy legislation from being awarded a sound broadcasting licence for a period of three years. Amendment No. 60 addresses concerns raised by Deputies on Committee Stage that the exclusion period of three years is too long and may act

90 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed) as a disincentive for a pirate operator to regularise his or her position. In this regard, it is proposed to reduce the exclusion period to one year. Amendment No. 59 addresses a referencing error in section 62.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 60:

In page 70, line 32, to delete “3 years” and substitute “12 months”.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I welcome the Minister’s pragmatic approach in this amendment. We were all agreed on Committee Stage that the provision whereby a person convicted of an offence relating to pirate radio activity would be unable to obtain a licence for up to three years was excessive. Our objective is to encourage people to move from pirate radio into licensed broadcasting. There must be a wrap on the knuckles in terms of a period in which a licence will not be granted, but 12 months is more than enough. Whatever legal sanctions may apply in terms of fines or imprisonment should be imposed as appropriate. However, banning such persons from applying for a broadcasting licence for three years defeats the whole purpose of seeking to shift talented broadcasters out of the shadows into the light. The reality is that many of our successful broadcasters and disc jockeys on well known licensed radio stations were pirate broadcasters in the past. Much of our broadcasting talent comes through that underworld. This amendment represents a practical response in terms of seeking to remove illegal broadcasting from the airwaves and to encourage existing talent into licensed broadcasting. I welcome the proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 61:

In page 71, line 3, after “of” to insert “, and seeking to provide a social benefit to,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 62:

In page 75, line 13, to delete “section 65(9)” and substitute “section 65(8)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 63:

In page 75, line 43, to delete “7 years” and substitute “10 years”.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 64 to 66, inclusive, 69, 70 and 88 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 64:

In page 76, line 12, to delete “applicant” and substitute “application”.

91 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Eamon Ryan.]

Amendments Nos. 64 to 66, inclusive, are minor drafting amendments necessary to excise errors and improve the clarity and consistency of the text of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 arise as a consequence of the Committee Stage amendment to section 77, which placed a “must carry” obligation in respect of the Houses of the Oireachtas channel and the Irish film channel on the provider of an appropriate network, for example, a digital cable network. Amendment No. 70 amends subsection (7) of section 77 to preclude an appropriate network provider, such as a cable operator, from levying a specific charge on viewers in respect of assessing the Houses of the Oireachtas channel or the Irish film channel. Amendment No. 69 amends subsection (2) of section 77 to empower the Minister to make an order on foot of a proposal from the broadcasting authority of Ireland to remove the “must carry” obligation in respect of broadcasts of the Houses of the Oireachtas channel or the Irish film channel from a particular class of appropriate network provider, for example, networks not used by sufficient numbers as a primary means of receiving such broadcasts. This is in line with the European view that “must carry” obligations should not be imposed in a disproportionate manner.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 65:

In page 79, line 13, to delete “Commission” and substitute “BCI”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 66:

In page 80, lines 41 and 42, to delete “under section 77(2)” and substitute “referred to in section 77(1)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 67:

In page 81, line 3, after “of” to insert “, and seeking to provide a social benefit to,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Liz McManus: I move amendment No. 68:

In page 83, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

“(11) Community content provision contract holders are exempt from any fees and are to be provided with a minimum level of service identifying the programmes being broadcast.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 69:

In page 85, line 1, to delete “subsections (4)” and substitute “subsections (3), (4)”.

Amendment agreed to.

92 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 70:

In page 85, line 31, to delete “subsection (4)” and substitute “subsection (3), (4)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 71 not moved.

Deputy Liz McManus: I move amendment No. 72:

In page 86, after line 52, to insert the following:

“78.—(1) The Authority shall not conclude a satellite content contract with a person for the purpose of material being supplied for its transmission as a broadcasting service (intended for reception in the State) by means of a satellite device unless satisfied that recipients of the service will be in a position to receive by satellite device each free to air service provided by RTE´ , TG4 and the television service programme contractor as a basic programme service.

(2) This section applies to satellite content contracts whether concluded before or after the passing of this Act.

(3) In this section—

“basic programme service” means the programme material made available to persons by means of a satellite device at the lowest rate in any scale of charges that are made for the reception of such services by means of a satellite device;

“free to air services” includes such free to air services as are available at the date of passing of this Act.”.

Some people who have had satellites fitted have found they cannot access the indigenous channels, namely, RTE1, RTE2, TV3 and TG4. This is a matter of concern for older people in particular who may avail of satellite packages because they offer good value. However, the reality is that people may not be able to access via satellite the channels they have paid for through their television licence. Having exercised their right to choose the means by which they receive their television service, they find they cannot receive the channels for which they have paid.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Section 30 of the Broadcasting Act 2001 provides that no person within the jurisdiction of the State can supply a satellite television service for reception in the State or elsewhere unless he or she has a satellite content contract from the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. Section 71 of the Bill before the House amalgamates satellite content contracts and several other contract types into a single contract format, the content provision contract. Section 77 of the Bill addresses the issue of rights of carriage of RTE, TG4 and television service programme contractors, such as TV3, on broadcasting platforms, also known as the “must carry” requirements. “Must carry” is a concept long established in both domestic and European law and is based on the idea that certain television channels should be made available to the public on any television platform in a particular jurisdiction. These channels are generally the public service channels, and the intention is that all television viewers, regardless of platform, should have access to them. This reflects the fact that viewers may already have paid for these channels, for example, by means of the television licence fee or that it is appropriate that

93 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Eamon Ryan.] certain channels should always be available in the context of cultural identity and diversity and media pluralism. In Ireland the must-carry channels have traditionally been RTE, TG4 and TV3. In respect of cable systems, community channels are also granted must-carry rights. Section 77 rewrites the framework around the must-carry provision and updates it in line with European law and terminology. The Bill, as amended on Committee Stage, requires that the primary channels, namely, RTE, TV3 and TG4, will be carried on all suitable electronic communications networks that supply television broadcasting services, where such networks fall under Irish jurisdiction. These include cable, IPTV, mobile and MMDS and satellite. Section 77(7) provides that the network provider, subject to the must-carry provision, may not levy an additional fee on viewers in order that they might view the must-carry channels, such as, for example, RTE, TG4 or TV3. In such circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 73:

In page 87, to delete lines 27 to 37 and substitute the following:

“81.—(1) The number of members of the board of a corporation shall be 12 in number, of which—

(a) 6 of them shall be appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Minister,

(b) subject to subsection (2), 4 of them shall be appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Minister,

(d) one shall be the director general of the corporation.

(2) Where an appointment is to be made by the Government under subsection (1)(b) or under that paragraph arising from a vacancy referred to in section 84(12)—

(a) the Minister shall inform the Joint Oireachtas Committee of the proposed appointment,

(b) The Minister in respect of an appointment under subsection (1)(a) shall provide a statement to the Joint Oireachtas Committee indicating the relevant experience and expertise of the persons or person nominated by the Minister for appointment or appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Minister, and such other matters as the Minister considers relevant,

(c) the Joint Oireachtas Committee shall within the period of 90 days of being so informed, advise the Minister of the names of the persons or name of the person it proposes that the Minister should nominate under subsection (1)(b) giving reasons, such as relevant experience and expertise, in relation to the proposed named persons or person,

(d) the Minister shall have regard to the advice and may accept the proposed named persons or some of them or the named person or decide to nominate as he or she sees fit other persons or another person, and

94 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

(e) inform the Joint Oireachtas Committee of his or her decision.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 74:

In page 88, line 2, to delete “subsection (1)(b) and section 84(12)” and substitute “subsection (2)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 75:

In page 88, to delete lines 20 to 27.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Liz McManus: I move amendment No. 76:

In page 89, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

“(2) The board of a corporation shall include at least one member who has had experience of or shown capacity in each of the following areas—

(a) matters pertaining to disability and ageing,

(b) broadcasting,

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 77 not moved.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 78:

In page 91, line 32, after “Oireachtas“ to insert “and published in the Iris Oifigiu´il”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 79:

In page 92, line 32, after “Minister“ to insert “under section 81(1)(a)”.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 80, 87, 89, 104 and 106 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I move amendment No. 80:

In page 95, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

95 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Simon Coveney.]

“(e) ensure that the corporation acts responsibly in commercial dealings and in a manner that recognises the competitive market for broadcasting activities in Ireland and does not abuse any position of market dominance,

(f) ensure that any contract between the corporation and an individual or company for which consideration in excess of \400,000 per annum is to be paid to such individual or company, shall be approved by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister of Finance, in advance of their execution,

(g) ensure that a contract between the corporation and an individual or company for which consideration in excess of \400,000 per annum shall not be agreed for a period in excess of 12 months.”.

I must admit that I cannot see a connection between amendment No. 80 and amendments Nos. 89, 104 and 106 and I do not understand why they have been grouped. However, I will outline the position with regard to the two amendments in my name. Amendment No. 80 relates to the duties of board members and suggests that we should add three such duties to the existing list of four. The first of these new duties would be to “ensure that the corporation [RTE] acts responsibly in commercial dealings and in a manner that recognises the competitive market for broadcasting activities in Ireland and does not abuse any position of market dominance”. On Committee Stage we discussed at length the unique position RTE occupies in many ways. For example, it is dual-funded — partly by means of the licence fee and partly through commercial revenue — but it also occupies a position of market dominance and there are responsibilities that arise in respect of this in the Irish marketplace. It would make sense to stipulate that the board of RTE should ensure that everything it does takes account of the fact that the station occupies a position of market dominance. It must be acknowledged that there is a competitive market in which other broadcasters are trying to survive and also to compete with RTE. I accept that, at times, RTE struggles in this marketplace. RTE’s position of dominance, particularly from the point of view of television, must be taken into account. The other two duties I wish to impose are somewhat more controversial. Staff at RTE yesterday voted to take a pay cut. These are people whose salaries are paid directly by the station. The very high earners in RTE are not on salaries but are, in most cases, paid through media companies. The amendment suggests, therefore, that the board should change the way RTE does its business in the context of how it pays its top earners. In that context, it is proposed that these individuals should be paid on an annual basis rather than being given contracts which last four or five years and which cannot be altered, particularly when, as happened in the past 12 months, the marketplace changed dramatically and advertising revenues dropped by 30% or 40%. The amendment also proposes that if an individual or a company representing that individual is to be paid to the tune of over \400,000 per year, a system of checks and balances must be introduced. This is because it will be public money which, in part, will be used to pay salaries of this nature. The State, either through the Minister or the new authority, should have some role to play in sanctioning the payment of such salaries. Ordinary staff at RTE have agreed to take significant pay cuts. However, we have been obliged to rely on the higher earners at the station to, on a voluntary basis, take pay cuts. The latter is due to the fact that, from a legal point of view, RTE is completely snookered in the

96 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed) context of what it can do. It is farcical that public money is being either spent or committed in this way over the period of four or five-year contracts. I do not buy into the simplistic argument to the effect that the high earners at RTE are so talented that they could simply leave the station and command the same salaries elsewhere. That may be the case for a small number of these people but it is not the case for all of them. If there is pain to be dished out within a large organisation such as RTE, then the high earners should be prepared to take their share of it. There should be no need for the public to exert pressure on certain individuals in order to encourage them to take voluntary pay cuts. Where such pressure is exerted, competition tends to develop among the higher earners with regard to which of them is prepared to make the greatest sacrifice. That is not right because these are highly talented people who deserve to be paid very well because they are at the top of their game. I have no difficulty with RTE paying its top talent well. However, I do have a difficulty with the station committing to four or five-year contracts that cannot be changed when its funding structures change and when everyone else it employs suffers as a result. In such circumstances, there is no way RTE can make savings in the context of the payments being made to its high earners. Amendment No. 80 represents an attempt to try to deal with this matter and I am interested in hearing the Minister’s comments in respect of it. I will comment later on amendment No. 89.

Deputy Liz McManus: It is important that serious consideration be given to these amendments. When the Broadcasting Bill was drafted, times were very different and the revenue accruing to broadcasters was probably not subjected to the same type of scrutiny as is currently the case because there was such a flow of it from advertising. In addition, the rate of the revenue from advertising was increasing year on year. However, the position is very different now and the revenues of RTE and TV3 are plummeting. RTE is, by far, the greatest player in the field. In effect, it is the incumbent. I would have thought that assessing the way advertising revenues are accrued would be a very necessary part of the oversight being given to the new authority. The legislation contains certain protections but it appears that these do not go far enough. Small competitors frequently complain that RTE is not playing fairly in terms of advertising rates. RTE denies this and I accept what it says, yet the suspicion lingers. What is beyond doubt is that the broadcasting sector is under very severe pressure. People are being asked to make sacrifices and have chosen to do so in order to keep their jobs. That raises very important questions with regard to legislation governing the broadcasting sector, to ensure there is fairness across the board. Fairness across the board means looking at the situation regarding the high earners. High earners attract advertising revenue. Mr. Cathal Goan was before the joint committee last week and he made the point that much of the advertising rates are dependent on the pulling power of different programmes. Clearly, high earners have tremendous pulling power when one sees, for example, the viewership figures for the “Late Late Show”. The two are directly related. When times were good and there was plenty of advertising, high earners earned a good deal but perhaps now that times are not good and advertising revenues are way down, that link should be made again. If the advertising revenue is not so good, then the high earners should not be earning such big salaries. The BBC is looking for 25% to 40% reductions in the salaries of high earners. This is an indication that the culture of paying people enormous amounts of money needs to be rigorously reassessed. Part of the problem I have is that we do not have the annual report from the RTE Authority. There was a long delay in terms of getting the authority established. We have an

97 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Liz McManus.] interim board and I understand the report is with the Department. I had hoped we should have had it before Mr. Goan appeared before the joint committee. I am not aware we even have it now. That makes it very difficult for us to assess. I must ask the Minister a question, although I believe he is not the appropriate person to ask, since this should be in the report. An issue arose about the independent sector and Mr. Goan was able to say, in effect, “We shall show, in our report, that the independent sector commitments have been lived up to”. That is very good, because when times are good the independent sector gets a good deal of work from RTE, and when times are bad the tap is turned off. I have concerns about the sustainability of the independent sector in terms of funding if that type of reduction in income is so severe. Mr. Goan says that its commitment to the independent sector has been lived up to by RTE. However, the funding of the high earners is not stated in that section of the report relating to RTE salaries. Does it apply in the section of the report that is relevant to the independent sector? If that is the case, it is a distortion in terms of support to the independent sector if all the big salaries earned by high profile people are included. This is not begrudgery. The same argument applies to the Civil Service and politicians. There has been major criticism, for example, of the fact that the salary of the Taoiseach is on a par with that of President Obama. These are questions we have to answer. I do not believe we can sustain that type of very high earning public servant in the broad sense that we had in the past, and we need to get real about what we can afford as a country. There is no doubt that many people now losing their jobs cannot afford to pay their basic debts and yet we seem to be comfortable with the idea of very high incomes at the other end of the spectrum. I was talking recently to somebody who had come back from Norway and he told me that there the biggest most popular Saturday night television presenter earns a salary of \100,000. I do not know how Norway came to that situation, but it seems we must have be tough in terms of our assessment of how moneys are allocated across the public service and the semi- State companies if we are to work our way through this recession in a way that people can see is fair. If we fail to do this we will be in a very bad position in trying to ensure there is some type of national effort involving people working together to ensure we can get through the recession.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: With regard to the first part of amendment No. 80, as proposed by Deputy Coveney, the members of the boards of RTE and TG4 are obligated to comply with the laws of the land, including the competition law and the role of the Competition Authority. Included in this is the requirement to review any claims of abuse of competition law, as has been done in the Magill case in 1995 regarding television listings and in 2004 in respect of advertising by RTE. With regard to the second part of the proposed amendment, I fully appreciate that this issue has caused public disquiet in recent times, especially in the light of the current straitened economic circumstances. However, I believe the mechanism being proposed by Deputy Coveney to address the issue of remuneration of presenters in RTE and TG4 6 o’clock does not accord with the objective of ensuring the independence of public service broadcasters from political influences. I do not believe it is an appropriate role for the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources or the Minister for Finance to set the pay levels of individual presenters. Members of the boards of RTE and TG4 are charged with providing immediate oversight in such operational decisions. The Deputy will be aware that this Bill introduces new and more robust performance measurement mechanisms for RTE and TG4 with a focus on whether value for money has been delivered. That is the appropriate

98 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed) role for Government and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland in respect of these issues. For these reasons I do not propose to accept Deputy Coveney’s amendment. With regard to amendment No. 89, as proposed by Deputy Coveney, section 124 requires the proposed broadcasting authority to consider on a five-year basis the adequacy or otherwise of public funding to RTE and TG4 to enable them to fulfil their public service objectives and make recommendations as to the appropriate level of public funding. Section 124(9) requires that the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, in carrying out its five-year funding review, to take into account, inter alia, the current level of public funding available to RTE or TG4 and the level of commercial funding available to the same stations as well as the development of public service broadcasting internationally and to report to the Minister on the matter. In broad terms, the matters raised in amendment No. 89 are already catered for in section 124 and as such I do not propose to accept the amendment. Amendments Nos. 87, 104 and 106 in the name of Deputy McManus all relate to compliance with section 108. Section 108 imposes a continuing duty on RTE and TG4 to maximise revenues from their commercial endeavours and at the same time ensure that all transactions between their commercial endeavours and their public service objectives are made at an arms length basis, that is, on commercial terms. The duty pertaining to RTE and TG4 under section 108 applies to activities undertaken under section 106. In that respect I believe that amendment No. 87 is unnecessary. Amendments Nos. 104 and 106 in summary link the public funding of RTE and TG4 and compliance with section 108. Section 108(3) provides that the compliance committee may, at the direction of the Minister, report on compliance by RTE or TG4, with the section’s revenue maximisation and arms length provisions. In addition, the provisions of sections 109(9) to 109(13), inclusive provide the accounting information necessary to underpin any review under section 108(3). Sections 123 and 124 provide both the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and the Minister with sufficient discretion to consider the outcome of any review under section 108(3) in the context of setting the level of public funding for RTE and TG4. As such, I believe, the issues raised by Deputy McManus in amendments Nos. 104 and 106 are adequately addressed by the mechanisms outlined in sections 108, 109, 123 and 124. I am in agreement with both Deputy Coveney and Deputy McManus on the issue of very high pay levels in RTE being a source of concern. That was particularly evident in the recent very difficult decisions union members had to take in RTE regarding pay cuts. It seemed that the very high level of pay to executive and certain performers formed a very large part of the debate in RTE at that time and that shows how this is an important issue. I will give my view and the reason we do not get involved in pay. Deputy McManus said we might have a culture where high pay goes with high advertising ratings. If that develops as a culture in a public service broadcasting institution it is deeply damaging.

Deputy Liz McManus: It is there.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: If it is, that is not right. The purpose of the public service licence fee payment system is to allow on a regular, systematic basis that prime time slots, which are important in terms of advertising revenues, be given over to programmes that might not necessarily get the high ratings. The reason the licence fee exists is to allow a public service broadcaster to provide a range of different programming which is not judged only on the basis of the ratings it achieves. If that culture develops it undermines the public service broadcasting system.

99 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Eamon Ryan.]

At the weekend I was fortunate to launch a documentary film festival in Donegal. There were very interesting films on Iranian politics, a couple or family trying to adapt to climate change and a whole range of subjects. It struck me that this type of documentary film that might not necessarily get huge ratings could be part of our schedule to a greater extent to fulfil the public service remit we have. I take the Deputy’s point and share her concerns that if we allow a system to develop where ratings are the key measurement of success and where pay is determined by such ratings, it goes away from the spirit and nature of the public service obligation we on all sides of the House would like to see exist.

Deputy Liz McManus: The Minister did not answer my question on the independent sector.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I do not have the details here but I will check with my officials and return to Deputy McManus. I have the annual report given to me here.

Deputy Liz McManus: The Minister has the annual report?

Deputy Eamon Ryan: The one from the previous year. If Deputy McManus gives me a minute with my officials I will return to her on that.

Deputy Simon Coveney: While I agree with what the Minister just said, it surprises me. RTE chases ratings the same as every other channel. It has a public service remit and on current affairs and sport it does a really good job. However, on most of the television outside current affairs it is all about ratings. RTE defends the salaries it pays to its top earners by saying these are the people who deliver the ratings and the advertising revenue based on that. Let us not be naive on this. RTE is talking about a reality celebrity boxing match, for God’s sake. What is that about? Is that about public service broadcasting or ratings? It is about advertising and raising more revenue. Let us have an honest debate on this. RTE is not a public service broadcaster in the same way the BBC is because it relies on advertising for half its revenue, so it is also a commercial station. We should not apply the same standards that apply to purist public service broadcasters in other countries which have no advertising revenue. People sometimes do that and it is unfair to RTE. The Minister says we should have no role in RTE salaries but I do not accept that. We should know what the top earners in RTE are earning. We only find out three years later. The most up-to-date figures are from 2006. Some of this is public money and we are entitled to know how it is spent, who it is spend on, how much is spent and whether people justify that level of pay. Because of how it is structured through media company structures whereby people are paid indirectly through contracts that are negotiated for two, three or four years, we do not have that information. The Minister needs to address that. I will withdraw my amendment No. 80 because the proposal on setting the figure of \400,000 is a little clumsy, but I wanted to table the amendment to make the point. It is not political interference for the Minister to ensure the Oireachtas knows how much is being spent on salaries and on whom. We know how much the employees and the Director General are paid in RTE, and rightly so because he has to publish that every year. Yet we do not know how much the high earners are being paid.

Deputy Liz McManus: We recognise that in international terms RTE is an unusual hybrid of commercial and television licence funding. There is constantly an issue of balancing between

100 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed) the two, and generally RTE does a very good job. However, the difficulties being experienced by RTE require us to be very rigorous in examining how things are done in our national broadcaster. There is a clear time lag between how contracts are written up for high earners and how advertising revenue can suddenly plummet in a matter of months. We do not have the report. We should have the report and it is the Minister’s responsibility to get the report out. I ask again why we have not got it.

Deputy Simon Coveney: The information will not even be in it.

Deputy Liz McManus: That is my second point. Even when it is published it will be two years out of date on this issue. I am not saying the star performers should be paid on the basis of how much advertising revenue they can bring in, because that would be the road to hell. However, because of how the advertising structure works, the programmes with the higher ratings can charge more for advertising, and the programmes with the high ratings tend to have the star performers. We know this because Mr. Cathal Goan has explained it to us. There is a correlation and we must recognise that. Some of the big performers have recognised it in the sense that they have accepted a reduction in pay. That should be much more the way to go in terms of fairness within the structures of RTE. Other than that, people feel very alienated by what is going on. The Minister says he agrees with me on the culture; it is up to him to ensure we do something practical to get the right outcome.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: We are doing practical things. A new provision is set out in section 116(9)(b) that there will be a requirement on the report that goes to the Minister from RTE that the name or corporate identity of persons commissioned to make independent television broadcasting programmes will be made available. That is a new provision, so that is change we are putting in place. The latest report is due to go to Government before the end of this month and then to be made more widely available. While we have a hybrid model, we still have public service obligations and public service money going into RTE and that gives us the authority to say to any such station that it will not be a station with ratings as the measure of success and that it will have to give prime time slots that might otherwise be very lucrative——

Deputy Liz McManus: We are not arguing that point; we are trying to ensure RTE can survive.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: One must have a commercial, successful channel at the same time. That licence fee income gives the requirement to sometimes provide programming that would not necessarily get the highest rating but fulfils the public service remit. The second practical development to ensure that public service obligation is fulfilled is the introduction of a new single regulator which has an oversight role in RTE. Referring to our earlier discussion where we were asking if the board members of RTE should have that role to ensure that they recognise that this is a market for their other broadcasters, they may have that in mind but it is crucial that regardless of that there is an oversight regulator across all broadcasters here that recognises that there are certain standards and public service obligations which we require by dint of having a public service funding element. That is to fulfil our European obligations and we have had detailed discussions with the European Commission in that regard. It is also to fulfil the public service obligations that we as parliamentarians reflect and represent. That is the core purpose of establishing this new authority. The Members opposite will have the oppor-

101 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Eamon Ryan.] tunity to appoint members of the authority who are mindful to ensure such public service obligations are met.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Coveney has the right of reply if he wishes.

Deputy Simon Coveney: May I reply on my amendment No. 89 as I will not have a chance to come back on that later?

An Ceann Comhairle: I agree with the Deputy that amendment No. 89 does not seem to bear any great relationship with the others and when we reach amendment No. 89 the Deputy should be allowed to make a contribution, unless he wants to do it now.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I can do it now as it will not take much time. I suspect the Minister will not accept it. However, I want to make a point. Section 124, which the Minister claims caters for what I am trying to provide in amendment No. 89, does not really deal with it. There is more than a subtle difference between the two. Section 124(8) states: “The Authority shall within a period of not more than 3 years after the passing of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, or as directed by the Minister, carry out a review of the adequacy or otherwise, of public funding to enable a corporation to meet its public service objects.” That basically calls for a review of whether RTE is getting enough public money to ensure that public service broadcasting can continue. I am asking that on a three-yearly basis or whenever the Minister requests, we would get a report from the broadcasting authority — not RTE — outlining what funding arrangements are in place for public service broadcasting in other EU states. This would allow us to analyse the trends in public service broadcasting, how it is funded and how that funding is collected and channelled. We will come to that later when we deal with that section. Amendment No. 89 provides that the report will have particular reference to: the amount of subsidy; the percentages of total revenue made up by subsidy and commercial revenue; and the arrangements in place to ensure fair commercial activity in the market place, which is the kind of thing about which Deputy McManus spoke earlier. That is quite a different report from one analysing whether RTE and TG4 are getting adequate funding. Section 124 does not deal with what I propose in amendment No. 89. It would be very useful for the Minister and his successors to review best practice elsewhere in Europe to ensure that our funding mechanisms are correct and that we have the right balance between commercial activity in the broadcasting sector and a very proactive policy in terms of public service broadcasting.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Section 124(9)(f), which provides that the authority shall take account of “developments in public service broadcasting internationally”, does exactly that. It gives it the opportunity to take cognisance of what is specified in amendment No. 89.

Deputy Simon Coveney: It is in the context of whether RTE is adequately funded and not in the broader context of the market.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 81:

In page 95, to delete lines 29 to 35 and substitute the following:

“(6) The quorum for a meeting of the board of a corporation shall be 7.

102 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

(7) Subject to any rule made under subsection (5) meetings of the board of a corporation shall be capable of being held by telephone or other suitable electronic means whereby all the members of the board can hear and be heard.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 82:

In page 101, to delete lines 22 and 23.

Section 96 places a statutory requirement on RTE and TG4 to establish audience councils to represent the views and interests of the general public to the boards of the two corporations. It proposes that RTE and TG4 should select the membership and chairpersons of their respective audience councils with a view to ensuring that such membership is representative of the viewing and listening public. The section also proposes that one member of the board should sit on the audience council to act as a conduit between the board and the audience council but precludes him or her from acting as chairperson. The rationale for such an approach was to ensure the audience council would not be perceived as a pure creature of the board of RTE or TG4. However, having listened to Deputy Coveney’s arguments on Committee Stage, I propose to remove such preclusion.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 83 to 86, inclusive are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I move amendment No. 83:

In page 103, line 34, to delete “statement” and substitute “Charter”.

We already had this discussion on committee Stage. A charter is much stronger than a statement. A statement is a signal of intent. A charter is a set of rules with which a corporation must comply. A charter which is enforceable is the appropriate term in this section instead of “statement”. From the Committee Stage discussion I know that Deputy McManus had a similar view. I would like to primarily focus on amendment No. 85, which proposes:

In page 104, to delete lines 13 to 15 and substitute the following:

“(a) The nature and number of hours of children’s programming, including animation and children’s programming in the Irish language, to be broadcast by the corporation, that shall include a minimum of 30 per cent of programming originally produced by the organisation and/or independent Irish producers,”.

We had a very constructive discussion on Committee Stage on children’s programming, about which I know the Minister cares as evidenced by his codes of conduct on advertising of junk food and so on. Amendment No. 85 proposes to try to ensure that programming targeted at children has an Irish flavour to it as opposed to allowing broadcasters take the soft option of simply importing programmes like “The Simpsons” from across the Atlantic to fill the children’s programme slots.

103 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Simon Coveney.]

To be fair, RTE in particular has made considerable efforts to promote home-grown children’s programming, on which it should be commended. We should insert a signal in the legislation specifying that children’s programming by Irish broadcasters should have at least 30% Irish content, whether that is home-grown within the corporation or through the independent production sector. There is a particular talent within the Irish independent production sector for animation, for example, that should be encouraged, supported and used by Irish broadcasters. The Bill already mentions the need to take account of children’s needs. However, there is no substitute for home-grown Irish-based and Irish-backed programming which is more in tune with young people in Ireland rather than simply buying in the cheapest or most populist option for children to watch. Thirty per cent is a reasonable request and, as it happens, is pretty close to the existing practice. It should ensure if times remain tough in terms of funding that children’s programming will still have a 30% home-grown content rather than making cutbacks in that area and in doing so providing an increasing majority of children’s programming from abroad. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

Deputy Liz McManus: I ask the Minister to have a very open view on this amendment. We tend to think in terms of adults when we talk about public service programming, but the reality is that children spend more time watching television than adults do. They are highly influenced by what they watch and the vast bulk of what they watch is foreign. A unique contribution can be made by RTE, which does provide children’s programmes, to make the type of programmes that can inform children and ensure that they are not overwhelmed by a lack of some kind of identification with their own society. I know there are difficulties in setting rigid targets for RTE or for anyone else, but this amendment is framed simply to provide that the principle of public service broadcasting is included in that part of broadcasting directed towards children. Otherwise it is hard to see how it can be done. We could have lots of educational programmes that children watch, but which do not in any way relate to the Irish experience. I ask the Minister to take on board the points that have been made and the general viewpoint on indigenous programming for children. Quite apart from the jobs involved, which are self evident, there is also an issue of the child’s identity and how messages are received by a child from television as to our place in the world and our own culture in a social context.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I propose to move amendments Nos. 84 and 86. Amendment No. 84 tries to address some of the concerns that were raised on Committee Stage by Deputies in respect of the broadcasting of original children’s programming by RTE and TG4. I share the Deputies’ views regarding the key role to be played by public service broadcasters in respect of children’s programming and the need to oblige public service broadcasters to set out their proposals up-front in terms of their Irish stories for children living in Ireland. Amendment No. 84 strengthens the focus on new material relevant to children in Ireland, either created by the public service broadcaster itself or commissioned from an independent producer, as opposed to acquired programming. As regards amendment No. 85 proposed by Deputy Coveney, I believe the imposition of a quota would be too blunt an instrument for what is a dynamic area. The process laid out in the Bill of requiring RTE to lay out its proposals for children’s programming, and subjecting such proposals to review, is a better way forward. I would also have serious concerns as to whether the specific reference to independent Irish producers, proposed in the amendment,

104 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed) would comply with our obligations under EU treaties and, as such, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 85. In respect of amendment No. 86, Deputies will recall that the purpose of section 102 was to introduce a more robust and sophisticated performance measurement framework for public service broadcasters. Amendment No. 86 is intended to strengthen this framework further by ensuring clarity around the expected timelines for the delivery of the annual statement of performance commitments and the associated report on whether such performance commitments have been met. As regards amendment No. 83 proposed by Deputy Coveney, a charter is in essence a written document that sets out the rights, powers or privileges granted to an organisation or person. For example, the various powers of the BBC are established by means of royal charter, whereas in Ireland the various powers of RTE and TG4 are established through statute, i.e. sections 114 and 118 of this Bill. Section 101 does not involve the granting of powers, rights or privileges to RTE, TG4 or third parties. In essence, the section obligates RTE and TG4 to set out their stalls as to how they will deliver on their public service mandates in the coming five-year period. Section 101(1) states: “The principle to be observed, the activities to be undertaken by the corporation in order to fulfil its public service objectives.” In that regard, the phrase “public service statement” is more apt to describe the intended output under section 101, rather than “public service charter”. As a consequence, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 83.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendment No. 84 has already been discussed with amendment No. 83.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 84:

In page 104, to delete lines 13 to 15 and substitute the following:

“(a) original children’s programming, commissioned or produced by the corporation, relevant to the social and cultural needs and interests of children in Ireland and including animation and children’s programming in the Irish language, to be broadcast by the corporation,”.

Deputy Simon Coveney: Will I have the opportunity to come back one more time quickly on that because if amendment No. 84 is passed then amendment No. 85 falls?

An Ceann Comhairle: As they were being discussed together, I would have to go back to amendment No. 83 again.

Deputy Simon Coveney: It is okay then.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 85 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendment No. 86 has already been discussed with amendment No. 83.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 86:

105 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Eamon Ryan.]

In page 104, to delete lines 26 to 33 and substitute the following:

“(3) As soon as may be after 31 January in each year a corporation shall submit to the Minister and the Authority an annual statement of performance commitments prepared under subsection (1) and, having consulted with the Minister and the Authority, shall publish the statement, or a summary of it, as soon as practicable, thereafter.

(4) A corporation shall by 31 March in each year submit to the Minister and the Auth- ority a report on the fulfilment or otherwise of any commitments made in a statement prepared under subsection (1) for the previous financial year and an explanation of any difference arising.

(5) A corporation shall include within a report required under section 110 a report on the fulfilment or otherwise of any commitments published under subsection (3) for the period concerned and an explanation of any difference arising.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 87 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendment No. 88 has already been discussed with amendment No. 64.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 88:

In page 110, line 38, to delete “its” and substitute “the corporation’s”.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendment No. 89 has already been discussed with amendment No. 80.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I move amendment No. 89:

In page 111, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“(7) At the direction of the Minister, or at intervals of no greater than three years, the Authority shall prepare a report analysing the funding arrangements for public service broadcasting in other EU states with particular reference to:

(a) the amount of subsidy,

(b) the percentages of total revenue made up by subsidy and commercial revenue,

(d) the percentage spend on independent production companies of public service broadcasters.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

106 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendment No. 90 arises from committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 91 to 101, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 are technical alternatives to amendment No. 90, so amendments Nos. 90 to 101, inclusive, will be discussed together.

Deputy Liz McManus: I move amendment No. 90:

In page 112, to delete lines 13 to 47 and in page 113, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute the following:

“112.—(1) It is the duty of a corporation to prepare and publish, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, and every fourth year thereafter, a code of fair trading practice (in this section referred to as a “code”) setting out the principles that it shall apply when agreeing terms for the commissioning of programming material from independent producers.

(2) The Authority, having consulted with the Minister, a corporation, and independent producers (or such persons appearing to the Authority to represent them), shall within 6 months of the passing of this Act and every fourth year thereafter, prepare and issue guidance to the corporation on the format of a code required under subsection (1).

(3) The guidance issued by the Authority under subsection (2) shall be general in nature and shall not specify the particular items to be included in a code to which the guidance relates.

(4) A corporation, having considered the guidance received under subsection (2), shall prepare and submit for approval to the Minister a code.

(5) A code shall include reference to a corporation’s approach to—

(a) multi-annual commissioning;

(b) that there is what appears to the Authority and the Minister to be sufficient trans- parency about the amounts to be paid in respect of each category of rights;

(d) that what appears to the Authority and the Minister to be satisfactory arrangements are made about the duration and exclusivity of those rights;

(e) that procedures exist for reviewing the arrangements adopted in accordance with the code for demonstrating compliance with it.

(6) The Minister shall, in considering a code, consult with the Authority.

(7) On approval by the Minister a code shall be deemed to have come into force and a corporation shall comply with such a code.

(8) A corporation shall ensure that provision is made for resolving disputes arising in respect of the provisions of a code (by independent arbitration or otherwise) in a manner that appears to the Minister and the parties involved to be appropriate.

(9) The Compliance Committee, at the direction of the Minister report to the Minister on compliance by a corporation with a code prepared under this section.

107 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Liz McManus.]

(10) A corporation may with the approval of the Minister, the Minister having consulted with the Authority, revise and publish amendments to a code.”.

This amendment concerns the relationship between the corporation and the independent sector. There are issues that need to be addressed, which have been raised with us by independent producers with regard to the commissioning of work and the rights that flow from such work. I imagine it would be a matter for the authority to take an active role in determining fair practice in this regard. I think the Minister is aware of the concerns about the independent sector. When one looks at the changed landscape, given the amount of work that is out there, it certainly is important to have a good and robust approach to how the independent sector itself operates in addition to how commissioning and processing of work is carried out. One issue that was raised on a number of occasions, and which seems to me to be pretty reasonable, was that of rights flowing from a piece of work. Where an independent producer makes a programme, he or she may not have the rights flowing from that programme because they are maintained by RTE, for example. There is no reason RTE would necessarily exploit those rights, but it could be of value to an independent producer to be able to do so subsequently. RTE would argue that it commissions the work so it is entitled to have any rights flowing from it. To an extent, this issue has been addressed in the Bill but the Minister might refresh my memory as to how he approaches that specific issue, which has been raised on a quite a number of occasions by the independent sector.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I support Deputy McManus’s amendment. As regards the issue of secondary rights for an independent production company that, for example, has made a programme which has been broadcast on RTE and on which it has done a deal, there was a concern that all the cards are in the hands of the broadcaster, not the production company. In reality, many of these productions will not fly unless there is an agreement with the broadcaster which in most instances, but not always, is RTE. Sometimes it is TG4 or TV3. Those production companies want to have more of a say on secondary rights. In other words, in a year or two, after a series they have produced is finished on RTE, they want the opportunity to sell those productions outside Ireland or, potentially, to another broadcaster in Ireland. As things stand, RTE keeps those rights. The case is made that an artist is more likely to sell his or her work enthusiastically after its initial showing than the corporation or broadcaster that has shown it already and no longer has a use for it, apart from trying to raise some revenue by selling those rights to another broadcaster abroad. For example, if RTE decides to market a programme to the Irish community in the US, who is better placed to do that? Is it a broadcaster or the production company? The Minister did say he would examine the issues raised in Deputy McManus’s amendment regarding disputes in the area of secondary rights.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I have difficulty in responding to the large grouping of amendments, so I will come to that issue in more detail——

Deputy Liz McManus: The amendments are quite different, yet they have all been lumped together.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: They have, but I want to address each of them, including my own amendments Nos. 93, 95, 96 and 99. I will then come back to the specific issue of secondary rights.

108 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

Amendment No. 93 places a requirement on RTE to work with independent producers in exploring the possibilities to export programming commissioned by RTE from independent producers. Amendments Nos. 95, 96 and 98 address the issue raised by Deputy Coveney on Committee Stage in respect of RTE’s ability to take up and fund part completed programmes which it did not originally commission, within the context of the independent programme account in section 116. These amendments revive the original wording used in section 4 of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act 1993. Amendment No. 99 is a minor amendment to Part 1 of Table 1 of section 116, reflecting the changed timeline for likely enactment of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 90, 91 and 92 submitted by Deputy McManus propose to amend certain aspects of section 112 of the Bill, which deals with the proposed code of fair trading practice. Amendment No. 90 addresses the following five issues: the initial timescale for preparation of a code of fair trading practice by RTE and TG4; the amounts to be paid in respect of different categories of rights purchased by RTE or TG4 from independent producers; the duration and exclusivity of rights purchased by RTE or TG4 from independent producers; review of RTE or TG4 compliance with a code; and the provisions for resolving disputes. In respect of the first issue, I believe that the timeframes already contained in section 112 are appropriate to what is a complex issue, namely, that the BAI must produce guidelines within 12 months of establishment and that RTE and TG4 must produce a code within 15 months of the passing of this Act. A key consideration here is the initial workload on what will in effect be a new organisation within its first 12 months of operation. On the second issue, I do not agree that the codes should be specific on the amounts to be paid. Given the complexity of the product involved, I would argue that this is best left to market negotiations between the parties. In respect of the third issue, I believe that subsection (6) of the Bill as passed on Committee Stage addresses the issue raised by the Deputy. It requires RTE and TG4 to address in their codes issues of duration and exclusivity for the various categories of rights they intend to acquire. There is common agreement across the House that we need to strengthen the hand of independent producers in any such code. We want to give them the ability to go out and market their produce, to have secondary rights that they can sell on, and recognise that rights accrue where artistic endeavour is involved. In the application of the code, we will be looking to strengthen the hand of independent producers and to give the BAI clear directions in that regard, which it now has the legislative means to effect. Adequate procedures for compliance review are already contained in the section, in particular in subsections (9) and (10). Whether dispute resolution procedures provided for in a code are suitable and adequate is a matter for the Minister and the BAI, in consultation with interested parties. However, I would argue that this is not a matter that should be subject to the veto of interested parties, as is the case with the proposed wording in amendment No. 90. Amendment No. 23 to section 25 places a requirement on the proposed BAI to “provide a regulatory environment that will sustain compliance with applicable employment law”. This goes some way towards addressing the issues raised in amendment No. 91 and as such, I do not propose to accept the amendment. Section 112 requires the BAI to consult with independent producers and RTE or TG4, prior to the preparation of guidelines under subsection (2). This is the appropriate mechanism for formal consultation on this issue, and as such I do not propose to accept amendment No. 92.

109 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Eamon Ryan.]

Amendment No. 94 proposes that RTE should invest 1% of its television IBD revenues in film. RTE does invest in film, albeit on a limited basis, and section 114(4)(n) of the Bill gives it the explicit powers to do so. However, this is ancillary to the core function of RTE or TG4 to provide a national television service, and therefore should not be specified on a mandatory basis, even though I support the intention behind the amendment. It is similar to the codes on children’s programming. We must be careful not to apply blunt instruments when legislating. I agree with the Deputy’s intention, but I am reluctant to set a specific mandatory target. Amendment Nos. 97 and 100 from Deputy Coveney address the amount that RTE is statutorily required to spend on independent production. I understand the Deputy’s concerns that in the current economic climate, independent producers would suffer disproportionately in any necessary cutbacks. The corollary to this is the need to retain a strong in-house production capability. In essence, the Deputy proposes a percentage of commercial revenues and licence fee revenues attributed by RTE to its television cost centre, as opposed to an indexed fixed figure as is currently stated in section 116. This approach suffers from definitional issues, especially the legal definition of the “Television Integrated Business Division”. Therefore, I do not propose to accept these amendments. Amendment No. 101 proposed by Deputy McManus addresses the statutory requirements on RTE in respect of the commissioning of radio programming from independent producers. Section 116 of the Broadcasting Bill 2008, as passed by Seanad E´ ireann, proposes that RTE be required to expend a minimum of 3%, and may spend up to 5%, of the value of the independent production account over a period of five years beginning in 2009. While 3% is a significant figure, it is important that we do not lose sight of the primary objective of section 116 when focusing on the percentage levels. The objective is to ensure that RTE fully engages with the independent radio production sector to the benefit of all, including RTE, independent radio producers and, most important, the listening public. I have no doubt that such engagement will result in commissioning in excess of the statutory requirement over time, as has been the case with independent television production. The differential between the required 3% and the optional 5% allows RTE some flexibility to ensure this policy departure does not unnecessarily damage RTE’s in-house production capacity. The current text of section 116 will serve to achieve such engagement. Therefore, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 101.

Deputy Liz McManus: I do not blame anybody here, but it is very unsatisfactory that we have quite a disparate group of amendments clumped together. I do not know how the mindset works, but it does not make much sense to me. We are dealing with many different things all at once. The concern expressed in amendment No. 92 is that the Bill provides for a code to be set out by the Minister and the corporation would have to comply with it, but there would be no ongoing relationship with the independent sector for any difficulties that would arise. That is why I put forward this amendment. I accept that the Minister has made an effort to make RTE co-operate with independent producers in marketing programmes outside the State, in order to exploit the potential of programmes that have been made. It is not clear to me that the Bill deals with the fundamental concern. I would have thought that it was in RTE’s interest to co-operate. It seems odd there is a question of having to put that in legislation. If we are talking about the issue of rights and secondary rights we must go further than what the Minister is doing. Very often, the difficulty is

110 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed) that RTE does not have a direct interest in promoting and exploiting, whereas the independent producer has a greater interest in doing so but may not have the resources to pursue it. Regarding film, I know the argument about setting targets, which seem very modest. The Minister has no problem setting targets in other parts of this Bill. I thought this was a floor we would not fall below rather than being penal.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I thank the Minister for tabling amendments Nos. 95 and 98. These arise as a result of an issue raised with me, which I raised with him on Committee Stage and they concern assisting in the completion of independent television or sound broadcasting programmes. That is welcome and my concern has now been dealt with. I will focus on amendment No. 97. There has been ongoing discussion through the consideration of this Bill on whether we should require RTE to provide a percentage of television revenue to independent production or stipulate a figure. The Minister has said he does not like setting figures because it is a blunt instrument yet in this case we are setting a figure of \40 million. A more subtle and appropriate way of doing this is to set a percentage figure because that takes account of RTE revenue, how much it can afford to spend and how much it spends on everything else. The major fear of independent production companies is that, in order to cut costs, they would be the ones first to be cut because they are easy pickings. That is not likely to happen in a significant way because RTE is very reliant on the skills base that exists in the independent sector. The percentage figure is the more appropriate way of dealing with this although I am told the Minister is not inclined to accept this. However, this is a mistake.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: If I understand Deputy McManus correctly, she is concerned about the guarantees for the independent sector and what recourse it will have. One of the provisions is that the authority must return to the code on a four yearly basis and that provides a check on how it is working.

Deputy Liz McManus: It does not have to consult with the sector.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: The experience of authorities in similar codes is that they do. It is common practice and although it does not exist on a statutory basis the sector can make its views known through representations. The directions I would give any such authority is that we want to see the sector strengthened. Everything we are doing is to continue the successful development of independent production. This has benefit not only for broadcasters as a resource but as an economic opportunity in the State to create employment and to create an industry. This is happening in the film industry with tax breaks, some of which have been greatly beneficial in the past year. The digital media services area is merging with the broadcasting area. Everything we are doing is to further strengthen the independent production sector. Deputy Coveney referred to setting a percentage or a figure. Neither should be seen as the limit of what should be produced. The figure for independent production last year last year was significantly above the baseline figure. This is a baseline figure and it is a back stop check. It would not be in the interests of RTE, in responding to a difficult economic situation, to change from a successful strategy in the use of independent production, and this is something we would keep an eye on.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.

111 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 93:

In page 113, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

“(12) RTE´ shall co-operate with independent producers in the marketing outside the State of sound broadcasting and television programmes commissioned by RTE´ from independent producers.”.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 93a, 101a, 148a, 148b and 149 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 93a:

In page 113, line 13, after “continues” to insert “in being”.

These amendments relate to the continuous provisions in sections 113(2), 117, 174(2) and 175(2). The Parliamentary Counsel has proposed that the phrase “continues” should be replaced with “continues in being”. For example, in section 175(2) “the phrase BCC continues” will become “BCC continues in being”. These changes are being proposed to ensure consistency with existing drafting precedents in other statutes such as the reference to the social insurance fund continuing in being in section 9 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. I am amused by the language.

Deputy Liz McManus: Is it possible to have non-continuous being?

An Ceann Comhairle: It is quaint.

Deputy Simon Coveney: We are allowed to laugh in here every now and again.

An Ceann Comhairle: Perpetuities, a life or a life in being.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: What is funny is all the numbers followed by the philosophical twist. In respect of amendment No. 149, section 179(3) of the Bill provides that the board members of RTE and TG4 are appointed by the Government under the Broadcasting Authority Act 1960, as amended, or under the Broadcasting Act 2001 may continue to serve as 7 o’clock board members of RTE or TG4 for the unexpired period or for their terms of employment. Amendment No. 149 is a minor drafting amendment to ensure clarity in the text of section 179(3). I would love to hear the views of the Deputies opposite on “to be or not to be”.

An Ceann Comhairle: Will we get them, Deputy Coveney?

Deputy Simon Coveney: We will not get a chance to debate this properly. There is no issue with some of the drafting amendments. What is the procedure relating to the introduction of new amendments half way through Report Stage? I was not aware this was possible. Perhaps the Minister is entitled to do so but the Opposition spokespersons are not. Will the Ceann Comhairle advise us when the debate resumes later?

Deputy Liz McManus: Is the Bill to be recommitted in respect of these amendments?

112 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

An Ceann Comhairle: We are saved by the bell.

Debate adjourned.

Private Members’ Business.

————

Unemployment Levels: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Willie Penrose on Tuesday, 16 June 2009: That Da´il E´ ireann: — recognises that getting the economy back on track must be the number one priority and that this requires urgent action to retain and create jobs, to assist struggling businesses and those attempting to establish new enterprises and to ensure that those currently unemployed have the skills required to get back into employment; noting that: — 402,100 people are now unemployed; — 195,100 people have lost their jobs in the year to the end of April; — viable small and medium enterprises are continuing to close because they cannot access credit; — provisions for retraining and up-skilling of unemployed workers and those in vulnerable sectors of the economy have been totally inadequate; — the lack of urgency with which proposed jobs cuts at key employers such as Dell, Waterford Crystal and SR Technics have been met has resulted in jobs that may have otherwise been saved being lost; and — escalating unemployment has resulted in a sharp fall in revenue from income tax while the social insurance fund is at a risk of running out by the end of the year, in part due to the pressure on it from welfare payments to those out of work; calls on the Government to take urgent action to stem the jobs haemorrhage and put people back to work through, in particular: — the establishment of a national investment bank to invest in our own future and help create jobs including by ensuring access to credit for small business; — the fast tracking of business start-ups by creating one-stop enterprise business points to bring together funding, expertise and advice for entrepreneurs who want to start new businesses or grow existing ones; — taking Eircom into public ownership to provide a suitable platform for investment in broadband; — measures, including tax breaks, to assist employers to retain workers in employment and to take people off the dole; — providing support for Irish manufacturers and producers to export to markets outside the US and Britain including language and regulation support; — setting up a ‘Bridge the Gap’ work experience scheme for graduates and apprentices;

113 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

— helping people working part-time to train in their time off through an ‘Earn and Learn’ scheme; and — launching a skills drive for people who have lost jobs and those in vulnerable sectors of the economy, including tax back for full-time study and measures to get early school leavers back into education.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1: To delete all words after “Da´il E´ ireann” and substitute the following: “commends the Government for its management of the economy and the public finances by implementing policies which will lay the foundation for a return to prosperity and which are aimed at stabilising and revitalising the banking system, restoring sustainability to the public finances, underpinning employment creation, assisting those in search of work or in need of training and further developing a green, clean, higher technological economy; notes in particular: — the approval of the European Commission and support from the European Central Bank for our recovery strategy; — our underlying economic strengths which include world-class modern export industries, a pro-business environment and a flexible labour market; and — our significant international competitive advantage ranking Ireland as: — 1st for real corporate taxes; — 1st for investment incentives; — 1st for foreign investor freedom; — 1st for skilled labour; — 3rd for flexibility and adaptability of people; and — 4th for labour productivity;

acknowledges Government actions in support of activation and training through: — its \1 billion funding for a range of labour force measures which will assist those who have lost their jobs; — the doubling of capacity in job search support, training and work experience programmes; — the Work Place Programme which includes special provision for graduate placement; and — special arrangements for over 3,600 redundant apprentices;

re-affirms its support for Government actions aimed at the enterprise sector through: — the creation of a \100 million Enterprise Stabilisation Fund; — the establishment of a Credit Supply Clearing Group to address the credit supply issue; — implementation of the Smart Economy Strategy;

114 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

— the roll-out of the National Broadband Scheme; and — policies aimed at reducing energy costs in the economy.” —(Ta´naiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.) Deputy Simon Coveney: I wish to share time with Deputy English. I am surprised but glad to have an opportunity to speak on this motion and thank the Labour Party for bringing it forward. Anybody who knocked on doors in the recent local, European and by-election campaigns will know there is one issue above all else that families and people in general across the country are concerned about, which is employment. Up to an average of 1,000 people per day have lost their jobs since the start of the year and the response from the Government has been totally inadequate in terms of prioritising the protection of jobs and creating new jobs and opportunities for those who have lost their jobs. For the people unfortunate enough to lose employment, many of whom are highly employ- able, skilled and motivated people, the way in which we are treating them in terms of immediate access to social welfare payments, entitlements and retraining is simply not good enough. I have said this repeatedly and my party has argued this since January. With regard to the challenges that State bodies like FA´ S, for example, face, the response is not good enough. At a minimum, we should ensure that people get their social welfare entitlements within a week to provide at least some income into households when people lose their jobs. That has not happened. In certain parts of Cork city and county, it is taking between 11 and 13 weeks for people who have lost employment to access social welfare payments that they are entitled to, which is not good enough. This party has proposed a job protection strategy to prioritise the needs of employers and small businesses in particular in order to keep people in employment. I ask the Minister to consider those proposals in a serious way because they are meant as a practical response to the challenge of keeping people in employment. It is so much more expensive for the State and difficult for the people concerned to lose their jobs and find new employment than it is to keep people in employment in the first place. We must be far more imaginative and consider what is working elsewhere in linking attempts to keep people in employment with some form of State sponsorship, which would be an alternative to a person otherwise finding himself or herself on the dole. There are ways in which we can do that and we should act more proactively. We will reach a figure of 500,000 on the live register by the end of this year, which is a frightening figure. It is our job to find solutions that will look to minimise that figure and, most important, look to dramatically reverse the trend next year of rapidly increasing unemployment in Ireland. The Government must look at ways to create jobs and new employment that are recession- friendly. The building of infrastructure in a recession makes much sense because it is labour intensive. This would engage people formerly working in the construction sector, from where a significant percentage of the unemployed have come. Ireland needs a dramatic upgrade in its water, rail, or telecommunications infrastructure in particular. It also needs better energy infrastructure. We have made very proactive and positive proposals as to how we would fund that without requiring the State to borrow more money. The Government should not dismiss those proposals, as has been done by the Minister of State’s colleagues, by arguing that Fine Gael wants to create more quangos. We have focused on the creation of new State companies that would borrow on the basis of commercial return to create the kind of new employment we are talking

115 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Simon Coveney.] about. That proposal has been tested and is worth serious consideration by the Government, which it is not getting currently.

Deputy Damien English: I apologise for being a little late and I thank my colleague for taking on the debate. There was a misunderstanding with the timing. I welcome this motion from the Labour Party, which concerns a very important issue. I spoke last week on small businesses and this is another issue I am afraid the Government is just not getting. We must act on it. We stood here in February and March 2008 with colleagues in the Labour Party and others on this side of the House discussing these problems. Long before the black July, as it has been called, we highlighted the problem of rising unemployment but nobody wanted to listen. It was to be put to one side. Since then there has been inaction from the Government. We are calling for imagination and new ideas to keep people in employment. We know jobs might not pay as well as they did and that is probably the way life has gone but we must keep people in employment both for financial and social reasons. With a bit of imagination there is no reason we cannot invent new labour activation schemes to try to match people with great skills with jobs that must be done in our communities, towns and throughout the country. Much work needs to be done but much will be left incomplete. This is the time to act rather than dwell in self-pity and hope our fortunes pick up next year. At the announcement of the last budget, the Government predicted unemployment would probably only reach 8% by the end of this year when the dog in the street knew it could be double that figure. Sadly, there will be 500,000 people unemployed by Christmas, although quite a number would be greatly skilled and want to work. We must find ways to employ them. I have said to previous Ministers that there are courses of action. The community employment schemes can be expanded for certain individuals and new activation schemes can be introduced. There is any number of schools to be built out there; rather than spending millions on renting prefabs every year and social welfare payments, the two issues should be combined in one budget in order to build classrooms. We should do something in order to look back at these dark times and say that we made some progress in certain areas. Many of our towns have suffered from bad planning and as a result are missing out on parks, playgrounds and so on. This is a chance to put teams of people together to go into areas and spend time to make them attractive by developing parklands and walkways. The social welfare funding could be supplemented in order to make this activity more attractive to people. In my own town of Navan there are 100 acres that will sit idle because there is no money to develop it. Planning permission has been obtained for the project and the land was bought years ago so it is ready for the off. It will sit idle because it cannot be developed due to lack of funding, while at the same time thousands of people are being added to our dole queues. Not every one of them would like to partake in such an activity but I am sure there would be enough to work if we could use our imagination and use existing funding in a different fashion. If we could do so, that park could be up and running. That is one idea and I am sure there are plenty more across the country. We must act on them. The Labour Party includes a reference to subsidising employment in the motion, which we should absolutely do. For many years during the good times, businesses dealing with carpets, for example, were leaving the country and businesses were closing because they lacked competitiveness. Although we felt we did not need to do so, there was an opportunity to subsidise or grant-aid those companies but we must do it now. There is no point in people losing their jobs

116 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed) because their employer cannot afford to pay their wages — which they could if they got a top- up from social welfare — or they cannot get credit from a bank. Spending money on social welfare must be done as a stop-gap measure but we could get much more benefit from it. People could also benefit both financially and socially by having such money spent on bringing about employment. There is no reason we cannot work with employers and subsidise them. I know the Taoiseach met with Mr. Jack O’Connor and others to discuss this matter but that is only a full year and half after the problem arose. The reason most of the recent Private Members’ motions concerned employment and small businesses is because the Opposition wants to force the issue to targeting money to keep people in jobs and in community employment schemes. While there is not much I admire in how China functions, I will admit it has ways of ensuring everyone is at work. While we may not agree with how it is done and that people are not paid enough, it is productive and keeps the Chinese economy going. We must keep people in the labour force at work and making a contribution to society. That is what the majority of those who recently lost their jobs want to do.

Deputy Michael McGrath: I wish to share time with Deputies Conlon, Chris Andrews, Collins, O’Connor and Dooley.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Michael McGrath: The retention of existing employment and the creation of new jobs for the 400,000 people on the live register is the single greatest challenge facing the country. Members all know how devastating the loss of a job can be for any family. Many thousands have been affected in the past several months. It is proper and fitting this debate should take priority and that we give it the attention it deserves. More than 400,000 people are on the live register. They come from all walks of life, some from professional backgrounds, the self-employed, low-skilled workers and every other sector. There is an enormous pool of talent and experience which must be tapped into because many of these people want to make a contribution to society without seeking extra payments. A contact point should be established where welfare recipients can submit details about their skill sets and the services they can provide to their communities. Groups, clubs and community organisations could submit their requirements to the contact point to match them with such information. Such a scheme would not be in competition with the community employment scheme but could be extended into a return to employment scheme whereby employers could be matched with potential employees. In a bid to incentivise people to return to work and employers to take people on, April’s supplementary budget changed the focus of the back-to-work scheme. The scheme now supports people returning to self-employment which has had an impact on the employers’ PRSI exemption scheme. We must ensure employers who take on workers from the live register are given every possible incentive. When a person on jobskeeker’s allowance comes off the live register, the Exchequer makes a direct saving of \10,000. The welfare system’s inflexibility must also be addressed. Some on welfare, particularly those who were self-employed, are concerned about going back to work for a short period as it may take several weeks to reactivate their benefits if they lose their job again. It is acting as a barrier and disincentive to people to getting back into employment.

117 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Michael McGrath.]

Given the collapse of the property bubble, thousands of self-employed are now unemployed. They have found that because of the PRSI system their contributions do not entitle to them to any welfare benefits. This is creating a concern among people who would like to become self- employed that if work dries up or they get ill that they will not be entitled to social welfare benefits. We must do better in creating an enterprise culture that will incentivise people to set up their own businesses. It must be made easier for businesses to create employment and take people off the live register. A balance must be struck between employment rights and over-regulation of the employment sector. The public finances need to be put in order, the banking system needs to be restored and we must ensure we are a more competitive economy coming out of this recession.

Deputy Margaret Conlon: I agree with the Opposition motion’s opening statement that getting the economy back on track must be the number one priority. It is the number one priority for the Government. Its recovery programme is built on four steps which include protecting jobs, improving competitiveness and assisting those who have lost their job so they can return to work. The reality the Opposition continues to neglect is that nearly every economy in the developed world is struggling to cope with the global economic downturn. Ireland, along with many others, is suffering from a fear among investors and consumers, which in turn is feeding a lack of confidence among these two key groups. Our GNP is projected to experience its sharpest decline on record this year, contracting by 8%. Our economic growth rate, however, is fore- casted to turn positive by 2011. This is a long time away, not the instant solution people, including me, want. However, economies go through cycles of negative downturns and positive growth; sadly, we are in the former. In the interim, we must continue to pursue appropriate policies to have the economy in an optimum position to benefit from the global recovery when it comes. Our many strengths include a highly skilled labour force, wage flexibility in both the public and private sectors, work practices being amended and reductions in costs. We are also maintaining capital spending at a high level by international standards, a vital move. We must continue to enhance our economic competitiveness. The tough measures taken by the Government in recent months are designed to address our present difficulties. While we would prefer not to have taken these measures, not doing so would have been an abdication of our duty as the elected representatives to govern. The Government is committed to continuing to take the necessary difficult decisions to achieve this goal. The Ta´naiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment highlighted the strengths of the economy when she referred to statistics from the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2009. The doom and gloom merchants of the Opposition benches neglected to state our trade performance is still strong and our exports show continued strength. Many of our export- orientated companies are flourishing. We simply must strengthen their potential. We must acknowledge unemployment is a major factor, being the number one issue in the recent local and European elections. The Ta´naiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment pointed out, however, that last month more than 16,500 people came off the live register because they found work, a glimmer of positive news. No longer can one expect to have a job for life. We must up-skill those who lost their jobs or are at risk of losing their jobs. Up-skilling must now be the norm rather than exception. People’s skills must be harnessed in a different direction. The ideas campaign spearheaded by Aileen O’Toole and her business partner, Fiachra O´ Marcaigh, was a superb initiative which I

118 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed) urge the Ta´naiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and other Ministers to consider. As for someone with a business idea, there should be a one-stop-shop help desk for start- ups, with advice on issues such as legal, human resources, patent and accountancy matters. Instead, people go to their county enterprise boards but are referred to Enterprise Ireland, the rural development programme or some other agency. The multiplicity of agencies must be streamlined because at present, people are being sent from Billy to Jack, when such support must be centralised in one location in order that potential future entrepreneurs receive all available assistance, as they must be able to access the relevant supports. If they are directed in the right way in a timely manner, they will be in a position to turn ideas into tangible projects that will turn into jobs. Approximately, 2,500 new businesses are registered in Ireland every month. Last Monday, I heard news headlines to the effect that 38 new jobs had been created. Five years ago, such an item would not have made it into the headlines. Such jobs are important and although all jobs are important, be it a single job or half a job, they do not always make the headlines. In conclusion, as there is plenty of work to be done in the business community, locally by individuals in communities and finally by the Government, let us get on with it. Ireland, despite the gloom and doom, is still a good place to do business and is still open for business.

Deputy Chris Andrews: I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this issue. More than 1 million people in Ireland work in the small and medium-sized enterprise, SME, sector and in effect, it comprises the backbone of the Irish economy. People who start up businesses and who try to create employment have vision and the Government will not be found wanting when it comes to supporting them. Figures released by the Small Firms Association yesterday point to the fact that SMEs are doing everything they can to remain competitive and it is the Government’s responsibility to assist them in this regard. I assure small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as people with the vision to make a difference in the community, the economy and this country that they will have the Government’s support. When speaking with SME owners a number of issues repeatedly arise, the most frequent of which concerns the difficulty of securing credit. The Government clearly is taking difficult measures to ensure that credit will begin to flow and there are signs that this is beginning to happen. A particular issue that has been brought to my attention by many businesses in Dublin South- East concerns rents. In recent months, several traders have contacted me about attempts to increase commercial rents even though trade has decreased dramatically in some cases. The most disappointing aspect is that many of the property owners are the financial institutions or the asset management arms of financial institutions, which are availing of the Government’s bank guarantee scheme. I also was disappointed to learn this week of the difficulties being experienced by traders under the remit of the Temple Bar Cultural Trust. I have called for the city manager of Dublin City Council to take an active role in ensuring that a realistic approach to current rents is taken. Temple Bar Cultural Trust is a not-for-profit organisation under the control of Dublin City Council and although it was set up to promote the area as both a cultural hub and as a bustling thriving small business precinct, virtually since its inception it has failed to understand the needs of small businesses, with the exception of the pub trade, which traditionally has had a disproportionate influence in the Temple Bar area. In addition, the new Labour and Fine Gael-controlled city council should ensure that Dublin City Council reduces the cost burden on small and medium-sized enterprises. Both rents and rates must be frozen, at the very minimum, in Dublin City Council.

Deputy Damien English: The Deputy also should ensure the Government funds the councils.

119 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

Deputy Sea´n Sherlock: As the Deputy knows, that is a ministerial prerogative.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: How so?

Deputy Chris Andrews: I refer to the business improvement district scheme, BIDS, payments the council applies to small businesses; these should be reduced. While BIDS is a very good scheme——

Deputy Sea´n Sherlock: That is correct.

Deputy Chris Andrews: —— it is not of the greatest urgency at present. The most urgent measure that must be taken is to ensure that small business costs are reduced. I advocate pausing BIDS payments, as well as measures such as the fats, oils and grease charges that many small food outlets must pay, which are crippling them. I hope that Fine Gael and the Labour Party will address such charges. Deputy English has agreed that the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment must induce the main city centre landlords, banks, asset managers and chambers of commerce to appear before the joint committee to address as a matter of urgency issues pertaining to rents. I was amazed by a statement issued in recent weeks by Irish life Investment Managers, which is the landlord of the St. Stephen’s Green shopping centre. It stated that while increases in rent have been moderated or suspended, no rent has yet been reduced. Considering the fall in consumer spending, it is unbelievable that moves have not been taken to reduce rents to reflect the changed economic landscape. Our economy is flexible in responding to new trends and demands in a global economy. Ireland is in a good position because we are first for real corporate taxes, investment incentives, foreign investor freedom and skilled labour. While the environment is difficult, Ireland is in a good position and as long as we adopt a positive attitude and work together, we can make a difference.

Deputy Niall Collins: Tonight’s debate is highly opportune, given the climate we are experiencing at present. Any job that is lost is a human tragedy for the person who has lost his or her employment and for his or her family and wider community. In common with every other Member, many of my constituents have lost their jobs recently, which is a matter of great concern to me. In mentioning my constituency, I thank the staff of the Department of Social and Family Affairs in the offices of Newcastle West, Kilmallock and Limerick for the humane and efficient manner in which they have treated the many people who have been obliged to present themselves to these offices to access their benefits and entitlements. This debate is opportune because Members have heard many wild statements to the effect that the Government is not acting in a proactive manner, which I of course completely reject. I will turn this around by asking questions of the Opposition parties. For example, Fine Gael, through its new era vehicle, has stated that it would provide 100,000 jobs. While this sounds great, people in my constituency have heard of it——

Deputy Damien English: It would be very clear, had the Deputy understood it. He is not capable of reading it.

Deputy Niall Collins: —— and have asked me how many of the aforementioned 100,000 jobs will be created in County Limerick. What industries will they be in? What skills will they employ? Where will they be located? The time for headline figures and major announcements——

120 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

Deputy Damien English: The Deputy should read the document and then come back.

Deputy Niall Collins: —— is long over. The people I represent want to know how many of those 100,000 jobs will come to Limerick.

Deputy Damien English: They will get their fair share.

Deputy Niall Collins: A little more detail would be helpful and a little less headline grabbing should be the order of the day. This pertains to people’s livelihoods and families and it is not good enough to be raising their hopes.

Deputy Damien English: The Deputy should read the document, after which he can discuss it.

Deputy Niall Collins: As for the Labour Party’s comments in respect of Dell, the Govern- ment, through Fianna Fa´il policy, was responsible for bringing Dell to the mid-west more than 14 years ago and supported it through the provision of State aid worth \50 million over the years. It provided many viable and sustainable jobs for a long time. While it is a source of regret that these jobs have gone, the Government has reacted responsibly and proactively in creating a number of initiatives to try to reskill and upgrade the people who have found themselves displaced from jobs. I did not hear any constructive solutions or propositions coming from the Opposition parties when these people lost their jobs. The Ta´naiste and the local Minister travelled to Texas to meet representatives of the corporation. Moreover, the www.tu´s- nua.ie website has been created, as has a task force that is being led by Denis Brosnan, who is renowned nationally and internationally for bringing the Kerry Group to global status.

Deputy Damien English: It is the Government’s job to do that.

Deputy Niall Collins: The task force met last week and will meet again tomorrow to bring forward a first interim report, to which I certainly look forward because it is proactive and the people on the task force know what they are talking about. The mid-west area also has the customs and border pre-clearance facility, which soon is to be established on a legislative footing, at Shannon Airport. Although it can bring another competitive edge to the mid-west region, which will be highly important, it has received very little attention either inside or outside this House. Up to 80 flights per day can stop to access their pre-clearance facilities and this will give our State agencies a viable competitive edge and an opportunity to sell the region. This is highly important and constitutes another demon- stration. On access to credit, people are very quick to say that Anglo Irish Bank should be allowed to go down the tubes, but what would they say to the bank’s 250,000 deposit holders if that were to happen? Would they allow their money to go down the tubes too? Would they be happy to see those who owe Anglo Irish Bank money walk away scot free? Do they want to wipe it all away and let it all go? This day last week, Sweden had to take out an emergency \3 billion loan from the European Central Bank to stabilise its finances. We are not alone in having a banking crisis. The Government has acted responsibly and quickly in setting up NAMA to try to remove the toxic debts from our banking system and to allow credit to flow back to our small and medium sized enterprises.

Deputy Charlie O’Connor: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this important debate. I am sorry my colleague and friend, Deputy Willie Penrose, is not here because I wanted to compliment him on proposing this motion. I hope nobody will hold it against me if I say that some of my views are compatible with those of Deputy Penrose. As

121 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Charlie O’Connor.] my colleague, Deputy Niall Collins, has mentioned Limerick a few times, I presume I can mention Tallaght from time to time in my contribution. I would like to talk about Tallaght because I am a Dublin-based Deputy. I represent Dublin South-West. I live in Tallaght, which is the third largest population centre in the country. Unemployment is an issue in Tallaght, as it is everywhere else. Over 8,500 people in the Tallaght region are unemployed. I have previously mentioned in the House that I bring to my political life my experience of being made unemployed three times. Some Members of the House think it might happen again.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: Soon.

Deputy Charlie O’Connor: That is a story for another day. My experiences help me to understand this big issue. I strongly believe we need to concentrate on job creation. While big jobs have to come, we also have to remember the little jobs. I would like to mention a couple of points in my brief contribution. I had intended to spend some time having a go at FA´ S. I was particularly concerned in recent weeks to hear about the problems being encountered by a number of organisations in Tallaght. Representatives of Tallaght Welfare Society and the enhancement projects in Killinarden and Jobstown told me it was proposed to cut the training and materials grants. I am glad it has been confirmed to me over the past couple of days that the cuts in question will not now be implemented. I understand other Deputies have been involved in this issue too. It seems that FA´ S management intends to review the matter. I appeal to the Minister of State, Deputy John Moloney, to remind the Tańaiste that we should not be picking on the vulnerable. I have a strong commitment to social inclusion. I believe FA´ S schemes are very important, although they need to be reviewed and possibly redesigned. We need to know what will happen to the job initiative schemes, which are the subject of a great deal of discussion among the various groups. We should not pick on people who need these grants. I hope the Tańaiste will ensure the decision FA´ S has made will not be reversed. There should be no more cuts in these schemes. I would like to speak about the image of all our communities. I do not mind if other Deputies want to make a point about the job creation needs and demands of their constituencies. They will have my support if they do so. I feel strongly about Dublin, particularly Tallaght and the other areas of Dublin South-West. Some Members will be aware that a decision made by Quinn Direct has received a great deal of publicity over the past couple of days, including in tonight’s Evening Herald. It has been suggested that Quinn Direct will no longer offer insurance to people living in certain communities, including parts of Tallaght, Glasnevin and Clondalkin, because of the risks involved. It is disgraceful for any company to pick on communities in such a manner. Tallaght and the other communities I have mentioned do not deserve to be treated like that. They do not deserve the image they have been given. I ask my colleagues to support me in appealing to the Tańaiste to ascertain whether action can be taken against Quinn Direct. I am not a bit afraid to name the company. It is disgraceful to create such an image of any community. People in all our communities always talk about the image other people have of their local areas. They emphasise the need to be positive, especially in the interests of job creation. I intend to be positive about Tallaght every minute I am awake, every day of the week. I will not tolerate companies like Quinn Direct that pick on the people of Tallaght. My colleagues who represent places like Ballymun, Glasnevin and Clondalkin can speak up for those areas. We need to draw up innovative job creation strategies. I am a strong supporter of the county enterprise boards. While I do not want to draw Deputy English on me, I understand that Fine Gael has suggested we should take a different approach to the enterprise boards. Perhaps that is fair enough.

122 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

Deputy Damien English: We fully support them.

Deputy Charlie O’Connor: The county enterprise boards have a strong role to play.

Deputy Damien English: The Deputy should be careful not to try to mislead the Da´il.

Deputy Charlie O’Connor: That is okay. We will talk about that on another day. I hope the action we take will assist those who are in a position to create enterprise. People in Tallaght and elsewhere should be able to bring their good ideas to our county enterprise boards. I appreciate that there is concern in the system. It is clear that points can be made about the need to rationalise business skills training across the State agencies. There is no question about that. I strongly believe the Government should consider the provision of further financial support capacity to the county enterprise boards. I absolutely believe the ability of the boards to support enterprise should be protected and maintained. I am glad Deputy Penrose tabled this motion, although I will support the Government amendment to it. All of us are concerned about jobs. We should continue to support job initiatives in every way.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: I will speak about the amendment. The biggest impact of the banking crisis and the international recession has been on jobs and employment in general. Recent extremely disturbing job losses have caused considerable uncertainty in the economy. Anxiety among those in the vulnerable sectors has added to that uncertainty and further eroded confidence. That has resulted in a further weakening of the economy. We have ended up in a downward spiral that has to be hindered, stopped and dealt with. The Government is taking the multifaceted approach that is necessary to deal with this crisis. It is assisting those who lose their jobs by providing social welfare. It is helping them to work towards re-employment by providing training and personal development programmes. It is important that the Government has deployed additional resources to deal with the social welfare backlogs that exist. Like others, I recognise the tremendous efforts being made by the staff of the social welfare service to accommodate those who find themselves in difficult personal circumstances. The Government is supporting viable but vulnerable companies. We need to work with the European Commission and with fund managers to make sure such companies can access credit. Job retention is obviously the best solution. It is difficult to provide funds for all job retention schemes. We have to bear in mind that the State cannot support every job in the State. The Government is continuing to try to attract foreign direct investment through IDA Ireland, Shannon Development and Enterprise Ireland. There are opportunities in a recessionary environment. Many international companies are consolidating. We need to continue to try to create jobs in this sector, particularly to benefit those who are unemployed. The Government’s efforts in this regard were recognised in a recent report on global competitiveness. Ireland was ranked extremely highly in the 2009 yearbook. It is a leader in a number of areas. We have to help indigenous industries to increase employment, for example by supporting their sales and marketing efforts. I suppose our costs needs to be reduced. We have become more competitive. We should help Irish companies to develop overseas markets for their products. It is obvious that opportunities will arise as other international players fail. We have to assist start-up companies. There seems to be a notion that start-up companies and entrepreneurs will resolve this on their own. That is the panacea that has been put forward by the Opposition. It will take start-up companies a long time to reach the point at which they can deal with the crisis we are facing. While we need to assist start-up companies, we should concentrate on retaining jobs in companies that are already employing people and look to the larger multinationals to create jobs on a more immediate basis.

123 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Timmy Dooley.]

The jobs crisis cannot be resolved without a resolution of the banking crisis. As we try to help the unemployed, we should strive for a more proactive engagement on an individual basis. Training must be focused. Many people are rudderless as a result of the shock of unemployment. People need a period of reflection. They need to be helped to identify a career path for the next phase of their lives, rather than jumping into a training course. Personal development should involve identifying individual strengths and focusing on them to build a strategy that will lead to re-employment, where possible. It is obvious that we should enhance those strengths through further training. It is clear that the economy will only recover when the banking crisis is stabilised. As other Deputies have said, the Opposition has been very disingenuous and mischievous. As Deputy Collins said, the simple reality is that if Anglo Irish Bank had not been nationalised and included in the guarantee scheme, those who would really have suffered would have included pensioners, those with money in credit unions, charities and vulnerable community groups. What Opposition Members have suggested about the Government having erred in some way is mischievous when what it did was protect those vulnerable groups. Our jobless are heading towards 500,000. We need to create meaningful engagement for those who are unemployed, particularly for those who were employed in the construction sector. They are prepared to participate in their communities in return for the support they receive through social welfare. We can assist them in harnessing that activity.

Deputy Mary Upton: I wish to share my time with Deputies Tuffy, Costello, Ferris and O´ Snodaigh.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is agreed.

Deputy Mary Upton: When my colleague, Deputy Penrose, spoke yesterday evening he said, “Every relevant agency and Department of the State should be redirected towards job retention, job creation, training and education.” I want to concentrate on the training and education aspects to which he referred. I raise specifically the uncertainty around the Back to Education scheme which is funded by FA´ S. This programme was designed to allow those on community employment schemes, who needed it, the opportunity to get back to learning and to access skills and communications, including reading and writing skills. Some of those participating in CE schemes were unable to avail of the training provided because of their literacy problems. Effectively, they were placed on schemes where the training was of little value to them. They badly needed that upskilling by way of basic English, literacy and so on. Approximately ten years ago FA´ S and the VEC drew up the contracts needed to allow the scheme to proceed. The VEC provided the service, which was funded by FA´ S. Many of the participants would have had drug-related problems and many would have dropped out of school. The Back to Education scheme provided them with an opportunity to get back to learning and education. At this stage many of them are able to gain FETAC qualifications at levels 3 and 4. Some of them are taking the junior certificate and some are even taking some leaving certificate subjects. As a result, they and their families have benefited greatly from this programme. In many cases, a parent and a son or daughter are taking the same State examinations. Those delivering the course believe it has been very valuable and worthwhile. Will the Minister of State indicate the current status of this programme? A number of tutors who provide this course have been left in a state of uncertainty about its future and they have contacted me during the past fortnight. It would be a retrograde step if the programme were to be discontinued. It would affect not only the CE participants for whom it is designed but the tutors delivering the course who also will be left in limbo if its continuation is not confirmed

124 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed) and guaranteed. If the programme is discontinued, it will affect most directly those who have had to struggle to literally get a foot on the bottom rung of the ladder. It makes no sense to withdraw the modest funding for this programme. Those most in need of being kept in education would be the first victims of such a senseless cut if that were to happen. The programme was designed to give those most in need of a basic education the chance to get value and merit from the CE scheme in which they were participating. In the case of one such scheme, I am aware the tuition cost of the programme is \11,000 for nine participants. This is a small investment of State money for the positive outcome that has been provided by this course to date. Yesterday I received a reply to a parliamentary question I submitted to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The reply stated, “I am advised by FA´ S that the funding arrangement for CE participants in education is under review.” When I hear the dreaded words “under review”, I wonder exactly what they mean. I hope the outcome of that review will be positive. I sincerely hope the funding will not be diminished or withdrawn. The people participating in that course and the tutors giving it will be in a state of flux. They wonder what will happen in terms of the course at the end of the summer. Will they be refacili- tated, will the necessary funding be in place, or will it be cut and, if so, what will be the impact of that? There is an air of uncertainty about it now. I ask for clarity on it. I urge that those people who most need courses, training and education will be able to continue the programme they have started. I seek clarification of the position for the participants and the tutors. It is most unfair in the current climate to generate that air of uncertainty. Indicating that a scheme is under review without giving a timeframe for it, an indication of what format it will take or when the outcome will be known is an inappropriate way to treat those people who are waiting for a positive result.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy: I want to speak about the Labour Party’s viewpoint on the jobs crisis and the economy and how it differs from the viewpoint expressed by the Government and many other interested parties in our society. We believe that creating jobs and rebuilding the economy go hand in hand. Second, we believe it is possible to build a better society and economy in the process of creating jobs and that issues such as climate change, protecting the environment and building a more sustainable economy for the future can be addressed at the same time. We can build a knowledge-based economy and a society based on good human values such as equality, care for others and fostering a sense of community. The third aspect of our viewpoint on the jobs crisis and the economy is that lack of action and lack of engagement with people who are becoming unemployed is wasteful of such human capacity. It is wasteful of people’s time. It could be wasteful of years in our history in terms of what we could have done with existing potential. The small amount the Government is doing in terms of people who are unemployed is causing hardship. We will be a poorer society as a result. We will have more people living in poverty and it will take us longer to get out of the recession. The Labour Party’s approach and outlook is different from what has held sway, and continues to hold sway, with the Government for at least the past 12 years. The Government’s policy now and the policy that many economists, media and other commentators believe needs to be implemented is all part of the same package that has been the economic and political approach. Part of it was that we should spend like mad when we have money and then cut like mad because we are in a recession. We should depend on the private sector to solve problems, let the free market operate, have less regulation, allow crazy land and financial speculation and allow the interests of the few to be the predominant dictator of policy. When Deputy Dooley

125 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Joanna Tuffy.] spoke about what we should do about the job situation, he expressed that point of view because he said the important approach was to first sort out the banking situation and then wait for the multinational companies to step in. The Labour Party has a fundamentally different view on that and, thankfully, there is more discourse in Irish society now about a different economic outlook and approach. For example, Tasc has set up a website, www.progressiveeconomy.ie, on which various economists express a different outlook to the predominant one that prevailed in recent years. Professor James Gal- braith was the guest speaker at a recent lecture organised by Tasc. He gave an alternative point of view and one that, historically, has been successful. It is basically the approach taken by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States when he implemented the New Deal. Professor Galbraith refers in one of his papers to another author who talked about Roosevelt and what he did. When Roosevelt was addressing the problem of unemployment, he hired 60% of the unemployed to do public works, conservation projects and work on projects such as school buildings, maintaining parks, refurbishment of public buildings and so on. We must do what we can to promote and encourage the private sector to create new jobs but the real driver in creating jobs and dealing with the jobs crisis must be the Government. It must work in a proactive way that we are not seeing currently. The idea that in a recession the private sector will step in and solve our jobs problem is unrealistic. It will not happen. If the money and demand are not there the private sector will not create vast numbers of jobs. That is why we need to do things such as the Labour Party is suggesting. We must build badly needed infrastructure such as school buildings and put construction workers back to work. If we borrow for capital expenditure we will get money back into the Exchequer because the workers will pay taxes and spend money. We should put people to work on projects to do with protecting our environment and place them on community employment schemes. I benefited from a CE scheme, or its equivalent, at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, which meant I was not sitting at home on the dole. However, we now expect people to sit at home until the private sector solves the problem, as usual. It is not going to happen. We need the type of intervention the Labour Party calls for in its motion.

Deputy Joe Costello: I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this issue, which I regard as the most crucial in the current economic crisis. I compliment Deputy Penrose on the motion. As you know, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, there are almost 400,000 people unemployed, which is almost double the number for 12 months ago. Thus, all the good work of the past 12 years of prosperity has now been wiped out in one single year’s catastrophe. Unemployment is not just another statistic; it is the human face of the economic crisis. It is a personal family tragedy involving the loss of a career, damage to family cohesion, and the drastic curtailment of the provision of food, accommodation, education and recreation. The fabric of the local community is undermined and there is a cumulative negative effect on the fabric of society. The Government’s obsession with bailing out the banks has dominated its approach to the economic crisis to date. It has failed to focus on the only issue that really matters: the effect of the crisis on people’s lives through loss of jobs, which deprives them and their families of economic and personal independence. Unemployment is a national emergency. Every relevant agency and Department should be redirected towards job retention, job creation, training and education. I have said again and again in the House that the greatest requirement of the Government at the moment is to ensure there is a flow of credit to small and medium-sized businesses, which

126 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed) employ 800,000 people, constituting 64% of the private sector workforce or approximately 50% of the entire workforce. They are the lifeblood of the economy, yet they are haemorrhaging jobs because the banks are simply refusing to provide them with the credit they need to keep their businesses operating efficiently. Surveys conducted by ISME in February and May 2009 show that the credit crunch is worsening and that neither the banks nor the Government are prepared to take action to alleviate the situation. The \30 billion that the EU made available last October to member states through the European Investment Bank has not been distributed in loans by Irish banks to the business sector. That is a disgrace. Clearly, the private banking system is driven solely by private gain for its shareholders and has no interest in the employment needs of the people. Thus, it is essential that we take the banks into public ownership for the duration of the crisis and that we establish a permanent national investment bank which will invest in the country, its enterprises and its people and help retain and create jobs. In addition, the national investment bank should have the remit of drawing down funds from the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Recon- struction and Development. That is what these banks were set up for. The local authorities, which have newly elected councillors with creative ideas, should be harnessed in a national job creation campaign. Already the new Lord Mayor of Dublin has announced, at her inauguration on Monday, that she will establish a Lord Mayor’s commission on employment, training and education for the city of Dublin. This job creation initiative will be led by the new council and will involve all stakeholders in the capital in order to focus their resources and energies on job creation and retention. This initiative could and should be repli- cated all over the country, as there would be great enthusiasm among newly elected councillors and other stakeholders. In addition, universities, colleges, institutes of education, vocational education committees and FA´ S must be harnessed to create new ideas for employment and new learning and training programmes for the unemployed. Finally, the State itself should realise, as Deputy Tuffy said, that the private sector is not in a position to kick-start the economy at present as it is so encumbered by unprecedented debt and market instability. The Government should become the engine of national economic renewal and provide an economic stimulus by directly funding the collapsed public private partnership urban regeneration programmes, providing for a comprehensive programme of home insulation and improvement, and providing — as the Labour Party has called for time and again — a national programme to eliminate poor school buildings and prefabs through a major new schools building programme.

Deputy Martin Ferris: The purpose of this Private Members’ motion is to highlight the root cause of our economic and social problems. The tsunami of unemployment that is spreading throughout the country is causing the economy the grind to a halt. The unemployment figures for my own county are startling. There are currently 15,204 people signing on the Live Register, which is almost double the figure for the same time last year. Thousands more are on short- time working. The overall figure in Kerry has decreased slightly over the last two months. However, all of these decreases have been in towns in south Kerry due to the onset of the tourist season. Unfortunately, my constituency has seen a continuous increase in the number of people seeking State assistance. Almost half of those signing on in the county are from the Tralee area and the surrounding environs, and it is apparent that this is where the focus needs to be if the situation is to improve. Two years ago I and other politicians were describing unemployment in Tralee as dire when the figure reached 3,000. However, the figure now stands at more than double that, with 6,371 currently on the dole. There are no words available to describe the situation as it currently stands and because of the inaction of the current Government it is unlikely that things will

127 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Martin Ferris.] improve over the next six months. It is clear the figures for Tralee will grow substantially when those who have been or will be made redundant are brought into the system. On top of the collapse of the construction industry, upon which this region relied so heavily, we have also seen the closure of a number of major employers in the south west — including Amman in Tralee, Dell in Limerick and Kostal in Abbeyfeale — and we are now faced with the likelihood of the loss of a further 200 jobs at Beru, which is probably the last factory in Tralee. What our economy needs is sustenance, not further punishment. It needs policies which will seek to maintain existing employment where possible and prepare the ground for new employment. Sinn Fe´in is the only political party that has set out substantial detailed proposals — 80 of them — to get people back to work. Protecting jobs and creating new employment is an absolute priority for us. Everyone agrees, including the Government, that for a prosperous Ireland we need to attract new innovative industry. For that we need a highly skilled and motivated workforce and we need education, beginning at an early age and going through to fourth level where appropriate. During the course of the recent local and European election campaign, my party made a number of proposals to help get people back to work. Tralee, the capital of County Kerry, has an institute of technology which could be transformed into a university. This would act as an educational engine to drive a new local economy and put Kerry on the map nationally and internationally as an area that can produce a highly skilled and talented workforce. We need to rethink the construction, service and procurement contracts of local authorities to create a level playing field for small tradesmen and businesses to tender. Breaking tenders into smaller pieces would allow smaller contractors to tender effectively for work. A comprehensive skills and education strategy would prepare workers to create and take up new employment. This would involve bringing early school leavers back to education, investing in community employment and allowing unemployed workers to keep their benefits while attending college. At-risk jobs could be saved by establishing a State fund. It was in this House that my colleague Deputy Arthur Morgan proposed that we establish a State bank instead of using public money to bail out the banking system that currently exists. Construction workers can get back to work building schools, insulating homes and delivering much-needed broadband infrastructure. Each county has its fair share of schools which desper- ately need completely new buildings or upgrading. It is a disgrace that we are paying out hundreds of millions of euro per year on prefabricated buildings when we could 8 o’clock provide gainful employment building schools for the future. Investment in major projects with important social gain, such as new accident and emergency units or maternity units, should be followed through. Fast-tracking local infrastructural works is crucial to put people back to work and to remove one of the main barriers to inward investment into the State. One such programme would be to ensure the completion of all necessary access roads, particularly those serving the west coast. We must move away from the politics of unsustainable development, of an economy run for the golden circle rather than for those who created it. The proposals I have outlined, as well as the 80 proposals contained within our Job Creation document, would create hundreds of jobs throughout the State and ensure sustainable growth into the future. These proposals aim to build an economy that will reward those who contribute to it.

Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh: Thug an caínaisneís eígeanda´la in Aibreań 2009 deis don Rialtas tu´ s a chur le tabhairt faoin ceist rı´-tha´bhachtach sin, aththraenaíl agus oideachas, go haírithe do´ ibh siu´ d ata´ tar eís a bpostanna a chailliu´ int le deánaı´ no´ do´ ibh siu´ d a chaill iad roimh an

128 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed) gheárcheím. Theip go huile agus go hiomlań ar an Rialtas sin a dheánamh. Seasann an ra´ta dı´fhostaıóchta faoi la´thair ag 12% agus ta´ an ra´ta faís dı´fhostaıóchta i bhfad E´ ireann nıós airde na´ in aon tı´r eile san Eoraip. De thairbhe an teip ar gheilleagar sealu´ chais Fhianna Faíl, ta´ gru´ pa mo´ r daoine ann ata´ ag cuartu´ postanna, daoine a bhfuil ardscileanna acu ach nach bhfuil aon aít acu chun na scileanna sin a chur i bhfeidhm agus a cleachtadh. Ta´ gru´ pa eile, gru´ pa cuıósach suntasach d’oibrithe o´ n tionscal to´ ga´la ag a bhfuil leibheálacha ı´sle oideachais agus traena´la acu agus nach feídir leo a bheith u´ saídteach in aíteanna eile sa mhargadh fostaıóchta. Dar ndo´ igh, ta´ aththraenaíl ag teastaíl laíthreach do´ ibh siu´ d. Ta´ gru´ pa eile arı´s, siu´ d ata´ ag fa´gaíl na scoile don cheád uair. Shı´l siadsan bliain o´ shin go raibh todhcaı´ mhaith rompu agus go mbeadh flu´ irse postanna ann do´ ibh. Tagann a lań acu sin as ceantair na´r thug an tıógar Ceilteach cuairt orthu le linn na blianta go raibh breis agus tuilleadh againn sa tı´r, no´ ar shı´l muid go raibh. Nı´l rompu siu´ d ach an scuaine dı´fhostaıóchta, an Dole no´ an ba´dbań. Logical steps like nationalising SR Technics, a profitable company with millions of euro in orders, would have saved more than 1,200 jobs, or five times the 250 jobs the Government is boasting about saving. The cost of unemployment payments for the nearly 1,000 other workers should have been enough to concentrate the mind of the Tańaiste on the logic of nationalisation in this case. However, there is no such thing as logic in the Tańaiste’s head or in the Govern- ment’s agenda. They are plain stupid. It is the Government that created the circumstances which led to the property crash. It is Government policy which is causing the continuing increase in unemployment. It is the property boom and boost which is the central cause of our economic crisis, together with the absolute failure of the Government to build a sustainable economy. The Government can no longer simply wash its hands of the problem of unemployment, as it has done thus far. Its response to the situation suggests that some on the Government benches do not even accept there is a crisis. The word that should spell it out clearly for them is “dole”. That is what the future holds for many people. In my constituency, the dole queues have doubled in 12 months. The numbers unemployed, not including the many whose applications have not been processed for weeks, which is a scandal in itself, are 3,128 in Ballyfermot, 7,609 in the Crumlin-Drimnagh-Dublin 12 area, and 4,169 in the south-west inner city. Those figures do not include the 150 people Guinness plans to lay off in the coming months. Its parent company, Diageo, made a profit of \2.8 billion last year. It is scandalous that such profitable companies are using this opportunity to screw their workers. Behind all those statistics are real people. Lives are being destroyed by the Government’s inaction. Families are struggling. Food is not being bought, mortgages are not being paid and illnesses are not being addressed. Crime is rising and will continue to rise, as will alcoholism and drug addiction, unless the Government acts. As I have said on previous occasions, if those on the Government benches spent six months on the dole, they might have some understanding of the plight of ordinary people who find themselves unemployed. People want to work and earn a wage. They want to pay their taxes, feed their children and purchase goods in their local shops. Above all, they want the Government to get up off its arse and help them. That is the message the electorate sent out two weeks ago. It is telling to consider the actions taken by the Government in the emergency budget. Annexe F from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment offered a pathetic 400 places on community employment schemes, which will not even cover the increase of 601 in the last month alone on the unemployment list in my constituency of Dublin South-Central. We were also offered a new ten-week training initiative, which is basically a seasonal or summer course. We seem to be back to the era of the banana telephone classes of the AnCO era. I

129 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh.] remember that because I was on the dole at the time. Participants were encouraged to sit in rooms to practise telephone techniques in order to improve their chances of getting an interview for jobs which did not exist. In the absence of telephones to give the trainees, they were given bananas to hold. The budget also offered a work experience scheme and 277 places for workers on short time, as well as 930 transition courses and 700 places for redundant apprentices. To call this inadequate would be the understatement of the millennium. With 400,000 people unemployed, the best our kamikaze Ta´naiste can come up with is 400 places on community employment schemes. The earn and learn pilot scheme provides 277 places, but more than 12,000 people have been laid off in the past month alone. I cannot understand why the Government is so reluctant to invest properly in retraining for sustainable jobs. It has allowed its friends in the financial world to direct billions of euro into the black hole that is the banking sector, but it will do virtually nothing to help job seekers. We are still awaiting the details of the so-called training initiative to create 12,215 new training places. The Government seems intent on meeting that target by cutting existing places. There is no logic to this approach. Its other method of delivering on this magic number is its promise in the budget to introduce more computer courses. ECDL certification and other computer courses are no substitute for jobs. If no jobs are being created, they are nothing more to the participants than poxy Internet courses, as they have been described to me. How will a short ten-week Internet course be of any use to anybody when there is no prospect of obtaining a job after it is completed? The new measures in third level education indicate the same tok- enistic approach. It is as if nothing has happened in the past six months. Some 2,000 new places have been provided at third level and 1,500 at post-leaving certificate level. The reality, however, is that 85,000 people aged under 25 are unemployed. The main plank of the Government’s so-called plan for economic recovery has been to bail out the banks and developers using unprecedented amounts of public money, while at the same time cutting back on our most basic education, welfare and health services. The outworking of that policy will hamper the ability of any future Government to rebuild the economy. We are one of the few countries to embark on this road. Every other democracy I can think of has launched major investment programmes to kick-start their economies. What the Government is doing is something akin to what happened in the right-wing banana republics of Latin Amer- ica in the 1970s and 1980s. If the Government does not reprioritise soon and begin to invest in Irish people as opposed to its fat cat friends, there will be unprecedented social problems. In the absence of such change, permanent damage will be done to this State and the crisis in the public finances will be perpetuated.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Billy Kelleher): I accept that we got a kick from the electorate in the local elections. However, the Deputy’s party did not exactly receive a pat on the back from them.

Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh: We got a bigger pat than the Deputy’s party will ever get.

Deputy Damien English: It is a case of kisses all around.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: It is appropriate that the House is discussing these issues. We have had many debates, in the context of motions of confidence in the Government, on the broader issues relating to the economy. No one has access to a font of wisdom with regard to the suffering people endure when they become unemployed. That is the human face of the

130 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed) recession. It is, to say the least, somewhat disingenuous for certain speakers to suggest that other Members have no knowledge of what people go through when they become unemployed. We are all practising politicians and we are all conscious——

Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh: Which Members from the Minister of State’s party spent six months on the dole?

Deputy Billy Kelleher: ——of the suffering caused by unemployed. As Deputy Tuffy stated, that is the human face of the recession. With regard to the issues raised in the motion, it must be stated that there is still no flow of credit to small and medium-sized businesses. This difficulty continues to manifest itself and Deputies on all sides referred to it. Those on the other side of the House have expressed varying views as to how we might address this matter. Certain members referred to nationalising the banks, while others suggested that a bad-debt bank should be established. The Govern- ment decided to establish the national asset management agency, NAMA, to remove impaired assets from the banks in order that their balance sheets will look better and so that they might access credit in the international markets and extend this to small and medium-sized businesses. This is the route the Government has decided to take and I am sure its decision in this regard will prove to be correct. To suggest or infer, as did many Deputies on the opposite side of the House, that we are simply throwing money into a black hole to prop up the banks is disingenuous. Members realise that the banks are impaired and are suffering. They also realise that access to credit and the flow of credit to the broader economy is fundamentally important.

Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh: It is about restoring the flow of credit to the banks and nobody else.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: It is not a case of propping up the banks or supporting any one sector of the economy, it is about ensuring that we have a stable and functioning banking system——

Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh: Well then the Government should match the funding it is giving to the banks——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy should allow the Minister of State to continue without interruption.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: ——that can provide support to the business sector.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: Perhaps the Government might arrange to pay people’s social welfare on time.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: In that context, the Government has also established a clearing group to monitor the position and ensure that there will be a flow of credit to small and medium- sized businesses. As a result, if blockages are identified, they can be addressed.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: What the Minister of State refers to is not happening.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: It is happening and there is no doubt we will return to a situation where there will be a flow of credit.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: When will the latter happen?

131 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

Deputy Billy Kelleher: If we were to take the Deputy’s views on board, there would be no banking system and credit would not be available for any small and medium-sized businesses.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: If the Government had not been so intent on saving the banks, we would not be in the mess in which we find ourselves.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: As already stated, a clearing group has been established within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This group has been charged with monitoring the position, providing assistance and identifying and removing any blockages that arise. This will ensure the restoration of a proper, functioning flow of credit to the economy.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Have any blockages of the type to which the Minister of State refers been identified?

Deputy Billy Kelleher: I am sure the Deputies in Sinn Fe´in will adopt a more positive approach to the Lisbon treaty during the next referendum campaign.

Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh: The treaty has nothing to do with it.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Did Munster Drain Services identify the blockages?

Deputy Billy Kelleher: They should take into account that the European Investment Bank has allocated \300 million, through AIB, Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank, to assist small and medium-sized businesses.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: The Minister is living in cloud cuckooland.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: That is fundamentally important.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: When will that money be provided?

Deputy Billy Kelleher: Everyone is aware that the only way to address this matter is to provide a stimulus to the economy and to restore the flow of credit.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: We also know who caused the blockages.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: A major capital investment programme remains in place in this country. Some \6 billion will be spent on capital developments.

Deputy Damien English: The funding for that programme has been cut for the next three years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Time is limited and the Deputies should stop interrupting the Minister of State.

Deputy Damien English: This is an important point and it must be made.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: To suggest that we are not making capital investments is fundamentally wrong and factually incorrect.

Deputy Damien English: The funding has been cut.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: I just wanted to correct the record because I know the Deputies opposite did not want to intentionally mislead the House.

132 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: The Minister should read the first paragraph of the motion.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: As regards training courses for the unemployed, we are facing a crisis situation. We must try to rise to the challenge. Short-term courses are of assistance to those who are unemployed. The Deputies opposite might dismiss the idea of computer or Internet courses. However, such courses are extremely beneficial to those who do not possess computer skills. We do not want to repeat the mistakes we made in the 1980s when people received nothing other than support from the State. We want to give them support, in the form of social welfare payments——

Deputy Emmet Stagg: In that case, the Government should pay them their social welfare.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: ——but we also want to provide them with training opportunities so that they might advance and up-skill themselves in certain areas.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: Pay their social welfare then.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: Many people do not have the requisite skills and that is why we are providing training programmes.

Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh: In the first instance, those people want jobs.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: I commend the amendment to the House.

Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in: I wish to share time with Deputies Liz McManus, Kathleen Lynch and Joan Burton.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is agreed.

Deputy CaoimhghıńO´ Caolaín: Sinn Feín and the Labour Party jointly tabled this motion on unemployment to implore, once again, the Government to act effectively in respect of the jobs crisis. The Taoiseach’s prediction that 400,000 people would be unemployed by the end of 2009 has already come true and we have not even yet reached the end of the sixth month of the year. Those people and their families have a right to expect from the Government a sense of urgency, a strategic plan and effective measures to address the unemployment crisis. They, like those of us on this side of the House, are sorely disappointed with the Government’s record in this regard. The Tańaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment listed a number of measures she claims the Government is either implementing or about to implement to save and create jobs. A glaring anomaly exists in this regard, however, because unemployment is rising on a daily basis. Jobs are being lost each day and there has been no stemming of the tide of unemployment. If one were to ask an employer in any one of our constituencies to name one measure the Government has implemented to assist him or her in maintaining his or her workforce, I warrant they would have great difficulty in doing so. The measures Sinn Feín has put forward are concrete in nature. Deputy Morgan outlined a jobs retention scheme that would keep workers off welfare and in employment, lower the costs of doing business and assist in keeping businesses operating, as well as ensuring that they have access to essential credit. The Tańaiste claimed that the Government is investing in education at all levels to ensure that the workforce will be suitably skilled to take advantage of the turnaround in the economy. It is all very well making claims, but the Government has seriously reduced the education budget. The claims being made by those opposite do not stack up.

133 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in.]

The reintroduction of third level fees — if that is indeed an eventuality to which we can look forward — will further curtail the ability of young people to reach their full potential and prepare themselves for their eventual entry to the job market by denying them the opportunity to improve their skill sets. The Ta´naiste also claimed that adjustments are being made in respect of labour costs to secure employment. It is clear that she is referring to addressing the so-called minimum wage issue. Is it the Government’s intention to cut the minimum wage? Are general wages across all sectors to be depressed? The Government is being completely short-sighted if it proceeds to do these things. Let us make no mistake, the minimum wage is an incentive to work. It gives people a modicum of money over and above that which they require to meet their basic needs. That money helps the economy to thrive because it gives people the opportunity to make choices in respect of their respective spending power. If the minimum wage is taken away, the Government will only succeed in further depressing the economy and making a bad situation even worse. Much can be done to address the cost of doing business. Sinn Fe´in has called for the question of energy and other utility costs to be addressed. It has also called for commercial rents to be made negotiable under legislation.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: Why will Sinn Fe´in not——

Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh: If the Minister of State listens, he might learn something. Sinn Fe´in wants the question of indirect value added tax to be examined in the context of the short, medium and long terms. The Minister of State lauds the performance of our trade sector, citing the export figures. Let us not cod ourselves. Some 90% of the exports leaving our shores are the products of inward investment in this State and the reality is that our native producers are not up to the mark because this Government, and traditionally Governments here, have not prepared them well for the task ahead.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: If Sinn Fe´in will allow us to bring in the gas, it might help us. Deputy O´ Caola´in might go to west Mayo and bring it in. It would help us greatly.

Deputy CaoimhghıńO´ Caolaín: I will conclude with just one comment. I understand that a number of Government backbenchers have said they have confidence in this Tańaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Let me tell the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, and say directly to the Minister, Deputy Coughlan herself, that this is not what they are saying behind her back in the corridors of this institution.

Deputy Liz McManus: This motion sets out clear measures to deal with what is the biggest challenge confronting us today, unemployment. These measures are about creating jobs and securing existing employment. It is very regrettable that the Government has simply refused to take on board the measures that can make a real difference. We are talking about facilitating enterprise and ensuring that there is investment and assistance for existing businesses. I represent a constituency where unemployment has now reached 11,000. In the town of Bray the level is over 4,500 and the system is breaking down. As Deputy Stagg has pointed out, people’s entitlements are not getting to them, for weeks and weeks, because the social welfare system simply cannot cope. We need to see action on the ground. I listened with interest to the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, last night talking about the money for enterprise centres. We do not have an enterprise centre in Bray and I want to challenge the Minister of State to put his money where his mouth is. We need an

134 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed) enterprise centre and we have a surfeit of empty factory space and I will believe him when we can actually see that type of measure being implemented on the ground, as it is crucially important. We have an issue as regards broadband, not just locally but nationally. Unless the Govern- ment confronts the issue of Eircom we are not going to make the leap forward that is needed regarding the next generation of networks and in relation to competing globally in the telecommunications area. Even though the Minister shies away from this time and again, I would recommend that he now establishes a forum of the key players in the telecommunications area to come to conclusions on how the State can involve itself in a productive efficient manner to ensure that Eircom can deliver in terms of the essential infrastructure we currently lack.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Like most Deputies I am glad that the Minister of State, Deputy Billy Kelleher is responding to the debate tonight because the issue I have to raise regards unemployment in his constituency. Little Island is in the heart of the area where Deputy Kelleher gets the majority of his support. As we speak, there is a company, Corden Pharma- Chem, which has been in the Little Island area for the last 33 years. It was a good company, with highly skilled jobs, and it is now facing the threat of closure, with 100 jobs at risk and in total, given the downstream employment, 600 jobs could go in this area. There was an issue last year, but both the management and workforce put together a rescue package, which has been completely ignored. These jobs are not gone yet, but they are under severe threat. In the little time I have, I am pleading with the Minister of State to intervene, and tell the parent company the Government is prepared to give any assistance necessary in order to retain these jobs because once they are gone they will not be won back. That is the vital ingredient. If we can intervene at an early stage and ensure that these jobs can be saved, we should do it and pull out all the stops. In the last 12 months there have been a number of plant closures in the Little Island area, Pfizer, Incheera and Swissco, another big company and now Corden PharmaChem. This area and Cork city cannot take any more job losses. The unemployment level in Cork city has now reached 40,000, enough to fill a reasonably sized sports stadium. Those are people with families, commitments and everything else. If the Government put half of the energy into saving jobs that it is applying to saving banks, we should not have half the job losses. I am pleading with the Minister of State to intervene now and ensure these jobs are saved.

Deputy Joan Burton: On behalf of the Labour Party, I want to thank everyone who contributed to the debate, including Sinn Fe´in and in particular my colleague Deputy Willie Penrose for tabling the motion. Recovery in terms of the economy and Irish society is about jobs — retaining and creating them — and about creating pathways for people who have become unemployed to retrain, upskill and get work experience. Particularly for young graduates and qualified apprentices, it is about bridging the gap and giving them an opportunity to get work experience while the economy is in recession and depression. I remind the Minister of State that there are now 86,600 young people under 25 on the dole. That is an enormous increase from the 31,700 on the dole at the time of the last general election. All of the research in this country and internationally shows that when a young person goes on the dole and where the period of unemployment passes the six months mark and goes on for over a year, it becomes very difficult for him or her to get back into work, partly because he or she becomes unattractive to employers and demotivated. In particular if he or she lives in an area of high unemployment it is noticeable that the whole psychology of the area goes down.

135 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Joan Burton.]

Deputy McManus has just told the House how, in Bray, a very important town in population terms, there is no proper jobs centre. What is the Government doing in terms of bringing hope and opportunity to people who have been knocked for six by the current crisis in the economy? Most of these young people have gone on to college and held high hopes and expectations. At the moment the Government seems to have nothing to offer them. With regard to the fourth level research centre initiative, before Christmas the Government launched a report about the knowledge and the smart economy, an idea which the Labour Party strongly supports. In each of our third level institutions and research centres there are hundreds of exceptionally qualified young graduates who are doing research at doctoral and post-doctoral levels. At the moment in many of our institutions they are effectively being let go because they are contract workers. These people are extraordinarily valuable to this economy in terms of building up a world class scientific research base. Many of them were attracted home to Ireland from promising positions across the world and we are now letting them go and leaving them in a state of uncertainty regarding their future. It might be a post-doctoral researcher who finds that his or her contract is not being renewed or a young construction worker who might have left school at 16 or 17, seven or eight years ago and worked hard, became very entrepreneurial and now is being let go. Often such construction workers will have been self-employed and cannot, in most cases, even qualify for a social welfare or job seeker’s allowance for a period of up to six months. The Government seems to have run out of ideas in terms of offering hope to people. Dr. Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate in economics, wrote today in the New York Times, yet again, that deflation and cutting jobs is not the way to regrow the economy. In the United States President Obama and the new US Administration learned that lesson. However here we have, Fianna Fa´il, the remnants of the PDs, who are now independents, and, unfortunately, the Green Party, who seem stuck in the economic dogma of 20 years ago. They are telling unemployed people that they are sorry for their trouble but there is not much they can do for them. This motion very clearly sets out all the alternatives that could be employed to get people back to work, training and education. We say to the Government, “why not have a general election and let us put our plans to the people?” I am very confident the people will give the Government their answer, as they did in the European and local elections.

Amendment put.

The Da´il divided: Ta´, 73; Nı´l, 63.

Ta´

Ahern, Dermot. Coughlan, Mary. Ahern, Michael. Cregan, John. Ahern, Noel. Cuffe, Ciarań. Andrews, Barry. Cullen, Martin. Andrews, Chris. Curran, John. Ardagh, Seań. Dempsey, Noel. Aylward, Bobby. Devins, Jimmy. Blaney, Niall. Dooley, Timmy. Brady, Cyprian. Fahey, Frank. Brady, Johnny. Finneran, Michael. Browne, John. Fleming, Seań. Byrne, Thomas. Flynn, Beverley. Carey, Pat. Gogarty, Paul. Collins, Niall. Gormley, John. Conlon, Margaret. Grealish, Noel. Connick, Seań. Harney, Mary. 136 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

Ta´—continued

Haughey, Seań. O´ Cuı´v, E´ amon. Hoctor, Maíre. O´ Fearghaı´l, Seań. Kelleher, Billy. O’Brien, Darragh. Kelly, Peter. O’Connor, Charlie. Kenneally, Brendan. O’Dea, Willie. Kennedy, Michael. O’Flynn, Noel. Killeen, Tony. O’Hanlon, Rory. Kirk, Seamus. O’Keeffe, Batt. Kitt, Michael P. O’Keeffe, Edward. Kitt, Tom. O’Rourke, Mary. Lenihan, Brian. O’Sullivan, Christy. Lenihan, Conor. Power, Peter. Lowry, Michael. Roche, Dick. McEllistrim, Thomas. Ryan, Eamon. McGrath, Mattie. Sargent, Trevor. McGrath, Michael. Scanlon, Eamon. Mansergh, Martin. Smith, Brendan. Martin, Michea´l. Treacy, Noel. Moloney, John. Wallace, Mary. Moynihan, Michael. White, Mary Alexandra. Mulcahy, Michael.

Nı´l

Allen, Bernard. McGinley, Dinny. Behan, Joe. McGrath, Finian. Breen, Pat. McHugh, Joe. Broughan, Thomas P. McManus, Liz. Bruton, Richard. Mitchell, Olivia. Burke, Ulick. Morgan, Arthur. Burton, Joan. Naughten, Denis. Clune, Deirdre. Neville, Dan. Connaughton, Paul. O´ Caolaín, Caoimhghıń. Coonan, Noel J. O´ Snodaigh, Aengus. Costello, Joe. O’Donnell, Kieran. Coveney, Simon. O’Dowd, Fergus. Crawford, Seymour. O’Keeffe, Jim. Creighton, Lucinda. O’Shea, Brian. D’Arcy, Michael. O’Sullivan, Jan. Deasy, John. Penrose, Willie. Deenihan, Jimmy. Perry, John. Doyle, Andrew. Quinn, Ruairı´. Durkan, Bernard J. Rabbitte, Pat. English, Damien. Reilly, James. Enright, Olwyn. Ring, Michael. Ferris, Martin. Shatter, Alan. Flanagan, Charles. Sheahan, Tom. Flanagan, Terence. Sherlock, Seań. Gilmore, Eamon. Shortall, Ro´ isıń. Higgins, Michael D. Stagg, Emmet. Howlin, Brendan. Timmins, Billy. Kehoe, Paul. Tuffy, Joanna. Lee, George. Upton, Mary. Lynch, Ciarań. Varadkar, Leo. Lynch, Kathleen. Wall, Jack. McCormack, Pa´draic.

Tellers: Ta´, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Nı´l, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Aengus O´ Snodaigh.

Question declared carried.

Question put: “That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.”

137 Unemployment Levels: 17 June 2009. Motion (Resumed)

The Da´il divided: Ta´, 71; Nı´l, 62.

Ta´

Ahern, Michael. Killeen, Tony. Ahern, Noel. Kirk, Seamus. Andrews, Barry. Kitt, Michael P. Andrews, Chris. Kitt, Tom. Ardagh, Seań. Lenihan, Brian. Aylward, Bobby. Lenihan, Conor. Blaney, Niall. Lowry, Michael. Brady, Cyprian. McEllistrim, Thomas. Brady, Johnny. McGrath, Mattie. Browne, John. McGrath, Michael. Byrne, Thomas. Mansergh, Martin. Carey, Pat. Martin, Michea´l. Collins, Niall. Moloney, John. Conlon, Margaret. Moynihan, Michael. Connick, Seań. Mulcahy, Michael. Coughlan, Mary. O´ Cuı´v, E´ amon. Cregan, John. O´ Fearghaı´l, Seań. Cuffe, Ciarań. O’Brien, Darragh. Cullen, Martin. O’Connor, Charlie. Curran, John. O’Dea, Willie. Dempsey, Noel. O’Flynn, Noel. Devins, Jimmy. O’Hanlon, Rory. Dooley, Timmy. O’Keeffe, Batt. Fahey, Frank. O’Keeffe, Edward. Fleming, Seań. O’Rourke, Mary. Flynn, Beverley. O’Sullivan, Christy. Gogarty, Paul. Power, Peter. Gormley, John. Roche, Dick. Grealish, Noel. Ryan, Eamon. Harney, Mary. Sargent, Trevor. Haughey, Seań. Scanlon, Eamon. Hoctor, Maíre. Smith, Brendan. Kelleher, Billy. Treacy, Noel. Kelly, Peter. Wallace, Mary. Kenneally, Brendan. White, Mary Alexandra. Kennedy, Michael.

Nı´l

Allen, Bernard. Gilmore, Eamon. Behan, Joe. Higgins, Michael D. Breen, Pat. Howlin, Brendan. Broughan, Thomas P. Kehoe, Paul. Bruton, Richard. Lee, George. Burke, Ulick. Lynch, Ciarań. Burton, Joan. Lynch, Kathleen. Clune, Deirdre. McCormack, Pa´draic. Connaughton, Paul. McGinley, Dinny. Coonan, Noel J. McGrath, Finian. Costello, Joe. McHugh, Joe. Coveney, Simon. McManus, Liz. Crawford, Seymour. Mitchell, Olivia. Creighton, Lucinda. Morgan, Arthur. D’Arcy, Michael. Naughten, Denis. Deasy, John. Neville, Dan. Deenihan, Jimmy. O´ Caolaín, Caoimhghıń. Doyle, Andrew. O´ Snodaigh, Aengus. English, Damien. O’Donnell, Kieran. Enright, Olwyn. O’Dowd, Fergus. Ferris, Martin. O’Keeffe, Jim. Flanagan, Charles. O’Shea, Brian. Flanagan, Terence. O’Sullivan, Jan. 138 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

Nı´l—continued

Penrose, Willie. Sherlock, Sea´n. Perry, John. Shortall, Ro´ isı´n. Quinn, Ruairı´. Stagg, Emmet. Timmins, Billy. Rabbitte, Pat. Tuffy, Joanna. Reilly, James. Upton, Mary. Ring, Michael. Varadkar, Leo. Shatter, Alan. Wall, Jack. Sheahan, Tom.

Tellers: Ta´, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Nı´l, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Aengus O´ Snodaigh.

Question declared carried.

Broadcasting Bill 2008 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 93a: In page 113, line 13, after “continues” to insert “in being”. —(Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources). An Ceann Comhairle: Before the debate was adjourned, Deputies Simon Coveney and Liz McManus asked me about the question of recommittal, so it is best if I clear that matter up briefly. A motion may be made to recommit an entire Bill at the commencement of its consideration on Report Stage. Indeed, it can also be done in respect of sections and amendments before their consideration has been completed. Then, if it is agreed at the commencement of the discussion on the Bill on Report Stage, or in relation to any sections or amendments at the commencement of their discussion, or during the discussion of them and prior to them being completed, the matter can be recommitted provided there is agreement. However, it is not an automatic right and this is where the problem arises. If on any section, amendment or the entire Bill, prior to its consideration on Report Stage, the Minister opposes the actual recommittal, a brief statement can be made as to why a given section, amendment or the entire Bill before it is discussed should be recommitted. Then there would have to be a vote. I am trying to get the point across that there is no automatic entitlement to recommittal. It is open to any Member to make that proposal at any time, but it can be opposed and can be defeated. With all the amendments we have in this particular Bill, we could in theory be doing nothing else except voting to see whether a section or amendment should or 9 o’clock should not be recommitted. If, however, a Member feels at any stage that an amendment or section should be recommitted, and that there are valid reasons for it, that argument can be made. There is no automatic right, however, and the Minister can oppose it. A brief statement on to why it should be recommitted would be allowed but there would be a vote. I am really trying to say that there is no automatic right. Having explained that, we can now resume on amendment No. 93a. I understand the Mini- ster, Deputy Eamon Ryan, was in possession.

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): I thank the Ceann Comhairle for that clarification. I had completed my submission with regard to the amendments in question, so I would be interested to get the views of the Deputies opposite.

Deputy Liz McManus: I do not think we should unduly delay the passage of the Bill. It has been a long time in gestation and the purpose is not to put obstacles in the way of its conclusion.

139 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Liz McManus.] I am always uncomfortable with the idea of amendments being submitted on Report Stage. It makes it extremely difficult for any kind of proper scrutiny to be carried out. I appreciate that these things happen, but it is not good law making. From that point of view I want to lodge a protest, although I do not want to delay the work we are doing. I am confused about the term “continues in being” as opposed to “continues”. Maybe I am missing something but I would have thought that continues means continues. It is a perfectly good word in the English language, so why does it have to be qualified by the words “in being”? I do not want to be pedantic but I find the idea arcane that we are adding “in being” to the word “continues”, as if there was some other way to continue. What other way would the Minister suggest it could continue, other than being in being?

Deputy Simon Coveney: Without bursting into laughter.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: No, I am finished with the laughing.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jan O’Sullivan): Having just taken over the Chair, I should explain that amendment No. 93a arises from committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 93a, 101a, 148a and 148b are cognate, while amendment No. 149 is related, so they may all be discussed together.

Deputy Liz McManus: This is new information.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: The list of groupings should have been circulated to Members.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I think it was. I may have read that out at the start of my own contribution. All of those amendments, with the exception of the last one which is a variation, relate to this difference between “continue” and “continue in being”.

Deputy Simon Coveney: Can I propose that we take amendments Nos. 93a, 101a, 148a and 148b together, as they are all technical in nature? I have no issue with them, but amendment No.113 is a substantive amendment on DTT and I would like to explore that.

Acting Chairman: Amendment No. 113 is not on that list.

Deputy Simon Coveney: That is fine then.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: In response to Deputy McManus’s question, the sole reason is to ensure consistency with existing drafting precedents in other statutes. For example, in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005, the social insurance continues in being. It is just a matter of better drafting.

Deputy Liz McManus: This happens and I really feel it should not happen. As it is already in law, we are perpetuating it. Instead of doing things better, we are doing them the way they were done in the past. One of the problems with legislation is that it is written in very obscure language and it is difficult for people to connect with it. Stating that we must do this because it is in some other piece of legislation is not good enough in my view. However, I will not labour the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 94 not moved.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 95:

140 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

In page 116, to delete lines 47 and 48 and in page 117, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:

“(i) commissioning the making of independent television or sound broadcasting programmes,

(ii) procuring the formulation by persons of proposals for the commissioning by RTE´ of the making of the above programmes, and

(iii) assisting the completion of independent television or sound broadcasting programmes the making of which has not been commissioned by RTE´ ,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 96:

In page 117, line 10, to delete “subparagraph (ii)” and substitute “subparagraphs (ii) and (iii)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I move amendment No. 97:

In page 118, to delete lines 6 to 22 and substitute the following:

“(8) In Part 1 of the table to this section, “appropriate amount” means at least twenty- five per cent of the amount of commercial revenues and licence fee revenues attributed by RTE´ to the television Integrated Business Division (IBD) in the notes forming part of the group financial statements for the immediately preceding financial year concerned.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 98:

In page 120, to delete lines 1 to 13 and substitute the following:

“(a) commissioning the making of independent sound broadcasting programmes,

(b) procuring the formulation by persons of proposals for the commissioning by RTE´ of the making of the above programmes, and

(c) assisting the completion of independent sound broadcasting programmes the making of which has not been commissioned by RTE´ , and for no other purpose.

(16) A minimum of 95 per cent of the monies paid into the account shall be used by RTE´ for the purpose of—

(a) commissioning the making of independent television programmes,

(b) procuring the formulation by persons of proposals for the commissioning by RTE´ of the making of the above programmes, and

(c) assisting the completion of independent television broadcasting programmes the making of which has not been commissioned by RTE´ ,”.

141 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 99:

In page 120, line 21, column (1), to delete “2008” and substitute “2009”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 not moved.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 101a :

In page 120, line 37, after “continues” to insert “in being”.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman: Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Liz McManus: I move amendment No. 102:

In page 124, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

“(2) At all times practicable save other than for operational and maintenance purposes that RTE´ use the maximum power levels as sanctioned by the ITU and licensed by Com- Reg in the case of an LF broadcast transmitter serving the island of Ireland and or Irish communities abroad.”.

I was asked to table this amendment by people concerned about radio reception in Britain and in Northern Ireland. It was initially about medium wave, and it relates to LF broadcast transmission. I would be surprised if the Minister accepted the amendment, but it raises an issue about those in the diaspora being able to obtain transmissions from Ireland. More importantly, it raises an issue about the diaspora channel, which was agreed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. The statutory requirement for the diaspora channel was laid on RTE, which is now clearly not in a position to deliver on that requirement. I am extremely concerned about that because it is a real undermining of the work we do. If we are passing laws to require RTE or whoever to do certain things in the public interest, but these do not happen, it really raises questions. If it is the case that we are not providing the necessary funding, then that should be confronted. It is all too easy for a Government to propose some other authority to do something. It means the Government gets kudos for a commitment. The Bill is brought through the House, we all agree on what must be done, the Bill becomes the law of the land, but nothing happens. The two issues here are related to the amendment itself and the commitments made regarding broadcasting to the diaspora. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on them.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I want to support the points made by Deputy McManus on the diaspora. RTE is in a unique position, being both a commercial and public service broadcaster. However, another unique part of RTE is its responsibility to the enormous number of Irish people who live outside this island. About 70 million people worldwide consider themselves Irish. A policy decision was rightly made by the Government that our public service broadcaster would reach out to that community. RTE management have taken it upon themselves to decide that they will not prioritise that project, as it is too expensive, without any consultation with the policymakers that made the strategic decision on what they should do. I have real issues with RTE deciding not to prioritise the diaspora because of funding problems, when that is a

142 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed) fundamental part of its public service remit since the Government made a decision this should be the case. When we consider some of the other things RTE are doing, and remembering the debate we had about salaries and so on, this is an important project that simply cannot be put on the back burner for funding reasons as it is politically easy to do that. The only people who can check RTE and the priority it gives to the diaspora are people like the Minister. I would like him to do that. I am not sure whether it is appropriate in this Bill, but we should not let the opportunity pass.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I propose to take amendments Nos. 102 and 103 together. Primary legislation mainly outlines objectives, rather than the specific technology standards and parameters needed to support such objectives. This is a logical approach given the rapid pace of technology and service development. In this case, it also means the operation of the long-wave transmitters is left to those with the expertise, experience and responsibility for ensuring a sustainable and affordable long-wave service into the future. Radio services are licensed by ComReg under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 and for each licence ComReg sets out the maximum permitted powers and relevant technical parameters under which the service can operate. In the case of a long-wave radio service, the radio waves travel further at night than in the day so the maximum permitted power is less at night than during the day. If RTE operated according to its maximum licensed power at all times, it would operate on slightly increased power during the day but at lower powers from 6 p.m. at night. This would greatly increase the cost of providing the service, reduce the reliability of the service and reduce the life of the equipment, but would not increase the quality or reach of the service. RTE chooses to operate on constant power, operating below its licensed day time maximum power, in order to provide a more reliable service, something that is essential in the event of an emergency. It also does this to increase the lifetime of the equipment, which is also essential for an emergency service, and to save on costs. The increased operational and capital costs associated with changing the power of the service each day and night would bring into question the long-term viability of the service. I do not propose to accept the amendments. I am aware that RTE has not yet fulfilled its obligations in existing legislation to provide that service to Irish emigrant communities. RTE is considering the matter and how it will approach it. I reminded it in September of the obligation and the desire of the Government that this matter would be pursued. There is a recognition that in this dramatic economic downturn and dramatically difficult budget times in RTE, flexibility must be shown. RTE is being given that. An RTE player is being developed for international on-line use but I want to see RTE committed to delivering on the proposed channel. It will bring commercial opportunities to RTE in the long run. The audience of 70 million with Irish connections is one we should go after rather than one we should feel we serve by dint of obligation.

Deputy Liz McManus: That is not a satisfactory answer. A decision was made by the Oireachtas that the channel would be provided. There is an onus on the Minister to do more than say that RTE should be doing more about this. Emigrants left this country because there was no work and they are increasingly leaving now because there is no work. Yet again, they are being shut out and at a time we intend to set up an Oireachtas channel we tell the diaspora that it is tough and that even though we went through the motions and made it law, we do not mean what we said. Deputy Stagg has diligently addressed this issue until results materialised by way of legislation. It is not good enough to say that RTE has not done it yet but that it will some day. I agree with the Minister that it is a positive idea, not one that is for nostalgic reasons

143 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Liz McManus.] only, nor is it to build connections with those who were dispersed because of economic necessity. It is also a positive aspect in today’s world, where we must do so much globally. Connecting with Irish people abroad is the justification for elaborate trips by Ministers around St. Patrick’s Day yet it is anomalous if we cannot provide the diaspora channel they were promised. Amendment No. 106, which was already discussed even though I was not present, sets out how this could be done. There could be checks and balances to see if RTE lived up to its obligations. If it did not, we could ascertain the reasons why and what it would need, such as additional funding. We have direct funding of TG4 for cultural and language reasons yet we cannot have the same commitment to people forced out of this country through economic necessity. That shows a double standard. Tender words are not worth a lot when the result is nothing on the ground in terms of change and delivering on a statutory commitment that binds us all.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I hear what Deputy McManus says. There is a clear commitment to it and I look forward to RTE delivering on it, subject to managing its affairs in an orderly way.

Deputy Liz McManus: Celebrity boxing is more important than the diaspora.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Liz McManus: I move amendment No. 103:

In page 124, after line 47, to insert the following:

“(2) RTE´ shall provide and maintain LF broadcast infrastructure capable of operating at the full allocated power as licensed by the ITU and ComReg being an emergency service across the island of Ireland its offshore islands and territorial waters.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Liz McManus: I move amendment No. 104:

In page 125, to delete lines 43 to 47 and substitute the following:

“(3) The Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance may from time to time pay to RTE´ such an amount as he or she determines to be reasonable for the purposes of defraying the expenses incurred by RTE´ in pursuance of its public service objects, subject always to RTE´ being in compliance with section 108 of this Act.”.

Question, “That the words proposed to be deleted stand”, put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Acting Chairman: Amendments Nos 105 and 107 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 105:

In page 126, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

“(5) The Minister in making a determination under subsection (4) shall consider the multi-annual funding needs of TG4.”.

144 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

These amendments aim to address the concerns raised by Deputy Coveney on Committee Stage in respect of the need for a multi-annual perspective in funding TG4. Amendment 105, which amends section 123, requires the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources when determining the level of public funding for TG4 to consider its multi-annual funding needs. Amendment 107, which amends section 124, requires the broadcasting authority of Ireland, in its five year assessment of the adequacy or otherwise of public funding to TG4 and RTE, to consider the multi-annual nature of the public funding requirements of both TG4 and RTE.

Deputy Simon Coveney: That is welcome.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Liz McManus: I move amendment No. 106:

In page 126, to delete lines 15 to 20 and substitute the following:

“(2) The Authority shall in each year carry out a review of the extent to which a corporation has during the previous financial year fulfilled the commitments stated in an annual statement of commitment for that financial year and the adequacy or otherwise of public funding to enable the Corporation to meet its public service objects. The Authority shall take the Corporation’s compliance with sections 106 and 108 of this Act into account in the context of any such review.”.

Question, “That the words proposed to be deleted stand”, put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 107:

In page 127, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“(c) the multi-annual nature of public funding requirements,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 108:

In page 129, to delete lines 15 to 18 and substitute the following:

“(4) The Irish Film Channel may broadcast advertisements, broadcast acknowledgements of sponsorship, may fix charges and conditions for such broadcasts and, in fixing the charges, may provide for different circumstances and for additional special charges to be made in special cases.

(5) The Irish Film Channel may reject any advertisement presented for broadcast in whole or in part.

(6) The Irish Film Channel in providing a broadcasting service under this section shall, subject to the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism following consultation with the Authority, fix—

(a) the total daily time for broadcasting advertisements, and

145 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Eamon Ryan.]

(b) the maximum period given to advertisements in any 3 hour period.

(7) Film and cinema works broadcast by the Irish Film Channel shall be broadcast unin- terrupted by advertisements or acknowledgements of sponsorship.

(8) The Minister, if so requested by the Referendum Commission following consultation by the Referendum Commission with the Irish Film Channel and consideration of any proposals of the Irish Film Channel for broadcasts in connection with the referendum that it communicates to the Referendum Commission, shall direct the Irish Film Channel in writing to allocate broadcasting time to facilitate the Referendum Commission in per- forming its functions, and the Irish Film Channel shall comply with a direction under this subsection.

(9) Charges and conditions referred to in subsection (4) may be fixed subject to variations benefiting advertisers who use the Irish language in their advertisements.

(10) A power under this section to fix charges and conditions shall be read as including a power to cancel or vary any charges or conditions fixed under such power and, where charges or conditions are cancelled, to fix other charges or conditions in lieu of those cancelled.

(11) In this section references to advertisements shall be read as including references to teleshopping material and to advertising matter in sponsored programmes, that is to say, programmes supplied for advertising purposes by or on behalf of an advertiser.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 109 not moved.

Acting Chairman: Amendments Nos. 110, 116 to 122, inclusive, 150 to 157, inclusive, and 159 to 166, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 110:

In page 130, to delete lines 4 and 5 and substitute the following:

““Acts of 1926 to 2009” means Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1926 to 2009;”.

These amendments relate to the wireless telegraphy elements of the Bill, and can be divided into subgroups. The first subgroup is amendments Nos. 110, 116 to 122, inclusive, and 150. Amendment No. 150 is advised by the Parliamentary Counsel and creates two collective citations which allow for the referencing both in the Bill and in future legislation, in a single phrase, of “wireless telegraphy legislation” and “broadcasting offences [illegal broadcasting] legislation”. Amendments 110 and 116 to 122, inclusive, apply that collective referencing throughout the Bill. Amendment No. 152 is intended to facilitate a joint request from ComReg and the Depart- ment of Transport to amend section 2 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926, as amended by the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007, to clarify the respective roles of ComReg and the Minister for Transport with regard to the regulation of shore-based wireless telegraphy apparatus associated with marine safety. The amendment clarifies that any shore- based apparatus is to be licensed by ComReg.

146 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

Another subgroup comprises amendments Nos. 153, 157, 159, 160 and 163. Amendments Nos. 153, 157 and 163 derive from a request from ComReg to amend section 8 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 in respect of the legal position of the return of apparatus for wireless telegraphy seized by ComReg in the course of its duties. In addressing this request the Parliamentary Counsel has advised, from a statute law revision perspective, the restatement of sections 7 and 8 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926. Amendments 159 and 160 propose the repeal of section 9(3) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1972 and section 17 of the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act 1988, which are no longer required as a consequence of the review, and restatement of sections 7 and 8 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 as proposed in amendment No. 163. The final subgroup comprises amendments No. 151, 154 to 156, inclusive, 161, 162 and 164 to 166, inclusive. Amendments Nos. 154 to 156, inclusive, 161, 162 and 164 to 166, inclusive, correct errors and omissions in the text of section 180 and Schedule 2. Amendments Nos. 151 and 153 excise unnecessary and duplicate text in sections 180.

Deputy Simon Coveney: There are many amendments in this grouping and I do not need to comment on some of them because they are technical. The one I am most concerned about is amendment No. 158. Is that part of the grouping?

Acting Chairman: No, the grouping deals with amendments Nos. 150 to 157, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 159 to 166, inclusive. Amendment No. 158 will be taken separately.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I apologise. That is fine and I do not have an issue with the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman: Amendment No. 111 arises from Committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 113, 114, 123, 127 and 128 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 111:

In page 130, line 16, to delete “(3) or (4)” and substitute “(3), (4) or (5)”.

These amendments fall within the context of Part 8 which addresses the development of digital broadcasting services in Ireland and the closure of the analogue free-to-air television services currently provided by RTE, TG4 and TV3 using RTE’s analogue terrestrial transmission network’s analogue switch-off. Part 8 largely repeats the requirements for digital broadcasting as set out in the Broadcasting (Amendment) Act 2007 and I will take each of the amendments in turn. With regard to amendment No. 111, sections 130(3) to 133(5) provide for ComReg to issue licences for digital radio multiplexes on request from the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. Subsection (3) provides for a national commercial and digital radio multiplex; subsection (4) provides for a multiplex or multiplexes for regional digital radio services; and subsection (5) provides for additional multiplexes. The reference to subsection (5) was omitted in error from the definitions section in Part 8 and amendment No. 111 seeks to correct this error. Amendments Nos. 123 and 127 are minor drafting amendments necessary to improve the clarity and internal consistency of the text of the Bill. Section 130 provides for RTE to establish, maintain and operate a national digital television multiplex which will eventually replace the existing national analogue terrestrial television system.

147 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Eamon Ryan.]

Amendment No. 113 amends section 130(1)(b)(i) to provide additional clarity with regard to the time line for the provision of RTE’s digital terrestrial television services. Under this amendment, RTE is required to offer services to approximately 90% of the population by a date to be set by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources by order, and to have the network completely built and operational by December 2012 or such later date as set by the Minister. The first date will be set following further consultation with RTE as to its network build and roll-out plans. The second date has been set with a view to allowing a transition period for television viewers which provides adequate time to change to the digital service in advance of the analogue switch-off in 2012. Amendment No. 113 also amends section 130(1)(b)(ii) so that the Minister may request regular updates from RTE as required. Amendment No. 113 proposes a new paragraph (c)in section 130(1) which provides for RTE to work to ensure the availability of suitable receivers on the Irish market. Digital television receivers must be compatible with the specifications of the RTE network if they are to receive the RTE DTT offering. RTE will need to work closely with manufacturers in ensuring a steady supply of receivers into Ireland. The proposed paragraph (e) of section 130(1) is new and is intended to clarify that RTE can use any spare capacity on its multiplex in pursuance of commercial opportunities, subject to the approval of the Minister, the Minister having consulted the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. Amendment No. 114 is consequential to amendment No. 113. Amendment No. 128 amends section 139 which deals with analogue switch-off. This amendment introduces four new subsections which provide additional powers for the Minister in managing the process of switching off the analogue television services. These amendments aim to empower the Minister to address some of the issues raised by Deputies Coveney and McManus on Committee Stage in respect of the need for a managed analogue switch-off process. The new subsections (9) and (10) empower the Minister, by himself or in conjunction with others, to manage the analogue switch-off process by promoting co-operation between key stakeholders in the switch-off process, commissioning research regarding analogue switch-off, promoting public awareness and providing appropriate help schemes for disadvantaged members of our society. The new subsection (11) provides that the Minister by order may confer additional functions relating to analogue switch-off on ComReg, RTE and the BCI. The new subsection (12) provides that any such order would be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I will focus on amendment No. 113, which gives us an opportunity to have a discussion on where we are with DTT. I have raised this issue with the Minister during Question Time as a result of the very difficult position that RTE finds itself in with regard to funding because of Boxer deciding not to go ahead with a contract for commercial DTT. Boxer was to provide the necessary equipment to ensure households could get the set- top boxes which would allow people switch from analogue to digital terrestrial television. The idea was that RTE would build the infrastructure and a commercial operator would then lease the infrastructure or pay RTE for the use of it to provide a digital network across the country. We have no commercial operator now and yet RTE is still being asked to roll out the infrastructure. It has spent \40 million so far and must spend another approximately \50 million to \60 million, which it does not have. I presume that is why the Minister feels it necessary to change the target date from 31 December 2009 — the original wording whereby 90% of people would have DTT coverage with regard to the public service multiplex for which RTE has responsibility.

148 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

We are now considering a wording indicating that this may happen on such a date as may be specified by the Minister. In other words, it will be at some stage in the future when RTE can afford to do it. There is recognition of a real problem, and this is the first time the Minister has given us that acknowledgement. Until now, his line has been simple; if Boxer does not do it, we will move to the next best tender, which is OneVision. The BCI is speaking with that consortium with a view to providing a commercial DTT product, although many of us are very sceptical about whether OneVision has the capacity or will to do this. I hope I am wrong in that respect. What is sure is that there will be a delay in the commercial DTT product over three multiplexes, amounting to approximately 20 channels, whether it is provided by OneVision or somebody else. The problem for RTE is that it still has the financial commitment to continue rolling out the infrastructure of masts and aerials. On top of that there is recognition in amendment No. 113 that there is a suggestion that RTE will have to provide the set-top boxes. The new section 130(1)(c) states “RTE´ shall take steps to promote the availability of equipment capable of receiving, identifying, decoding and displaying a national television multiplex operated by RTE´ under section 114(1)(i).” Not only will RTE be required to meet the expense of rolling out the infrastructure across the country but it will also be asked to solve the problem of the set-top boxes, which it was not supposed to be involved with at all. That was to be resolved by the commercial operator. That will have a significant financial consequence for RTE on top of everything else. We should have a dose of honesty as to when we are likely to have 90% coverage for DTT in Ireland and how much it will cost. How will RTE afford to carry this out in its current financial position? I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on that. I make these statements in the context of being very supportive of the DTT project while acknowledging the real barriers and roadblocks which exist from a financing perspective. Paragraph (e) provides for RTE to exploit the commercial opportunity if spare capacity is available on its multiplex. Is this contradictory to section 130(1)? It will be required to provide RTE 1, RTE 2, TG4, TV3, the Irish Film Channel, the Oireachtas Channel and such other television services having character of a public service as designated by the Minister by order. What further commercial opportunities will be available?

Deputy Liz McManus: I have similar concerns to Deputy Coveney’s. The provision of digital terrestrial television services, DTT, has become a tangled issue. It is of necessity a complex issue but I am concerned it is complicated by the number of players involved. There is the unknown entity which will replace Boxer, the commercial interest, RTE, ComReg, the BCI, the new authority and the Minister. Apart from the delay in its roll-out, this autumn people on the east coast will lose the access which they have enjoyed for a long time to the overspill in transmission of British television channels. Britain has got its act together while Ireland has not. Other problems relate to costs, as has already been outlined, the timeframe and the loss to the digital dividend which has great potential. The roll-out of the service has been delayed because of what has happened to Boxer. While I do not blame the Minister for this, there is a question mark over the approach expressed in these amendments. Some of them are so far behind of what is required of us, it is becoming disturbing. Public awareness of this issue is zilch. The receiver boxes issue should have been resolved some time ago and now there is a new departure as to who is responsible for those.

149 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Liz McManus.]

I recall some years ago the broadcasting industry sought one person to take charge of this whole transformation. This mishmash of amendments tells us we need a type of DTT tsar to complete this project. While an EU obligation in this area must be met, there are also issues for those involved in this transformation. They need to have a certain amount of information and security about what is involved. However, I get the impression because there are negotiations starting with RTE and Onevision we are into unknown territory. Allowing for all the caveats involved, will the Minister clarify the timeframe involved in this? How will it be managed? I do not believe there is a management structure in place to ensure we meet the deadlines.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: The key timeline derives from the switch-off of the analogue system by the end of 2012. This is the one certain deadline with which everything has to work back. That deadline is not there just because of EU directives but because of the economic imperative that comes from the digital dividend from using the spectrum elsewhere. It will be a tight timeline. The BCI selected a winning bidder last year and one would have expected the system to be up and running at this stage. However, this has not occurred and it will require RTE and the BCI to enter into separate contract negotiations with Onevision, the second consortium on the list. While the economic conditions are difficult, I have pointed out on Question Time and elsewhere that the economic case is strong for such an investment in DTT, particularly for some of the companies involved in that consortium. I am not as sceptical as Deputy Coveney that these contractual arrangements will not be agreed. While I am not involved directly, I am confident suitable arrangements will be made and we can proceed with the switch-on of digital services with a combination of free-to-air services and a commercial mix of channels. One reason for the change in the deadline is that we cannot be exactly certain of the date for this switch-over. It is not very bright to tie ourselves legislatively to a particular date. As stated earlier, we should not tie ourselves to certain technologies in the legislation because they change. Similarly, I do not want to be tied down legislatively to the switch-over. There is still a mechanism in the legislation to mandate RTE to ensure the switch-over from analogue to digital in 2012. While it is a tight timeline, I am confident we will achieve this transfer.

Deputy Simon Coveney: Will the Minister accept that the whole DTT project will collapse financially because of the absence of a commercial DTT operator on the three remaining multiplexes? Why would anyone pay to switch over to DTT to get a public service digital product when the channels are already free on the analogue system? Why are we forcing RTE to spend a fortune to do this? Until Onevision, or some other company, is nailed down to provide the 25 commercial DTT channels, RTE is being placed in a precarious position of providing DTT and its multiplex even though no one will avail of it. This is in addition to providing the cost of analogue until a switch-off is required——

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Coveney’s time has expired.

Deputy Simon Coveney: ——as well as the infrastructural costs and so on. I understand what the Minister must do in respect of these amendments because of the uncertainty that now exists. However, I stress that in the absence of getting a commercial operator in place for DTT, the entire project begins to fall flat in its face. If the One Vision proposal is not going to produce a result, we must face up to that, move on quickly and find another result that will secure a commercial operator for DTT.

150 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendment No. 111 in the name of——

Deputy Eamon Ryan: May I respond? We will switch off in 2012 and RTE needs to know that. It needs to know the Government is firm and committed to that date and it must begin to prepare for this certainty. Yes, in the event of not making a commercial agreement with One Vision, the Government will move to an alternative system. Come what may however, the analogue system is being switched off in 2012. This is the reason RTE must know that and must begin to working towards that date with real certainty, which is what is being provided in the legislation.

Deputy Simon Coveney: It does not have the money to do it. While that is all well and good, there are cost implications.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Liz McManus: I move amendment No. 112:

In page 130, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

“130.—(1) This section applies where provision contained in any agreement relating to the use of private property (“property agreement”) has the effect of imposing on the occupier a prohibition or restriction under which his choice of—

(a) the person from whom he obtains digital television services, or particular digital television services, or

(b) the person through whom he arranges to be provided with digital television services, or particular digital television services,

is confined to a person with an interest in the building subject to the property agreement, to a person selected by a person with such an interest or to persons who are one or the other.

(2) This section also applies where provision contained in a property agreement has the effect of imposing any other prohibition or restriction on the occupier of the building with respect to a digital television matter.

(3) A provision falling within subsection (1) shall have effect—

(a) as if the prohibition or restriction applied only where the person from whom consent is required has not given its consent to a departure from the requirements imposed by the prohibition or restriction; and

(b) as if the person from whom consent is required or other party were required not to withhold that consent unreasonably.

(4) A provision falling within subsection (2) shall have effect—

(a) in relation to things done inside a building subject to the property agreement, or

(b) for purposes connected with the provision to the occupier of a digital television service,

151 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Liz McManus.]

as if the prohibition or restriction applied only where the person from whom consent is required has not given its consent in relation to the matter in question and as if they were required not to withhold that consent unreasonably.

(5) Where a provision falling within subsection (1) or (2) imposes a requirement on any person not unreasonably to withhold its consent—

(a) in relation to a digital television matter, or

(b) to the obtaining by the occupier of a building subject to a property agreement of a digital television service from or through a particular person,

the question whether the consent is unreasonably withheld has to be determined having regard to all the circumstances and to the principle that no person should unreasonably be denied access to a digital television service.

(6) Any contravention of this section shall be enforceable by the Competition Authority and in civil proceedings by any person affected by this section.

(7) The Competition Authority may by order provide for this section not to apply in the case of such provisions as may be described in the order.

(8) References in this section to digital television matters are references to—

(a) the provision of a digital television service;

(b) the connection of digital television reception apparatus to a relevant electronic communications network or of any such network to another;

and

(c) the installation, maintenance, adjustment, repair, alteration or use for purposes connected with the provision of such a service of digital television reception apparatus.

(9) This section applies to provisions contained in any agreement entered into before the commencement of this section to the extent only that provision to that effect is contained in an order made by the Competition Authority.”.

This amendment relates to an issue that I raised previously. It was sent to me as a possible solution to the problem that I had raised and I would be grateful, were the Minister to take on board its points. Essentially, it relates to an issue that has been quite widespread in this metro- politan area in particular, whereby people in apartments cannot use the provider of their choice because of management company agreements. While this might appear to be a basic and simple issue regarding people’s rights, it turns out that people do not have any rights and often end up with providers they do not want. Even when people have many complaints in this regard and go to the Competition Authority, etc., it does not appear to make any difference. I would be grateful were the Minister to accept the principle that people have a right to choose, regardless of whether they live in an apartment or anywhere else. If the Minister does not intend to accept this amendment, he should advise me as to how he proposes to resolve this issue that has been raised by my colleague, Deputy Ruairı´ Quinn, in particular. He has received many submissions in this regard from both apartment owners and tenants, who cannot

152 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed) ensure that they can have their desired provider. Members are aware that standards of service vary considerably between companies and this issue must be addressed in the Bill.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: In respect of amendment No. 112, which relates to the provision of digital services in multi-occupancy developments, the issue in question concerns access to shared infrastructure and, therefore, is relevant to television services and, for example, to energy, telephone and broadband connections or any other shared infrastructure over which competing providers seek to provide services. I understand that while the issue of the exclusive provision of television services currently is the subject of a Competition Authority review, the principal solution is for a legislative intervention that will regularise the position of management companies with respect to apartment residents, with specific emphasis on the vesting of management companies in the owners of such appointments in a timely manner. This appears to be the crux of the issue as it is clear that management companies and their control play a central role in the right of residents as a group to select common service providers. In June 2008, the Law Reform Commission published a report into the reform of property and planning law. In response to the commission’s report, a high level interdepartmental committee on multi-unit developments was established to identify the necessary legislative and administrative actions that should be taken in response to the commission’s recommendations. The work of the committee has, in turn, fed into the development of the multi-unit developments Bill 2009, which was published by my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform last month. The multi-unit developments Bill specifically addresses the role in control of management companies in respect of multi-unit developments and, as such, I do not propose to accept the Deputy’s amendment.

Deputy Liz McManus: For clarity, does the Bill published by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform deal with this issue? If not, Members must deal with it here.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: As I noted in my response, my understanding is that it does. I noted that the regulation of the management companies is the key to this issue and that matter will be controlled in that Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle: How stands the amendment?

Deputy Liz McManus: I trust the Minister and I will withdraw it.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is nice to hear that.

Deputy Liz McManus: For the moment.

An Ceann Comhairle: A caveat.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 113:

In page 131, to delete lines 1 to 22 and substitute the following:

“(i) ensure that the national television multiplex referred to in paragraph (a) is established as a matter of priority, and—

(I) on such date as may be specified by the Minister by order, is operational and available free-to-air to approximately 90 per cent of the population, and

153 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Eamon Ryan.]

(II) by 31 December 2011, or such later date as may be specified by the Minister by order, is operational, available free-to-air and capable of providing coverage to the same extent as is, on the passing of this Act, available by free-to-air analogue means,

and

(ii) at the request of the Minister, report to the Minister on its progress in relation to the activities set out in subparagraph (i).

(c) RTE´ shall take steps to promote the availability of equipment capable of receiving, identifying, decoding and displaying a national television multiplex operated by RTE´ under section 114(1)(i).

(d) Nothing in this subsection precludes RTE´ from making provision in a multiplex established, maintained and operated by RTE´ under section 114(1)(i) for the broadcasting by digital means of programme material and related and other data other than that broadcast as part of a service specified in paragraph (a).

(e) Without prejudice to the requirements of this section, RTE´ may, with the consent of the Minister, the Minister having consulted with the Authority, in respect of the use of spare capacity on a multiplex established, maintained and operated by RTE´ under section 114(1)(i), broadcast programme material in pursuance of its exploitation of commercial opportunities object.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 114:

In page 132, lines 48 and 49, to delete “subsection 1(a)(iv) or subsection (13)” and substitute “this section”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 115 not moved.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 116:

In page 133, line 44, to delete “1988” and substitute “2009”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 117:

In page 134, line 1, to delete “1988” and substitute “2009”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 118:

In page 134, line 10, to delete “1988” and substitute “2009”.

Amendment agreed to.

154 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 119:

In page 134, line 30, to delete “1988” and substitute “2009”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 120:

In page 134, line 38, to delete “1988” and substitute “2009”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 121:

In page 134, line 49, to delete “1988” and substitute “2009”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 122:

In page 135, line 5, to delete “1988” and substitute “2009”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 123:

In page 135, line 40, to delete “multiplex contracts” and substitute “multiplexes”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 124 not moved.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 125:

In page 136, line 19, to delete “4 years” and substitute “6 years”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 126 not moved.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 127:

In page 136, line 44, to delete “and subject to subsection (2),”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: I move amendment No. 128:

In page 142, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“(9) The Minister, for the purpose of ensuring a smooth and efficient interchange between the provision of analogue and digital television services in the context of analogue switch-off, shall have the power by himself or herself, or in conjunction with any other person, to—

155 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Eamon Ryan.]

(a) promote cooperation and coordination between broadcasters, multiplex contractors and other interested parties in relation to analogue switch-off,

(b) commission research on matters relating to analogue switch-off,

(c) promote public awareness and the dissemination of coordinated information to the public in relation to analogue switch-off, and

(d) operate, manage or sponsor, whether in whole or in part, measures, aimed at alleviating the effects of analogue switch-off on classes of communities or persons adversely affected.

(10) The Minister has all such incidental, supplemental, ancillary and consequential powers as are necessary or expedient for the purpose of the exercise by him or her of the above powers.

(11) The Minister may, after consultation with the Authority, the Communications Regu- lator, RTE´ and such other persons (if any) as he or she considers appropriate, by order—

(a) confer on the Authority, the Communications Regulator or RTE´ such additional functions connected with preparation for analogue switch-off, as the Minister considers appropriate, subject to the conditions (if any) that may be specified in the order, and

(b) make such provision as he or she considers necessary or expedient in relation to matters ancillary to or arising out of the conferral of those additional functions.

(12) (a) An order made under subsection (11) shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable after it is made.

(b) Either House of the Oireachtas may, within 21 sitting days after the day on which an order was laid before it in accordance with paragraph (a), pass a resolution annulling the order.

(c) The annulment under paragraph (b) of an order takes effect immediately on the passing of the resolution concerned, but does not affect anything that was done under the order before the passing of the resolution.”.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendment No. 129 arises out of committee proceedings. Amend- ments Nos. 130 to 145, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 133 is a technical alternative to amendment No. 132. Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 are technical alternatives to amendment No. 140. Amendments Nos. 129 to 145, inclusive, will be discussed together.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I move amendment No. 129:

In page 142, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

“140.—(1) The Authority shall prepare a report which shall be completed and laid before the Minister and Joint Oireachtas Committee within 12 months, on the most appropriate and efficient method of public funding for public service broadcasting.

The report shall consider the following:

156 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

(a) the funding of public service broadcasting outside Ireland, in particular in other EU states,

(b) the appropriateness of linking funding of public service broadcasting with television ownership and television licence fee system,

(c) evasion of payment of television licence fee and the cost of enforcement and collection of penalties or other fees,

(d) modern advances in technology and new ways of accessing programmes and production financed by funds collected to support public service broadcasting,

(e) the effect of technological and media developments on the capacity to define “television set” for the purpose of television licence fee system,

(f) the need to ensure a long term, stable and consistent source of public funding to support public service broadcasting that will enable multiannual budgeting for broadcasters,

(g) an efficient and fair collection mechanism of funds that will minimise evasion.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall affect the existing mechanisms of television licence fees during the preparation of the report under subsection (1).”.

All these amendments are mine and I tabled them because I wish to fundamentally change Part 9 of the Bill. I do not believe the existing funding mechanism for funding public service broadcasting is appropriate any longer. Essentially, my proposal is to leave the existing system in place for the present and included a provision to that effect at the end of the amendment No. 129. However, the authority should be required to prepare a report “which shall be completed and laid before the Minister and Joint Oireachtas Committee within 12 months, on the most appropriate and efficient method of public funding for public service broadcasting”. The amendment then lays out the criteria for so doing. On a series of levels, it is inappropriate, bad value for money, ineffective and outdated to fund public service broadcasting to the tune of more than \200 million each year by attaching an obligation to have a licence for every television in the country. We have an army of people knocking on doors, checking under beds for televisions and asking people whether they have licences. In this Bill, the Minister is attempting to introduce a new fines mechanism so that people do not have to be sent to prison. In the last two years, approximately 50 people have gone to prison because they do not have television licences. It costs the State a great deal of money to go through the courts system to put people in prison and hold them there. It is madness. It costs \12 million a year to collect \200 million, which is totally inefficient. It is becoming more and more difficult to define what a television is. The Minister has claimed that under this legislation, laptops, computer screens and personal digital assistants do not constitute televisions. If somebody is watching television via a computer screen, he or she will not need a television licence. If somebody is watching television via a plasma screen, he or she will need a licence. On Committee Stage, I asked the Minister how he would describe the plasma screens that are used in the Oireachtas committee rooms. They are used as presentation screens, by and large, rather than as televisions. What are they? Are they computer screens or televisions? This is becoming a nonsensical argument. Surely we can put in place a new method of collecting \200 million from 4 million people to fund public service broadcasting in Ireland. The reality is that approximately 20% of the people do not pay the licence fee at all. The other 80% of the people have to pay for them. We are spending a great deal of money to chase after

157 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Simon Coveney.] people to determine whether they own a television. The system is so inefficient that it almost encourages evasion. When those who have not bought television licences are caught, they have to pay a small fine that is considerably less than the cost of the licence fee. Where is the incentive to get a licence? When one buys a new television, one is almost incentivised not to pay the licence fee because one can be pretty sure that one will not be caught for a couple of years, at least. One is better off to wait until one is caught, to pay the fine, which is approximately one third of the licence fee, and to buy the licence at that stage. For a series of reasons, we need to modernise the manner in which we raise revenues for public service broadcasting. We should consider the introduction of a household levy, in addition to a business levy that applies to pubs, hotels, restaurants and bed and breakfasts. That would allow us to collect the funds that are needed in an efficient manner. I do not mind whether An Post or the Revenue Commissioners are responsible for the system, as long as there is a proper tendering process. As I understand it, the Minister’s only justification for continuing to fund public service broadcasting through the inefficient television licence fee process is that no other European country has a better way of doing it. Why can Ireland not make the first move in this regard? I do not understand why we are not taking this issue more seriously. The current inefficient system, which is costing us money, is plagued by evasion. All of these problems will intensify in the years to some, as it becomes more and more difficult to define what a television is. I ask the Minister to consider these amendments, in which I propose that we should retain the current inefficient system while putting in place a braver and more effective system that ensures everybody pays. While I do not expect he will accept this proposal, I cannot be expected to roll with the punches and to accept the indefinite continuation of the kind of inefficient and outdated system we have at the moment.

Deputy Liz McManus: I support the proposal outlined in Deputy Coveney’s amendments. None of us can devise the perfect system, but that does not mean we should avoid the issue. I imagine that the current system of television licence fee collection dates back to a time when many households did not have television sets. It might have been appropriate then, but that is no longer the case. If we do not address the idea that we should maintain a quaint system of collection, even after the traditional one-off television set in the corner of the sitting room has been by-passed by technology, we will continue to get an inefficient return on the money that is spent. There seems to be a kind of acceptance that there is not much point in going after a certain percentage of people, because they will not buy a television licence anyway. It seems that the notion that certain people cannot afford to buy a licence or are determined not to pay, whereas more law-abiding people will pay when they are required to do so, is now part of the system. However, this does not take recent technological changes into account. Our idea of what constitutes a computer or a television set is changing. Deputy Stagg asked me to raise the case of a person who has a small black and white television set in the corner of his or her holiday home or caravan in a place like Ballymoney. Will such a person have to continue to buy a television licence even though he or she is there for just three months of the year? The use of the television set in question would not justify such an outlay. The annual licence fee would probably cost more than the television set. This issue needs to be addressed. These amendments represent an honest effort to add some urgency to the need to do this. The alternative to confronting this problem, which has been raised many times, is to continue to talk about it indefinitely. I know the Minister will agree with what we have said. We have discussed this so often that I could almost recite the Minister’s response at this stage. That would not solve this problem, however. The Minister’s job is to solve problems of this nature when we meet them as the world evolves and technology

158 Broadcasting Bill 2008: 17 June 2009. Report Stage (Resumed) advances. We should not be going through the motions. There is not a huge amount in this Bill, to be honest. The new structure that is being put in place will have many of the functions of the old structure. We need to modernise the way we collect funds to pay for public service broadcasting. That is absolutely essential to our future. We all must ensure that public service broadcasting has a really good future. If we continue to fund it through the television licence fee system or some other structure, we can ensure its future is assured. However, we have to ensure the system operates on some kind of efficient basis. We do not have such a basis at the moment.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 are in my name. Amendment No. 141 proposes the deletion of a duplicate reference and amendment No. 142 proposes to clarify the timelines within which a fixed payment notice may be served. Amendment No. 133, in the name of Deputy McManus, seeks to ensure that a person does not require a second television licence if he or she possesses a television set for a short period of the year at a second address to his or her main address. Section 144(1) of this Bill empowers the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to make such regulations as are necessary to achieve the effect proposed in amendment No. 133 if such a policy were to be adopted. Such a policy has not yet been adopted. Any such policy proposal would require further analysis, particularly in terms of how it would work from an administrative perspective. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment. Deputy Coveney’s amendments in this grouping — Nos. 130 to 132, inclusive; Nos. 134 to 140, inclusive; and Nos. 143 to 145, inclusive — would, in effect, delete the legislative basis for the television licensing regime without proposing an alternative funding mechanism. They would, in effect, bring an end to the principal source of public funding for public service broadcasting in Ireland. While I fully understand the point being made by Deputy Coveney, I am sure he will appreciate that I do not propose to accept these amendments. I remind Deputy Coveney, who tabled amendment No. 129, that I have previously stated that in the near future we may have to move away from the television licence as the basis for the funding of public service broadcasting. I reiterate that the licence fee has served us well to date, despite its limitations. It has ensured some measure of independence for RTE from political and commercial pressures. It has also acted as a direct link between audiences and RTE, thereby reminding the national public service operator to whom its public service duty is ultimately owed. As such, we must review proposed alternatives with caution and due diligence. All the issues for consideration that are listed in amendment No. 129 are valid as policy matters for further consideration, primarily by the Department rather than by the Broadcasting Auth- ority of Ireland. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment. It is interesting to reflect on the views of others on this matter. I remember distinctly hearing RTE’s view on it when it was discussed at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Its preference was for a continuation of the current system because it works. The British Government examined this matter in 10 o’clock detail in recent years and it came to a similar conclusion to that reached by us, namely, that while there is cause to examine alternatives it is not yet the time or right technically to switch. We in the Department are open to examining alternatives — but not yet — to replacing the existing system, which provides a certain security for the public service broadcaster in difficult times While it has its costs, it still ultimately works.

Debate adjourned.

159 Cancer Treatment 17 June 2009. Services

Adjournment Debate.

————

Cancer Treatment Services. Deputy Ulick Burke: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this important item for discussion tonight. The decision of the Minister, Deputy Harney, and the Government to continue to introduce further cutbacks amounting to \15 million at this time clearly puts at risk many of the front line services at University Hospital Galway which will result in the future loss of 60 beds, 126 front line staff and the closure of two surgical theatres. Surely this will hamper the hospital’s ability to act or develop as a centre of excellence. Having already indicated potential cuts of \9 million, any further cuts will have a devastating impact on the provision of services at the hospital. This is the biggest hospital in the west and it is on the verge of pulling out of the cancer treatment scheme. The hospital manager has made an urgent request in this respect because of the devastating impact these proposed cuts will have on the staff’s ability to deliver cancer services in accordance with Government policy. She stated that these cuts will bring the hospital to its knees. When such a statement is issued by a hospital manager and neither the Minister nor the Government has shown any concern, the situation is serious. How on earth can University Hospital Galway be a centre of excellence when its services are to be slashed so severely? The Government’s cancer strategy is in disarray and cancer patients in Galway and across the west have been betrayed by the Government and the Mini- ster. These cutbacks will have severe human consequences and will affect the survival of cancer patients across the west. While I recognise that public spending must be curtailed, why was \17 million spent by the HSE on spin doctors and management consultants last year? There are 12 staff in the Depart- ment, four special advisers involving an expenditure of approximately \500,000 and five press officers involving an expenditure of \241,000. The 12 staff involve an expenditure of just under \1 million. Is it true, as per the Minister’s constant rhetoric, that the patient is being put first when there is such expenditure on staff in her Department? Professor Drumm has an adviser who was paid \16,000 per month last year. Surely that shows that the patient is not being put first, unlike what the Minister claims. Is spin more important to this Fianna Fa´il-led Government than the lives of the people suffering form cancer and other serious illnesses? It cost \310,000 for the HSE to produce an information leaflet last year. This would provide an additional ten nursing staff in coal face services. Many of the 126 staff who will lose their jobs at University Hospital Galway are highly skilled with a level of knowledge and expertise necessary for the delivery of a first class service. Unfortunately, they are to be let go. More than 1,000 women with concerns about breast cancer have had to wait more than three months to be seen at one of the eight specialist centres for diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer this year. This is a breach of the HSE’s standards set by the Health Information and Quality Authority. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister less than a month ago asking if the HSE had made provision to recruit additional medical and nursing staff to cater for the extra workload in providing specialist cancer care at the hospital because of it becoming a designated centre of excellence. I was advised then that currently, services at University Hospital, Galway, were led by a team of surgeons with special interest in breast cancer, supported by a multidisciplinary team of health professionals, including radiologists, pathologists, nursing, laboratory and allied

160 Cancer Treatment 17 June 2009. Services health professionals. These are the staff who will be hit by the introduction of these additional cutbacks of \15 million. Can the Minister, Deputy Harney, justify her demand for these cuts, if the jobs that were created only less than a month ago, as I was advised in that reply, are to be cut in this instance? Another spin doctor, Ms Chris Kane, the regional co-ordinator of Western Hospital Group, was reported in a newspaper article as having said:

“Every hospital has to live within budget. In the case of GUH, this would mean less overtime, fewer locums and getting tough on absenteeism. We may be curtailing elective surgery, but vital front lone and emergency services will be protected. The leaked internal letter quoted in...[the] newspapers was a discussion paper only. It was never agreed,” said Ms Kane.

This comment is totally in denial of the previous statement of the hospital manager. Will the Minister of State tell us tonight once and for all where the truth lies? Will there be a curtailment of services, particularly in cancer treatment, which is looming as a result of proposed cutbacks of \15 million?

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): As the Minister, Deputy Harney, cannot be here this evening, I will reply to the Deputy’s matter. I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the issue of cancer services in Galway. Contrary to some recent claims, I can assure Deputies that the viability of University Hospital Galway as a designated cancer centre under the national cancer control programme will not be affected by the financial issues it is addressing. I am happy to inform the House of several significant improvements made to cancer services at the hospital which will help equip it for its role as a designated centre. Under the programme, there are four managed cancer control networks and eight cancer centres. The designation of cancer centres aims to ensure that patients receive the highest quality care while allowing local access to services, where appropriate. The HSE has designated University Hospital Galway and the Mid-West Regional Hospital Limerick as the two cancer centres in the managed cancer control network for the HSE west region. In particular, Univer- sity Hospital Galway is the designated cancer centre for the north west. Since Professor Tom Keane took up his post as interim director of the national cancer control programme, enormous progress has been made in reorganisation and development of cancer services and in University Hospital Galway some significant developments have been made. Deputies will be aware that the reorganisation of breast cancer services has been the first task of the national cancer control programme. In this context the symptomatic breast cancer service at University Hospital Galway has been greatly enhanced with significant additional resources provided. Funding was provided by the national cancer control programme in 2008 for additional staff to support the expansion of this service. Once-off funding of \403,000 was provided for equipment in 2008 while in 2009 funding of \863,000 was provided for operating costs. Additional pathology equipment was funded to support the breast cancer services as well as theatre equipping at a cost of \l million. This service is now located in a purpose-built premises on the University Hospital Galway campus. There are eight examination suites in the clinical area and each has access to digital radiology and laboratory results. There is a separate radiology area with its own waiting room and changing facilities and this is equipped with a fully digital mammography suite and state-of the-art ultrasound machines. Both the clinical and radiology areas are equipped for biopsy procedures under local anaesthetic. The breast care

161 General Medical 17 June 2009. Services Scheme

[Deputy John Moloney.] nurse team has a custom-designed facility which includes counselling rooms with video facilities and light refreshments.

Deputy Ulick Burke: There is no one to work there.

Deputy John Moloney: I am outlining the funding that has been allocated. A new theatre located in the main hospital block for dedicated use by the breast service is expected to be commissioned within the next two weeks.

Deputy Ulick Burke: Two of them are to be closed down.

Deputy John Moloney: Services are led by a team of surgeons with a special interest in breast disease supported by a multi-disciplinary team of health professionals, including radiologists, pathologists, nursing, laboratory and allied health professionals. Mammography and breast ultrasound are on site in the breast clinic to facilitate ease of access to triple assessment for patients. UCHG also provides an outreach service to Letterkenny General Hospital so that breast diagnosis and surgery may take place there under a managed clinical network. Video-confer- encing on cases allows the extension of multi-disciplinary decision making to Letterkenny General Hospital. With the reorganisation of breast cancer services almost complete, priorities in 2009 include the development of rapid-access diagnostic clinics for both lung and prostate cancer. Outcomes in these cancers have been poor by international standards and earlier diagnosis is a key factor in improving these. With this in mind, rapid access clinics will be developed in each of the eight designated cancer centres, and UCHG is in the vanguard as one of the first two hospitals to open a clinic. This is a significant development for UCHG and for the cancer programme. The clinic provides fast-track access to early diagnosis for men whose symptoms indicate they are at higher risk. Patients can now be diagnosed more quickly — within two weeks of referral — and if prostate cancer is confirmed, the patient has immediate access to a multi-disciplinary specialist cancer consultation to determine how he should be managed. I emphasise that the enhanced services at Galway for breast and prostate cancer, which are two of our most common cancers, are significant markers of the real and tangible progress that is being made.

General Medical Services Scheme. Deputy Pa´draic McCormack: I wish to be associated with the matter raised by my colleague Deputy Burke, which he has dealt with adequately. I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the matter of the proposal by the Government, through the HSE, to transfer medical card and GP visit card services to the primary care reimbursement service and to centralise these services in Dublin. How could this possibly make sense? The transfer is being put forward as a saving or an improvement of the service when it will actually cause a reduction in the level of service available. There are 87,000 medical card holders in Galway who will be left without a local service. Centralisation to Dublin is contrary to Government policy. Why not decentralise it all to Galway? Medical card-related dealings with the over 70s have already been transferred to Dublin. This is creating a major problem for older people, who are now unable to contact the service and are left waiting for long periods on the freefone line. I have had occasion to telephone the service several times on behalf of people who came to my office, and was left waiting for a considerable length of time. How can

162 General Medical 17 June 2009. Services Scheme we expect people over 70 to contact the service in Dublin when they could have had a walk-in service in Galway? The over 70s are being treated shamefully. They are being terrorised by the new system, which is causing them unnecessary stress and anxiety. It looks as though this may be deliberate, because some of them are now so confused that they will not proceed with their applications for medical cards even though they are eligible. For example, one person who contacted me received a letter in early January of this year stating:

Based on the information available to us in the HSE, you are not affected by this decision [to remove the automatic entitlement to medical cards for the over 70s].

You keep your Medical Card and all associated entitlements.

You do not need to respond to this letter or do anything else.

Please continue to use your Medical Card as normal.

Then, on 24 March, the person received a letter stating:

If you consider that you are still eligible for a Medical Card and wish to continue to avail of the General Medical Service you should complete and return a form MC1a(R) (attached) to the address below before 1 June 2009.

This is completely contradictory information for medical card holders. It was unnecessary to set them up in such a way, first telling them they did not have to do anything and then telling them they must fill in a form. This is complicated and stressful for people over 70, who have already been assessed and means-tested for the card. The HSE has spent more than \1 million of taxpayers’ money on two reports on health reform and then ignored the key recommendations. A recommendation in the McKinsey report was that health care be delivered in six to ten regions with a catchment population of between 500,000 and 700,000. Yet the HSE is proceeding to transfer the medical card service to Dublin, which makes no sense. It will save the HSE nothing because, naturally, staff who have families in Galway — with children in school and houses with large mortgages on houses which are worth much less than they were a few years ago — will not be able to transfer and will have to be redeployed somewhere else. The centralisation of the medical card service is of no benefit either to the public or to the HSE. It has been the policy of the HSE to have service based locally — for example, primary care teams — yet one section, which is the basis for entitlement to all those services, is now being transferred to Dublin. The front-line staff of the medical card service provide a valuable service locally to people who are ill, vulnerable and elderly. These people will now be left without a core walk-in service or a local number they can telephone. This displays a total lack of understanding of the work being carried out in local offices by the dedicated staff and shows a cruel and complete disregard for medical card holders. The staff in Galway have been working flat-out and providing an excellent service, and the transfer of the service does not make any sense. This is a Government decision, as stated recently by an official at a HSE briefing. For the Government to make such a decision in this day and age is baffling.

Deputy John Moloney: I thank Deputy McCormack for raising this matter on the Adjourn- ment and apologise that the Minister, Deputy Harney, cannot be here this evening. The assessment of eligibility for medical cards and GP visit cards is statutorily a matter for the HSE. Eligibility is determined following an examination of the means of the applicant and

163 Health Service 17 June 2009. Reform

[Deputy John Moloney.] his or her dependents. Up to the start of this year, medical card and GP visit card applications were processed in the 32 local health areas. However, under the HSE’s 2009 service plan, the processing of medical card and GP visit card applications will be centralised in the primary care reimbursement service in Dublin. The change is being implemented on a phased basis. The decision by the HSE to centralise the processing of applications has been made in the context of the requirement to realise savings in the challenging economic environment. The change will provide an enhanced standardised service to the client population. It will deliver services for the public within sustainable levels of expenditure and with the aim of achieving efficiencies through greater use of shared services. The processing of applications centrally will result in the application of a more consistent and transparent approach. There will be no adverse impact on patient care or the quality of service provided, and there will be no adverse affect on the assessment of people whose incomes exceed the income guidelines but who have a case to be considered on medical or hardship grounds. Under the new arrangements, the HSE will be aiming for a turnaround time of 15 days or less for all applications. Emergency applications will be dealt with immediately, with a card issuing within 24 hours.

Deputy Pa´draic McCormack: That is impossible.

Deputy John Moloney: That is the commitment we have made. There are no plans to close any of the local health offices that currently process medical card and GP visit card applications. However, the process will involve a reassignment of existing staff within the Health Service Executive. Local health offices will continue to provide advice and necessary supports to persons applying for medical cards and GP visit cards. They will also deal with queries of a general nature about the medical card scheme. Together with the Health Service Executive’s national helpline, they will handle inquiries from clients in respect of their medical card and GP visit card entitlements. This is a good example of the type of innovation signalled in the transforming public services programme announced by the Taoiseach last November. It demonstrates how the Health Service Executive can deliver improved services within the more limited resources available in a way which meets the needs of citizens in a modern society. The number of persons with a medical card has increased by more than 240,000 since the start of 2005, with more than 1.38 million now covered. In addition, more than 88,000 have a GP visit card. In other words, in excess of 33% of the national population is covered by the General Medical Services scheme.

Health Service Reform. Deputy Michael McGrath: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this important issue for the community I represent, particularly in the Carrigaline area. Carrigaline is a vibrant and thriving town with a population of some 16,000. In 1971, when it was designated as a satellite town and earmarked for significant growth, it had a population of less than 1,000. Like many other satellite towns, it has grown substantially in recent years. However, it has a deficit of infrastructure and community facilities. This deficit is best exemplified by the health centre which currently serves the town. Situated in the centre of Carrigaline, it is a very old, small building. Its staff make the best of the situation, working in exceptionally difficult conditions. The community welfare officers work out of the health centre and it is not unusual in recent months to see people queuing on the street for appointments with them. The facility is inadequate to meet the needs of a growing and vibrant town of Carrigaline’s size.

164 Health Service 17 June 2009. Reform

It was with this in mind that the Health Service Executive, some years ago, acquired a suitable site for a new health centre. I commend the executive on the purchase of this site, which is strategically located in the heart of the town and within walking distance for a large portion of the population. The executive has since advanced plans to develop a state-of-the-art health facility. I also welcome the inclusion of this project in the Health Service Executive’s capital programme in recent years, indicating its commitment to advancing the project. However, I am disappointed with the pace of progress in developing this essential facility. Last month, I received a reply to a parliamentary question I submitted. I suspect that reply will form the basis of the Minister of State’s response tonight. However, I hope he will have some additional news. The Health Service Executive was given approval in October 2006 to appoint a design team and to commence the planning process. However, a planning application was not lodged until January 2008. At the end of February of that year, the local authority wrote to the Health Service Executive requesting more information. It was a full six months before a response was issued. Eventually, however, planning permission was granted in November 2008. I understand there is a budget of \250,000 to advance the project through detailed design and to publication of tender documents this year. A capital allocation for the construction of \4.1 million was ring-fenced last year. However, because of the delay in advancing the project, it did not proceed to construction last year and the Health Service Executive must now seek approval from the Department of Finance to proceed once the contractor has been identified. It is important that a town of Carrigaline’s size should have a health centre that can be the cornerstone of the primary care strategy, as announced by the Government in 2001. That strategy noted that primary care is the appropriate setting to meet 90% to 95% of all health and personal social service needs. Some of the facilities that could be provided at the Carriga- line health centre include speech and language therapies, physiotherapy and occupational therapy. The new health centre could be a centre of excellence for public health nursing. It could be the headquarters out of which the community welfare officers work. Counselling services could be provided. In the evening time, when most of the facilities are closed, it could be used as a meeting area for bereavement support groups, suicide awareness groups, Alcoholics Anonymous and so on. Parent and toddler groups could use the premises in the mornings. I urge the Health Service Executive to progress this project without delay. Carrigaline urgently needs this new health centre. There is no better time to go to tender for a major construction contract of this type, with excellent value to be had. I am sure the Health Service Executive will be well able to bring this project to completion within budget or even ahead of budget. I ask it to do so as soon as possible. I commend Cork County Council on its support for this development through the Carrigaline priority project. The council has identified it as a key development. I hope the Minister of State will confirm the Health Service Executive’s commitment to developing a state-of-the-art health centre for Carrigaline at the earliest possible time.

Deputy John Moloney: I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney. The Government’s strategy, Primary Care: A New Direction, is the roadmap for the development of primary care services over a period of ten to 15 years. The development of such services is an essential component of the health service reform process. As the Deputy observed, it has been estimated that in a developed primary care system, 90% to 95% of people’s day-to-day health and social care needs can be met in the primary care setting. The key objective in primary care policy is to develop services in the community that give people direct access to integrated multidisciplinary teams. The Health Act 2004 provides the Health Service Executive with responsibility for the management and delivery of health and

165 Post Office 17 June 2009. Network

[Deputy John Moloney.] personal social services. The executive has identified 530 primary care teams and 134 health and social care networks to be developed by 2011. There are 111 teams currently holding clinical team meetings, which involve a range of health professionals meeting to discuss and plan integrated care for individual patients. The overall target is to have 210 teams holding clinical team meetings by the end of 2009. A total of 21 teams is planned for the south Lee area of Cork. Of these, I understand three are planned for the Carrigaline area, one of which is at an advanced stage of development. Reconfiguration of Health Service Executive personnel to staff this primary care team has recently been completed. It is staffed by professionals from the fields of nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, dietetics, addiction counselling and community liaison. Clinical team meetings have taken place. With regard to the development of a primary care facility to replace the current structure, approval was granted to complete the design phase and progress the project to tender stage. A design team is in place. Planning permission to proceed with the development of the facility was received in late November 2008 and work is continuing on the completion of the tender document stage. In determining its capital programme, the Health Service Executive is required to prioritise the capital infrastructure projects to be progressed within its overall capital funding allocation taking account of the targets for division of capital investment between the acute and primary, community and continuing care programmes. The Health Service Executive is currently revising its capital plan to take account of the capital funding envelope available for the period to 2013, following the supplementary budget in April. Details on the plans for the health facility at Carrigaline will emerge following the executive’s deliberative process and approval of its revised capital plan.

Post Office Network. Deputy Chris Andrews: I appreciate the opportunity to raise this matter, which revolves around social isolation and the impact a lack of social infrastructure can have on communities. I wish to refer to the community that will be affected by An Post’s decision to close the post office in Ringsend. The closure of the post office will have a detrimental effect on the old people who live in this community and who use the services provided at the post office, which is situated right in the heart of Ringsend. The communities in the Ringsend-Irishtown area are long established and many elderly people live there. Everyone who lives in the area — the old and young families and couples — frequent the local barber shop, the butcher’s shop and the newsagent. All of these individuals will be affected by the decision to close the post office. The decision was taken to close the post office because the business was no longer viable. However, instead of identifying another shop in the area that might host the post office, An Post decided to move it out of Ringsend village altogether. In my opinion, not enough research was carried out in respect of transferring the business to another shop in the area. I understand An Post is currently carrying out such research but it is far from certain whether the post office will remain in the Ringsend-Irishtown area. An Post wants to move the post office a significant distance from Ringsend to Barrow Street. As a result, the elderly will not be able to access it. Most older people go out each Friday to meet their friends, chat and collect their pension payments from their local post office. Post offices are part of the social infrastructure not just in Ringsend, but in towns and villages throughout the country. They ameliorate the effects of social isolation and allow people, particularly the elderly, to be independent and to meet their friends. The community in the Ringsend-Irishtown area is great. Removing the post office from

166 Post Office 17 June 2009. Network the village would represent a real blow to the older people who live there. In many ways, its removal amounts to ripping the heart out of the community in the Ringsend-Irishtown area. It is astounding that the Minister with responsibility for An Post is unwilling to meet the residents or the public representatives who have expressed concern about this matter. This issue is too important to be managed by a Minister at arm’s length. The Minister must intervene and take charge of matters. If we are going to protect our urban villages, we must also protect our post offices. In recent days I met a woman who was on her way to the post office in Ringsend and who was devastated when I informed her that it was intended to close it. Her main concern was that she would no longer be able to travel to the post office on her own and would in future be dependent on a neighbour to get her there. This woman is going to lose her independence as a result of what is happening. Saving the post office in question is vital to the survival of the villages of Ringsend and Irishtown. If the post office closes down, the butcher, the newsagent, the other shops and the public houses in the area will all lose out financially. The effect of the closure will be extremely detrimental. I ask that the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, intervene and take some responsibility for this matter. He should not allow the mandarins in An Post to determine whether our urban villages survive.

Deputy John Moloney: I apologise to Deputy Chris Andrews that the Minister was unavail- able to take this matter. As he will be aware, the issue of social isolation is not a new phenomenon, nor, in light of its broad-ranging impact, is it one in respect of which the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs has sole responsibility. I am sure the Deputy will accept that the causes of social isolation can be varied and include poverty, unemployment, disability, illness, educational difficulties and substance abuse, to mention but a few. Accord- ingly, many Departments and agencies, including the HSE, the Garda, the Department of Education and Science and local authorities have responsibilities that touch directly or indirectly on this matter. In addition, there are numerous voluntary and community agencies with specific or broader remits that are available to those who experience social isolation for one reason or another. The remit of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources includes support for communities, irrespective of location or socio-economic development. However, its programmes, individually and collectively, focus on communities, particularly those that are vulnerable, disadvantaged or under threat. The key principle underlying these activities is the provision of support that enables communities to identify and address problems in their areas. In order to be effective in this work, the Department seeks to provide a co-ordinated approach not only across the range of measures for which it has direct responsibility, but also with other Departments and State agencies. The Department operates a wide range of measures, programmes and schemes which support disadvantaged communities. These include the local development social inclusion programme, LDSIP, the community development programme, CDP and the RAPID programme. Some of the programmes operated by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs may also indirectly impact on issues relating to social isolation. I refer, for example, to the community services programme and the programme of grants for locally-based community and voluntary organisations. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources also provides general support to the voluntary sector and supports volunteering. In the time available, it is not pos-

167 The 17 June 2009. Adjournment

[Deputy John Moloney.] sible to give a comprehensive description of all these programmes. However, I will provide a brief outline of the LDSIP and the CDP. The LDSIP aims to counter disadvantage and promote equality and social and economic inclusion through the provision of funding and support to urban partnerships and integrated companies. The LDSIP comprises measures that are designed to counter disadvantage and it specifically promotes equality and social and economic inclusion. The programme is implemented by 37 integrated local development companies and 16 urban partnerships. These are not-for-profit organisations which target the areas of greatest need throughout the country in order to provide an area-based response to long-term unemployment and promote social inclusion across three sub-measures, namely, services for the unemployed, community development and community-based youth initiatives. Under the LDSIP, the companies work with specific groups in Irish society including people with disabilities, migrant workers and their families, lone parents, farming smallholders, members of the Traveller community, the elderly and youths at risk, all of whom experience specific forms of marginalisation and, in some cases, social isolation. The companies tackle issues of social exclusion and work with a cross-section of State agencies and local bodies in their respective areas. The CDP provides financial assistance to some 180 community development projects in recognised disadvantaged areas nationwide, in both urban and rural settings. It also provides support for self-help work to specific target groups that experience disadvantage, for example, lone parents, members of the Traveller community, people with disabilities and elderly individuals living in isolation. The programme is designed to reduce social exclusion by targeting support at disadvantaged and socially excluded communities in order to improve their capacity to benefit from social and economic development. These programmes and those operated by the Department Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs provide real remedies for those experiencing social isolation. However, this is not to say that we are complacent, particularly in the context of the challenges we face with regard to the public finances. The LDSIP and the CDP are being redesigned in order that we can be sure they provide real value for money and actually provide measurable improvements in the lives of the communities they are designed to serve.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Chris Andrews will be obliged to send a postcard to the LDSIP from the post office to which he refers.

The Da´il adjourned at 10.40 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 18 June 2009.

168 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

Written Answers.

————————

The following are questions tabled by Members for written response and the ministerial replies as received on the day from the Departments [unrevised].

————————

Questions Nos. 1 to 11, inclusive, answered orally.

Questions Nos. 12 to 23, inclusive, resubmitted.

Questions Nos. 24 to 33, inclusive, answered orally.

Departmental Expenditure. 34. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the cost of the new Waterways Ireland head office in Enniskillen; the cost to the Exchequer of their contribution to its completion; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23845/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): The new headquarters building for Waterways Ireland is located on the shores of Lough Erne in Ennis- killen. I am advised that:

• the total construction cost (including fees) to date is STG£10.525m;

• a retention of STG£0.201m and outstanding fees of STG£0.015m remain to be paid;

• fit-out costs were STG£0.212m; and

• the building was constructed within budget.

The contribution by my Department to this project was \3m. This took account of an agreement with the co-sponsoring Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in Northern Ireland that the cost of new regional offices for Waterways Ireland at Scarriff, Co Clare (completed) and at Carrick-on-Shannon (not yet commenced) would be met in full from this jurisdiction. I should add that the new headquarters building in Enniskillen is designed to be energy efficient and sustainable, using biofuels and solar panels for heating, and earned Waterways Ireland the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors ‘Sustainability’ category award last month. 169 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

National Drugs Strategy. 35. Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on the fact that the dial to stop drug dealing phoneline looks set to close in autumn 2009, if not earlier, in view of the fact that it has received more than 2,200 calls generat- ing approximately 600 information reports for gardaı´ to follow up; and if he will arrange for a small portion of the drug-related moneys confiscated by the Criminal Assets Bureau to be ringfenced to secure the future of the phoneline or make a commitment that alternative funding will be made available. [23835/09]

56. Deputy Arthur Morgan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the number of calls made to the dial to stop drug dealing phone line to date; the number of information reports for gardaı´ that this has generated; and if he will reverse his decision to let this valuable and cost effective tool in the fight against drugs close down once funding runs out which it is envisaged will happen in the early autumn 2009, if not sooner. [23868/09]

61. Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his plans for the future of the dial to stop drug dealing hotline scheme; the number of areas in which it currently operates; if it is intended to provide adequate funding to allow it to continue in these areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23854/09]

73. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his plans for the future of the dial to stop drug dealing hotline scheme; the number of hotlines currently operating; the number he expects to be in operation at the end of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23858/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy John Curran): I propose to take Questions Nos. 35, 56, 61 and 73 together. The Dial-to-Stop Drug Dealing Campaign was officially launched on 30 September 2008. The first phase ran across the following five Task Force areas in late 2008:

• Blanchardstown LDTF;

• Tallaght LDTF;

• Dublin North East LDTF;

• Dublin North Inner City LDTF;

• South-Western RDTF; Following Government approval, funding was allocated from the Dormant Accounts Fund for ten further campaigns divided into two phases. These have now been rolled out in the following Task Force areas in recent months:

• Cork LDTF and Southern RDTF (23rd March);

• Co. Kerry (25th March);

• North Dublin City and County RDTF (31st March);

• Mid-West RDTF (2nd April);

• South East RDTF (27th April);

170 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

• East Coast RDTF (12th May);

• Dun Laoghaire LDTF (18th May);

• Bray LDTF (19th May);

• Finglas Cabra LDTF (22nd May);

• Midlands RDTF (22nd May).

In relation to funding, phase one of the campaign was funded by my Department (\100,000) and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (\50,000). The Dormant Accounts funding of \300,000 is once-off in nature and is the total that has been allocated. As the allocation for funding for drugs initiatives in my Department in 2009 is fully committed, I regret that there is no scope, at present, for further campaigns. Neither do I envisage any additional campaigns in 2010. While the suggestion that a portion of drugs related money confiscated by the Criminal Assets Bureau funding be ringfenced to fund campaigns of this nature is an interesting one, it raises a number of difficulties. The Constitution requires, and Government accounting principles provide, that public moneys be spent as voted or approved by Da´il E´ ireann, unless otherwise provided by statute. It would be contrary to the normal Estimates process if we were to ring-fence moneys obtained by the Exchequer and reallocate them for a specific purpose. The Deputies should note that all of the Task Forces were consulted to assess their interest in rolling out a local campaign. While several opted not to run one, I am satisfied that, with the available funding, the majority of the Task Force areas have been engaged in the process. In this context, I would like to point out that the campaign confidential number is open for all to use, regardless of the area they come from. Overall, the campaign has proved to be very successful. To date, there have been in excess of 3,300 calls to the phone-line that have generated over 920 information reports to the Gardaı´. It should also be noted that from the outset the Dial-to-Stop Drug Dealing Campaign was to run over a discrete period of time. This was based on the findings from the initial pilot project in Blanchardstown which found that the vast majority of calls were received early in the campaign following its launch. I recently launched the final part of the campaign in Athlone, which will cover the Midlands RDTF area. The line will remain open until approximately September.

Question No. 36 answered with Question No. 29.

37. Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the number of meetings he has had with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to provide up dates as to each Department’s programme and progress in regard to the reduction of the use of illicit substances; the progress made at such meetings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23849/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy John Curran): I have had regular meetings with the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform (D/JE&LR) since my appointment as Minister of State with responsibility for the National Drugs Strategy and the Deputy will be aware that I also hold office at that Department in the context of my appointment as Minister for Integration. In their overall co-ordinating role in respect of the Strategy, my officials are also in on-going contact with that Department.

171 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy John Curran.]

As chairperson of the Inter-departmental Group on Drugs, I meet with senior officials of various agencies, including the D/JE&LR, on a quarterly basis. That Department is also represented on the interim Drugs Advisory Group which I currently chair and which meets on a fortnightly basis. Apart from these Groups, meetings and contact between myself, my officials and the D/JE&LR continue on an on-going basis in regard to the efforts to reduce the use of illicit substances. Indeed, the D/JE&LR has been centrally involved in the work to develop a new Drugs Strategy. They, along with the Gardaı´, the Irish Prison Service, and the Probation Service, were all represented on a Steering Group, chaired by my Department, which developed the new Strategy. The Steering Group met on 33 occasions over the past year or so and their work also included formal meetings with senior officials of various Departments, including the D/JE& LR. The Government approved the new Strategy yesterday. The Gardaı´ and the Probation Services are represented on Drug Task Forces and this facilitates their involvement in drug issues at a local and regional level. Also, drugs issues are addressed through Local Policing Fora and, increasingly, through the Joint Policing Committees that are being established throughout the country. Furthermore, in the context of drugs as a global problem, officials in the D/JE&LR and my Department co-operate fully in regard to representation at drugs fora at EU and UN level. Overall, I am fully satisfied with our level of co-operation and co-ordination with the D/JE& LR in the continuing effort to disrupt the supply of drugs to this country and to reduce of the overall use of illicit substances.

Departmental Expenditure. 38. Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the way the reduction of \47.4 million in the estimate for his Department, announced in Budget 2009, will be achieved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23853/09]

44. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his priorities for expenditure by his Department for the remainder of 2009 in view of the ongoing economic downturn and the social issues arising therefrom; the way he will address these issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23916/09]

135. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his proposals to respond to the issues arising from the economic downturn; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24017/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): I propose to take Questions No. 38, 44 and 135 together. As the Deputy is aware, in the current economic circumstances, the Government was faced with difficult decisions in the recent Budget. Accordingly, it considered a range of measures to maintain a prudent fiscal outturn for 2009 and to provide the basis for a sustainable approach to the current financial situation. Across Government, our approach has been to do this in as balanced a way as possible. The revised 2009 allocation for my Department shows a gross reduction of \47.4m on the initial estimated allocation announced in October 2008. Full details of the reductions at an individual programme level are available in the recently published Revised Estimates Volume 2009, which is available on-line on the website of the Department of Finance (http://www.finance.gov.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=13&m=f).

172 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

\11.8m of my Department’s reduction relates to capital expenditure. This includes a transfer of some \2.5m to the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs relating to the Young People’s Facilities and Services Fund. The balance reflects adjustments in capital expenditure made in the package of measures announced by the Minister of Finance at end- January 2009. The priorities for capital expenditure in 2009 are reflected in the published 2009 Budget allocations for my Department’s capital programme. A table summarising the position in this regard will be circulated with the Official Report.

Table: 2009 Budget allocations for the Department’s capital programme

Capital Programme Area 2009 Budget 2009 REV Reduction Allocation Allocations

\000 \000 \000

Administration 680 610 −70 Developing Communities 14,000 13,340 −660 Tackling Problem Drug Use 8,100 4,591 −3,509 Rural Development 51,000 47,976 −3,024 Gaeltacht & Islands Development 59,070 55,332 −3,738 Promotion and Maintenance of the Irish Language 650 600 −50 North/South Co-operation 11,500 10,726 −774

Total 145,000 133,175 −11,825

In relation to current expenditure, there is a reduction of \35.6m, which includes a transfer of \17.4m to the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs for the Young People’s Facilities and Services Fund and a transfer of \2m to the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism from Ciste na Gaeilge in relation to the Comhaltas Ceolto´ irı´ E´ ireann Regional Development Programme. The balance is made up of savings achieved mainly by the reduction of administration costs for my Department, the State agencies within its ambit, and community and voluntary organisations. The priorities for current expenditure in 2009 are reflected in the published 2009 Budget allocations for my Department’s current programme. The following table summarises the position in this regard.

Table: 2009 Budget allocations for the Department’s current programme

Current Programme Area 2009 Budget 2009 REV Reduction Allocation Allocations

\000 \000 \000

Administration 18,778 18,347 −431 Developing Communities 161,650 149,976 −11,674 Tackling Problem Drug Use 53,000 36,020 −16,980 Rural Development 56,760 55,446 −1,314 Gaeltacht & Islands Development 31,630 30,586 −1,044 Promotion and Maintenance of the Irish Language 9,972 7,774 −2,198 North/South Co-operation 46,295 44,376 −1,919

Total 378,085 342,525 -35,560

173 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v.]

In relation to the various programme areas of my Department, efforts have been made to minimise the effects on frontline services, where possible. This approach will continue in the context of the ongoing financial management of my Department’s Vote for the remainder of the year.

Decentralisation Programme. 39. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the position in relation to the decentralisation programme of his Department; the cost incurred to date; the number of accommodations that have been rented to accommodate the changes; the cost of such rents; if these rents are being reviewed due to the economic downturn; the position regarding the proposed new site; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23863/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): Under the decentralisation programme, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs is scheduled to relocate to offices at Na Forbacha, Galway and Charlestown, Co. Mayo. My Department’s commitment under the decentralisation programme in relation to Na For- bacha, Co. Galway has been met in full with 10 staff now relocated to my Department’s offices at that location. In relation to the decentralisation of my Department’s headquarters to Charlestown, Co. Mayo, significant progress has been made to date. From a total of 140 staff due to decentralise, 100 staff have now relocated to an interim location in Tubbercurry, Co. Sligo, where two properties are being leased by the Office of Public Works to accommodate the staff concerned. I understand from the Office of Public Works that the cost of leasing both properties in Tubber- curry is just under \175,000 per year, while fit-out costs to date for both buildings amounted to some \402,000. I also understand that the total non-property costs relating to the relocation of staff to Tub- bercurry, Co. Sligo, amounted to some \1.39m to end-March 2009. In relation to the Deputy’s specific query regarding the review of rental costs in Tubbercurry, I must advise that property and accommodation matters, including rental costs and rent reviews, are a matter for the Office of Public Works. In relation to the acquisition of a permanent site for my Department’s headquarters at Charl- estown, Co Mayo, I understand that OPW is currently liaising with the Department of Finance and relevant authorities in relation to a particular site in Charlestown, which it has identified as being suitable. I should add that the Department of Finance was recently approached by a community development organisation in relation to a property in Kiltimagh, Co Mayo, with turn-key potential as a headquarters building. On foot of this approach, OPW is currently examining the property in question to ascertain its suitability. I should emphasise that this is a sensible and prudent response to the approach that has been made and implies no decision.

National Drugs Strategy. 40. Deputy Arthur Morgan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the report published by the family support network entitled Intimidation of Families; if the recommendations of this report will be reflected in the new national drugs strategy; and if responsibility for supporting families will be clearly assigned and the requisite resources made available. [23865/09]

174 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

71. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if the new national drugs strategy will deal comprehensively with the issue of drug related intimidation; the Department it is envisaged that will lead on this matter; and the form consultation around the approach to this issue has and will take. [23866/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy John Curran): I propose to take Questions 40 and 71 together. I am very much aware of the issue of drug-related intimidation and I accept that we must re-double our efforts to deal effectively with this problem. The issue of intimidation was consistently raised during the consultation process undertaken in regard to the development of proposals for a new National Drugs Strategy. The increased levels of intimidation are, in part, thought to be due to higher levels of drug-related debts, which are particularly associated with the rise in cocaine use. The Gardaı´, who have responded very successfully to many aspects of the criminal activity associated with the supply of illegal drugs, continue to face significant difficulties in dealing with the issue of intimidation. This varies from low level incidents to the most serious crimes, often involving gangs who are involved in the drugs market. While such activities are often drug-related, they are not exclusively so, and the development of appropriate responses goes beyond the remit of the Drugs Strategy. In this regard, the Department of Justice, Equality & Law Reform intends to shortly bring forward proposals for new legislation through the Crimi- nal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2009 and, when enacted, this will significantly strengthen the measures available to the Gardaı´ in this area. The Steering Group that developed the proposals for the new Drugs Strategy was very aware of the consequences of intimidation for the individuals, families and communities affected. However, there is no easy remedy to the problem. However, it is important to point out that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform — the Department with lead responsibility in this area — and An Garda Sıóchańa, both of whom were represented on the Steering Group, are fully committed to tackling intimidation, whether in the context of the drugs market or more generally. The report of the Family Support Network on the intimidation of families was considered by the Steering Group. The new Drugs Strategy will aim to develop a framework to provide an appropriate response to the issue of drug-related intimidation in communities. The Gardaı´ will be taking the lead role in this regard and the Family Support Network will also be involved. The new Strategy envisages drug-related intimidation being raised on a regular basis at meetings of Joint Policing Committees and Local Policing Fora, so that these matters can be brought to the attention of An Garda Sıóchańa, and appropriate and sustainable local responses pursued.

Community Development. 41. Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his plans in relation to the future of the community development programme; the options he has considered in respect of the future management structures for community development programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23869/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy John Curran): Following the recent supplementary budget, the allocation for the Community Development Programme for 2009 is \20.9m. As the Deputy may be aware, a review of the Community Development Programme is currently underway and I anticipate findings in this

175 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy John Curran.] regard in due course. There is an ongoing need to ensure that resources are directed in a targeted and effective manner and activities funded by my Department are subject to critical appraisal. In that way those we work to assist will receive the maximum benefit.

Inland Waterways. 42. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the mileage of non-navigable canal here; the geographical areas where such exists; his plans to address this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23847/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): In replying to the Deputy’s Question, it is necessary to distinguish between canals that are under the control of Waterways Ireland and those which are not. In relation to those canals under the control of Waterways Ireland, it is further necessary to distinguish between non-navigable canals that could be restored at some stage in the future and those which are obsolete because they have been replaced by a parallel navigation. For the sake of completeness, I am also including in my reply details of some other navigations that are primarily river-based, rather than being canals per se. The following are the details requested by the Deputy in respect of non-navigable stretches of canals that are within the control of Waterways Ireland and are being or could be restored:

Grand Canal • Kilbeggan Branch (8.2 miles long) in Co. Offaly and Co. Westmeath.

• Part of Naas & Corbally Branch (Corbally Extension) (4.4 miles long) in Co. Kildare.

• Barrow Line Part of Mountmellick Branch (0.25 miles long) in Co. Kildare (remaining 11 miles filled in).

Royal Canal • Part of Royal Canal (11 miles long) in Co. Longford, currently under restoration.

• Longford Branch (3 miles long) in Co. Longford.

The Royal Canal main line is currently under restoration and the remaining work necessary to return it to full navigation between Dublin and the Shannon is due for completion in 2010. Ulster Canal

• 46 miles long in Co. Cavan, Co. Monaghan, Co. Fermanagh and Co. Armagh. Approval has been given to Waterways Ireland to restore the stretch between Lough Erne and Clones. Present indications are that this stretch could be re-opened by 2013.

The following are details of canals that became redundant following parallel works on the Shannon Navigation in the period 1839 — 1846, or following the construction of Ardnacrusha in the 1920s: • Park Canal (1 mile long) in Limerick City. • Errina-Plassey Canal (6.9 miles long) in Co. Clare. • Hamilton Canal (1.9 miles long) in Co. Offaly. • Athlone Canal (0.9 miles long) in Athlone. • Roosky Canal (1.2 miles long) in Co. Roscommon.

176 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

A number of these are maintained as linear parks by agreement with the local authority or other local agency. It is intended, subject to availability of resources, to carry out feasibility studies and preliminary designs in relation to the Longford Branch, the Kilbeggan Branch and the Corbally Exten- sion, along with extensions to Annagh Upper near Dowra on the Shannon Navigation and to Lough Oughter on the Erne System with a view to possible re-opening. Consideration will also be given to the carrying out of preliminary analysis and assessment of the Mountmellick Branch, as well as the Boyne Navigation (which is primarily a river navigation) and the extension towards Mohill on the Rinn River, as future possibilities for restoration.

Irish Language. 43. Deputy Ruairı´ Quinn asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the action he has taken in regard to the breach of his Department’s statutory language scheme in failing to ensure Department interviews were held in Irish or in English in specific cases and in failing to ensure staff training in both languages; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23860/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): My Depart- ment’s Language Scheme under the Official Languages Act 2003 provides that Departmental interviews through Irish or English will be available to staff, subject to advance notice by interviewees of their language choice. Notwithstanding the clarity of this provision, my Depart- ment agreed, following an investigation and correspondence from An Coimisine´ir Teanga in November 2007, to provide that for all future competitions for internal promotion an amended application form would be used where applicants would be able to indicate their language choice for interview (except in cases where Irish is a particular requirement for the post). In relation to the provision of staff training in both languages, my Department’s Language Scheme contains a commitment to provide appropriate training and development for staff in both official languages. In this regard, my Department is required to operate in accordance with national procurement requirements and, during the process of tendering, requests training providers to provide training to staff both in Irish and English. In the case of two competitions for promotion, my Department encountered difficulties in sourcing specific specialist courses through Irish, resulting in the provision of training through English only, and this issue was also investigated by An Coimisine´ir Teanga. My Department has now put arrangements in place to ensure that where the market is unable to provide training in Irish, this will be delivered in-house by a member of staff attached to the Training Unit who is proficient in Irish. Both of the above approaches are encompassed in my Department’s Human Resources Strategy 2008-10 and its Training and Development Strategy 2009-11.

Question No. 44 answered with Question No. 38.

National Drugs Strategy. 45. Deputy Catherine Byrne asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on the role of community organisations in the national drugs strategy; his plans to support community groups and workers who tackle the drug problem in communities here; if funding for such groups is guaranteed into the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23917/09]

59. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the implications for frontline services of his most

177 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in.] recent decision to cut the budgets to the local drugs task forces by a further 15 to 20%; his views on whether the impact of the cuts will be to wipe out certain services, reduce programmes and closure of premises and job losses at a time when drug use and drug related harm to individuals and communities are on the increase; and if he will reverse the cuts. [23867/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy John Curran): I propose to take Questions Nos. 45 and 59 together. Community and voluntary organisations have an important role to play in the National Drugs Strategy at a number of levels. At a local level, through the Drugs Task Force network, they are involved in planning and developing community services. Nationally, they also make a valuable contribution to policy development through the input of their representatives. In this context, the Deputies should note that the community and voluntary sectors were represented on the Steering Group set up to develop proposals on the new Drugs Strategy and their input was facilitated and supported throughout that process. Many community organisations also contributed to the various consultations meetings that were undertaken as part of the Steering Group’s work. With regard to expenditure, as the Deputies will be aware, the majority of drugs funding allocated to community groups and projects by my Department is channelled though the Local and Regional Drugs Task Forces. Of the total drugs funding in my Department’s Vote in 2009, over 92% is targeted at Task Force-related activities. The revised allocation, following the April 2009 Supplementary Budget, for community- based initiatives in the Task Force areas is \32.5m which will support in the region of 530 projects. In this context, it should be noted that the original allocation for LDTFs was \23.4m, while the revised allocation is \22.3m which is approximately a 4.7% reduction. Unfortunately, no area is immune to cost cutting measures in the current economic environment. It is in this context that all Drugs Task Forces must live within the budgets allocated for their areas of responsibility and I fully appreciate this involves some difficult choices having to be made. Sustained incremental funding over recent years has facilitated, amongst others, the strengthening of existing projects in the LDTF areas, the rolling out of projects and initiatives in the RDTF areas, the introduction of new initiatives and responses to address cocaine usage, measures to support rehabilitation and the ongoing investment in capital projects. These are recognised by Government as key areas to support communities to address the harm caused by problem drugs use and to deliver meaningful solutions. I can assure the Deputies that our primary concern has been — and continues to be — the protection of front-line community- based services delivering vital programmes and initiatives in areas worst affected by problem drug use. I am, of course, acutely aware of the challenges reduced budget allocations pose. I know that other Departments and agencies are also very aware of this in the context of their engagement in the Drugs Strategy and the available funding to them for mainstreamed drugs services. However, we have to take account of the current economic reality and of the pressure on the public finances. This, inevitably, means that some schemes will be affected but I believe properly managed this may lead to and foster better interagency working to the benefit of all. Finally, it should be noted that the Drugs Strategy is based on a co-ordinated effort across many Government Departments and Agencies and my Department’s allocation is only part of a much bigger investment programme in drugs services. In 2008, it was estimated that expendi-

178 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers ture on drugs programmes across all the bodies was in the region of \264m and expenditure in 2009 is expected to be broadly similar.

Irish Language. 46. Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the action he has taken in regard to the non-renewal by the end of 2008 of the three year language schemes for some 22 State organisations [23842/09]

68. Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the cost in 2008 to his Department in regard to the Official Languages Act 2003 and its implementation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23861/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): I propose to take Questions Nos. 46 and 68 together. At the outset, I wish to reiterate that considerable progress has been made to date in the implementation, on a phased basis, of the provisions of the Official Languages Act 2003. As the Deputy is aware, language schemes constitute the core element of the Act and to date I have confirmed a total of 93 language schemes, which cover 170 public bodies, and were the first language schemes adopted by those bodies. I have also confirmed second, or renewed, language schemes for 2 public bodies. All these schemes are available on the website of An Coimisine´ir Teanga at www.coimisineir.ie. My own Department’s second scheme is due to be published shortly. In addition, 29 additional first schemes, as well as 37 second schemes, are currently in preparation and my Department is in discussion with the public bodies concerned. In this context, I should point out that the provisions of the each language scheme confirmed to date remain in force until a new scheme is confirmed. With regard to the renewal of schemes, I consider this phase to be of particular importance and, accordingly, during 2008 a consultation process was put in place in order to establish priorities for the second round of schemes. The main priority to emerge was the need to seek to raise the level of awareness amongst the Irish-speaking community about the services that are currently available from public bodies under their language schemes. A proposed “active offer of service” approach on the part of public bodies will be a key method of raising such awareness. Accordingly, it is proposed that each second scheme will provide specific details of how the public body proposes to promote the services it provides, or proposes to provide, through Irish and to make its staff and customers aware of the availability of these services. These steps need not be expensive or elaborate — they might, for example, include placing signs at public coun- ters or reception areas indicating what Irish language services are available and also listing the Irish language services that are available in a prominent location on the body’s website. With regard to the issue of the cost to my Department in 2008 of the implementation of the Act, I wish to remind the Deputy that it has been a long-standing policy of my Department to ensure that customers who wished to conduct their business through Irish or English are facilitated. Accordingly, expenditure on providing services through Irish and English arises from our existing commitments to our customers and is met from our normal administrative budget. It is not possible, therefore, readily to separate out the bilingual or Irish language dimension from the overall cost of running my Department and of its service delivery in 2008 or indeed in any given period.

179 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v.]

The Deputy will be aware that Oifig an Choimisine´ir Teanga is funded under my Depart- ment’s Vote. This is a statutory, independent office whose role and functions are provided for in Part 4 of the Official Languages Act. The Office spent a sum of \831,000 in 2008.

Departmental Funding. 47. Deputy Ciara´n Lynch asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the number of applications received to date in 2009 and each of the past three years for grants under the Dormant Accounts Fund, RAPID and CLA´ R; the funding provided under each heading; the number of programmes fully funded and completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23851/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): Dormant Accounts Funding is provided from the Dormant Accounts Fund (DAF), through the votes of relevant Departments. The DAF is administered by means of various rounds of measures over an extended period and not on an annual basis. Rounds 2, 3 & 4 broadly relate to the periods referred to in the question. With regard to Dormant Accounts funded measures across all Government Departments, the number of applications for grants received under Rounds 2, 3 and 4 were 3,437; 3,115; and 1,575 respectively. The approvals / allocations of funding provided under each of these rounds was \76.6m, \22.3m and \29.8m respectively. Also in relation to Dormant Accounts funding, in 2006, 2007 and 2008, my Department has managed an annual measure to support projects in RAPID areas, each measure is valued at \7.5m per annum. In 2007, my Department also managed a measure to provide recreation and personal development opportunities for disadvantaged young people valued at \1.12m, and provided \3.95m under the Flagship measure to fund two projects. In 2008, \2m was provided for a substance misuse measure. Details of all of the individual grants and organisations that have been approved by the Government for support from the DAF are available on my Department’s website: www.pobail.ie.

RAPID The RAPID Programme aims to ensure that priority attention is given to tackling the spatial concentration of poverty and social exclusion within the designated RAPID areas nationally. As I have indicated to the House on a number of occasions, it is a matter for individual Departments to report on the provision of funding and progress on delivery with respect to projects under their responsibility in the RAPID areas. Details of the number of RAPID Leverage Scheme applications received by my Department and the funding allocated for each year are as follows:

RAPID 2006 2007 and 2008 To date in 2009

Number of applications for 84 applications from 80 applications from 45 applications from grants received RAPID areas RAPID areas RAPID areas

As regards expenditure by my Department under the RAPID programme, the following funding has been provided:

2006 — \5.877m (out-turn);

2007 — \6.873m (out-turn); 180 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

2008 — \9.578m (out-turn); and

2009 — \7.49m (allocation).

My Department co-funds a number of other Leverage Schemes, namely the Sports Capital Top Up Scheme, the Community Based CCTV Scheme, the Health Sector Co-fund Scheme and the Small Scale Capital Grants Scheme for Schools, but applications for these schemes are processed by the lead Departments, i.e. the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Health Sector Executive and the Depart- ment of Education and Science respectively.

CLA´ R The CLA´ R programme provides funding and co-funding to Government Departments, State Agencies and Local Authorities to accelerate investment in selected priority developments in areas that have suffered significant depopulation. In relation to CLA´ R, please see the details provided in the Table.

CLA´ R 2006 2007 2008 To date in 2009

Number of applications for grants received 648 790 380 10 Amount of total funding provided \ 28.661m 28.812m 25.268m 16.86m* *2009 Allocation.

For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that CLA´ R Applications from Local Auth- orities and other Government Departments for programmes such as the Class 2 & 3 roads and Health are counted as one application but include multiple projects. As for the remaining elements of the Deputy’s question, it is very difficult in view of the number of organisations and projects involved to give global information. If the Deputy has a specific question about an application or project, I will be happy to deal with that or to refer him to the relevant organisation.

Irish Language. 48. D’fhiafraigh Deputy Jan O’Sullivan den Aire Gno´ thaı´ Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta cad iad na bearta bainistıóchta maidir le cur i bhfeidhm Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiu´ la 2003 ata´ deánta aige sa bhliain 2009; agus an ndeánfaidh se´ raíteas ina thaobh. [23841/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): I dtu´ sbaíre, ba mhaith liom a mheabhru´ don Teachta go bhfuil fora´lacha Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiu´ la 2003 a´ gcur i bhfeidhm ar bhonn cheímiu´ il agus gur cur chuige leanu´ nach, fad-teármach, ata´ i gceist. O´ thus na bliana seo, ta´ na nithe seo bainte amach:

•Ta´ 8 sceím teanga ceáduaire, a chlu´ daıónn 15 comhlacht poiblı´, daingnithe agam agus foilsithe.

•Ta´ fo´ gra eisithe chuig 6 chomhlacht breise ag iarraidh orthu a gce´ad sce´im teanga a ullmhu´ .

•Ta´ fo´ gra eisithe chomh maith chuig 17 comhlacht poiblı´ breise ag iarraidh orthu a ndara sceím teanga a ullmhu´ , rud a fha´gann go bhfuil iarrtha go da´ta ar 39 comhlacht san iomlań a ndara sceím teanga a ullmhu´ .Ta´ dha´ cheann de na sceímeanna sin daingnithe 181 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v.] agam agus foilsithe cheana feín, agus taím do´ chasach go n-eíreoidh linn cuid mhaith de na sceímeanna eile a dhaingniu´ roimh dheireadh na bliana seo. Nı´ miste a ra´ go bhfuil feidhm i gco´ naı´ le gach sceím ata´ daingnithe go dtı´ seo, agus go mbeidh go dtı´ go ndaingnı´tear sceím nua.

•Ta´ mo Roinnse tar eís dul i gcomhairle athuair le Ranna Rialtais eile maidir leis an liosta de na comhlachtaı´ poiblı´ ata´ clu´ daithe faoin Acht a thabhairt suas go da´ta. Ta´ su´ il agam Rialachaín ina thaobh seo a dheánamh nıós deireanaı´ i mbliana.

• Thaínig Na Rialachaín um Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiu´ la 2003 (Alt 9) 2008, a bhaineann le hu´ saíd na Gaeilge agus an Bheárla i bhfo´ gairtı´ beíl reámhthaifeadta, ar staíseano´ ireacht agus ar chomharthaıócht ag comhlachtaı´ poiblı´, agus a rinne me´ ar 1 Deireadh Fo´ mhair 2008, i bhfeidhm ar 1 Ma´rta 2009.

• Reaćhta´ladh seisiu´ n eolais, i gcomhar le Foras na Gaeilge, chun Ranna Rialtais agus U´ daraís A´ itiu´ la a chur ar an eolas faoin dul chun cinn ata´ deánta le tamall anuas maidir le hacmhainnı´ agus co´ rais a fhorbairt agus a chur ar bun a chuideoidh le comhlachtaı´ poiblı´ a gcuid dualgas faoin Acht a chomhlıónadh ar bhealach nıós eífeachtaı´ agus, ag an am gceánna, na costais a laghdu´ . I measc na nithe sin, aírı´tear an Co´ ras Creidiu´ naithe d’aistritheoirı´ Gaeilge; Freagra —lıńe chabhrach don earnaíl phoiblı´; agus aíseanna cuimhne aistriu´ chaín i nGaeilge don earnaíl phoiblı´.

Is do´ igh liom go leírıónn na bearta seo go bhfuiltear tiomanta chun na spriocanna a bhaineann leis an Acht a bhaint amach, go haírithe d’fhonn cur le raon agus caighdeań na seirbhı´sı´ ata´ ar faíl i nGaeilge o´ chomhlachtaı´ poiblı´. Leanfar leis an gcur chuige sin ar bhealach stuama agus comhthaíte, go mo´ r-mho´ r san aeraíd eacnamaıóchta ata´ ann faoi la´thair.

Corrib Gas Pipeline. 49. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will make a statement on the position in regard to his efforts to resolve the Corrib gas dispute. [23857/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): I refer the Deputy to my reply to Question No 92 of 29 Aibrea´n2009, which outlines the position in regard to the work of the North West Mayo Forum.

Question No. 50 answered with Question No. 29.

Departmental Funding. 51. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the mechanism, in relation to the rural recreation grant scheme, which will determine successful applications; if the local authority of the area will be involved in such determinations; the funding that will be made available to Coillte Teo in regard to the development of forest walks; the geographical positioning of such walks; if there will be an increase in the number of walks available; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23844/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): My Depart- ment provides funding for rural recreation projects under Sub-head D.3.4. Applications are submitted to the Rural Recreation Section within the Department and are considered under

182 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers the relevant policy publications such as the Countryside Recreation Strategy and the Prog- ramme for Government. All applications are subject to available resources and competing requests. Only projects, which clearly address the objectives and tasks under that strategy or programme, can be considered. Examples of successful applications include:

• Construction of a rural walk

• Support for walking festivals

• Material grants for walk/trail development/enhancement

• Support for public recreation amenity

• Support for cycling/mountain-bike track

• Rural tourism marketing and promotion

• Promotion of responsible use of the countryside (such as Leave No Trace) Applications are also received from local development companies to have walks or trails included in the Walks Scheme. Before any walk or trail can be considered for the Walks Scheme, it must first be approved by The National Trails Office.

While my Department works closely with local authorities, they are not involved in determining grant aid. In fact, a local authority may apply for funding for a project which furthers rural recreation policy objectives. In 2009, I have made provision for funding of \600,000 for Coillte Teoranta in support of its provision of countryside recreation services recreation strategy. The number of walks available is constantly increasing and details are available on www.co- illteoutdoors.ie and DiscoverIreland.ie websites. While there are hundreds of walks throughout the country, those that have been approved by the National Trails Office and are consequently eligible for the Walks Scheme number 182. However, this figure is expected to increase to in the region of 230 walks by the year end.

Question No. 52 answered with Question No. 29.

Question No. 53 answered with Question No. 29.

Youth Services. 54. Deputy Aengus O´ Snodaigh asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if representatives of his Department, which has incorporated the functions of the national drugs strategy team, on the national assessment committee argued for the retention of the small grants from the Young People’s Facilities and Services Fund in 2009 in view of the fact that these grants are often the only access many groups have to resources to work with disadvantaged and vulnerable people in local communities; and if in view of the decision by the NAC, which is chaired by the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, not to provide the small grants in 2009, he will make a new small grants funding scheme available to local groups working in areas badly affected by the drugs crisis. [23864/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy John Curran): At the outset, the Deputy should note that since 1st January 2009, responsibility

183 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy John Curran.] for the Young Peoples Facilities & Services Fund (YPFSF) is a matter for my colleague, Barry Andrews T.D., Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. The National Assessment Committee (NAC) — on which my Department is represented — oversees the operation of the Fund, both administrative and financial. As part of its remit, the funding allocations for 2009 were determined by the NAC in the context of the overall funding available and associated commitments. I understand that it was agreed that providing limited small grants funding was the optimum approach given the funding that is available this year. As the Deputy will be aware, funding for drugs initiatives from my Department is fully committed and, therefore, I am not in a position to provide any additional funding as suggested by the Deputy. It should be noted, however, that from the funding available to them in 2009, each Drugs Task Force can prioritise the areas to be funded — including small grants funding.

Community Development. 55. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he expects to or will expand or extend the CLA´ R or RAPID programmes with a view to making the schemes available to the wider community and addressing a greater extent of emerging issues of a socioeconomic nature; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23915/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): The Deputy will be aware that the Government recently decided to include Ballina, Co. Mayo, Dungarvan, Co. Waterford, Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath and Rathkeale, Co. Limerick in the RAPID Programme. The inclusion of these five new areas will bring the number of designated RAPID areas from 46 to 51. These changes follow an independent review of the findings of the 2006 Census returns, carried out by Trutz Haase. My Department is in discussions with the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government regarding the implementation of this decision. The CLA´ R Programme coverage area has been revised twice since its launch in October 2001. As a result, CLA´ R now covers parts of 23 counties and benefits a population of nearly 727,000. I have no plans at present for a further extension of the Programme.

Question No. 56 answered with Question No. 35.

Care of the Elderly. 57. Deputy Ciara´n Lynch asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the progress made with regard to his discussions with a number of voluntary groups in relation to the suspension of the community support for older people scheme; when he expects the discussions to be concluded and a decision made on the restoration of the scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23852/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy John Curran): I refer the Deputy to my response to Questions 68 and 69 on 29 April 2009. As indicated in that reply, the Scheme of Community Support for Older People was suspended on 7th April in order to afford my Department the opportunity to review its operation. I met with representatives of organisations involved with issues affecting older people and I have agreed with them the process setting the broad parameters for the review and for the

184 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers necessary consultations, which my officials are currently engaged in. I expect this process to be completed by mid September at which time I hope to launch a revised Scheme. All applications received up to the suspension of the Scheme will be processed and approved, as appropriate, in line with the current eligibility criteria. In addition, it is important to note that the suspension of the Scheme in no way affects those who already have received a monitored alarm device.

Industrial Relations Issues. 58. Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the controversy which has arisen in relation to labour relations arrangements on the operation of the official ferry to Cape Clear Island in west Cork in respect of which his Department makes available substantial State subsidy; and if he will bring to the attention of the operator the need to ensure that proper industrial relations procedures will be followed in the operation of the ferry. [23726/09]

62. Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the terms and conditions associated with the grant of subsidy for the official ferry to Cape Clear Island in west Cork; and if there are requirements in relation to having appropriate labour relations arrangements in the operation of the ferry. [23727/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): I propose to take Questions No. 58 and 62 together. The terms and conditions associated with the grant of subsidy for the provision of a ferry service to Cle´ire are contained in the Agreement between my Department and Tithe Saoire Chle´ire Teo. Labour relations issues between the operator and crew members are a matter for the contracted operator and only become an issue for my Department if the operator cannot fulfil his obligations under the contract. Accordingly, the Deputy will appreciate that I have no role in the matter. I have asked my officials to forward a copy of the Agreement in this case directly to the Deputy.

Question No. 59 answered with Question No. 45.

Community Development. 60. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the community development programmes in County Donegal; the funding provided to each group over each of the past three years; the number employed in each project; if cutbacks are proposed in 2009 in each group; if so, the number of placements lost; the projected funding for each group in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23848/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): Following the recent supplementary budget, the current funding of \20.9m available for the Community Development Programme is less that in recent years. This has resulted in a reduction across the board to Community Development Projects of approximately 12% on 2008 levels and projects have been so informed. In the context of a reduced budget allocation, all projects have been advised that frontline services and support to customers/beneficiaries should be prioritised over administration, overheads and ancillary costs.

185 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v.]

It is a matter for the board of each project to decide how best to continue to operate with reduced budgets including staffing numbers. Set out as follows are details of the ten projects funded under the Programme in County Donegal including details of funding received over the last 3 years, indicative allocations for 2009 and the number of such staff employed by each project, as advised to my Department.

Name of Project Funding Funding Funding 2009 CDP Staff received received received Indicative 2006* 2007* 2008* Allocation

\\\\

Action Inishowen 111,500 127,560.74 102,532 107,799 2 full-time Atlantic View Community Development Co Ltd. 111,100 130,370 102,000 101,614 2 full-time Donegal Travellers Project 113,900 120,000 130,000 114,868 1 full-time/1 part-time Donegal Women’s Network 128,757.38 127,589.41 126,401.72 111,334 2 full-time Letterkenny Community Development Project 144,200 134,400 137,000 121,053 2 full-time Ltd. Lifford/Clonleigh Resource Centre 124,400 137,900 128,000 113,101 2 full-time Pobail Le Cheile CDP Teoranta 121,700 122,000 122,000 107,799 2 full-time South West Donegal Communities Partnership 126,400 130,000 118,801 113,101 2 full-time Ltd The Rosses 119,200 121,799 122,200 106,916 2 full-time Cadolemo Ltd n/a n/a 30,000 120,000 1 full-time

*Figure is inclusive of core funding payable and any additional payments made e.g. once-off grants.

Question No. 61 answered with Question No. 35.

Question No. 62 answered with Question No. 58.

Job Creation. 63. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs further to Parliamentary Question No. 308 of 26 May 2009, the amount of money expended to date out of the \48.26 million allocated under the support for business creation and development measure for the development of a range of rural enterprise activity of the rural development programme 2007 to 2013; the number of businesses supported since 2007 through this support for business creation measure; the number of jobs created to date under the entire rural development programme since it began in 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23837/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): As the Deputy may be aware, I have signed contracts with 36 Local Action Groups for the delivery of the LEADER elements of the Rural Development Programme 2007-2013. The Programme has been operational since late January 2009. While project expenditure has commenced under the overall Programme, expenditure has yet to start under the Business Creation and Development measure. As a result, information on the number of businesses supported and numbers of jobs created is not available. I can confirm, however that since February 2009, over \700,000 has been committed under this measure with further potential commitments of \1.23 million registered at various stages in the project evaluation process. 186 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

Grant Payments. 64. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the number of farmers who have sought a grant application in relation to the farm electrification grant programme; the number per county or geographic area; the average grant awarded; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23843/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): Since my Department took over responsibility for the Farm Electrification Grant Scheme for Disadvan- taged Areas in 2005, 1,618 applications have been received. Of the 1,088 applications approved to date by my Department, the average amount has been \466 per application. The Deputy should note that this is not a national scheme. It is available only to farmers in designated Disadvantaged Areas, as identified by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (D/AFF). Accordingly, all statistics referred to are in relation to those geographic areas only, which cover the entire counties of Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan, Sligo, Mayo, Galway, Leitrim, Roscommon, Longford, Clare and Kerry and parts of other counties, designated as disadvantaged by the D/AFF. Details in this regard are available at: http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/farmerschemespayments/ singlepaymentscheme/categoriesofdisadvantagedareas/

Enterprise Audit. 65. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs further to Parliamentary Question No. 131 of 13 March 2008, the contact he has had with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Department of Agriculture, Fisher- ies and Food in relation to the enterprise audit to review the use of existing and redundant agricultural buildings and manufacturing plants in rural areas; the progress that has been made with this review; when he expects this review to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23836/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): As has been indicated to the Deputy previously, an enterprise audit to review the use of existing and redundant agricultural buildings and manufacturing plants in rural areas is a significant undertaking involving a number of state agencies and Government Departments. I believe that in the current economic climate that it is also appropriate that such an undertaking is examined in the context of the realisable benefits that might accrue from it. There have been some informal contacts across Departments on this matter, however it is not considered a priority in the light of existing resource constraints.

Irish Language. 66. Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if it is planned to locate the new Irish translation unit in the Galway west constituency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23862/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): As the Deputy will be aware, the Public Appointments Commission is currently running a competition for a Director of Translation to head up the new Unit referred to by him. The location of this post is expressed as being negotiable with the successful applicant, but to be based in one of the Department’s principal offices. Recruitment to further posts in the Unit will be approached

187 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v.] in the same way. My Department’s principal offices are currently at Mespil Road, Dublin; Tubbercurry, Co Sligo; and Na Forbacha, Co Galway.

67. D’fhiafraigh Deputy Michael D. Higgins den Aire Gno´ thaı´ Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gael- tachta ceńfa´th nach bhfuil Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiu´ la 2003 a´ chur i bhfeidhm go cothrom; agus an ndeánfaidh se´ raíteas ina thaobh. [23840/09]

69. D’fhiafraigh Deputy Michael D. Higgins den Aire Gno´ thaı´ Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gael- tachta an mo´ sceím teanga faoi Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiu´ la 2003 ata´ aontaithe; agus an ndeánfaidh se´ raíteas ina thaobh. [23839/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): To´ gfaidh me´ Ceisteanna Uimh 67 agus 69 le cheíle. Mar ata´ tugtha le fios agam don Teach cheana feín, ta´ dul chun cinn suntasach deánta go dtı´ seo, ar bhonn cheímiu´ il, maidir le cur i bhfeidhm fhora´lacha Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiu´ la 2003. I measc na nithe is mo´ ata´ bainte amach go dtı´ seo ta´ na ceímeanna seo a leanas:

•Ta´ gach fora´il den Acht i bhfeidhm o´ mı´ Iu´ il 2006 agus ta´ Oifig Choimisine´ir na dTeanga- cha Oifigiu´ la bunaithe o´ Feabhra 2004.

•Ta´ 93 sceím teanga ceáduaire, a chlu´ daıónn 170 comhlacht poiblı´ ar fad, daingnithe agus foilsithe o´ thaínig an tAcht i bhfeidhm i 2003. Anuas ar sin, ta´ 29 ceád sceím teanga ceáduaire eile, a chlu´ daıónn 50 comhlacht poiblı´,a´ n-ullmhu´ .

• Chomh maith leis sin, ta´ fo´ gra eisithe chuig 39 gcomhlacht faoi alt 15 den Acht ag ceangal orthu athbhreithniu´ a dheánamh ar a gceád sceím teanga agus an dara sceím teanga a ullmhu´ agus a sheoladh chugam le daingniu´ .Dıóbh sin, ta´ 2 sceím daingnithe agam agus foilsithe go da´ta. Fa´gann se´ sin go bhfuil 66 dreácht-sceím teanga san iomlańa´ n-ullmhu´ ag comhlachtaı´ poiblı´,no´ a´ measu´ nu´ ag mo Roinnse, i la´thair na huaire.

• Ar 1 Deireadh Fo´ mhair 2008, tar eís pro´ iseas cuimsitheach comhairliu´ chaín, rinne me´ Na Rialachaín um Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiu´ la 2003 (Alt 9) 2008. Thaínig na Rialachaín sin i bhfeidhm ar 1 Ma´rta 2009 agus ta´ ta´bhacht ar leith leo toisc go gcinnteoidh siad go mbeidh an Ghaeilge i bhfad nıós feicea´laı´ sa saol poiblı´ feasta. Baineann na rialachaín le hu´ saíd na Gaeilge agus an Bheárla i bhfo´ gairtı´ beíl reámhthaifeadta, ar staíseano´ ireacht agus ar chomharthaıócht ag comhlachtaı´ poiblı´.

• In Aibreań 2006, rinne me´ Na Rialachaín um Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiu´ la 2003 (Comhlachtaı´ Poiblı´) 2006, a thug liosta na gcomhlachtaı´ poiblı´ ata´ clu´ daithe faoin Acht suas go da´ta. Ta´ i gceist agam tuilleadh Rialachaín den chinea´l sin a dheánamh nıós deireanaı´ i mbliana.

•Ta´ 11 Ordu´ Logainmneacha de´anta agam go da´ta, ina measc An tOrdu´ Logainmneacha (Ceantair Ghaeltachta) 2004.

• Ar iarratas uaimse, ta´ co´ ras creidiu´ naithe d’aistritheoirı´ Gaeilge forbartha ag Foras na Gaeilge. Ta´ an caighdea´n cuı´ bainte amach ag 125 aistritheoir go da´ta.

Taím sa´sta, mar sin, go bhfuil dul chun cinn suntasach deánta maidir le cur i bhfeidhm fhora´lacha an Achta, ar bhonn leanu´ nach. Taím sa´sta chomh maith go bhfuil fora´lacha an Achta a´ gcur i bhfeidhm go cothrom.

188 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

Question No. 68 answered with Question No. 46.

Question No. 69 answered with Question No. 67.

Youth Services. 70. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the number of community based youth initiative measures that have been funded in each of the past two years under the local development social inclusion programme; the number of participants in the areas in which funding was provided; the average funding provided to each project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23846/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): My Depart- ment’s Local Development Social Inclusion Programme (LDSIP) is a series of measures that are designed to counter disadvantage and to promote equality and social and economic inclusion. LDSIP is implemented locally by 37 Integrated Local Development Companies and 17 Urban Partnerships. These are not-for-profit companies that target the areas of greatest need in the country, to provide an area-based response to long-term unemployment and to promote social inclusion across three sub-measures, one of which is the Community Based Youth Initiatives Measure. Under this measure, Groups seek to complement and add value to mainstream educational provision. This is done by co-ordinating interventions locally and bolstering community based provision for young people whose needs are not adequately met within mainstream education or who require additional supports. Such individuals include early school leavers and potential early school leavers. Actions include both in-school and after-school supports as well as devel- opmental youth work in a community setting. Particular attention has been paid to specific target groups, e.g. students with disabilities and young Travellers. Interventions also target parents, teachers and youth workers. In 2007, 56,234 children, young people and adults were supported under the Community- Based Youth Initiatives measure. In 2008, figures rose to 61,068 individuals. Funding in respect of the Community-Based Youth Initiatives measure represents 13% of the total LDSIP funding allocation. Approximately \7m was expended under the Community- Based Youth Initiatives measure in both 2007 and 2008.

Question No. 71 answered with Question No. 40.

Dormant Accounts Fund. 72. Deputy Ruairı´ Quinn asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the amount currently in the Dormant Accounts Fund; if he has an estimate of the amount which will be paid into the fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23859/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): The Dor- mant Accounts Fund Acts provides for an annual transfer by credit institutions and insurance undertakings of monies in accounts determined to be dormant into the Dormant Accounts Fund (DAF). Since its establishment in May 2003, the net transfers to the Dormant Accounts Fund has been just over \338m. Transfers to the end of April 2009 total some \39m. The value of the Fund at end April 2009, net of liabilities, was some \52m. This excludes around \50m main-

189 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v.] tained in a Reserve Account to meet future reclaims by account holders and to cover expenses associated with the operation of the Fund.

Question No. 73 answered with Question No. 35.

Community Enterprise Boards. 74. Deputy Charlie O’Connor asked the Ta´naiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment her plans to review the operation of county enterprise boards to allow them respond to the new challenges presented by the current economic climate; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23925/09]

Ta´naiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Mary Coughlan): The County and City Enterprise Boards (CEBs) were established by the Government to develop indigenous potential and stimulate economic activity at a local level, primarily through the provision of financial and technical support for the development of small and micro enterprises. The Boards form a nationwide support network for small business, and are responsible for areas not already covered by State Agencies. The forms of financial assistance that are available from the CEB network, subject to certain criteria, include Capital Grants, Employment Grants, and Feasibility Study Grants. The provision of non-financial assistance can take the form of a wide range of business advice such as Programmes covering Business Management, Mentoring, E-commerce, Enterprise Education, and Women in Business networks. My Department, in association with the CEB Central Coordination Unit within Enterprise Ireland (CCU), and with the CEB network, will continue to monitor the level of funding and range of support services offered by the CEBs to the micro-enterprise sector, particularly in the light of the current economic climate. The Capital Allocation to the CEBs for 2009 is \20.229m for provision of supports to micro- enterprise. The Boards will continue to be actively involved in the area of economic development and will ensure that available funds are targeted to maximise entrepreneurial development.

Work Permits. 75. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Ta´naiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the position regarding the investment recently announced in the meat processing sector; if she will publish the number of work permits in respect of non-EU nationals that each of these individual companies hold; the number of work permits issued to each of these companies for non-EU workers for each year since 2000 to date in 2009; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23942/09]

Ta´naiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Mary Coughlan): I have arranged for the Employment Permits Section of my Department to compile the figures requested and I will forward them to the Deputy in due course.

Departmental Publications. 76. Deputy CaoimhghıńO´ Caolaín asked the Tańaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the policies, strategies or initiatives published on her behalf for each of the

190 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers past five years; if, in each of these cases, consultation with children or representatives from the relevant sector was involved; if so, the details of this consultation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23965/09]

Ta´naiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Mary Coughlan): My Department’s remit encompasses responsibility for devising and promoting Government policy in the areas of enterprise development and competitiveness, science, technology, innovation and intellectual property, trade, consumer, competition, commercial regulation, labour force development, employment rights protection, as well as the promotion of stable industrial relations. Our stakeholders and customers are many and varied, ranging from the Government, Oireachtas, Departments and Agencies, to the social partners, to the enterprise community, individual employees and employers, as well as to consumers and those wishing to enter the labour force. Developing and implementing policies which fall within our direct remit, together with advo- cating for policies across government and the economy that support our mission of employment creation, worker protection and promoting competitiveness, is the primary focus of my Depart- ment. In parallel, we deliver a range of services to individual customers, often through our dedicated offices structure, in such areas as import and export licensing, employment rights adjudication, patents registration, company filing and so on. In addition, our Agency network, working across such fields as Enterprise, Labour Force and Science, Technology & Innovation Development, Occupational Health & Safety, as well as Commercial Regulation, provide a significant range of services for our customers and stakeholders within the overall policy parameters for the Department. The policies, strategies and initiatives which the Department seeks to implement derive prin- cipally from the Programme for Government, the National Development Plan, Social Partner- ship Agreements, and of course, day-to-day Ministerial and Government direction. Given my Department’s remit, our policies, strategies or initiatives published over the last five years would not, in general, impact directly on children per se. In light of the extensive range of the policies, strategies and initiatives published by my Department and our Agencies, and their limited direct impact on children, the information sought is not readily available and its compilation would involve a disproportionate amount of time and work. However, if the Deputy has a specific policy, strategy or initiative in mind, I would be happy to provide specific details of our consultation process in that case / those cases to him. My Department would not, as a matter of course, consult with children or children’s representatives in formulating policy.

Tax Code. 77. Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Finance if he will withdraw the imposition of the \10 travel tax on passengers using Shannon Airport in the interest of balanced regional development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23935/09]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): As the Deputy is aware, I announced in Budget 2009 that an air travel tax would come into force in respect of passengers departing from Irish airports on and from 30 March 2009. A general rate of \10 per passenger would apply, with a lower rate of \2 for shorter journeys. The Finance (No. 2) Act 2008 confirms the introduction of an air travel tax from 30 March 2009. However, I took account of concerns raised by the regional airports particularly those on

191 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.] the western seaboard. The lower rate of \2 will apply to departures from any Irish airport where the destination is 300 kms or less from Dublin airport. This means that all Irish departures to locations such as Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow will be subject to the \2 rate. Ireland is not unique in regard to applying a tax on air travel. Other countries within the EU apply similar taxes such as the UK and France, as do Australia and New Zealand. The proposed rates for the Irish air travel tax are not unreasonable both for shorter and longer journeys, when compared to rates in other countries. It should be recognised that tourists will only be subject to the tax on their return journey. The additional \10 or \2 in the context of a much larger purchasing decision involving travel, hotel expenditures etc. shouldn’t have much of an effect on tourist numbers. I appreciate the airline industry continues to go through a difficult period. However, this difficult trading period has, in addition to weak world economic activity, been largely driven by a massive spike in oil prices. Oil prices, despite increasing recently, have halved from the all-time high prices experienced last year. We currently face significant financial challenges and the air travel tax is an important revenue raising measure. I tried to be as fair as possible in looking at areas for additional tax revenues. It is also worth noting that fuel used by commercial airlines is completely exempt from tax, so it’s a sector that already has considerable preferential treatment. I have no plans to review the air travel tax.

78. Deputy Paul Kehoe asked the Minister for Finance the status of a review of tax paid on maternity benefit for a person (details supplied); when he expects to receive a response from the Revenue Commissioners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23922/09]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the taxpayer’s income tax has been reviewed for the years 2007 and 2008. A refund of tax of \3,794.54 for 2007 and \1,519.86 for 2008 in respect of tax paid on maternity benefit are issuing and should be received by the taxpayer within 5 working days.

Information Society Fund. 79. Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Finance the value of the information society fund annually since 2000; the number and names of projects which have benefited from it since 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24090/09]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): The Information Society Fund was introduced in order to progress the eAgenda from 2000. Action plans were put in place to stimulate initiatives to provide better access for customers to services; to develop new ways for clients to interact with Government; to provide more streamlined and integrated services; to improve internal processes and to make significant improvements in the national telecommunications infrastructure. From 2001, a portion of the Fund was devolved to departmental votes and the remainder was held as a central fund under my Department’s vote. The management of and accountability for devolved funding was the responsibility of the relevant Department. The Fund ended in 2005 as planned. Departments and Offices now progress ICT initiatives through the normal business planning and budgetary process. The following table sets out the total value of allocations under the Fund during the period 2000 to 2005:

192 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

\m \m \m \m \m \m

Held in Centralised Fund 32 17.7 10.4 7.8 7.3 9 Devolved to Departmental Votes 6.1 33.1 45.5 35.4 52.7 34.9

Total Fund 38.1 50.8 55.9 43.2 60.0 43.9

Eighteen projects were supported by the Central Fund in 2004 and these included:

Department Project

Agriculture & Food Animal Import Notification Scheme

Central Statistics Office IT Strategic Implementation Plan — Support for the implementation of CSO’s e-public Service Strategy

Communications, Marine & Natural Knowledge Management Project Resources Netsecure System

Environment Mobhaile Community & Voluntary Sector Needs Analysis Webhosting

Finance Public Service VPN Govt Search engine e-Government Policy preparation e-Cabinet project

Justice Harmful use of the Internet

Land Registry Digital Mapping

Marine Institute Systems Hardware Acquisition

Social & Family Affairs Client Records Data Quality Programme

Taoiseach Island of Ingenuity Project eGovernment Masters — preparatory seminars NCPP

25 projects were supported by the Central Fund in 2005 and these included:

Department Project

Communications, Marine & Natural Environment National Security Day Resources

Community, Rural & Gaeltacht Digital Community Project Affairs Grangegorman Community Network Project Dublin Employment Pact

Education Dublin Inner-City Schools Computerisation Project (DISC)

193 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.] Department Project

Environment ISDI Technical Research Project Website Search & retrieval facility Small Areas Spatial Data Collection Project Proof of Concept for the Uptake of Small Areas Data Collection LGCSB Webhosting for 2005 Mobhaile 2005

Finance HRMS Application- Service- Provider Project HRMS Hardware/software VPN

Justice Internet Advisory Board

Law Reform Commission Law Reform Commission e-Conveyancing project

Marine Institute Coastal Zone Administration System Corporate Vessel Register Marine Data Exchange and Query Service

Revenue ROS

Social & Family Affairs Standard Authentication Framework Environment Programme (SAFE) Reach

Taoiseach About the House ICT Expo Island of Ingenuity Project

e-Government Report. 80. Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if the recommendations identified in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report on e-Government have been put into action; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24183/09]

81. Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Finance the number of services that are available to the public through the reach and broker system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24184/09]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I propose to take Question Nos. 80 and 81 together. The Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General published its Special Report No 58 on eGovernment in October 2007. The Report highlighted that while initially there was considerable impetus behind eGovernment and rapid progress was made, this had slowed in recent years. The main recommendations of the Comptroller & Auditor General Report covered eGovernment projects, the Public Service Broker, and managing the development of eGo- vernment. In summary, the Report recommended that public bodies should learn from the experiences of other EU Member States that appear to have made better progress than Ireland; that improved management processes for eGovernment should be implemented; that eGovernment projects should have measurable objectives, time and cost targets; that central encouragement, 194 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers guidance and support should be provided to public bodies, particularly those not able to make good progress; and that a stronger reporting system should be implemented. As the Deputy will be aware, there has been a renewed focus on eGovernment since the publication of the Comptroller & Auditor General Special Report. The Government decided last year that the services included in the European Union’s eGovernment Benchmark and the services included in the agreed Da´il Motion on 30 April 2008 should be the initial priorities for progress. Good progress has been achieved with a number of these and work is ongoing with others. At this stage, approximately 70 services are fully available online through www.gov.ie. Numerous others are available through Local Authorities. Additionally, forms can be down- loaded electronically for hundreds more. The publication of the Report of the Taskforce on the Public Service, “Transforming Public Services”, in November 2008 has reinforced this focus on eGovernment. Regarding the Recommendations in Chapters 2 (“Outturn on eGovernment Projects”) and 4 (“Managing the Development of eGovernment”) of the Comptroller & Auditor General Special Report, two Circulars have been issued by my Department. Circular 2/09 (http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circular2009/circ022009.pdf) sets out the arrangements for IT and telecommunications expenditure on projects, systems and infrastruc- tures (“ICT”) in the public sector. These arrangements are part of a range of initiatives designed to reduce risk and achieve better value for money in terms of ICT-related expenditure. Circular 6/09 (http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circular2009/circ62009.pdf) sets out the arrangements for monitoring and reporting on progress with eGovernment. This Circu- lar requires all Departments, Offices, Agencies, and all non-commercial public bodies and authorities to develop detailed eGovernment plans by the end of June 2009 which set out all ongoing, planned and potential eGovernment projects. These plans will be approved by each organisation’s senior management and submitted by the Accounting Officer to the Department of Finance for evaluation. Such plans will be set in the context of the wider modernisation programme underlying the need to improve the quality of customer service; to drive administrative and process simplification; to improve value for money in a tightening fiscal environment; to improve Ireland’s standing in international benchmarking and public perception; and to improve the public’s perception of ICT usage in the public service. This work will also determine which services are not amenable to electronic interactions and why that is the case. These plans must include key details on such matters as ownership; schedules/timelines; facilities being offered; costs; benefits/impacts; capacity of the organisation to deliver; monitoring arrangements; and progress to date. The plans will be subjected to regular monitoring by my Depart- ment and reporting to Government every six months. My Department has also established a website, www.ict.gov.ie, specifically for civil and public service bodies. This website provides a range of resources and guidance to help ensure that eGovernment services are developed in accordance with the relevant Circulars. With regard to the recommendations in Chapter 3 (“Developing the Public Service Broker”) of the C&AG Report, the Deputy will be aware that a review of Reach and the Public Services Broker was undertaken throughout 2007 and submitted to Government in March 2008.The Government noted the recommendations of the review and approved the transfer of the functions relating to the operation of the Public Services Broker to my Department. Since assuming responsibility for the Public Services Broker, my Department has simplified its operation, and integrated its portal with other Government websites such as www.gov.ie, www.citizensinforma-

195 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.] tion.ie, and www.ros.ie. My Department has also implemented a simplified technology solution for the electronic publication of death events to civil and public service. This solution provides a way for authorised public service staff to access records of all recently-registered deaths in a simple and secure way. It is now being used by 6 civil service Departments and Offices, 20 Local Authorities, and a number of HSE functions. Plans are in place to extend this solution to also facilitate the electronic publication of birth and marriage events subject to business needs being identified and the necessary regulatory changes being implemented. My Depart- ment has also assisted a number of bodies with the development of electronic forms for their services. Finally, my Department has commenced work on the integration of customer identity data from six national sources around the civil and public service, using the “Public Service Identity dataset”. Once completed, this will allow public bodies to better establish the identity of persons in order to maximise re-use of such data and to aid the process of administrative simplification. It is also hoped that this may provide a platform to facilitate online identity authentication. My Department is providing the Cabinet Committee on Transforming Public Services with regular updates on developments and progress. Additionally, it is providing the Government with comprehensive progress reports every six months. The first such report was submitted in March 2009. Finally, on foot of the plans received from civil and public service bodies, my Department intends to develop brochures later this year to explain to people what services are available online, how they can use them, and how they will benefit them. I am satisfied that the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General are being implemented fully.

Care of the Elderly. 82. Deputy Paul Connaughton asked the Minister for Health and Children the evidence available concerning abuse inflicted on elderly people by members of their own families or other close relatives; if her attention has been drawn to the fact that there is an increase in such activity in recent years; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23991/09]

Minister of State at the Department of the Health and Children (Deputy A´ ine Brady): In 2008 there were 1,840 referrals of alleged or suspected elder abuse to the HSE, an increase from 927 referrals in 2007. The HSE has developed a service to help prevent and combat elder abuse in all its forms with specialist and structures in place. The increase in referrals show that the high level of attention and the arrangements in place to address this unacceptable problem are working. An analysis of the 2008 referrals shows that most cases of reported elder abuse involve close family members. Family relatives are cited in nearly three out of every four cases. In approximately two thirds of referrals, the victim is female. The data is from the HSE Elder Abuse Service Developments 2008 report. The basis of the current framework to address elder abuse is the 2002 report Protecting our Future...Report of the Working Group on Elder Abuse. That Report is being reviewed at the moment and the results will give critical information on how the current system works and will inform future action in this area. I expect to receive the review in the coming months.

Health Services. 83. Deputy Bobby Aylward asked the Minister for Health and Children further to Parliamen-

196 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers tary Question No. 129 of 29 April 2009, the reason that no response has been received from the Health Service Executive in regard to a person (details supplied) in County Carlow. [23920/09]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): I have arranged for the HSE to be requested to respond to the Deputy as quickly as possible in this matter

Suicide Incidence. 84. Deputy Charlie O’Connor asked the Minister for Health and Children the action she will take on the recommendations made in the new report on the high level of suicide in Irish society launched by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children on 10 June 2009; if her attention has been drawn to the need for positive action in this matter; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23926/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): The recommendations of the Joint Committee on Health and Children regarding the ‘High Level of Suicide in Irish Society’ published in 2006 and the Committee’s recent updated Report are consistent with the actions identified in ‘Reach Out’ the National Strategy for Action on Suicide Prevention 2005 -2014. The HSE, through the National Office for Suicide Prevention (NOSP), oversees the implementation of the strategy. Initiatives which have been progressed by the NOSP include developing and implementing national training programmes; the development of a training strategy under the direction of a Training and Development Officer; progressing the availability of self-harm services through Hospital Emergency departments; developing a standardised approach to deliberate self harm presentations at Hospital Emergency departments; implementing recommendations arising from a review of bereavement services; dedicated suicide officers; supporting voluntary organisations working in the field of suicide prevention and developing mental health awareness campaigns. In addition to the \8m available for suicide prevention initiatives, once-off funding of \1m was provided in 2009 to further develop services for those bereaved by suicide and to develop a campaign aimed at young people. Consultations with young people were arranged to inform the campaign. It should also be emphasised that a range of services such as mental health and primary care services are important in helping to prevent suicide.

Child Care Services. 85. Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will provide for flexibility on the age limit for the new pre-school support scheme when a child has had only limited access to pre-school and there are reasons for the child not progressing directly to primary school; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23927/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): As the Deputy will be aware I have responsibility for the implementation of the new scheme to provide a free Pre-School in Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE), which will come into effect in January next. The scheme will allow qualifying children to avail of a free pre-school place in the year before they commence primary school. The scheme is open to all private and voluntary pre- school services which are notified to the Health Service Executive (HSE) or registered with

197 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Barry Andrews.] the Irish Montessori Educational Board (IMEB). Sessional playschools will, normally, participate in the scheme by providing the pre-school year for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week over 38 weeks while full or part-time daycare services will, normally, participate by providing the pre- school year for 2 hours, 15 minutes a day, 5 days a week over 50 weeks. Participating children must normally be aged between 3 years 3 months and 4 years 6 months on 1st September of each year. Exceptions will be allowed where children have been assessed by the HSE as having special needs which will delay their entry to school or it is appropriate to accept children at an older age due to the enrolment policy of the local primary school.

Health Services. 86. Deputy Peter Kelly asked the Minister for Health and Children when staffing will be available to allow residents to move into houses (details supplied). [23933/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): As the Deputy’s question relates to service matters I have arranged for the question to be referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

Health Service Investigations. 87. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Health and Children the details of each trust in care investigation carried out by the Health Service Executive during each of the past three years; the location and outcome of each such investigation, including a summary of the facts and findings and action taken as a result; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23943/09]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): The Trust in Care Policy is a policy for Health Service employers on upholding the dignity and welfare of patients/clients and procedures for managing allegations of abuse against staff members. This was developed in partnership with the Health Sector unions and was launched in May 2005. The objectives of the Policy are twofold. Firstly, to promote a safe and caring environment in all health care settings, where the dignity of patients and clients is paramount and they are afforded the highest possible standards of care. Secondly, it aims to safeguard staff by providing effective supervision, support and training and a safe system of work. The Policy has both a preventative and a procedural dimension. It places particular emphasis on the role of best human resource practice in promoting high standards of care and preventing potential abuse. The Policy also emphasises employees’ duty to be vigilant and to report concerns regarding the welfare of patients and clients. It sets out the reporting procedures to be followed in the event of abuse being suspected or alleged. Finally, it contains a robust procedure for managing allegations of abuse against staff. As the Deputy’s question refers to details about investigations carried out by the Health Service Executive under this Policy in the last three years, I have referred the matter to the HSE for direct reply.

Hospital Patients. 88. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children the number of patients who died at the Central Mental Hospital, Dublin, and were cremated during the period of 1900 to 1980; their gender; the reason for their detention in the CMH; if these people

198 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers were previously residents of Magdalene laundries or another residential institutions previous to their detention in the CMH; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23951/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): The administration of the Central Mental Hospital (CMH) was transferred from the Department of Health and Children to the Eastern Health Board in 1971. Records relating to the admission of patients are maintained in the CMH. Accordingly, the Deputy’s question has been transferred to the HSE for direct reply.

Homeless Children. 89. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will increase the time for researching homelessness status for children who leave State care to be extended to ten years after they reach 18 years; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23952/09]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): Under Section 45 of the Child Care Act 1991 the HSE may provide assistance and support to young people leaving their care up to the age of 21 years, or to young people completing an educational course until the completion of that course. The Deputy may be aware of a longitudinal study being undertaken by Trinity College in respect of young homeless people. Phase I of the study entitled Understanding Youth Home- lessness in Dublin City: Key Findings from the First Phase of a Longitudinal Cohort Study was funded by my Office and was published in 2006. In December, 2008 I launched Phase II entitled Young People’s Homeless Pathways. Phase III is underway and my Office is also contributing towards the costs of this phase of the study. A unique feature of the research is its longitudinal focus, tracking homeless young people since 2004. The research highlights some valuable and key information on why many of these young people become and remain homeless.

Health Services. 90. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children the legal advice provided to her which led to redaction of the Monageer report; the date she will apprise the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children of the substance of the recommendations; the cost of the legal advice provided to her on this matter; the exact questions that were put to the legal advisers engaged on the matter; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23953/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): The redacted Report of the Monageer Inquiry was published on 12 May, 2009. The Report, in redacted form, was published taking account of legal advice sought from the Office of the Attorney General. I am not in a position to disclose the nature of the advice received. I am considering the option of appraising the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children of the substance of the redacted recommendations in a manner and context which ensures that the rights of those involved are fully protected and that no reputational damage is suffered.

91. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will publish the report on Madonna House; the date this report will be published; and the persons who has been provided with a copy of this report since its completion. [23954/09]

199 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): An abridged report of the inquiry into the operation and management of Madonna House was published in May, 1996.

92. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children when the Health Service Executive will complete its audit of after care services; when the details of this audit will be published; and the details of the multi-agency group conducting this audit. [23956/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

93. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children the number of emergency residential beds, short to medium-term residential beds and supported lodgings in each local health office area; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23957/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

Departmental Bodies. 94. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children when she will reconstitute the National Children’s Advisory Council; the details that need to be resolved before completing same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23958/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): I will shortly be seeking nominations from a number of the bodies to be represented on the Council. Following receipt of nominations I intend appointing the new Council as quickly as possible.

National Nutrition Policy. 95. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children the date she will publish the new national nutrition policy. [23959/09]

Minister of State at the Department of the Health and Children (Deputy A´ ine Brady): My Department is currently finalising a National Nutrition Policy, which will be published in November 2009. The Policy will provide strategic direction on nutrition for the entire population for the next ten years.

Proposed Legislation. 96. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will introduce legislation that will allow the Ombudsman for Children the power to intervene as an amicus curiae in relevant legal proceedings. [23960/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): There are currently no plans to introduce legislation to allow the Ombudsman for Children the power to intervene as an amicus curiae in relevant legal proceedings. There is already in place a system whereby a “guardian ad litem” canbe a voice for the child in the court. The functions of the Ombudsman for Children are to promote the rights of children and to investigate complaints into the actions of specific bodies. These functions complement those of other people and offices.

200 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

97. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children her plans to undertake a children’s rights audit of laws here; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23961/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): The Twenty-Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2007 was published in February 2007 and contained the Government’s proposal to amend the Constitution in relation to children. In keeping with the commitment in the Programme for Government to establish an all-party Oireachtas Committee to examine the proposed constitutional amendment, a Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children was established in November, 2007 to consider and deepen consensus on the text of the Bill. The Committee is scheduled to complete its deliberations by 16 October 2009. There are currently no plans to undertake a children’s rights audit of legislation as suggested by the Deputy. Any future decisions on matters relating to children’s rights will be taken in the context of the outcome of the deliberations of the Joint Committee.

Children in Care. 98. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children the private companies that are providing residential and foster care services for children here. [23967/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

99. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children the number of children who were placed in care during each of the past ten years due to housing or finance issues; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23968/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

100. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will expand the remit of the social services inspectorate to include inspections of hostel accommodation for separated children in St. Patrick’s institution, and institutions for children with intellectual disabilities. [23969/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): The Health Act, 2007 provided for the establishment of the Health Information and Quality Auth- ority (HIQA) as a body responsible for promoting safety and quality in the provision of health and personal social services for the benefit of the health and welfare of the public. The Office of the Chief Inspector of Social Services was established by the Health Act 2007 as part of HIQA. The Act, provides for a new system of inspection and registration for ‘designated centres’, i.e. residential centres for children, residential centres for people with disabilities, and residential centres for older people, including private nursing homes. The Act, is being commenced on a phased basis and will give responsibility for the registration and inspection of designated centres to the Chief Inspector of Social Services. Designated centres include all HSE, voluntary and privately run children’s residential centres and residential centres for children with a disability. Under Section 41(e) of the Health Act, 2007 the Chief Inspector can inspect children’s detention centres with the agreement of the Minister of Health and Children. Pending the commencement of this section, the Minister for

201 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Barry Andrews.] Justice, Equality and Law Reform, has authorised HIQA through the Social Services Inspector- ate to inspect the detention centres under Section 185 of the Children Act, 2001. The Government has accepted all of the recommendations of the Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse which includes a recommendation in relation to the inspection of all children’s services and is committed to their full implementation.Λ As Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, I have been tasked with developing a plan for the implementation of the recommendations. In developing this plan I will consider the various issues which need to be addressed and what actions are necessary, feasible and effective. This implementation plan will be brought to Government for its approval by the end of July. The inspection process will be reviewed in this context. St. Patrick’s Institution is a prison for males aged 16 to 21 and as such falls within the remit of the Prison Inspectorate, not HIQA. It is the intention that the planned new detention centre for children under 18 years in Lusk will be inspected by HIQA/SSI. When this happens there will be no children remaining in St Patrick’s Institution, only those aged 18 to 21 years.

Mental Health Services. 101. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children if her attention has been drawn to the fact that there are only 22 child and adolescent mental health beds here when there were at least 200 children admitted to adult psychiatric facilities during 2007; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23970/09]

102. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children when the eight interim child and adolescent beds in St. Stephen’s Hospital, County Cork will be commissioned. [23971/09]

106. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children the number of child and adolescent community mental health teams here. [23977/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): I propose to take Questions Nos. 101, 102 and 106 together. The HSE has prioritised the development of child and adolescent mental health services in 2009. At present there are 55 Child and Adolescent Mental Health teams in place throughout the country. An additional 8 consultant led child psychiatry teams to further support the provision of child and adolescent psychiatric services will be developed this year. In addition, funding was provided in Budget 2009 for the provision of 35 additional therapy posts for the child and adolescent mental health service. This will enable the HSE to increase the number of Community Child and Adolescent Mental Health Teams to 69 by the end of 2009. With regard to in-patient capacity in the child and adolescent mental health service, there are currently 22 child and adolescent beds in the country, 10 in Galway and 12 in Dublin (6 in St. Vincent’s Fairview, 6 in Warrenstown). An additional 8 interim beds in St. Stephen’s Hospital, Cork have recently been completed and it is anticipated that these beds will be commissioned shortly. Construction has commenced on two 20 bed units in Bessboro, Cork and Merlin Park, Galway. Construction is scheduled to be completed on both of these developments in late 2009 and the beds commissioned in 2010. The inappropriateness of admitting children to units providing care and treatment to adults is recognised but in the absence of an alternative, such admissions are sometimes necessary for the safety and treatment of the young

202 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers person. The Mental Health Commission has issued a code of practice relating to the admission of children under the Mental Health Act 2001 which outlines interim arrangements and facilities that should be put in place to ensure the protection and safety of such children.

103. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children the number of people who have availed of the Health Service Executive national counselling service during each year since its inception. [23972/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

Child Care Services. 104. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children the details of the legal issues she is considering with regard to the implementation of the children’s first guidelines. [23973/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): As Minister for Children and Youth Affairs I am committed to ensuring that the Children First Guidelines are implemented in an effective and consistent manner for the protection and welfare of children. Consideration is being given to various options which would achieve this effectively.

Proposed Legislation. 105. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will initiate legislation to protect against the practice of female genital mutilation here and to protect against children being removed from here to have the procedure carried out overseas; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23974/09]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): Legal advice which I obtained in 2004 strongly indicated that female genital mutilation would constitute an offence under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. I am not aware of any evidence that female genital mutilation is being carried out in Ireland among ethnic communities living here. The question of introducing specific legislation to ban female genital mutilation remains under review.

Question No. 106 answered with Question No. 101.

Housing Aid for the Elderly. 107. Deputy Paul Connaughton asked the Minister for Health and Children when funding will be made available to the Health Service Executive west to enable payment to elderly people for works carried out under the housing aid for the elderly scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23987/09]

Minister of State at the Department of the Health and Children (Deputy A´ ine Brady): The Deputy may be aware that the Special Housing Aid for the Elderly Scheme previously operated by the Health Service Executive is no longer operational. The scheme was replaced by the Housing Aid for Older People (HAOP) in August 2008 which is being administered by the local authorities. The HSE no longer takes applications under the old scheme. However, it continues to process outstanding applications received before August 2008. An allocation of

203 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy A´ ine Brady.] \3.5 million was made by my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, to the HSE recently to deal with these cases. The funding was allocated as follows; Dublin/North East \700,000; Dublin/Mid Leinster, \500,000; Western, \1,800,000; Souther, \500,000.

Hospitals Building Programme. 108. Deputy Sea´n Sherlock asked the Minister for Health and Children if refurbishment works will be carried out at a hospital (details supplied) in County Cork; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23993/09]

Minister of State at the Department of the Health and Children (Deputy A´ ine Brady): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

Youth Services. 109. Deputy Catherine Byrne asked the Minister for Health and Children the reason the small grants fund has been suspended for 2009; if she will review this decision and ensure that local groups can access funding for small projects to help disadvantaged and vulnerable people in local communities; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23996/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Barry Andrews): The Young People’s Facilities and Services Fund (YPFSF) now under the remit of the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (OMCYA) currently operates in 18 areas — 14 Local Drug Task Force areas, (12 in Dublin, Bray and Cork) and in Galway, Limerick and Carlow town. The decision not to provide small grants from the YPFSF in 2009 was made following the agreement of the National Assessment Committee (NAC) which oversees the implementation of the fund. The NAC is chaired by the OMCYA and has representation from relevant Govern- ment Departments (i.e. Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs including the general functions of the National Drugs Strategy Team) and Agencies, the Youth Services and the voluntary and community sectors. I am aware of the success of the small grants fund and of its benefits to local and voluntary community groups. However, in light of the current fiscal climate and in an effort to preserve service provision and to allow for the expansion of the YPFSF to four new towns of Arklow, Athlone, Dundalk and Wexford the NAC agreed earlier this year that the small grants should not be provided in 2009. I understand that the NAC, following the allocation of all 2009 funding, has now decided that there is scope to re-instate a reduced small grants fund for 2009. My officials have notified the 15 development groups previously in receipt of this grant that they will now be allocated \10,000 each for 2009. The Deputy should note that the availability of the small grants fund in 2010 will be reviewed later in the year.

Health Services. 110. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Health and Children when home help will be arranged in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24021/09]

204 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

Minister of State at the Department of the Health and Children (Deputy A´ ine Brady): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

Health Repayment Scheme. 111. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Health and Children the reason the family were refused a refund of nursing home fees in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Dublin; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24022/09]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

Hospital Services. 112. Deputy John McGuinness asked the Minister for Health and Children if an operation will be arranged for a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny; and if she will expedite a response. [24028/09]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): As this is a service issue, it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

Health Services. 113. Deputy Emmet Stagg asked the Minister for Health and Children when a replacement speech and language therapist will be provided at Kill Health Centre, County Kildare; if the recruitment embargo is preventing the hiring of a replacement therapist (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24030/09]

Medical Council Inquiry. 114. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Health and Children if she will set up a comprehensive inquiry to report into the abuse of patients at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, County Louth, within three months; the way such abuse can be prevented in the future; if she will offer financial and other support to a group (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24037/09]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy Mary Harney): The professional conduct of the consultant referred to has been the subject of a number of inquiries. In 1995 the Medical Council instigated a fitness to practice inquiry but this was delayed pending the outcome of separate legal proceedings, including criminal and judicial review proceedings. Following a Supreme Court judgement in July 2008 the Medical Council recommenced an Inquiry, and on 25 November 2008 the Medical Council formally notified the Minister of its decision to remove the name of the consultant from the Medical Register. The Medical Council made its decision after considering the report of its Fitness to Practise Committee, which found the person concerned guilty of professional misconduct in respect to three out of nine allegations made by male patients. In 1995 a review of the hospital’s response to the allegations against the consultant was conducted by an Independent Review Group chaired by Dr. Miriam Hederman O’Brien. The

205 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Mary Harney.] review group recommended that common written protocols for dealing with allegations of sexual abuse by members of staff be introduced and applied in all health care institutions. The Trust in Care guidelines, which were published in 2005, deal with the recognition, prevention and management of cases of abuse. Furthermore, in line with the review group’s recommendations, a chaperone system and an intimate examination protocol and procedure have been put in place in the hospital concerned. The review group emphasised the importance of having a complaints system in place to deal with allegations of sexual abuse. A Regional Complaints Policy and Procedure is in place for the former North Eastern Health Board. Statutory delegated complaints officers are also in place in the hospital. In addition, a staff support service (Staff Care) is available to all staff in the hospital on a confidential basis. The Hederman O’Brien review has helped inform the development and updating of policy in this area. This learning has been given practical effect through, for example, the publication of the Children First Guidelines, the establishment of both the Office of the Ombudsman for Children and the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the implementation of the Children’s Act 2001. It is clear, therefore, that the issues raised by this case have been the subject of extensive review and action by the Medical Council, the 1996 review and the initiatives taken since then in relation to protecting children. In these circumstances, the Minister has indicated that she does not propose to establish a further inquiry. Instead the Minister believes that our focus should now be on supporting those affected and ensuring that every possible protection is given to vulnerable people in the future. It is very important to ensure that appropriate counselling is available to all those who have been in contact with the HSE and/or the hospital following the recent Medical Council Inquiry. The HSE has made arrangements for counselling support for all those who have been in contact with them following the recent Medical Council Inquiry, using the National Counselling Service. More than 100 people have made contact with this service and the service will continue to be made available as required. The need for additional support will be monitored by the HSE. The Minister and the HSE are anxious that all former patients of the consultant are made aware of the free counselling support that is available. The HSE has assigned co-ordinating responsibility for these matters to the Area Manager for Consumer Affairs in the North East who will continue to liaise as required with former patients and support groups. The support group Dignity 4 Patients has been advised by the HSE on how to make an application for funding under the Health Act 2004 and also under National Lottery Funding. The Minister has indicated publicly that a meeting is being arranged with the group Dignity 4 Patients.

Marine Accidents. 115. Deputy Ciara´n Cuffe asked the Minister for Transport if he will provide a preliminary report from the Marine Casualty Investigation Board on a matter (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23982/09]

Minister for Transport (Deputy Noel Dempsey): The MCIB, in exercise of its functions, is independent from me as Minister for Transport. The Deputy should contact the MCIB directly

206 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

(www.mcib.ie). The incident referred to by the Deputy is under investigation by the Garda, with assistance from relevant officials of my Department.

Air Services. 116. Deputy Kieran O’Donnell asked the Minister for Transport when his attention was drawn to Aer Lingus’s decision to remove its winter schedule between Shannon and New York and Chicago; the direction he gave his three nominees on the Aer Lingus board in this regard; the measures he is taking to safeguard the summer schedule; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24189/09]

Minister for Transport (Deputy Noel Dempsey): Officials in my Department informed me on 5 June 2009 that they had received information that Aer Lingus was finalising its winter 2009/10 schedule and that suspension of some transatlantic routes from both Dublin and Shannon were being considered by the company in that context. Aer Lingus had previously indicated in an interim management statement issued on 28 April that it was reviewing the sustainable shape and size of both the long haul and short haul businesses and that decisions on the capacity deployed for winter 2009/10 would be made to reflect that process. Aer Lingus Group plc issued a statement to the Stock Exchange on 12 June 2009, in which it outlined changes to its winter schedule for 2009/10. The transatlantic schedule from Shannon will see the suspension of the Chicago service and a reduction in frequency on the Boston route. The New York route will continue, subject to ongoing review by the company. On 11 June 2009, the Chairman of Aer Lingus briefed me on proposals for transatlantic services for the winter season 2009/10 and for the enhancement of the Shannon-Heathrow service. The Chairman wished to brief me in view of my role in relation to aviation policy generally and in particular in view of my concerns about connectivity to and from Ireland and especially the catchment area served by Shannon Airport. The State’s three nominated directors on the board were issued with a mandate on the date of their respective appointments requesting them to seek to ensure that all future decisions of the company that have significant implications for wider Government, aviation or regional development policies are considered at board level. In any such decisions they are directed to seek to reconcile commercial and public policy objectives. Following the meeting with the Chairman on 11 June, I immediately wrote to the three directors to remind them of this mandate and requested that they take account of Government policy on connectivity, regional development and industrial development in the board’s consideration of this matter. It is acknowledged that the duties of the State nominated directors on the board of Aer Lingus derive from the Companies Acts and that they are obliged to pursue the best interests of the company. It is understood that the proposed changes to transatlantic services were necessitated by the continuing losses on these routes. Aer Lingus, in common with other carriers, are experiencing a significant drop in yields especially on long haul business and they have had to cut fares aggressively. Given the impact of the recession on demand, other carriers are also cutting capacity on long haul. Decisions on the summer 2010 schedules will not arise until later this year but the mandate outlined above will continue to apply, in respect of the State’s three directors on the board.

Crime Levels. 117. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

207 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in.] the number of convictions secured for each of the past seven years in which the motive for the crime has been suspected or confirmed homophobia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23955/09]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): The Garda Sı´och- a´na Act 2005 makes provision for the compilation and publication of crime statistics by the Central Statistics Office, as the national statistical agency, and the CSO has established a dedicated unit for this purpose. I have requested the CSO to provide the statistics sought by the Deputy directly to him.

Departmental Publications. 118. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the policies, strategies or initiatives published on his behalf for each of the past five years; if, in each of these cases, consultation with children or representatives from the relevant sector was involved; if so, the details of this consultation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23962/09]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): The scope of the information sought by the Deputy is of such a wide nature (i.e. it encompasses every aspect of my Department’s activities) that it would require a huge investment of resources to research and identify the relevant material. The allocation of such resources to this task is not warranted. However, if the Deputy seeks information about specific initiatives, I will endeavour to accommodate any such request.

Proposed Legislation. 119. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23975/09]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I am preparing a Sexual Offences Bill which will provide greater protection to children against sexual abuse and exploitation. The Bill, which is at an advanced stage of preparation, will take account of the requirements of the Optional Protocol that are the responsibility of my Department.

Human Rights Issues. 120. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason only four of the 151 suspected victims of human trafficking identified in 2008 and to date in 2009 were granted the recovery and reflection period; the location at which the four victims were accommodated; the number of the 151 suspected victims who were held in custody; the number of the 151 victims who face immigration offences; the number who were deported; the status of all 151 suspected victims; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23980/09]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): The figure of one hundred and fifty-one refers to the number of investigations undertaken by the Garda Sı´ocha´na between 1 January, 2008 and 5 June, 2009, into alleged trafficking, not the number of suspected

208 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers victims of human trafficking. Such investigations may not relate to an identified victim. The figure also includes enquiries / investigations carried out by the Garda Sıóchańa, at the request of other law enforcement agencies outside the State, in relation to suspected breaches of immigration legislation; while other investigations may relate to offences contrary to the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 — that is the smuggling of illegal immigrants. Sixty-five persons are being considered as potential victims of trafficking under the provisions of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act, 2008, since its enactment on 7 June 2008. The potential of such persons to be victims of human trafficking is based on an allegation which has been made and not on evidence discovered in the course of the investigations concerned. Four of these sixty-five have so far been suspected, by a member of the Garda Sıóchańa not below the rank of Superintendent, to be the victim of an offence under Section 4 of Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act, 2008, and, as a consequence, they have been granted permission to remain lawfully in the State for the purpose of “recovery and reflection” as provided for in the Administrative Immigration Arrangements for the Protection of Victims of Human Traf- ficking, which came into operation on 7 June 2008. Three of these four persons have been granted six months temporary residence in the State. The four persons are residing in accommodation provided by the State or provided by an NGO. Four of the sixty-five are known to have, at some stage, been held in legal custody in the State. Three of the sixty-five were removed from the State. These three people were transferred to the UK as they have asylum applications in that jurisdiction. The case of one of these people has been fully investigated and the person has not been identified as a suspected victim of human trafficking. The other two people are currently resident in the UK. The Garda National Immigration Bureau is continuing to investigate their cases and is working closely with the UK authorities and will travel to the UK to interview both of these people. The following table shows the immigration status of the sixty-five (65) persons referred to :

Status Number

Asylum Seeker 32 EU National 4 Stamp 4 (Refugee) 2 Stamp 4 (Irish Born Child) 1 Immigration Stamp 4 (Temporary Residency as suspected victim of trafficking) 3 Immigration Stamp 3 (Recovery and reflection period of 60 days as suspected victim of 1 trafficking) Minors/Care HSE 14 Refused Leave to Land 1 Transferred to EU Member State under Dublin Convention 3 Deported 0 Illegal/No Status 3 Deportation Order 1

Total 65

Garda Investigations. 121. Deputy Ciara´n Cuffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will investigate incidents in an area (details supplied) in County Mayo; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23981/09] 209 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I am informed by the Garda Authorities that the matters referred to by the Deputy are currently being investigated.

Residency Permits. 122. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding a residency application in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Sligo. [23983/09]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): Officials in the Long-Term Residency Section of my Department inform me that an application for long-term residency was received from the person referred to by the Deputy on 28 September, 2007. This application is currently in the latter stages of processing. As soon as a decision is made on the case, the person concerned will be notified.

Garda Training. 123. Deputy Michael Lowry asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when this Deputy will receive replies from the Garda Commissioner regarding the future of Templemore Garda college, County Tipperary; the staffing arrangements therein; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24010/09]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I am informed by the Garda authorities that, in relation to the earlier questions raised by the Deputy, the Direc- tor of Training at the Garda College is the person ultimately responsible for domestic and catering staff at the Garda College. The day to day operational and management functions are however, delegated to the Restaurant Manager. The personnel at the Garda restaurant are engaged under the terms of a contract which was negotiated some years ago in association with SIPTU and this contract clearly sets out their conditions of employment. As a result of the moratorium on recruitment and promotions in the Public Service, a review of the staffing arrangements in the Garda College is ongoing in consultation with all concerned. Arising from this review, the Director of Training and members of his management team negotiated the terms of a redundancy package, as provided for in the contract, with union members and the SIPTU representative in relation to the restaurant personnel. These terms were agreed to by the personnel involved and their union representative. Local arrangements are in place for the running of the College Restaurant with deductions at source being made from payments to students together with receipts from staff and other course participants for meals provided. The determination of Garda and clerical staff numbers and the future resource requirements at the Garda College is a matter for the Garda Commissioner. The determination of canteen and restaurant personnel numbers is a matter for the Director of Training at the Garda College and the Restaurant Manager in consultation with Senior Garda Management.

124. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will support a matter (details supplied). [24041/09]

210 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I am informed by the Garda authorities that any person subjected to racist abuse can report the matter at their local Garda station, or to any member of An Garda Sı´ocha´na. Members of the public affected by racism can speak to an Ethnic Liaison Officer (ELO), whose function is to liaise with local ethnic communities. Ethnic Liaison Officers have been trained to be particularly aware of the issue of racism and its impact. These officers are available in each Garda Division in the country. If a person needs encouragement or support in reporting a racist incident they can arrange to meet an ELO at their local Garda station to discuss the matter. The Garda Racial and Intercultural Office (GRIO) can be contacted by anyone wishing to seek advice on addressing issues of racism. Further information is available on the Garda website www.garda.ie.

Citizenship Applications. 125. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when an application for citizenship by a person (details supplied) in County Westmeath will be processed; if he will expedite this application; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24042/09]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): An application for a certificate of naturalisation from the person referred to in the Deputy’s Question was received in the Citizenship Division of my Department in February 2008. On examination of the application submitted it was determined that the person concerned did not meet the statutory residency requirements as set out in the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, as amended. The person in question was informed of this in a letter issued to him 15 August, 2008 and again on 11 May, 2009. It is open to the person concerned to lodge a new application for a certificate of naturalisation with the Citizenship Division of my Department if and when he is in a position to meet the statutory requirements.

National Cultural Institutions. 126. Deputy Mary Upton asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he will make provision to compensate individuals, bodies corporate and institutions that received or purchased grants of arms during the period April 1943 to May 2005 when the State did not have legislative power to make such grants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23945/09]

127. Deputy Mary Upton asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he will bring forward legislation to amend the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 regarding all pre-May 2005 grants of arms; if not, his views on accepting a National Cultural Institutions (Amendment Bill) 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23946/09]

Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism (Deputy Martin Cullen): I propose to take Questions Nos. 126 and 127 together. I am unaware of any corporate bodies or individuals, who were granted arms in the period between 1943 and 2005, that have any basis for compensation in respect of the grant of arms made in that period. The arms were granted and accepted at the time and continue to be

211 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Martin Cullen.] recognised to this day. As my Department is preparing legislation which will amend the National Cultural Institutions Act, 1997 to give effect to the merger of the National Archives, the National Library of Ireland, and the Irish Manuscripts Commission it will also consider a specific amendment in relation to the arms granted during the period referred to by the Deputy.

Sports Capital Programme. 128. Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the position in relation to the lottery funding grant for an organisation (details supplied); if this will be awarded as a matter of urgency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24089/09]

Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism (Deputy Martin Cullen): Satisfactory legal docu- mentation in respect of the grants in question was received today by my Department and will be processed in the normal manner. The club in question was provisionally allocated \100,000 in total under the Sports Capital Programme in 2006 and 2007 towards dressing room and gymnasium development. The guidelines, terms and conditions for the programme specify that the Department will pay grants in stages as an approved project proceeds by reimbursing the applicant’s costs when they submit original, paid, valid invoices or certificates of payment. The Department typically pays 70% of the value of the valid paid invoices submitted. In addition, the Department reserves 5% of the grant pending confirmation from a consultant or architect that the facility has been satisfactorily completed in all respects and that the defects liability period has expired. In the case of the club in question, the Department will shortly authorise the payment of \95,000 on foot of the valid, paid invoices received to date. The draw down of the balance of the funding is subject to the retention arrangements already outlined. My Department will write to the grantee in question shortly confirming the initial payment and outlining the steps necessary to draw down the balance of the allocation.

Water and Sewerage Schemes. 129. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs when CLA´ R funding will become available for a group water scheme (details supplied) in County Sligo. [23938/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): Given the substantial existing commitments under the CLA´ R Water and Sewerage schemes, and against the background of the current economic climate, these schemes were suspended to new applications in August 2008. I am reviewing the CLA´ R programme as a whole, having regard to demand, the funding available and the level of outstanding commitments. In this context, I have asked the local authorities for information regarding the group water schemes on hand for which funding is available from the Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government. I will give further consideration to these schemes when the relevant information is provided to me and in the context of the available resources.

Grant Applications. 130. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the number of applications for grant aid from County Kildare under the various

212 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers schemes operated by his Department from various groups, bodies or agencies throughout County Kildare in the past 12 months to date; the extent to which it is expected to meet these in full in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24012/09]

136. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the number of applications for grant aid under the various schemes operated by his Department received to date in 2009; the way this compares with previous years; his views as to whether it is likely that such requirements will be met in 2009 or subsequent years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24018/09]

138. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the degree to which he expects to address issues of socio-economic deprivation or adjustment in the course of 2009 in view of the extent of the demands before his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24020/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): I propose to take Questions Nos. 130, 136 and 138 together. The Deputy will appreciate that my Department oversees a wide range of programmes and schemes under which groups can seek funding, directly or through intermediaries. Given the large numbers involved and the fact that some of these are not managed directly by the Depart- ment but by other bodies on the Department’s behalf, it is not possible to respond without further information as to the material being sought. If the Deputy wishes to advise as to any particular programme or scheme in which he has a particular interest I will be happy to follow up on the matter. In terms of comparison with previous years, the Deputy will be aware that it has been necessary to suspend the application process for a number of Schemes, Programmes or individual measures as a result of the economic situation. The result will be lower levels of applications than in previous years. Although funding for some programmes operated by my Department has been reduced because of the pressure on public finances, I still expect that resources will be directed in a targeted and effective manner to ensure maximum impact in the area of socio-economic deprivation or adjustment, and all other priority areas.

Dormant Accounts Fund. 131. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the extent to which the availability of funding to his Department from the Dormant Accounts Fund is expected to continue on an annual basis over the next five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24013/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): The Dor- mant Accounts Fund Acts provide for an annual transfer by credit institutions and insurance undertakings of monies in accounts determined to be dormant into the Dormant Accounts Fund (DAF). Since its establishment in May 2003, the net transfers to the Dormant Accounts Fund have been just over \338m. Transfers in 2009, to the end of April, total some \39m. The value of the Fund at end April 2009, net of liabilities, was some \52m. This excludes around \50m maintained in a Reserve Account to meet future reclaims by account holders and to cover expenses associated with the operation of the Fund.

213 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v.]

The level of funds transferring to the DAF in any one year cannot be projected with any degree of accuracy and the Deputy will appreciate that it is not possible for me to give any indication of future allocations by Government — or to calculate probable expenditure in future years by my Department. Information concerning the level of inflows, reclaims etc. from 2003 to end April 2009 is available on my Department’s website at www.pobail.ie

132. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the expenditure to date by his Department from the proceeds of the Dormant Accounts Fund since its inception; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24014/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): Funding is provided from the Dormant Accounts Fund (DAF), through the votes of relevant Depart- ments, to tackle disadvantage and to assist persons with a disability. In the years 2006 to 2008, my Department managed an annual measure to support projects in RAPID areas, each valued at \7.5m per annum. Some \64.4min total was allocated to the Rural Social Scheme between 2004 and 2008. In addition: In 2006, a measure to provide recreation and personal development opportunities for disadvantaged young people valued at \1.12m was approved; \3.95m was approved in 2006 to fund two flagship projects; and in 2008, \2m was provided for a substance misuse measure. Expenditure to date under these measures has amounted to some \17m. Information on income, reclaims and expenditure generally relating to the Dormant Accounts Fund is available on the web-site of my Department at www.pobail.ie .

Community Development. 133. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on an expansion of the CLA´ R programme with a view to making funding available to a broader spectrum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24015/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): The areas covered by the CLA´ R Programme have been revised twice since its launch in October 2001. As a result, it now covers parts of 23 counties and benefits a population of nearly 727,000. I have no plans at present for a further extension of the Programme.

134. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if it is intended to broaden the scope of the RAPID programme in view of the current economic climate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24016/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): I refer the Deputy to my reply to question number 55 of today.

Question No. 135 answered with Question No. 38.

Question No. 136 answered with Question No. 130.

National Drugs Strategy. 137. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the extent to which he expects to meet the requirements of urban and rural community

214 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers groups currently involved in drug rehabilitation programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24019/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): As the Deputy is aware, funding applications for community and voluntary groups for drugs initiatives are made through the Local or Regional Drugs Task Forces. The allocation for the Drugs Task Forces for this year is of the order of \32 million. Overall, in the region of \22 million was spent in 2008 on projects in Task Force areas with a treatment and rehabilitation focus. Funding for the majority of these projects will continue in 2009, albeit in some cases, possibly at a somewhat reduced level. Roughly 70% of the LDTF projects focus on treatment/rehabilitation, while over 44% of the RDTF projects have a similar focus. In addition to this, funding approved in 2008 towards three homeless-related rehabilitation projects will continue in 2009 in the amount of \460,000. The Deputy should also note that the National Drug Rehabilitation Implementation Com- mittee was set up late 2008 by the HSE. The Senior Rehabilitation Coordinator to chair and lead the work of the group was also appointed at that time. A number of meetings have been held to date and I look forward to seeing the outcomes of their deliberations over the coming months and years.

Question No. 138 answered with Question No. 130.

Iócaıóchtaı´ Deontas. 139. D’fhiafraigh Deputy Brian O’Shea den Aire Gno´ thaı´ Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta ceńfa´th go bhfuil lıón ceanncheathru´ eagrais na hearna´la deonaı´ ag deánamh tinnis do´ ag am go bhfuil post nua a´ fho´ gairt ag a Roinn feín ar thuarastal suas go \120K agus go mbeidh an te´ a cheapfar lonnaithe i gceann de thrı´ phrıómhoifig na Roinne, i mBaile A´ tha Cliath, i dTobar an Choire no´ sna Forbacha; agus an ndeánfaidh se´ raíteas ina thaobh. [24138/09]

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): Glacaim leis gur ag tagairt do na heagrais dheonacha Gaeilge ata´ an Teachta. Sa chomhtheács sin, dı´rı´ma aird ar an bhfreagra a thug me´ ar Cheist Uimh 20 den 29.1.09 ina ndearnadh tagairt don bhunmhaoiniu´ do 19 eagras deonach Gaeilge a cuirtear ar faíl trı´ Fhoras na Gaeilge. Chuir an Foras tu´ s le hathbhreithniu´ anuraidh maidir leis na heagrais sin, le cinntiu´ go mbeidh an luach airgid is fearr le faíl sa todhchaı´.Ce´ go dtuigim go bhfuil an pro´ iseas athbhreithnithe sin ag druidim chun deiridh anois, ta´ se´ ro´ -luath fo´ sreámhaithris a dheánamh ar na torthaı´ a thioc- faidh as. Mar a du´ irt me´ cheana, ta´ eífeacht an chaiteachais phoiblı´ agus luach airgid maidir le spriocanna an Rialtais o´ thaobh na Gaeilge a bhaint amach a´ gcoinneaíl faoi bhreithniu´ agam. Maidir leis an bpost ata´ luaite ag an Teachta, is post sinsireach ata´ i gceist ansin do Stiu´ rtho´ ir Seirbhı´se Aistriu´ chaín i mo Roinnse. Ta´ pro´ iseas earcaıóchta don phost idir la´mha ag an tSeirbhı´s um Cheapachaín Phoiblı´ ila´thair na huaire. Beidh an te´ a cheapfar freagrach as seirbhı´sla´rnach nua a chur i bhfeidhm chun bainistıócht a dheánamh ar aistriu´ chań Ionstraimı´ Reachtu´ la ar son Ranna Rialtais agus na nU´ dara´sDeánta Rialachaín uile. Nı´ leír dom aon cheangal dı´reach idir an post sin agus na heagrais dheonacha Gaeilge.

Tax and Social Welfare Codes. 140. Deputy Mary Upton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her views on

215 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Mary Upton.] legislation which attempted to amend the anomaly whereby cohabiting couples are assessed as married for the purposes of social welfare benefits but not for the purposes of taxation; her plans to amend this anomaly; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23985/09]

143. Deputy Mary Upton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason cohabiting couples are treated as married couples for social welfare purposes but not for taxation purposes; her views on same; her further views on introducing legislation to amend this anomaly; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23984/09]

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Deputy Mary Hanafin): I propose to take Questions Nos. 140 and 143 together. The social welfare and tax systems have evolved over time and in response to a variety of factors, including Constitutional imperatives as interpreted by the Courts, changing social trends and EU Directives. The social welfare code recognises the couple status of cohabiting couples and treats married and cohabiting couples in a similar manner. The EEC Equality Directive 79/9 and the subsequent Supreme Court case (Hyland v Minister for Social Welfare, 1989) led to the change in the treatment of non-married cohabiting couples in the social welfare code. The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the total income a married couple received in social welfare benefits to be less than the couple would have received if they were unmarried and cohabiting. The income tax arrangements and subsequent legislation for cohabiting couples are a matter for the Minister for Finance.

Social Welfare Benefits. 141. Deputy P. J. Sheehan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will examine the case of a person (details supplied) in County Cork in receipt of disability allowance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24004/09]

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Deputy Mary Hanafin): Rent supplement is administered on behalf of the Department by the community welfare division of the Health Service Executive as part of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. The purpose of the rent supplement scheme is to provide short-term income support to eligible people living in private rented accommodation, whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation costs and who do not have accommodation available to them from any other source. As part of Budget 2009, the minimum weekly contribution which a person is expected to contribute towards their rent was increased from \13 to \18 with effect from January 2009. The recent Supplementary Budget provided that the weekly minimum contribution be further increased from \18 to \24 with effect from 1 June 2009 and that payments currently being made to existing rent supplement tenants be reduced by 8% from the same date. These measures account for a reduction in the rent supplement payment of the person concerned this year. The most recent data published by the CSO shows that rents in the private sector have fallen by almost 11% since November 2008 and by almost 20% in the past year. It is essential that state support for tenants who form a substantial section of the rental market, does not give rise to inflated rental prices.

216 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

Rent supplements are also subject to a limit on the amount of rent that an applicant for rent supplement may incur. Rent limits are set at levels that enable the eligible household types to secure and retain basic suitable rented accommodation, having regard to the different rental market conditions that prevail in various parts of the State. The objective is to ensure that rent supplement is not paid in respect of overly expensive accommodation having regard to the size of the household. However, rent supplement may be paid in certain circumstances cases where the rent is above the relevant limit and where for example, the person concerned has sufficient income to meet his or her basic needs after paying rent. The Executive has advised that the person concerned decided to move to new accommodation in October 2008, where the rent is above the relevant maximum rent limit for his area and household circumstances. The Executive approved payment of rent supplement in this case as the person concerned is in receipt of additional income from a training allowance. It is open to the person concerned to request his landlord to reduce his current rent. While he may be contractually obliged to pay the rent, it is expected that landlords will decrease rents in recognition of the fact that rents have fallen generally and that there are now a large number of vacant rental properties nationally. In the event that his landlord does not reduce his current rent, the person concerned could move to less expensive accommodation within the existing rent limits and be liable only for the minimum weekly contribution of \24 towards his rent.

142. Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason a person (details supplied) in County Mayo is not receiving the back to work allowance in view of the fact that they are working the required number of hours per week. [23937/09]

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Deputy Mary Hanafin): Participants in the back to work allowance scheme receive a tapered percentage of their social welfare payment over a three year period. The person concerned is in receipt of a back to work allowance payment, since 2006. His current rate of payment is \46.80. His entitlement is due to cease on 23 October, 2009.

Question No. 143 answered with Question No. 140.

Social Welfare Code. 144. Deputy Paul Connaughton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the administrative and other costs associated with the payment of all social welfare claims in all areas of social welfare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23992/09]

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Deputy Mary Hanafin): The administration and other costs associated with the processing and payment of social welfare claims are identified on a programme basis in the Department’s Annual Output Statement for 2009 which was presented to the Oireachtas Select Committee on Social and Family Affairs in May. Each scheme administered by the Department is reported under one of the five scheme-based programmes in the Annual Output Statement. The cost of programmes and administration is shown in the attached tables extracted from the Annual Output Statement. The administration costs which can be directly linked to the programme are shown under programme administration. The cost of shared services and the administration of the Department are shown under Programme 6 — Identity Management and Secure Access to Services and Programme 7 — Operational Capa- bilities and Modernisation, respectively.

217 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Mary Hanafin.]

The tables show that provision has been made in the 2009 Estimates for Administration expenditure of \552.2 million excluding Appropriations in Aid. This estimate includes the administration costs of the Supplementary Welfare Allowance scheme which are paid to the HSE. The total estimated expenditure of the Department on schemes and services in 2009 is \ 20,719.1 million. The Administration cost as a percentage of the gross expenditure on Schemes and Services of the Department in 2009 is estimated at 2.6%.

218 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers stration million % million % \ \ 206.58 million million 4,639.5 \ \ 2008 2008 2009 % change on 2008 2008 2008 2009 % change on 2008 million million \ \ REV Estimate Provisional Outturn REV Estimate Provisional Outturn REV Estimate Provisional Outturn REV Estimate Provisional Outturn Annual Output Statement 2009 Breakdown of Gross DSFA Expenditure by Scheme/Service & Administration Gross DSFA Expenditure 3.0% 2.9% 2.6% sa%of Overall Budgetary Position for the Department — Gross expenditure for Vote 38 & Social Insurance Fund — Agencies — Department The administration costs for Supplementary Welfare Allowance which are paid to the HSE are included in Administration Expenditure Scheme and Admini Gross Vote 38 expenditureLess administration expenses recovered from the SocialAdjusted Insurance Vote Fund 38 expenditureSocial Insurance Fund ExpenditureTotal DSFA Gross ExpenditureAppropriations in Aid (other thanNet DSFA DSFA Social Expenditure Insurance Fund Admin) 165.0Of which — Exchequer PayNo. of public service employees included in Exchequer pay above 165.3 (19.5) (22.9) 181.0 9,631.7Scheme & Service 7,843.2 expenditure 9,466.7Administrative expenditureGross 17,309.9 DSFA Expenditure (32.1) 9.5 Administrative 9,502.1 cost expenditure a 8,374.6Note: 9,336.8 17,711.4 17,290.4 40.2 11,130.1 214.8 10,322.2 10,949.1 21,271.3 17,688.5 17.1 215.6 23.3 17.3 20.1 21,239.2 16,788.5 229.5 521.4 20.1 17,309.9 17,193.4 6.4 518.0 17,711.4 20,719.1 21,271.3 552.2 20.5 20.1 6.6 expenditure is shown gross and excludes Appropriations in Aid.

219 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers 4.1 3.7 − − million % million % \ \ 179.3 40.19 million million \ \ million million \ \ e 1 — Children & Families REV Estimate Provisional Outturn REV Estimate 2008 outturn REV Estimate Provisional Outturn REV Estimate 2008 outturn Programm Breakdown of Gross Expenditure by Programme Inputs 2008 2008 2009 % change in 2009 on Programme Name 2008 2008 2009 % change in 2009 on — Current— Pay— Non-pay— Department — Family Support Agency 3,132.7 5.2 7.0 3,168.2 5.4 3,369.1 7.5 6.3 5.5 7.2 2.0 as at end of year 1. Children & families2. People of working age3. Retired & older People4. People with disabilities5. Poverty & Social Inclusion6. Identity Management & Secure7. Access Operational to Capabilities Services & ModernisationGross DSFA Expenditure 17.5Programme Expenditure 3,144.9Programme 135.0 Administration 5,727.0 5,377.6 2,013.2 894.6Gross programme 14.7 expenditureNumber 3,181.1 of staff 5,989.8 employed 17,309.9 on 127.0 programme (whole 5,518.4 time equivalents) 2,039.5 841.0 14.1 3,381.8 17,711.4 8,688.1 5,783.4 140.7 2,145.3 1,117.9 21,271.3 6.3 45.0 10.8 4.8 5.2 3,144.9 32.9 20.1 3,181.1 3,381.8 6.3

220 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers 8.8 − million % million % \ \ 418.2 43.10 10.00 million million 2,911.0 Outturn Outturn \ \ 69.7 84.5 94.4 11.7 17.971.7 18.1 70.0 18.1 63.8 0.0 133.1 129.8 145.1 11.8 million million 5,524.2 5,775.5 8,448.6 46.3 5,288.0 5,430.3 5,701.5 5.0 \ \ REV Estimate Provisional REV Estimate on 2008 outturn REV Estimate Provisional REV Estimate on 2008 outturn e 2 — People of Working Age e 3 — Retired and Older People Programm Programm Inputs 2008Inputs 2008 2009 % change in 2009 2008 2008 2009 % change in 2009 — Current — Pay — Non-pay — Department — Current — Pay — Non-pay — Department — Pensions Board — Pensions Ombudsman Programme Expenditure Programme Administration Gross programme expenditureNumber of staff employed on programme (whole time equivalents) as at end of year Programme Expenditure Programme Administration Gross programme expenditureNumber of staff employed on programme (whole time equivalents) as at end 5,727.0 of year 5,989.8 8,688.1 45.0 5,377.6 5,518.4 5,783.4 4.8

221 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers 8.5 8.3 − − million % million % \ \ 28.8 205.3 866.3 million million Outturn Outturn \ \ 8.1 8.5 9.1 6.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 20.3 16.5 15.1 64.7 64.7 66.5 2.7 828.0 774.4 1,049.7 35.6 million million 1,984.8 2,014.5 2,121.1 5.3 Estimate Provisional REV Estimate on 2008 outturn Estimate Provisional REV Estimate on 2008 outturn \ \ e 4 — People with Disabilities e 5 — Poverty & Social Inclusion Programm Programm Inputs 2008 REVInputs 2008 2009 % change in 2009 2008 REV 2008 2009 % change in 2009 — Current — Pay — Non-pay — Department — Current — Pay — Non-pay — Department — HSE Programme Expenditure Programme Administration Gross programme expenditureNumber of staff employed on programme (whole time equivalents) as at end of year Programme Expenditure Programme Administration Gross programme expenditureNumber of staff employed on programme (whole time equivalents) as at end 2,013.2 of year Community Welfare Service (administration of SWA) Combat Poverty Agency 2,039.5 2,145.3 5.2 25.0 894.6 841.0 1,117.9 32.9

222 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers 1.9 4.1 25.1 − − 4.7% − − million % million % \ \ million million 87.6 129.5 767.5 Outturn Outturn \ \ ——— 6.5 8.1 6.0 million million 11.0 6.6 8.130.9 21.4 40.4 30.5 41.8 29.1 42.2 1.0 \ \ REV Estimate Provisional REV Estimate on 2008 outturn REV Estimate Provisional REV Estimate on 2008 outturn e 7 — Operational Capabilities and Modernisation e 6 — Identity Management and Secure Access to Services Programm Programm Inputs 2008Inputs 2008 2009 % change in 2009 2008 2008 2009 % change in 2009 — Current — Pay — Non-pay — Civil Servants — Other public servants — Current — Pay — Non-pay — current— Non-pay — capital— Department — Citizen’s Information Board 10.7 53.0 10.5 44.0 10.3 59.0 34.1 Programme Expenditure Programme Administration Gross programme expenditureNumber of staff employed on programme (whole time equivalents) as at end of year Programme Expenditure Programme Administration Gross programme expenditureNumber of staff employed on 17.5 programme (whole time equivalents) as at end of year 14.7 14.1 135.0 127.0 140.7 10.8

223 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

Departmental Properties. 145. Deputy Sea´n Power asked the Minister for Defence the agreement reached, following a meeting of his officials with the residents association of an estate (details supplied) in County Kildare on 16 April 2008, in relation to the programme of works to be carried out for the provision of a children’s play area on lands adjacent to the estate; if the licence agreement was drawn up; the amount of this work which was carried out; when the remaining works will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23936/09]

Minister for Defence (Deputy Willie O’Dea): A number of meetings have been held between my officials and members of the residents association of the estate concerned. It was agreed that a play area could be provided for the children of the estate. In order to facilitate the provision of this area the residents association were requested to provide insurance to indemnify the State in respect of any claims that may arise from its use. However, the residents association was not in a position to provide such an indemnity. In the meantime a playground has been constructed and opened within the Military facility adjacent to the estate and the children are free to use this facility during the time when it is open.

Building Energy Rating. 146. Deputy Michael Noonan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will review the protocol for the registration of building energy rating assessors in order that persons who have passed the necessary examinations may be registered prior to the issuing of certificates to them by FETAC; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23929/09]

147. Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Govern- ment if he will clarify the point in the sale of a property at which it is required that a building energy rating certificate is necessary; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23934/09]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): I propose to take Questions Nos. 146 and 147 together. I am advised by Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI) that arrangements are now in place to facilitate early registration for fully certified assessors who are still awaiting the receipt of their certificates from FETAC. There are currently over 2,700 persons registered with SEI as BER assessors for dwellings, a far higher number of assessors than is required to meet current and anticipated demand for BER certificates in the market place. I understand that SEI strongly advises that applicants for registration review the number of BER assessors who are already servicing their intended target area in order to ensure that they are satisfied with the potential business opportunity before investing money in registering with SEI. A database of all registered BER assessors, searchable by county, is included on SEI’s web pages (www.sei.ie). A Building Energy Rating must be available to prospective buyers or tenants when a building is offered for sale or letting. The European Communities (Energy Performance of Buildings) Regulations 2006-2008 require any person who offers a building for sale or letting on or from 1 January, 2009 or any agent acting on their behalf, to produce a copy of the BER certificate relating to the building to any person expressing an interest in purchasing or taking a letting in the building. A person who contravenes these requirements commits an offence, unless the building in question is specifically exempted under Article 3 of the Regulations, and is liable,

224 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers on prosecution by the Building Control Authority in whose functional area the building is situated, to a fine not exceeding \5,000.

Departmental Programmes. 148. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the policies, strategies or initiatives published on his behalf for each of the past five years; if, in each of these cases, consultation with children or representatives from the relevant sector was involved; if so, the details of this consultation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23964/09]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): A list of the policies, strategies or initiatives published by my Department over each of the past five years is contained in the tables. In line with the principles of consultation and quality customer service, my Department is committed to providing opportunities for input into policy formulation and legislative development. This enables the widest possible range of views to be taken into account. The Department consulted with the Department of Health and Children in relation to youth homelessness issues in preparing The Way Home: A Strategy to Address Adult Homelessness 2008-2013. There was a consultation process in relation to all of the other strategies and policies set out below. Such consultation involved a public consultation period, where members of the public and representative groups were invited to submit their views, and/or meetings with relevant groups — e.g. social partner representative groups, organisations representing people (including children) with disabilities etc. The Department also places a high emphasis on effective engagement with other Depart- ments, the local government sector and other public bodies to advance cross-cutting issues which are of strategic importance to the achievement of key Government objectives. The views of relevant groups are also taken into account through such engagement.

2004

Policy/Strategy/Initiative

Departmental Customer Charter Delivering Value for People — Service Indicators in Local Authorities Waste Management — Taking Stock and Moving Forward Strategic Environmental Assessment — Planning Guidance Quarries and Ancillary Activities — Planning Guidance

2005

Policy/Strategy/Initiative

Statement of Strategy 2005-2007 Housing Policy Framework — Building Sustainable Communities Irish Language Scheme under the Official Languages Act Retail Planning — Planning Guidance Sustainable Rural Housing — Planning Guidance

225 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy John Gormley.] 2006

Policy/Strategy/Initiative

Customer Service Action Plan 2006-2008 and Customer Charter Gateway Investment Priorities Study National Strategy on Biodegradable Waste Sectoral Plan under the Disability Act 2005

2007

Policy/Strategy/Initiative

NSS Hubs: Development Issues and Challenges Market Development Programme for Waste Resources 2007-2011 National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012 Delivering Homes, Sustaining Communities — Statement on Housing Policy Quality Housing for Sustainable Communities Development Plans (2007) — Planning Guidance Development Management (2007) — Planning Guidance

2008

Policy/Strategy/Initiative

Statement of Strategy 2008-2010 The Way Home: A Strategy to Address Adult Homelessness 2008-2013 Stronger Local Democracy — Options for Change. Green Paper on local government Branching Out-Future Directions (Strategy for public library service) Increasing Affordable Housing Supply Design Standards for New Apartments (2008) — Planning Guidance Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas — Planning Guidance Planning and Flood Risk Management — Planning Guidance (draft issued in late 2008)

Waste Management. 149. Deputy Shane McEntee asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if all plastic bag levy receipts together with landfill levy receipts are paid into a ring fenced environment fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23994/09]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): The Environment Fund was established by the Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001 with effect from 17 July 2001. All plastic bag levy receipts are paid into the Environment Fund. In respect of landfill levy receipts, local authorities may deduct and retain up to 2%, subject to a maximum of \50,000 per annum, from levies payable in respect of privately operated landfill facilities to meet expenses incurred by them in the enforcement and collection of such levies. All other landfill levy receipts are paid into the Environment Fund. The Environment Fund is ring fenced and payments can only be made from the Fund for the purposes specified under Section 74(9) or Section 74(12) of the Waste Management Act 1996, inserted by Section 12 of the Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001. 226 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

Noise Pollution. 150. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will support a matter (details supplied). [23997/09]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): Under the provisions of Section 25 of the Control of Dogs Act, 1986, the District Court may act on a complaint by any person where a nuisance has been created by excessive barking by a dog. In general, it is advisable that the person affected by a barking dog raise the issue with the owner of the offending animal. Should this avenue fail, the person can proceed to court. A copy of the forms used for complaints regarding barking dogs is available from local authorities. While complaints in relation to barking dogs are largely dealt with under the provisions of the Control of Dogs Act, noise nuisance generally is dealt with under Section 108 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992 (Noise) Regulations, 1994. This allows an individual, a group of residents, a local authority or the Environmental Protection Agency to make a complaint to the District Court in respect of noise which gives reasonable cause for annoyance, for the purpose of obtaining an Order for the reduction, prevention or limitation of the noise. The defendant is obliged to comply with any such order. In addition, the Government has recently approved the drafting of a Bill to strengthen existing legislation on noise nuisance, in line with the commitment in the Programme for Govern- ment. A public consultation process has been completed, and account is being taken of submissions received from the public and key stakeholders. I intend that the new legislation will take a more integrated approach to noise nuisance. There will be a greater emphasis on codes of practice for construction, commercial and domestic situations. Local authorities will have stronger enforcement powers to deal with nuisances from particular noise sources, including noise from barking dogs, and I also see the need to extend the powers of the Garda Sı´ocha´na in certain circumstances. There will, in addition, be measures to increase awareness of noise nuisance and of how it can be remedied. I share the concern that excessive or unnecessary lighting should be minimised, in the interest of public amenity. A number of Local Authorities have already raised the issue of light pollution in their development plans, aiming to ensure that the design of external lighting minim- izes the incidences of light spillage or pollution into the surrounding environment. However, there is currently no environmental legislation pending or in force, at either EU or national level, on light pollution. My Department and the Environmental Protection Agency continue to monitor emerging EU and international policy in relation to this issue.

Turbary Rights. 151. Deputy Michael Lowry asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the position regarding the case of a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24009/09]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): The case in question refers to a compensation claim made by an individual in relation to the restriction on commercial turf cutting on a designated raised bog. The matter has been settled. Agreed contracts were signed on my behalf on 30 April 2009 and the compensation consideration has been paid by the Department to the Chief State Solicitor’s Office (CSSO). My Department has also provided payment for the claimant’s costs. These monies have been issued to the CSSO this week for forwarding to the claimant’s solicitor.

227 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

Grant Payments. 152. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Roscommon will be awarded a REP scheme four payment; the reason for the delay in same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23924/09]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The REPS 4 application by the person named cannot be processed further until a reply is received to the letter sent to him by my officials on 8 October 2008 regarding a variance between his REPS plan and his 2008 Single Payment application. A reminder letter issued on 20 March 2009 but no reply has been received.

Fisheries Protection. 153. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to Parliamentary Question No. 202 of 27 May 2009, the location at which the Gigas oyster has settled; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23931/09]

154. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the action he is taking to remove the Gigas oyster from the Lough Swilly Natura 2000 site in order to protect the native habitat. [23932/09]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): I propose to take Questions Nos. 153 and 154 together. My response to Question No. 202 of 27 May 2009 referred to the possible future potential risk of proliferation of the pacific oyster in Ireland and the study being undertaken at present by the Marine Institute, with others, on reproduction, settlement and environmental interactions of pacific oysters in Ireland. The results of this study will be used to inform further actions that may be required consistent with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) 708/2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture. As previously indicated, my Department is advised that, to date, there is little evidence that any decline in native oyster numbers has been linked with the presence of the pacific oyster.

Turbary Rights. 155. Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if a map has been drawn up (details supplied). [23948/09]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): A map has been drawn up in this case and my Department is proceeding to dispose of the turbary rights over the plot. This will require an advertisement of the sale of the turbary rights in accordance with section 8 of the Irish Land Commission (Dissolution) Act 1992.

Grant Payments. 156. Deputy Paul Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a slatted house grant will issue to a person (details supplied) in County Galway; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23988/09]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The person concerned is an applicant under the Farm Improvement Scheme. My Department is currently examining the application and a decision will be made as soon as possible.

228 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

157. Deputy Paul Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the position regarding an application for the young farmer installation aid in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Galway; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23989/09]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The person concerned was an applicant for grant-aid under the Young Farmers’ Installation Scheme. The application in this case was rejected by Department letter of 6 November 2008 as he was determined to be ineligible for the Scheme. A Departmental review which upheld the original decision was communicated to the applicant on 16 February 2009. The case is currently under appeal to the Agriculture Appeals Office.

158. Deputy Tom Hayes asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when payment will issue to a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary in respect of a REP scheme application; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23995/09]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): Payment issued on 19 May 2009.

159. Deputy P. J. Sheehan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Cork will be awarded their REP scheme three payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24002/09]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): Payment issued to the person named on 12th June 2009.

160. Deputy P. J. Sheehan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Cork will be awarded payment of their REP scheme three grant; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24003/09]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The application by the person named cannot be processed until an adjusted plan, which my Department asked for in a letter dated 14 November 2009, is received.

Farm Retirement Scheme. 161. Deputy Michael Lowry asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when farm retirement payments will be awarded to a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24005/09]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): No formal application for the Scheme of Early Retirement from Farming was received from the person named. In June 2008, she indicated through her legal representatives that she intended to apply for the Scheme. She did not meet certain eligibility requirements, and her legal representatives sought to have her exempted from these because of her particular circumstances. My Department declined this request and the person named appealed the decision to the Agricultural Appeals Office, which found in her favour.In the meantime ,however,the Scheme had been closed to new applicants. My Department is considering the matter and will communicate with the person named within the next two weeks.

Grant Payments. 162. Deputy Michael Lowry asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a balance of REP scheme and single farm payments will be awarded to a person (details supplied)

229 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Michael Lowry.] in County Offaly; if not, the reason for same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24006/09]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): The first part of the REPS payment to the person named in respect of 2008 will issue within the next ten days. He has already received his payment for 2008 under the Single Payment Scheme.

163. Deputy Michael Lowry asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when single farm payments will be awarded to a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary for 2008 and 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24007/09]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): An application was received for each of the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 requesting the transfer of 13.08 entitlements by way of one-year lease from the second named person to the first named person. The one- year lease for the 2007 scheme year ended on 31 March 2008 at which time the entitlements reverted back to the second named person. Consequently they were not available to the first named person for the scheme year 2008 and no payment issued on these entitlements for that year. No application to transfer these entitlements was received by the Transfer of Entitlements Section of my Department for either 2008 or 2009. However, the first person named included a note with his Single Payment Scheme application for 2008 indicating his intention to lease land and entitlements. In view of this, an official from my Department has been in contact with the first person named in relation to the submission of transfer of entitlement applications for 2008 and 2009. When these applications have been received and processed all outstanding payments will be made.

164. Deputy Michael Lowry asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when an area aid payment will be issue to a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary ; if not, the status of the application; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24008/09]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Brendan Smith): An application under the Single Payment Scheme/Disadvantaged Areas Scheme was received from the person named on the 15th May 2007. This application was selected for and was the subject of a ground eligibility and full cross compliance inspection. During the course of the ground eligibility inspection, discrepancies were found with parcel numbers P16508043, P16508044, P16508045 and P16508046 which resulted in these parcels being rejected. As there was an over declaration of over 20%, under the Terms and Conditions of the schemes, no payment can be made for the year in question. The person named was officially informed of these findings on the 14th January 2009 and of her right to seek a review of this decision within 21 days and also of her right to appeal the outcome of any such review to the independent Agriculture Appeals Office. On the 8th May 2009, the District Inspector reviewed this case and it was decided to uphold the original decision and apply the penalty. The person named was advised that she could appeal the outcome of this review to the Agriculture Appeals Office. I have had the matter investigated and the position is that this file is with the Agriculture Appeals Office who will contact the person named, within the next week, to invite them to attend an Oral Hearing in order to clarify the position regarding the areas under query.

165. Deputy Seymour Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Cavan will be awarded a farm improvement scheme grant

230 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers in view of the fact that the work was completed in February 2009; his views on whether delays such as this are putting pressure on young farmers and their families; the action he will take to have payment made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24029/09]

Pension Provisions. 166. Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason a person (details supplied) in County Kerry is being deducted the pension levy when he or she are not eligible to be included in the public service pension and will not benefit from it on retirement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24001/09]

Minister for Education and Science (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): Under Section 2 of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act, 2009 a person is liable to pay the pensions- related deduction if he or she is a public servant on or after the 1 March 2009 and is a member of a public service pension scheme, is entitled to a benefit under the scheme or receives a payment in lieu of membership of such a scheme. Accordingly, an individual who is not entitled to a pension benefit from his/her employment may be liable to pay the pension related deduction in certain other circumstances, including if he/she receives a payment in lieu of membership of a public service pension scheme. In that regard, for example, a non-pensionable gratuity is payable to certain staff of Vocational Edu- cation Committees whose service is not reckonable for superannuation purposes. An official of my Department has contacted Co. Kerry VEC, the employer of the person referred to by the Deputy, and has established that this person is eligible to receive the payment of a non- pensionable gratuity, and that, accordingly, they are liable to pay the pension related deduction.

School Transport. 167. Deputy Seymour Crawford asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of students who travel on a school bus to school in each of the counties Cavan and Monaghan; his views on whether the increased school bus charges will cause financial pressure to parents; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23921/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Deputy Sea´n Haughey): Bus E´ ireann, which operates the school transport scheme, on behalf of my Department, has advised that the number of tickets issued to post primary pupils in Cavan and Monaghan, as of 31/12/2008, were 1,959 and 2,219 respectively. The number of tickets issued to primary pupils for Cavan and Monaghan in 2007 was 1,952 and 1,631 respectively; more recent figures are not readily available. The revised annual charges for school transport have been confined to eligible post-primary children and children availing of concessionary transport. Charges for school transport continue to be waived in the case of eligible post-primary children where the family is in possession of a valid medical card. Eligible children attending primary schools and children with special needs will still travel free. A maximum family rate of \650 will also be applied. School transport ticket invoices for the 2009/2010 School Year will be issued by Bus E´ ireann in July 2009. The payment options being offered to parents are as follows:

231 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Sea´n Haughey.]

• Payment of the full amount by the deadline date of 31 July 2009

• Spreading the amount due over two payments payable in July and December 2009.

Parents who pay the full annual charge, in advance, will benefit from ticket(s) being issued for the full school year. This arrangement includes pupils on concessionary travel. Parents who pay 50% of the annual amount by the deadline date of 31 July, 2009 will be issued with a ticket valid for travel up to 22 December, 2009. The balance due must be paid by 4th December, 2009. Upon receipt of this payment a second ticket valid for travel up to the end of the school year in June, 2010 will be issued. On-line payment facilities have been introduced by Bus E´ ireann to make it more convenient for parents to make their payment from home, if desired. This facility is made available when ticket invoices are issued and the option to use a credit or debit card is offered. While I appreciate the Deputy’s concerns, given the factors that I have outlined, it is not envisaged that there will be a change in the payment arrangements as outlined above.

Home-School Liaison Scheme. 168. Deputy Mary O’Rourke asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will review the case of a person (details supplied) in County Longford. [23939/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Deputy Sea´n Haughey): Home School Community Liaison coordinator posts are provided on a full time or shared basis between schools. Due to the nature of the work of HSCL coordinators, which focuses directly on the salient adults in children’s educational lives, coordinators must be deployed to do full- time liaison duties only to avoid any potential conflict of interest. The role also requires the flexibility to be available to families, for home visitation, attending meetings and inservice and undertaking school staff development without having the restrictions of a timetable. Following a full review of the allocation of HSCL posts and clustering arrangements under DEIS (Delivering Equality of Opportunities in Schools), the Action Plan for Educational Inclusion in 2008, HSCL posts are allocated to schools on the basis of their levels of disadvantage and enrolment, having regard to geographic proximity or ‘association’ (where children from the same family attend different schools. ie boys and girls or primary and post primary aged siblings). In a small number of cases, coordinators may be shared between schools that do not have family links, however, this is to ensure that the coordinators are deployed to do home school community liaison duties only. The coordinator to which the Deputy refers is employed as a permanent whole time teacher by a Vocational Education Committee as a full time HSCL coordinator. Following the 2008 HSCL review, this school is no longer entitled to a full HSCL post, based on its size and level of disadvantage. The VEC have been advised that the HSCL post should now be shared between two of its schools and it is a matter for the VEC to deploy this teacher in accordance with the terms of her contract with the VEC.

Special Educational Needs. 169. Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Education and Science the position regarding a school (details supplied) in County Galway; and if this school will be allocated sufficient support to make a special class for the school year 2009-10 possible. [23949/09]

232 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

Minister for Education and Science (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): My Department has considered the additional information submitted by the school in question in support of its request to retain the special class for mild general learning disability. I am pleased to advise the Deputy that my Department has permitted the school to retain the special class for the 2009/2010 school year.

Departmental Publications. 170. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Education and Science the policies, strategies or initiatives published on his behalf for each of the past five years; if, in each of these cases, consultation with children or representatives from the relevant sector was involved; if so, the details of this consultation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23963/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Deputy Barry Andrews): The information requested is not readily available to my Department. I will arrange for the information to be forwarded to the Deputy as soon as possible.

Youthreach Programme. 171. Deputy Caoimhghı´nO´ Caola´in asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of early school leavers who applied for places in Youthreach programmes but were refused a place from 2006 to 2009. [23966/09]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Deputy Sea´n Haughey): The Youthreach programme provides two years integrated education, training and work experience to young people aged 15-20 years who left school early without any qualifications or vocational training and are unemployed. There are currently almost 6,000 places available nationally under the Youthreach umbrella. Almost 3,700 of these are funded by my Department and delivered in just over 100 centres by Vocational Education Committees (VECs). The majority of the remaining 2,300 places are funded by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and delivered by FA´ Sin Community Training Centres (CTCs). The Youthreach programme funded by my Department is operated by VECs at local level. The intake in Youthreach centres commences in September each year and where applications are made during the year a waiting list is operated and places allocated as they arise. These places are generally allocated in groups. You will be aware that an additional 400 Youthreach places were allocated in 2007 and these additional places are being utilised. As admission to Youthreach is operated at centre level the information requested by the Deputy is not readily available to my Department.

Schools Building Projects. 172. Deputy James Reilly asked the Minister for Education and Science the position regarding the construction of a new primary school in an area (details supplied) in County Dublin; when construction will commence and be completed; if funding available for the construction and staffing of the school; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24023/09]

Minister for Education and Science (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): As the Deputy may be aware, I announced last February that the school in question was to progress to architectural planning for the provision of a new permanent school building.

233 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Batt O’Keeffe.]

Officials from my Department will be touch with the school authority shortly, in relation to the further progression of the project.

Special Educational Needs. 173. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will support the case of persons (details supplied) in Dublin 5. [24039/09]

Minister for Education and Science (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): I understand that the Deputy’s office has confirmed that his question relates to resource teaching support in the school. As you will be aware, the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) is responsible, through its network of local Special Educational Needs Organisers (SENOs), for allocating resource teachers and Special Needs Assistants to primary and post primary schools to support children with special needs. The NCSE operates within my Department’s criteria in allocating such support. The NCSE will undertake to review a decision taken by a SENO on foot of a request from a school or parents/guardians, when accompanied by relevant additional information, which may not have been to hand at the time of the decision. The NCSE has outlined this process in its Circular 01/05. All schools have the names and contact details of their local SENO. Parents may also contact their local SENO directly to discuss their child’s special educational needs, using the contact details available on www.ncse.ie. I have arranged for the information provided by the Deputy to be forwarded to the NCSE for their direct reply.

Schools Building Projects. 174. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will support a matter (details supplied). [24040/09]

Minister for Education and Science (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The school to which the Deputy refers is currently in rented accommodation. The need for playground facilities is a matter for the school authorities to discuss with the property owners. The Department is aware of the need to provide a permanent home for the school. It is examining options in this regard, although there has been some difficulty in obtaining alternative, suitable accommodation in the area where the school is located. The Department will be in direct contact with the school authority when it has identified a viable option which it can proceed with in the context of competing demands on its capital budget.

Child Abuse. 175. Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of files that existed in his Department relating to a person (details supplied) in County Laois; when each of these files started; the reason they were kept in separate locations; the person who had official responsibility for each file; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24043/09]

176. Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science when a complaint against a person (details supplied) in County Laois was first made to his Department in respect of incidents at a school; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24044/09]

234 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

177. Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason a complaint against a person (details supplied) in County Laois investigated by his Department between 1964 and 1966 was not acted upon; the reason such a complaint was never acknowledged in response to inquiries from public representatives and media; the reason he continues to contend that the first notification it had of complaints against this person was in 1982; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24045/09]

178. Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science if a file on allegations against a person (details supplied) in County Laois at a school was given by him to the Garda, when the Garda investigated the aforementioned person in the period 1996 to 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24046/09]

Minister for Education and Science (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): I propose to take Questions Nos. 175 to 178, inclusive, together. I wish to advise the Deputy that the person to whom she refers served as Principal in Rath National School during the mid-1960’s. On the 2nd March 1965, the Department received a letter from a parent of children who were attending the school in question, in which she complained of the “infliction of unnecessary punishment” on schoolchildren and cited a number of incidents involving her own children and the person in question. The complaint was investigated by the Department at the time in accordance with its guidelines and it was found that Rule 96(1) and 96(3) which deal with the excessive use of corporal punishment was breached. In this regard, a letter was issued from the Department to Mr Dunne and copied to the manager advising that the Department expects Mr Dunne to comply more strictly with the terms of Rule 96(1) and (3). In September 1997, the Gardaı´ in Tullamore, Co. Offaly wrote to the Department of Edu- cation (Primary Branch) stating that complaints of incidents relating to this person’s tenure in Walsh Island National School were the subject of a Garda investigation and sought details of any complaints the Department might have received during that period. The Gardaı´ were looking for papers solely in relation to this person’s activities during the course of his period of employment in Walsh Island National School and, consequently, details of the 1965 complaints were not sent to Gardaı´. An initial search was fruitless and a reply issued to the Gardaı´ confirming that there was no record of any complaint having been lodged with the Department at the time of the alleged abuse (1966-1969) in Walsh Island N S. However, in January 1998, a file containing some papers on this person was discovered in Second Level Branch, Athlone, including a letter, sent to the Department on 27th May 1982, alleging sexual abuse of boys by the person in question. In January 1998 copies of these papers were made available to the Gardaı´ to assist them in their investigation. The handling of this complaint by the Department at the time was not satisfactory. The former Minister Michael Martin T.D. after reviewing the papers at the time stated that “I am firmly of the view that the Department’s response to this complaint was seriously lacking and there can be absolutely no excuse by reference to the standards of the time” As a result the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was specifically requested to look at the Donal Dunne case. At that time, all records, including those relating to the 1965 complaint were forwarded to the Commission. Donal Dunne served as a teacher in both Primary and Secondary Schools. Consequently, files were held in separate locations as primary files were stored and maintained by Primary Branch and files relating to Second Level teachers were maintained by the Second Level Branch.

235 Questions— 17 June 2009. Written Answers

[Deputy Batt O’Keeffe.]

I fully accept that the complaint in 1982 was not properly handled. As Deputies are aware the material relating to the complaint was passed on to the Commission and the Commission Report (Chapter 14 of Volume 1) covers the issue. I appreciate very much the courage of those who raise complaints relating to their abuse and the trauma that must be associated with pursuing such complaints which makes the manner in which the complaint was handled in 1982 particularly inexcusable.

Schools Building Projects. 179. Deputy Dan Neville asked the Minister for Education and Science the position regarding the construction of a new national school at a location (details supplied) in County Limerick. [24088/09]

Minister for Education and Science (Deputy Batt O’Keeffe): The Stage 2B (Detailed Design) submission was received by my Department on the 15th of June and is currently being examined. My officials will revert to the school authorities in due course.

236