text:
Vol. 691 Thursday, No. 2 8 October 2009 ´ ´ ´ DIOSPOIREACHTAI PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ´ ´ DAIL EIREANN ´ TUAIRISC OIFIGIUIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised) Thursday, 8 October 2009. ´ Requests to move Adjournment of Dail under Standing Order 32 … … … … … … 265 Order of Business … … … … … … … … … … … … 266 Treaty of Lisbon: Motion … … … … … … … … … … … 276 ´ Sittings and Business of Dail: Motion … … … … … … … … … … 276 Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Order for Second Stage … … … … … … … … … … … 276 Second Stage … … … … … … … … … … … … 277 Referral to Select Committee … … … … … … … … … … 299 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate Services) Bill 2009: Order for Second Stage … … … … … … … … … … … 299 Second Stage … … … … … … … … … … … … 299 Referral to Select Committee … … … … … … … … … … 315 Ceisteanna — Questions Minister for Defence Priority Questions … … … … … … … … … … … 316 Other Questions … … … … … … … … … … … 327 Adjournment Debate Matters … … … … … … … … … … … 339 Adjournment Debate Anti-Social Behaviour … … … … … … … … … … … 340 Community Development… … … … … … … … … … … 342 Turbary Rights … … … … … … … … … … … … 344 Schools Building Projects … … … … … … … … … … … 345 Questions: Written Answers … … … … … … … … … … … 349 ´ ´ DAIL EIREANN ———— Deardaoin, 8 Deireadh Fomhair 2009. ´ ´ Thursday, 8 October 2009. ———— Chuaigh an Leas-Cheann Comhairle i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m. ———— Paidir. Prayer. ———— Requests to move Adjournment of Dail under Standing Order 32. ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Before coming to the Order of Business, I propose to deal with ´ a number of requests to move the adjournment of the Dail under Standing Order 32. ´ Deputy Paul Connaughton: I seek the adjournment of the Dail under Standing Order 32 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, the failure of the Coca-Cola company to honour a Labour Court judgment concerning redundancy payments to its laid-off workers at Tuam, Dublin and Cork; the obvious sneaking disregard of Coca-Cola for its former employees who worked diligently over many years; the total disregard of the company for the Labour Court; and the fact that other former employees of Coca-Cola recently received much higher levels of redundancy payments than those being offered to the striking workers in Tuam and elsewhere. ´ Deputy James Bannon: I seek the adjournment of the Dail under Standing Order 32 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, the disturbing level of errors in the marking of the leaving certificate, as demonstrated by the awarding of upgrades in 20% of all appeals; and the fact that the results of those appeals have come too late for many people, unfortunately, as the college courses they are entitled to take are often full by the time appeal results are issued. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Hear, hear. Deputy James Bannon: At a time when students and schools are crying out for funding, it is disgraceful that there is a very substantial underspend in the Department of Education and Science. Deputy Fergus O'Dowd: Hear, hear. Deputy James Bannon: This matter needs to be debated as a matter of urgency. Deputy Padraic McCormack: Where is the Minister for Education and Science? ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Kathleen Lynch, without interruption. ´ Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I seek the adjournment of the Dail under Standing Order 32 to discuss an urgent matter of public interest, namely, the industrial dispute at Coca-Cola, which is in danger of spreading to other companies; the fact that Coca-Cola workers have been on strike for the past seven weeks as a result of the company's attempts to outsource distribution, 265 Order of 8 October 2009. Business [Deputy Kathleen Lynch.] which would lead to the loss of 130 jobs, 30 of which would be lost in Cork; the intransigence of Coca-Cola in ignoring all attempts by the workforce to seek a resolution through the Labour Court, which is leading to the escalation of the dispute to other distribution companies; and the need for an urgent debate on this serious matter. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Having considered the matters raised, they are not in order under Standing Order 32, unfortunately. Order of Business. ´ ´ The Tanaiste: It is proposed to take No. a14, motion re proposed approval by Dail Eireann ´ ´ of the terms of the Treaty of Lisbon; No. b14, motion re sittings and business of the Dail; No. 3, Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 4, Communications Regulation (Premium Rate Services) Bill 2009 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. a14 and b14 shall be decided without debate. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. a14 and b14 without debate agreed? Deputy Enda Kenny: There has been enough debate about the Lisbon treaty. Send it away with all our endorsement. Deputy Joe Costello: While I agree with Deputy Kenny in one sense, it seems strange that it is proposed to deal with a motion on this major issue, which has been debated across the length and breadth of the country over the past month, without debate. Not only will it have major implications for Ireland, Europe and the world, but it will also have substantial impli- cations for the manner in which this House conducts its business, as it gives the Oireachtas a new statutory role. While I accept that the matter will not be debated on this occasion, perhaps ´ the Tanaiste can tell us when Deputies will have an opportunity to discuss the implications of the Lisbon treaty for how the Oireachtas conducts its business with the European Union. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I remind the House that this is a procedural motion, setting out how these matters will be taken. ´ Deputy Martin Ferris: While Sinn Fein has strong views on the Treaty of Lisbon, which is the subject of No. a14, it accepts the democratic decision taken by the Irish people and will not oppose the proposal before the House. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe: That is a first. The Tanaiste: As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has rightly indicated, this is a procedural ´ motion. It will be followed by legislation, which is to be considered by the Cabinet next week. These issues can be raised when that Bill is debated in the House. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is the proposal to take Nos. a14 and b14 without debate agreed? Agreed. I call Deputy Kenny on the Order of Business. Deputy Enda Kenny: I would like to ask two questions on the Order of Business. According ´ to a report in today's Irish Independent, the outgoing chairman of FAS, Mr. Peter McLoone, ´ has contradicted the Tanaiste's version of the events leading up to the decision of the board of ´ FAS to allow the former director general of that organisation to keep his car. According to the newspaper report, Mr. McLoone insists that "the board of the state training agency only 266 Order of 8 October 2009. Business allowed Mr. Molloy to keep his Audi A6 company car because it was negotiated in his sever- ance agreement". The report also states that officials in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment "were informed in advance that the issue of the car was to be dealt with by ´ ´ the FAS board". On a number of occasions, the Tanaiste—— An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: This is not in order. ´ Deputy Enda Kenny: This matter directly concerns the Tanaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: This is neither Question Time nor Leaders' Questions, unfor- tunately. ´ Deputy Enda Kenny: The Tanaiste has repeatedly refused to say whether she was aware in advance of the awarding of a golden handshake of \1 million and an Audi A6 car. I would like ´ ´ a straight answer. Was the Tanaiste informed in advance of the decision of the board of FAS to allow Mr. Molloy to keep his Audi A6 car as part of his severance package? An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Kenny knows full well that—— ´ Deputy Enda Kenny: That is that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I expect the Tanaiste to answer the question I have asked about a matter of public importance. In reply to a question on the National Assets Management Agency Bill 2009, the Taoiseach stated yesterday that the matter would be addressed in the normal way on Committee Stage. The Government invited Oppo- ´ sition parties to put down amendments. Can the Tanaiste confirm that time will be allowed for a debate on each and every amendment without guillotine? An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The first matter is not in order but if Deputy Kenny wishes to raise it on the Adjournment, I will facilitate him. Deputy Enda Kenny: Hold on. ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I will allow the Tanaiste to reply if she wishes to do so. Deputy James Bannon: It is taxpayers' money. Deputy Padraic McCormack: It is very much in order. ´ The Tanaiste: In regard to the legislation, it will be a matter for the Chairman of the select ´ committee to determine how much time will be allocated to discuss relevant amendments. I was aware that the former director general wished to retain the car. It was not within my remit to sanction that. It was a matter for the board. It went to the board, which made its decision. It was not part of the package sanctioned by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Department of Finance. ´ Deputy Enda Kenny: The Tanaiste knew in advance, therefore. The Tanaiste: I was aware of the situation. ´ Deputy Enda Kenny: She knew in advance. The Tanaiste: It was a matter for the board. ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I call Deputy Burton. 267 Order of 8 October 2009. Business Deputy Leo Varadkar: Did she express a view to the board? Deputy Paul Kehoe: Did she give him a full tank of petrol as well? Deputy Joan Burton: I want to—— Deputy Dick Roche: It was a diesel car. Deputy Padraic McCormack: Green diesel. ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Allow Deputy Burton to speak without interruption. Deputy Joan Burton: Has the Government agreed a date for the budget? This question is coming close to the third mystery of Fatima. By tradition it is announced on the first Wednesday in December but the Government is refusing to confirm that, which leads me to the suspicion that it intends to announce it at the height of the Christmas party season so that the public will pay little or no attention to it. (Interruptions). An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Allow Deputy Burton to put her question. ´ Deputy Joan Burton: Can the Tanaiste give us the date of the budget and can she confirm it will be on the first Wednesday in December? Deputy James Reilly: The Christmas bonus has been cancelled. Deputy Joan Burton: Yesterday we were told by the Taoiseach that it will definitely be announced before Christmas. The custom for many people in this country is to start celebrating Christmas between the 18th and the 20th of December. If the budget is moved back, there will be no time to debate it. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy has made her point. Deputy Joan Burton: That was my first question. Deputy Paul Kehoe: Paddy Power should open a book on it. Deputy Billy Kelleher: We could move Christmas Day instead. Deputy Joan Burton: The Taoiseach said it would be announced prior to Christmas. Deputy Dick Roche: Which Christmas? Deputy Joan Burton: He has also confirmed it will be in December An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Has the Deputy a second question? Deputy Joan Burton: We want the date. We have to do our own planning. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Has the Deputy a second question? Deputy Joan Burton: My second question is whether information will be published on the Estimates. It has been the tradition of this House that information is published in the middle of November so that the Opposition can understand the Government's intentions. This morning we received information that \396 million of the capital Estimate for the Department of Edu- 268 Order of 8 October 2009. Business cation and Science, or almost half of the amount provided in the emergency budget, remains unspent with three months left in the financial year. This is a serious question. If we are to conduct our business properly, we need to know the Estimates. I wish to raise another matter which is not related to the budget. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I will return to the Deputy. The Tanaiste: On the budget date and the preparation of the Estimates, these matters will ´ be determined at the Cabinet meeting planned for this afternoon. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: What is the position on the Estimates? The Tanaiste: It is the same. ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I will call Deputy Burton again but I now call Deputy Deasy. Deputy John Deasy: Last Tuesday I raised the issue of PRSI being levied on redundancy payments to former employees of Waterford Crystal. I was subsequently contacted by several Deputies, including Deputies Aylward, Kenneally and O'Shea, and have held discussions with ´ the Tanaiste, who gave an undertaking on Tuesday's Order of Business that she would person- ally examine the matter. Everyone will appreciate that she has followed through on her commit- ment. It is worth remembering that we are dealing with people who have lost the entire value of their pensions as well as their jobs. Last night I received a response to my parliamentary question to the Department of Finance, which clearly considers the payment as income rather than a redundancy payment. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: This matter is not in order on the Order of Business. Deputy John Deasy: I ask for the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's indulgence. I will be brief. The matter was passed back to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I understand the ´ Tanaiste has indicated that she will personally appeal this to both Departments. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: This would be an appropriate matter for the Adjournment debate. Deputy John Deasy: I will conclude on this point. I put down questions to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It is important that the matter is clarified promptly. I seek an ´ indication from the Tanaiste that it will be addressed within the coming three or four days. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: This is not in order on the Order of Business. Deputy Bobby Aylward: On the same issue—— An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It is still not in order. Deputy Bobby Aylward: I want to balance the House by adding my voice to the concerns expressed by Deputy Deasy. Deputy Noel J. Coonan: There is a big difference in the weight. ´ Deputy Bobby Aylward: I ask the Tanaiste to use her good office on this issue which has arisen for the former workers of Waterford Crystal who lost their jobs when the company went into receivership. They have been given a small amount of money by the receiver. 269 Order of 8 October 2009. Business An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: This is not in order. Deputy Bobby Aylward: Some of the workers have given 39 years of service. ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I ask the Tanaiste to give a brief reply on an exceptional matter without precedent. The Tanaiste: I am aware of the situation and have been in contact with the receiver. Issues ´ arise in regard to payments from my Department and the implications for decisions that have been made regarding the workers. I had an opportunity to speak on a personal basis with the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and we will follow up on our conversation today. I will keep all the Deputies from Waterford informed about the matter. Deputy Dick Roche: And Kilkenny. The Tanaiste: And Kilkenny. ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I call Deputy Crawford, who I expect will remain in order. Deputy Seymour Crawford: I will remain in order. Deputy Paul Kehoe: Always. Deputy Seymour Crawford: I cannot help but ask about the status of the legal costs Bill. These people are receiving enormous sums of money at a time when others cannot put bread on the table. We have been promised this Bill for years but it remains on the back burner. In regard to the Department of Social and Family Affairs, a situation has arisen whereby many self-employed people, including farmers, do not have the money to put bread on the table yet their social welfare payments are calculated on last year's incomes. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is not in order. Deputy Seymour Crawford: There is a refusal to deal with the issue. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy knows that is not in order on the Order of Business. Deputy Seymour Crawford: It is very much in order. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I am afraid that whoever is the occupant of the Chair at any given time makes that determination. Deputy Noel J. Coonan: The present occupant is getting very fond of the Chair. Deputy Seymour Crawford: When is the reform Bill for social welfare recipients, lone parents and other low income families coming before the House? ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Tanaiste on two items of legislation. The Tanaiste: The legal costs Bill will be introduced next year. No date has been set for the ´ social welfare Bill to which the Deputy referred. Deputy Seymour Crawford: They will have to wait. Deputy Shane McEntee: Is the Government aware that the people who have been hardest hit are those with mortgages and no jobs? Last Monday, the EBS sent letters to all their customers. 270 Order of 8 October 2009. Business An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is not in order. Deputy Shane McEntee: It is a very important issue and I ask to be allowed to finish. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Can the Deputy relate it to legislation? Deputy Shane McEntee: From 1 November people will have to be out of work for 90 days before they can avail of mortgage protection. The payment has also been increased by 20%. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy knows that is out of order. We cannot allow the Order of Business to become a free-for-all. Deputy Shane McEntee: Thousands of people will be out on the streets. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It is a very important matter and may be suitable for a parliamentary question or an Adjournment debate but it is not appropriate to the Order of Business. Deputy Shane McEntee: I want Members to realise that the EBS has moved the posts since NAMA was proposed. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy has made his point. Deputy Michael D. Higgins: I wish to ask about the promised legislation on committals to prison. I ask about this because it was announced in the recent "Prime Time" programme that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform had legislation ready to reduce the number of people — one in four — who are being committed to appalling conditions in prison simply for the non-payment of fines, in other words, for non-criminal offences. Two separate pieces of legislation have been promised over time, one of which related to a properly accountable transparent system for the prisons administration. On the second, more important one, the director of the Office of the Inspector of Prisons has described the con- ditions in Mountjoy Prison as inhuman and degrading and it has been promised on more than one occasion that amending legislation would be introduced to provide judges with options other than committal to prison in sentencing for such matters as the non-payment of fines. Where stands that legislation? The Tanaiste: The Fines Bill has passed Second Stage and is coming to Committee Stage. I ´ am aware of the views being expressed but I would have to ascertain from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform whether those issues will form part of that Bill. On the other issue raised, I will ask the Minister to contact the Deputy directly. Deputy Michael D. Higgins: I was a member of the group that produced the McBride report on the prisons, which was followed by the Whitaker report. All I can say is it is a matter of the deepest disappointment how few Deputies in this House are free to speak about prison reform and to respond to what was an appalling report. I pay tribute to the director of the Office of the Inspector of Prisons as much as I say that the officials in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform preside over something that is in breach of human rights. It is a scandal. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy has made his point. I promised I would call Deputy Burton again. ´ Deputy Joan Burton: I am sure the Tanaiste recalls that in June the entire House agreed to a resolution on the Ryan commission report into child abuse. The Taoiseach moved that resol- 271 Order of 8 October 2009. Business [Deputy Joan Burton.] ution to get the congregations to make further substantial contributions by way of reparation. A trust was to be established and arrangements on a compensation package to be introduced. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is there an appropriate issue for the Order of Business? Deputy Joan Burton: The Labour Party used its Private Members' time before the recess to bring forward a Bill to address some of these issues but the Government, in rejecting the Labour Party's proposal, stated that it was moving apace with the material promised in the resolution. We have heard nothing. Does the Government intend to present a progress report on the Ryan commission to the House, and if so, when? An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is legislation or a debate promised in this area? The Tanaiste: There is no debate or legislation promised. ´ Deputy Joan Burton: A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, a solemn promise was given by everybody in the House to address this issue and we understood the Government was going to address it. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy has made her point. I call Deputy Durkan. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: On promised legislation, when is it intended to introduce to the House a long-promised Bill to provide for the amendment of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962? It is obvious that there is an urgent need for reform in this area. The Government legislation programme states that publication is expected in early 2010. In view of the need to proceed with all possible speed, has any decision has been taken? An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Where stands the legislation to reform the legal aid Act? Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Has any decision been taken at Cabinet level to bring this Bill forward? The Tanaiste: Early next year. ´ Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: The question was, has any decision—— An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: On the Order of Business, we deal with the timing of legislation. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: On promised legislation, we are quite entitled to ask this ques- tion. The question is whether any decision has been made at Cabinet level to expedite the process and introduce this Bill into the House. ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Tanaiste indicated that it will be introduced early next year. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: No, that is on the Government legislative programme already. I ´ am asking the Tanaiste a specific question. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Very good, Deputy. You have answered the question. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Can I have the answer? The Tanaiste: The heads have been brought to Cabinet and the matter is being dealt with as ´ expeditiously as possible. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. 272 Order of 8 October 2009. Business An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy is welcome. Deputy David Stanton: Am I in order to ask about secondary legislation? An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Indeed the Deputy is. Deputy David Stanton: I just want to find out when the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is here this morning, will make regulations to extend the time for spreading slurry. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Under what Act is that regulation? Deputy David Stanton: The European nitrates directive. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is there secondary legislation in this area? The Tanaiste: There is no secondary legislation from the Department of Agriculture, Fisher- ´ ies and Food. It is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and I believe the Minister has been in touch. Deputy Padraic McCormack: There has been much slurry here all week. ´ The Tanaiste: It is not a matter for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is a ´ matter for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has contacted the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government—— Deputy Noel J. Coonan: The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is missing. We have not seen him for a long time. The Tanaiste: ——on those matters. ´ Deputy David Stanton: Will I get a response soon as to the change of dates? ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: An order is secondary legislation and the Tanaiste stated there is no secondary legislation. Perhaps a parliamentary question to the Minister for the Envir- onment, Heritage and Local Government might be appropriate. Deputy Noel J. Coonan: The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government must have gone in the car. Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I have two questions. First, when will the mental capacity Bill be published? It is long overdue. My other question is on promised legislation from the Minister for the Environment, Heri- tage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, but I cannot see it anywhere. I see that on the list he has the control of dogs (amendment) Bill, which might be handy for Saturday, the environment (miscellaneous provisions) Bill which is about the levy on plastic bags, and the noise nuisance Bill, which, I take it, is also related to Saturday. Then he has the climate change Bill, the local government (Dublin mayor) Bill and the monuments Bill. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is dealing with all of the major issues of the day except the one he has been promising for the past two and a half years,—— An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: There are a number of pieces of legislation raised. 273 Order of 8 October 2009. Business Deputy Kathleen Lynch: ——namely the planning Bill that he has promised more than any other Minister. "I will do", is this Minister's mantra. When will we see it? ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: On those pieces of legislation that are in order, the Tanaiste. Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Where is the "I will do" Minister? Deputy Joan Burton: Saturday is the big powwow. The Tanaiste: The Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill is in the Seanad. When it ´ has been completed in the Seanad, it will come to this House. Deputy Kathleen Lynch: What of the mental capacity Bill? The Tanaiste: The mental capacity Bill is due early next year. ´ Deputy Roisın Shortall: Before the summer recess the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) ´ ´ and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) Act 2009 was passed. That is to provide for reform of the expenses regime for TDs and Ministers. Since then the Minister for Finance has been sitting on that legislation. What is required is that the Minister sign regulations to give effect to that legislation. Why has the Minister for Finance failed to act in this area and when can we expect to see these long overdue regulations to restore some kind of credibility to the House? An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: On the secondary legislation. The Tanaiste: Although the legislation has been enacted by this House, the Minister has ´ indicated publicly that he proposes to introduce further reform. ´ Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Apart from the soundbites yesterday, can the Tanaiste be a little more specific about what the Minister intends to do? This was a proposal that came from the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission earlier in the year. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: A parliamentary question or an Adjournment debate would be appropriate. Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Legislation was drafted and passed. Can we now have a clear expla- ´ nation of the way forward in terms of reforming the expenses regime? Can the Tanaiste indicate precisely what will happen now or will there be another year's delay? The Tanaiste: There will be no delay. The Minister will introduce even more reform, over ´ and above the legislation that has been enacted. Deputy Roisın Shortall: What is this nonsense about "even more reform"? ´ ´ The Tanaiste: That matter—— ´ Deputy Roisın Shortall: Give us the reform that has already been agreed. ´ ´ Deputy Padraic McCormack: Get on with it. ´ The Tanaiste: ——will be brought to the House if necessary. ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I call Deputy Reilly. Deputy Roisın Shortall: A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, it is simply not acceptable that reforms ´ ´ ´ are held up because of problems on the Fianna Fail backbenches. 274 Order of 8 October 2009. Business Deputy Pat Carey: That is untrue. Deputy Roisın Shortall: Let us have action on this. ´ ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Reilly is called. Deputy Roisın Shortall: We all are being tarnished because of their behaviour over there—— ´ ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Reilly is called. Deputy Roisın Shortall: ——and we are not prepared to tolerate that. ´ ´ An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please, Deputy Shortall, you have had a good innings. I call Deputy Reilly. Deputy Roisın Shortall: Let us have a share in the debate on what will be done and end ´ ´ these soundbites from the Minister for Finance. Deputy James Reilly: There are three pieces of legislation on which I wish to touch. First, I support Deputy Crawford's call for the legal costs Bill to be brought forward as a matter of urgency. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That question has already been answered. Deputy James Reilly: Of \60 million to be paid out this year by the health service—— An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That question has already been answered. Deputy James Reilly: ——on medical legal cases, \20 million goes to solicitors and barristers. It is outrageous. People have had to mortgage their homes to get justice for their children. That must stop. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It is not appropriate to make a speech on legislation that has not been introduced. Deputy James Reilly: I accept that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but a certain degree of urgency needs to be brought to this. It is sitting there a long time. The other issue I want to raise is the public health (alcohol labelling provisions) Bill. When is that Bill due to be published? I hope that the Bill not alone will carry the warnings and dangers of alcohol consumption, particularly in pregnancy, but will also provide for more infor- mation on the calorie content of alcohol. When will the public health (sunbeds) 11 o'clock Bill be introduced? It is a simple proposition to ban sunbed use for under 18s. Adults are old enough to make their own decision if they want to risk skin cancer, but our children should not be exposed to it. The Tanaiste: The alcohol legislation will be introduced next year. There has been consul- ´ tation on the sunbed legislation and I believe the Minister is anxious to introduce it as quickly as possible. ´ Deputy Sean Sherlock: I do not want to raise any hackles, but I ask the Tanaiste whether ´ the animal health and welfare Bill will be published any time soon. Deputy Padraic McCormack: The Deputy knows the answer — on Saturday. ´ 275 Communications (Retention of Data) 8 October 2009. Bill 2009: Order for Second Stage The Tanaiste: There has been consultation on this issue. It is a large piece of legislation. As ´ the Deputy knows, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food looks after farm animals. That matter will be brought to a conclusion in due course. Treaty of Lisbon: Motion. Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Deputy Dick Roche): I move: ´ ´ That Dail Eireann approves the terms of the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on ´ ´ 13 December 2007, copies of which were laid before Dail Eireann on Tuesday, 6 October 2009. I move this with some considerable relief. Question put and agreed to. Sittings and Business of Dail: Motion. ´ Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Pat Carey): I move: That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, in particular Standing Order 10, the following arrangements shall apply in relation to next Tuesday's sitting: (i) Taoiseach's questions shall not be taken; (ii) at 2.30 p.m. the Ceann Comhairle, Deputy John O'Donoghue, shall make a statement of resignation and on the conclusion of this statement the sitting shall be suspended for 15 minutes; (iii) on the resumption of business the election of a new Ceann Comhairle shall take place; and (iv) Oral Questions shall be taken on the conclusion of the election of a new Ceann Comhairle until 4.15 p.m. Question put and agreed to. Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Order for Second Stage. Bill entitled an Act to give effect to Directive No. 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, to provide for the retention of and access to certain data for the purposes of the prevention of serious offences, the safeguarding of the security of the State and the saving of human life, to repeal Part 7 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, to amend the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993 and to provide for related matters. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I move: "That Second Stage be taken now." Question put and agreed to. 276 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am pleased to be in the House today to present the Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009. The primary purpose of the Bill is to transpose Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and Council into law. The directive requires service providers to retain data gener- ated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communi- cations or public communications networks and to make it available on request for the detec- tion, investigation and prosecution of serious crime. Before I explain the provisions of the Bill and its background, I would like to speak more generally about data retention and its important role in the investigation of serious crime and in safeguarding the security of the State. It has been in the news at regular intervals over the past few years and some misconceptions may have arisen as to its scope and purpose. It is important to bear in mind that data retention is not new; it has been an essential feature of crime investigation and the safeguarding of State security for many years. Also to be borne in mind is that data information is not concerned with the content of a communication; it is about who, where and when. The intrusion into a person's privacy is minimal. The retention of data in this country began in the days of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, when communications were by means of fixed-line telephones and the postal system, of which the State was the only provider. Typically, telephony operators, even after the market was opened up, retained data for six years for their own purposes, such as billing and marketing. This made sense because the statute of limitations during which a telephone bill could be challenged or payment pursued was six years. The operators made the data infor- mation available to the Garda on request when required for fighting crime and safeguarding the security of the State. In those circumstances, relations between the operators and Garda developed so that the voluntary scheme was based on goodwill and common sense on both sides. Any Garda could request data in respect of a crime he or she was investigating. The system was not regulated by statute. The first significant statutory intervention came in the form of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993, of which section 13 inserted new subsections into section 98 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983. Under the inserted subsection (2A), a person employed by a company who disclosed to any person any information concerning the use made of telecommunications services provided for any other person by the company was guilty of an offence. There were exceptions, including disclos- ures made for the prevention or detection of crime or for the purpose of any criminal pro- ceedings or in the interests of the security of the State. A request by a member of the Garda ´ ´ Sıochana to make a disclosure had to be in writing and be signed by a member not below the rank of chief superintendent. In practice, this meant that all disclosure requests were made through one specified chief superintendent, a practice that continues to this day. A parallel inserted provision ensured that any request from the Permanent Defence Force for data required in the interests of safeguarding the security of the State must be made through an officer not below the rank of colonel. This remained the case until the adoption of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parlia- ment and Council in July 2002, which concerned the processing of personal data and the protec- tion of privacy in the electronic communications sector. As interpreted for data protection purposes, the directive provided that traffic data could only be retained for six months. This posed a problem for Ireland, as the Garda required data to be retained for longer than six months if it was not to be severely handicapped in its ability to fight crime and safeguard State 277 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage [Deputy Dermot Ahern.] security. In practice, most retained data that is required is requested by the Garda or Permanent Defence Force within six months of its being generated or processed. However, the quality of data retained for longer periods can be equally important in fighting crime, including terrorist crime. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the then Department of Public Enterprise came to an agreement that telephony data should be retained by operators for three years; that is, half the period for which the operators voluntarily retained telephony data previously. That agreement was given statutory effect in directions issued by the Minister for Public Enterprise to the main telephony operators under section 110(1) of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983. It was intended to follow up the directions with primary legislation. However, in 2003 Ireland received an invitation from some of our colleagues in the EU to co-sponsor a framework decision on data retention. Agreement was reached on Ireland's participation in the preparation of the instrument, and further work on the legislation had to be deferred until the text of the framework decision was agreed and adopted. The negotiations on the framework decision proved difficult and complex. They had effec- tively reached stalemate when the Madrid bombings during the Irish Presidency of the EU in 2004 highlighted the necessity and urgency of obtaining agreement on the retention of data. Negotiations recommenced in earnest but had not been concluded by January 2005 when the then Data Protection Commissioner issued notices to the main telephony operators directing ´ that they retain data for no longer than six months. Rather than hamper the Garda Sıochana ´ and the Defence Forces in their vital work in investigating crime and safeguarding our security, a decision was taken to include provisions in the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill, which was then being debated in the Seanad, on the retention of telephony data. It was also decided not to deal with the more complex Internet provisions until an EU instrument had been agreed. I am glad to say the data retention proposals included in the Bill received a generally warm welcome. The urgency of ensuring that the Garda and Defence Forces could gain access to retained data in a controlled and supervised manner was acknowledged. I have given this short background to the law and procedures relating to data retention in this country to put the record straight and also to place the Bill in its proper context. As we are all probably aware, agreement was never reached on the framework decision, and it was replaced by a directive of the European Parliament and Council, which is now being transposed in the Bill. It is normal practice, as provided for in the European Communities legislation, to transpose such directives by means of secondary legislation. Our legal advice suggested there would be no problem in using secondary legislation as our transposition vehicle. However, on the basis of later advice, it was decided for a technical reason to proceed by way of primary legislation. This partially explains the delay in publishing the Bill. The preparation of the Bill was also delayed by prolonged consultations with service pro- viders and, in particular, their representative associations and other interested parties. I express my appreciation of the constructive way in which the service providers entered into the con- sultative process. The process was long and, at times, complex, and negotiations are still con- ´ ´ tinuing between the Garda Sıochana and the representative associations on the implementation of the legislation. The directive was adopted under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Com- munity, which provides for the adoption of measures for the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in member states which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the Internal Market. Ireland, supported by Slovakia, applied to the European Court of Justice to have the directive annulled on the basis that the choice of legal basis for the directive was fundamentally flawed. The Irish case was that neither 278 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage Article 95 of the European Community treaty, nor any other provision of that treaty, could provide a proper legal base for the directive. Ireland submitted that the sole or at least main or predominant purpose of the directive was the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime. In those circumstances, Ireland submitted that the only permissible legal basis for the measures contained in the directive was Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, being the provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Articles 30, 31 and 34, in particular, were relevant. In a judgment last February, the court found against Ireland's application. The directive must now be transposed into national law and the legislation in Ireland is now well overdue. The European Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Ireland in the European Court of Justice adding greater urgency to have the legislation enacted without delay. I will now outline the provisions of the Bill which is relatively short and largely remains within the parameters established by the directive. The Bill has two main objectives. The first, at section 3, obliges service providers to retain data. The second, at sections 6 and 7, gives the relevant law enforcement agencies power to make a disclosure request for retained data and obliges the service providers to comply with such a request. I will explain these important elements in a moment but will first emphasise the importance of section 2. Section 2 gives effect to Article 1.2 of the directive by providing that the Act does not apply to the content of communications. It does not, for example, apply to the content of a telephone conversation or an e-mail or to web browsing or websites visited. It simply allows law enforce- ment agencies in Ireland to seek information in regard to the who, where and when of a communication. In the case of the Internet, it obliges service providers to retain data equivalent to the type of telephony data that has been retained for many years. I would like, at this stage, ´ to dispel another myth. Neither the Garda Sıochana nor the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will retain a vast database of information relating to the use of communi- ´ cations by our citizens. The fact is that the Garda Sıochana, Permanent Defence Force and the Revenue Commissioners will be, under this legislation, able to request data information for the purposes established in the Bill and subject to the safeguards therein. It is the telephony oper- ators and Internet service providers who will retain the data for the periods set out in the Bill. Article 1.1 of the directive obliges member states to ensure that retained data is available for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime, as defined by each member state in its national law. This raises some important questions. I mentioned earlier that the intention was to transpose the directive by means of secondary legislation. This would have ensured that we could have avoided infringement proceedings. However, it was always intended to follow such secondary legislation with primary legislation. That legislation would have consolidated the data retention schemes for telephony and Internet data retention. More important, it would have allowed us to add to the list of purposes for which data could be sought. These are data necessary for safeguarding the security of the State and the saving of human life. They do not form part of the directive. The Bill consolidates the data retention schemes and includes provisions on State security and the saving of human life which means further legislation will not be required. There has been much discussion on what constitutes a "serious offence". There are two basic points to bear in mind in any debate on what should be a serious offence for the purpose of the Bill. Currently, telephony data can be sought for the investigation of any offence. Any credible definition of "serious offence" used in the Bill will, therefore, restrict the offences for which data can be sought. There is no universal definition of "serious offence" in this country. The expression is described in some Acts as an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of five years or more. However, such definitions are solely for specific purposes or Acts. Any offence that can be charged on indictment is, under our Constitution, a serious offence. This 279 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage [Deputy Dermot Ahern.] means it would have been feasible to define "serious offence" as any offence that carries a penalty of more than 12 months imprisonment. Following much thought and consultation with ´ the Garda Sıochana, I accepted a suggestion first made by the service providers that for the purposes of a disclosure request a penalty of imprisonment of five years or more would be appropriate. In addition, the First Schedule contains a handful of other serious offences, triable on indictment but with a maximum penalty of less than five years imprisonment, for which ´ data can also be sought. This list was suggested by the Garda Sıochana and represents its opinion on the offences for which it is essential it retains the ability to make a disclosure request, namely, offences carrying a penalty of up to five years imprisonment. Regardless of how "serious offence" is defined, it will not affect the amount of data that is retained. It cannot be known in advance for what data may be required. The vast majority of data will not be required and will be destroyed after the appropriate time. However, by defining "serious offence" the amount of telephony data for which a disclosure request can be made will be less than under current law where data can be disclosed for the investigation of any offence. It would have been possible under the terms of the directive to give every law enforcement agency in the country authority to make a disclosure request but this has not been done. In ´ addition to the traditional role of the Garda Sıochana and the Permanent Defence Force, I have given power to the Revenue Commissioners to make disclosure requests in respect of six specific revenue offences. The primary reason for the inclusion of the Revenue Commissioners in this Bill is to provide its investigating officers with access to communication data to assist them in tackling various forms of serious tax evasion that are undermining the collection of tax revenues in the State. Tackling tax evasion has always been a top priority for Revenue. The Bill recognises the role of the Revenue Commissioners as a criminal law enforcement agency whose task it is to protect the Exchequer from fraud. Experience has shown that the lack of such access has been a hindrance in detecting certain cases of serious tax fraud and gathering the necessary evidence for the purposes of prosecution. This need is clearly justified and access to such information should improve the level of detection of serious tax evasion and the gathering of evidence necessary for criminal prosecution and will assist in depriving crimi- nals of funds. Modern telecommunications and the Internet are invariably utilised by those engaged in the type of illicit activities investigated by Revenue. For instance, documents encountered by Revenue officers in the course of investigating cigarette smuggling in maritime freight where bogus Bills of Lading are used, oil laundering and the distribution of laundered oil under cover of bogus invoices, alcohol fraud using bogus documentation, cross-border VAT fraud and other forms of serious tax evasion often include contact phone numbers which need to be traced and the identity of the subscriber established along with the usage of the phone if the investigation is to be progressed. I find the case for access compelling and Revenue has given categorical assurance that requests for such information will be confined to investigations involving serious indictable revenue offences. I might add that the Revenue case for access has been supported in the past ´ by the Attorney General, the DPP and An Garda Sıochana and was one of the recom- mendations made by the Revenue powers group in its report to the Minister for Finance in November 2003. Article 3 of the directive establishes the obligation to retain data and is given effect in section 3 of the Bill. It obliges service providers to retain telephony data for two years and Internet data for 12 months. Members may ask why two years and 12 months when the directive states between two years and six months? Under Part 7 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) 280 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage Act 2005 telephony data must be retained for three years. There are currently no statutory requirements in relation to the retention of Internet data. Some commentators have suggested that I am reducing the retention period for telephony data from three to two years to comply with the terms of the directive. This is not the case. Article 95(4) of the TEC states that if after the adoption of a harmonisation measure a member state deems it necessary to maintain national measures it can notify the Commission of those provisions and the grounds for main- taining them. The Commission has the power to approve or reject the national provisions ´ involved. Following a re-evaluation by the Garda Sıochana as to its requirements for the inves- tigation of serious crime and safeguarding the security of the State, it was considered that a two year retention period for telephony data would be sufficient. Similarly, the 12 months retention period for Internet data is deemed to be the minimum necessary in respect of that data. Most retained data that is the subject of a disclosure request was generated or processed in the previous six months but the quality of longer held information makes retention periods provided for in the Bill necessary for efficient law enforcement and State security. I would suggest there is never a good time to deprive our law enforcement agencies of a vital weapon in the constant battle against criminals and terrorists who themselves are adept at using modern technology and now is certainly not a good time. Section 4 ensures that the same level of security will attach to data retained under this Act as is retained for other purposes. It gives effect to Article 7 of the directive. The providers must destroy the data as soon as the retention periods have expired. However, one month's grace is given to enable the data to be actually destroyed. Apparently there is more to destroying the data than simply pressing a button. This section also provides that the Data Protection Commissioner will be the supervisory authority in Ireland for the purpose of both the Act and the directive. The appointment of a supervisory authority is required by Article 9 of the directive. I accept that in the light of some significant breaches of data security in recent times, such as the theft of laptops with unencrypted material, there is some concern about the security of retained data. There is an increasing appreciation of the need to ensure the highest level pos- sible of security on data that are in the possession of service providers for use for their own purposes and the legislation can do no more than apply that heightened level of security to the data retained for the purposes of compliance with this Bill. In doing so, the legislation complies with the security requirements of the directive. Following the recent breaches of security, I established a data protection review group which I understand is almost ready to publish a consultative document describing the issues from a legal, technical and regulatory perspective. I hope that interested parties will contribute their views on the consultative document so that it will be in a position to begin writing its report without delay. Section 5 repeats section 64(1) of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005. It sets out the circumstances in which the service providers can access data retained under the Act. Article 6 of the directive requires member states to adopt measures to ensure that data retained in accordance with the directive are provided only to the competent authorities in accordance with national law. This requirement is given effect in the Bill at section 6. Section 6 establishes who can make a disclosure request and for what purposes. Unlike some other countries, the ability to make a disclosure request is confined to just three law enforce- ´ ´ ment agencies: the Garda Sıochana, the Permanent Defence Force and the Revenue Commis- ´ ´ sioners. A member of the Garda Sıochana not below the rank of chief superintendent will be entitled to make a disclosure request for the purpose of the prevention, detection, investigation and the prosecution of serious crime, safeguarding the security of the State and saving human life. 281 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage [Deputy Dermot Ahern.] ´ There are three differences between the powers of the gardaı under section 6 and the anal- ´ ogous provisions in the 2005 Act. Under the 2005 Act, the gardaı could make a disclosure request in respect of any offence, and not just a serious offence, and they could not make a request in respect of the saving of human life. Also, the 2005 Act did not provide for disclosure requests in respect of Internet data. These are three very desirable differences. A colonel in the Permanent Defence Force will be able to make a disclosure request for the purpose of safeguarding the security of the State. This repeats the analogous provision in the 2005 Act but with the addition of the relevant Internet data. I have already mentioned that this provision could not have been included in a statutory instrument transposing the directive as safeguarding the security of the State is outside the scope of the directive. That is because of the legal base used for the directive. For the first time, the Bill gives the Revenue Commissioners power to make a disclosure request in respect of six named revenue offences. These all come within the definition of serious offence in that they are all triable on indictment with a penalty of imprisonment of five years. ´ ´ As with requests from the Garda Sıochana and Permanent Defence Force, requests will made by one person, in this case a revenue officer of at least principal officer rank. This is a highly desirable initiative. Deputies will recall a recent statement by the Revenue Commissioners of the likelihood of increased tax evasion in these economically difficult times. Sections 9 to 12 in one way or the other provide safeguards to ensure that the data retention scheme is not misused. Section 9 gives effect to Article 10 of the directive under which member states are obliged to forward to the Commission statistics of the use of data retention during the previous year. Because so few Irish authorities have the right to make a disclosure request and because such requests are centralised, the compilation of statistics in Ireland is relatively straightforward. This year, we were one of the first countries to return telephony statistics, even though the legislation transposing the directive was not in force. The statistics will be compiled by the three law enforcement authorities with the right to make disclosure requests. The Garda Commissioner will forward Garda statistics to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Chief of Staff of the Permanent Defence Force will forward statistics to the Minister for Defence and the Revenue Commissioners to the Minister for Finance. The Mini- sters for Defence and Finance will review the statistics submitted to them respectively before forwarding them to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for transmission to the European Commission. In this way the Commission will be in a position to monitor the oper- ation of the data retention provisions throughout the EU. Under Article 14 of the directive, the Commission will submit to the European Parliament and the Council an evaluation of the application of the directive and its impact on the service providers and consumers, taking into account further developments in electronic communi- cations technology and the statistics provided under Article 10. The evaluation will inform a view as to whether it will be necessary to amend the directive, in particular with regard to the list of data and the periods of retention. The results of the evaluation will be made public. The safeguards provided at sections 10 to 12 are essential for the proper operation of the legislation. They are of the utmost importance in ensuring public confidence that the legislation is not being misused and will also reassure the service providers that it is only used for the stated purposes. Section 10 provides for the independent complaints procedure. It provides that where a person believes that data relating to him or her and are in the possession of a service provider have been accessed following a disclosure request, that person may apply to the complaints referee for an investigation into the matter. Section 11 provides for an invitation by the President of the High Court to a serving judge of the High Court to undertake the 282 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage duties of keeping the operation of the Act under review. Section 12 sets out those duties. These safeguards already operate satisfactorily for the retention of telephony data under the 2005 Act so there is no need at this stage for me to explain them in further detail. There are two Schedules to the Bill. The first lists the indictable offences that have a maximum prison sentence of less than five years for which the chief superintendent of the ´ ´ Garda Sıochana will be enabled to make a disclosure request. The offences include identifying an officer of the Criminal Assets Bureau, administering substances capable of inducing uncon- sciousness or sleep, reporting child abuse knowing it to be false and corruption of public officials. The second Schedule gives effect to Article 5 of the directive. It lists the categories of data to be retained by the service providers. There can be argument and indeed disagreement as to the extent of the data mentioned in Article 5. This is especially so in the context of rapid advances in technology. For that reason, a committee of experts has been established by the European Commission to interpret and explain the directive in the light of prevailing circum- stances and to give a guide as to what data need to be retained and, equally important, what does not need to be retained. Ireland is represented on that committee. Also, it would not be possible in legislation to set out exactly what each provision means, in particular, as I men- tioned, when some requirements may be open to more than one meaning in the light of further ´ ´ advances in technology. The service providers and the Garda Sıochana, Permanent Defence Force and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners have been in discussions for some time on drawing up a memorandum of understanding in which each can agree on what is required to be retained. Work on the memorandum is advanced and will be completed when the legislation becomes law. In this introductory speech on the background, content and implications of the Communi- cations (Retention of Data) Bill 2009, I have attempted to place the Bill in its proper context. Nothing new is created in the Bill; it does no more than extend, with some changes, existing obligations relating to telephony data to internet data. I would again emphasise the importance of data in the investigation of serious crime and safeguarding the security of the State. On a regular basis, one reads in the newspapers reports of telephony data given in evidence in some ´ ´ of the most notorious trials in recent years. We cannot expect the Garda Sıochana to solve complex crimes if we do not give them the means to do so. Of course, we have to provide safeguards to ensure those means are not misused and this Bill provides the same safeguards as are available under the interception of communications provisions. This despite the fact that the intrusion into persons' privacy under this Bill is minimal. I reiterate that the content of communications cannot be retained or disclosed under the Bill. This means, for example, that the law enforcement agencies cannot obtain information on the social networking sites that persons access. This may be regarded in some quarters as lessening its impact but, in the context of preserving privacy and compliance with international human rights instruments, I see it as one of its strengths. I mentioned earlier that, for various reasons, the preparation of this Bill has been delayed. The present situation is that the European Commission has commenced infringement pro- ceedings against Ireland before the European Court of Justice. Therefore, it is in all our interests that the Bill pass speedily through the Oireachtas and become law as soon as possible. While I look forward to a full debate on the Bill, I also look forward to its early enactment. Deputy Charles Flanagan: I welcome this Bill before the House, Fine Gael will be supporting it. Some issues of detail will be addressed on Committee Stage and I hope the Minister will be able to allay these concerns. Data retention has become a hugely important issue over the past decade. A range of factors including the proliferation of communications technology, the re- 283 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage [Deputy Charles Flanagan.] emergence of the threat of global terrorism and the insatiable demands of the marketing frater- nity have put data retention issues at the forefront of national and international agendas. Accordingly, I am somewhat surprised that it has taken three years to draft a Bill to facilitate the transposition of the EU data retention directive into Irish law, particularly as the Bill itself is so short. I listened with interest to what the Minister said regarding the delay on the matter of the preparation of the Bill. In the context of the recent debate on the Lisbon treaty and our relationship with the European Union, it is important that scrutiny committees in this House on matters European gain more attention. Some of the House committees might be reorganised to take these matters into account. I note that Ireland has opted for a maximal retention scheme within the margin permitted by the directive. This has caused concern among some civil liberty advocacy groups, who are concerned about protecting the privacy rights of citizens. I understand their concerns and the Bill must have strong safeguards to ensure that the new system of data retention is not vulner- able to abuse. Moreover, should abuses be detected, there must be a commitment to immedi- ately address any shortcomings. The Government is committed to compile a statistical report for the European Commission to show how many requests have been made by each State body covered by the Bill, and that telephone and Internet monitoring will be overseen by a High Court judge. It is important that we look at what other jurisdictions have done under the directive. The UK system requires a surveillance commissioner to produce a substantial report every year to include statistics on problems that have emerged and what is being done to address them. Perhaps the Minister envisages a similar reporting style for the designated High Court judge who will be appointed under this Bill, or perhaps this will come under the remit of the Data Protection Commissioner, whose own office is under threat following the McCarthy report and other Government proposals on quangos and agencies. It is important that these particular provisions under this Bill be subject to annual reports, but also to annual reviews. A committee of the House should have the opportunity to deal with that review and report in some detail. Section 12 of the Bill requires the designated judge to "include, in the report to the Taoiseach ... such matters relating to this Act that the designated judge deems appropriate". Will the judge's report include a list of problems with the legislation and solutions to those problems, as per the model in the United Kingdom? Will the President of the High Court consult the Government in the selection of the designated judge? Does the Minister believe it necessary to appoint a judge who has experience ruling on matters concerning data retention and privacy issues? We often include nothing more than aspirations that judges be designated to deal with certain issues and do no more than comply with a directive or what might be regarded as a safeguard. There is very little else done to ensure a positive, active role and function for that designated officer. What resources have been identified to allow the designated judge to fulfil his role? Will the judge appointed have his own office, including personnel? How will this impact on the day to day to work of that particular High Court judge, as such judges are very busy people in their own right? The designated judge will have an important role to play, so it is essential that he or she is supported by the Government in carrying out this work. Too often in the past, the Government has appointed good people to important jobs monitoring State activity and then starved them of resources or ignored their recommendations. We can get back to this on Committee Stage, but perhaps the Minister might deal with them at the end of this debate. In respect of the provision to introduce a referee to scrutinise how data retention is implemented following complaints by members of the public, some critics have argued that this safeguard is undercut by leaving it up to an individual to determine whether his or her data 284 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage has been accessed for an investigation. The lack of transparency about this process has been highlighted. I would like the Minister to give his views on this matter. This Bill requires Internet service providers to retain, for a period of 12 months: the tele- phone number, the user ID and the registered address of the user or subscriber; the same information for the destination of the communication; the date and time of log-in and log-off, together with IP addresses; and data necessary to identify the equipment of the user. In the same manner, telephone providers are obliged to retain for two years: the calling phone number, and the address of that subscriber or registered user, dialled numbers, and the address to which that number is registered; the time at the start and the end of that communication; subscriber information for mobile phone users; and geographical information as to the location from which the call is made. As we have seen in a number of recent high profile cases, records of mobile phone signals being detected and of e-mail correspondence have contributed enormously to the assemblage of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials. I welcome that development. Building a compre- hensive body of evidence is essential to reach the high standard of proof in criminal trials. The EU data retention directive takes cognisance of that fact. Naturally, such information can help to prove innocence as well as guilt. Neither the directive nor the Bill allows the State to intrude into the content of phone calls, letters or e-mails. Section 2 of the Bill is worth stating, as there have been some misleading comments on data retention. It reads, "This Act does not apply to the content of communications transmitted by means of fixed network telephony, mobile tel- ephony, Internet access, Internet email or Internet telephony." Given the history of gross ´ invasion of journalists' privacy carried out by a Fianna Fail Administration in the 1980s for political gain, this is an important provision. I am pleased the Minister has made specific refer- ence to it. When other jurisdictions speak about data retention and terrorism, they are generally refer- ring to international terrorism. However, in Ireland we have a dual problem. We must play our part in the fight against international terrorism while combating particular terrorism within our jurisdiction and that of our neighbour. I recently received a telephone call at my office from a concerned citizen informing me that dissident republicans are using the Internet to recruit members. I was directed to a website used by the 32 county sovereignty movement to recruit members and spread bile and hatred in this jurisdiction and beyond. This group has, reportedly, been recently engaged in vigilante activity in Cavan, Fermanagh and Cork. The use by this group and its fellow travellers of the Internet is not surprising, given that since its creation the Internet has been used on the one hand for great good and, on the other, sadly, to evil effect. It is a straightforward, if covert, way for dissident republicans and terrorists to get their message out and recruit members. Therefore, in the context of this Bill, we can see how the retention of Internet data for a period of 12 months is significant. It is regrettable that there has been an upsurge in dissident republican violence this year. In Northern Ireland a large number of bombs have been planted, members of the police attacked and in some tragic cases lives have been lost. There seems to be a determination on the part of some murderers to attack innocent people going about their jobs protecting both communi- ties in Northern Ireland. It has been acknowledged by the Garda Commissioner that while these groups are a greater threat to life in the North than in the South, nevertheless they are ´ ´ active in the South and their movements are being monitored by the Garda Sıochana. I wel- come this and urge the Minister to keep in close contact with the Garda authorities on the matter. I hope data retention measures will help to combat the scourge of renewed paramilitary activity by facilitating intelligence and evidence gathering and bringing these criminals to justice 285 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage [Deputy Charles Flanagan.] before they inflict further carnage on this island. The lines are often blurred between dissidents republicans and gangland criminals. While many dissident republicans have made a fortune from drug smuggling, using routes formerly exploited for the importation of arms, drug gangs without paramilitary links have recruited terrorists from time to time as mercenaries to carry out attacks on rivals. Last year, there was a fourfold increase in the number of grenade and ´ pipe-bomb attacks in Dublin. Gardaı believe these devices to have been the work of dissident mercenaries helping drug gangs. The INLA, in particular, is thought to be playing a key role in this development. Figures show that in 2008 there were more than 100 separate bomb attacks involving crime gangs and dissident republicans in the Dublin region, compared to 24 the previous year. This extraordinary and disturbing increase requires attention. We are fighting terrorism on three fronts currently, dissidents involved in gangland crime, dissidents involved in terrorism in the Border area and international terrorism. Therefore, the ability of the Garda to access certain types of communication data will undoubtedly assist in the struggle to keep communities safe from gangland criminals. At a more local level, the Bill will be of assistance to agencies such as the Criminal Assets ´ Bureau, which comprises both gardaı and Revenue officials as well as representatives of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Computer analysis is already an important tool used by the CAB in building a case against alleged criminals. This Bill will assist in that regard when enacted. A number of concerns have been expressed by advocacy groups and business interests. I understand the Irish Human Rights Commission has expressed concern about the broad pro- visions of the Bill and is currently joined, as an amicus curiae, to a High Court action being taken by Digital Rights Ireland against the State on grounds relating to data retention. I am not aware whether the Minister consulted with the Human Rights Commission when considering appropriate safeguards in the Bill, but I believe consultation with civil liberty and human rights groups is important. It is essential we strike a balance between introducing measures to protect people's safety and security and the infringement of citizens' right to privacy. We do not want this legislation to be incompatible with or to adversely affect the European Convention on Human Rights. The Telecommunications and Internet Federation, TIF, expressed concern some time ago about the costs this Bill will place on operators. As well as the TIF, numerous business leaders, including the past chief executives of Oracle Ireland, Microsoft Ireland and lona Technologies, have expressed concern that Ireland's data retention policies are a potential deterrent to busi- ness, especially to inward investment. Will the Minister clarify whether he or his officials have met with the TIF and other concerned parties and will he outline what measures, if any, he has taken to meet their concerns? Fine Gael members have been concerned about the matter of data retention for some time. We are aware there is concern in the public domain about privacy matters, a concern that has grown due to the careless loss of personal data by a range of institutions, companies and State departments in recent years. Last October, my colleague, Deputy Simon Coveney, introduced a Private Members' Bill proposing a new disclosure law which would create a legal obligation on organisations to disclose within a certain period of time any breaches of data security. Deputy Coveney argued that such an obligation would create a strong incentive for all organis- ations to ensure that their data protection procedures were adequate, in order to avoid the potential negative publicity that would come with having to disclose a breach of customers' sensitive personal data. 286 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage Fine Gael takes the view that people have a right to know if their personal data is used. They must also have a right to know when organisations mishandle their personal information. We should look at the possibility of ensuring that no financial or sensitive data will be held on laptops. I recognise this might cause difficulty, but it would be a way of dealing with a huge problem, one that is treated with carelessness, particularly on the part of banks and financial institutions. The State has also been culpable in the manner in which laptops containing sensi- tive information have been left in places where they should not have been. To compound matters by failure to disclose is unacceptable. Disclosure laws are essential to alert people to the fact they may be potential victims of identity fraud or theft. People must take the pre- cautions necessary to minimise the risk of such fraud occurring. Disclosure laws are essential to alert people to the fact that they may be potential victims of identity fraud. People will have to take the precautions necessary to minimise the risk of such fraud taking place. Furthermore, the existence of a disclosure law would guarantee the presence of a catalogue of information regarding identity theft which helps law enforcement organis- ations. This would help research organisations, too, and inform us as policy makers and legislators. It was a pity that the Government failed to engage on these proposals earlier this year. We can come back to that, perhaps, on Committee Stage and see whether we can incorporate the type of safeguards that were envisaged by Deputy Coveney in his legislation. Looking at the Fine Gael Bill on disclosure and the current Bill we can see that the Government's viewpoint is from the perspective of the State institutions and how to increase their rights. The rights of ´ ´ the Revenue Commissioners and the powers of the Garda Sıochana and the Defence Forces are being enhanced and further developed in this legislation. The Government is granting power to State institutions whereas what we were doing in the matter of disclosure was to look at it from the viewpoint of the citizen, advancing or indeed protecting people's rights. It is important, therefore, that we should have a balance. It is a pity that there was not appropriate engagement on the part of Government earlier in the year because I believe that any debate on the retention of data such as we are having would be far more balanced if the State took the rights of the citizen into account alongside the need of certain State institutions to combat serious crime and fraud. I support the Bill. There are some concerns which can be addressed on Committee Stage. More than anything else, when considering this legislation we must bear in mind the need to strike a balance between fighting crime on the one hand, and protecting privacy and citizen rights on the other. The introduction of robust safeguards to ensure that we can strike such a balance is important. Deputy Sean Sherlock: That we are only now transposing a directive which was agreed in ´ 2006 is typical of the manner in which the Government has been remiss in its obligations vis- a-vis the transposition of EU directives in general. Ireland is behind the curve again because ` our European counterparts, in some instances, are already preparing to undertake a review of the directive that we have yet to transpose. This House, for the first time, will bring about legislation specifically charged with the reten- tion of communications data. This legislation is so flawed that it will have to be completely rewritten if the Labour Party is to support it. It is bad for business, too costly to implement, undemocratic and the oversight provisions are too weak. I hope it will be significantly amended to make it a more realistic and not the sham we have before us. The reason for Ireland's delay in following our EU counterparts in introducing such a Bill are well documented. An attempt by previous Administrations to exclude the European Parlia- ment and the European Court of Justice delayed the adoption of the directive here. Thankfully, 287 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage ´ [Deputy Sean Sherlock.] with the exception of Slovakia, the overzealous and restrictive measures favoured by the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Michael McDowell, curried little favour in Europe. This directive was seen as the lesser of two evils by the Party of European Socialists in the European Parliament, in 2004-05. This is where we differ with the Minister's interpreta- tion in terms of the historical perspective of the directive. Following the Madrid bombing in 2005 the Irish, British and two other governments came forward with proposals for a third pillar intergovernmental decision on data retention. Such a measure would have been adopted by the Justice Council with consultation rights only for the European Parliament and no oversight role for the European Court of Justice afterwards. This course of action was opposed by the Commission and the European Parliament, largely on the grounds that such a measure should be approved by the European Parliament. The Commission then issued a proposal for a draft directive in September 2005 and the socialist group negotiated amendments in the European Parliament and adopted it December. One of those amendments concerned a full review of the measure in September 2010. My colleague in the European Parliament, Mr. Proinsias de Rossa, MEP, voted in favour of the ´ compromise and the four Fianna Fail MEPs at that time abstained. The directive was approved by the Council in 2006 and was to have been transposed into Irish law by September 2007. However, the then Minister, Deputy McDowell, took a case to the European Court of Justice, arguing that the Council had no authority to adopt the directive and that only a third pillar initiative was permitted. The Government refused to transpose the directive while this case was ongoing. In response the European Commission began legal proceedings over Ireland's failure to transpose. Last February the European Court of Justice rejected the Government's argument and upheld the directive. My understanding is that civil liberties groups did not have an opinion about the four coun- tries' initiative in 2005, but had written in opposition to the draft directive. If there were no directive, it could be argued, it is likely that the four countries' initiative would have been adopted. In that context there are two views that can be taken on the directive, 12 o'clock and consequently this Bill. One is that we transpose and thereby pass the Bill into law without question and accept it as a fait accompli. The second is that we seek to amend the Bill and ground it in reality by addressing the cost of its implementation for businesses and the issue of oversight. The Labour Party takes the view that there are circum- stances in which data retention is needed and useful. However, there are some many flaws in the proposed legislation that it would have to be considerably amended before we could be satisfied with its passing into law. If we take the historical perspective and the context in the which the directive was fashioned, then we must speak of the Madrid bombings and the Omagh atrocity, which occurred prior to the instigation of the directive. However, much water has passed under the bridge and the need to transpose and legislate remains. We have an obligation in that respect. It could be argued that this legislation has been superseded in some respects by the surveil- lance Bill in its use as a crime prevention measure. Whether this Bill is a complement to recently adopted legislation is open to question. Generally speaking, the provisions within the Bill must be such that they are only allowed in clearly prescribed circumstances and we must guard against any nefarious use of the Act when it comes into force. The provisions must be subject to democratic review. They must also be subject to proper judicial review. A criticism of the Bill relates to its timing. I have already stated that we are behind the curve and Ireland should now be preparing for the 2010 review of the directive. It should also be pointed out that the European Court of Justice will now be bound by the data protection article of the Charter of Fundamental Rights because of Lisbon. If there are claims from any quarter 288 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage that this represents excessive interference from Brussels, it would be my view that Mr. ´ McDowell's alternative was far more draconian and that the Fianna Fail-Progressive Democrats arrangement originally sought to extend this measure to the entire EU. If one argues this Bill from the civil libertarian perspective, then I respectfully suggest that the only alternative was ´ Fianna Fail's original proposal. It is better that, rather than having "an intergovernmental measure", we have a "Community measure" that gives a voice to the European parliament, and gives the European Court of Justice a meaningful role. Concerns have previously arisen as to the nature and specifically the volume of requests made for retained data. Previously, Deputy Brendan Howlin highlighted how, in 2006, there were 10,000 Garda requests for access to personal telephone records under powers arising from the amendment to the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act. This amounts to almost 30 requests for every day in 2006, and it is evident that a review of the practice has been long required. That we are finally to address this directive with a Bill is positive but it is not without its perils. The Labour Party fully supports data retention but only for specific circumstances. With these powers, there is a responsibility, and it is our hope that through the legislative process we will address some of the ambiguities and issues arising from what has been presented in the Bill. I am concerned with the provisions in the Bill in regard to the timeframe within which data will be retained by service providers. There are concerns also in regard to costs undertaken by those service providers to adhere to such a provision. It is our considered view that the minimum period of six months may be sufficient. However, we will take this under advisement and speak about this on Committee Stage. I fear that if the maximum allowable retention period will be two years, then we will open this process to an abuse and the cost to business will reduce competitiveness and will ultimately affect the consumer. I fail to see how 10,000 requests per annum could possibly be pertinent to a serious crime investigation. Further, the lack of a role for the Garda Ombudsman is of itself a cause for ´ ´ concern. Where an officer of the Garda Sıochana Ombudsman Commission is investigating a complaint against a Garda that may involve a criminal offence, the officer of the commission ´ ´ has all the powers, immunities and privileges of a member of the Garda Sıochana. This includes common law powers and powers under any Act, whether passed before or after the Garda ´ ´ ´ ´ Sıochana Act 2005. So, it seems that officers of the Garda Sıochana Ombudsman Commission will have the powers vested in the Garda under this Bill. While this is reasonable, it raises the ´ ´ question as to why the Garda Sıochana Ombudsman Commission and its officers have been ´ specifically excluded from exercising the powers to be vested in gardaı under the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill. Consistency in application would require that the ombudsman com- ´ mission should have investigative powers equivalent to those of gardaı under both these pieces of legislation. What is the reason for excluding the ombudsman commission under one Bill and including it in the other? I hope the Minister will address this point. On the issue of oversight, I must ask whether the Minister is seriously asking this Legislature to accept section 11 as it is worded at present. If we speak specifically to the issue of oversight, section 11 would have to be modified to give a more structured role for judicial oversight other than that which is proposed. The wording in sections 11 and 12 is as weak as water and pays lip service to the notion of oversight. There is no provision for redress for a person who has been investigated inappropriately under this provision. There is no provision for a Revenue ´ ´ officer, member of the Garda Sıochana or member of the Permanent Defence Force to be brought to book where a misuse or abuse of the process is proven. The oversight process must investigate an adequate number of files and this must be on a random basis. 289 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage ´ [Deputy Sean Sherlock.] The question again arises as to what real powers a judge has in regard to any abuse of process. There is none that I can see in the Bill. I refer the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to the Bills Digest produced by the Oireachtas Library, which produced an excellent paper on this matter, and I acknowledge its invaluable service in this respect. On the matter of judicial supervision, the paper states: "In carrying out his-her duties the judge may investigate any case in which a disclosure request is made, communicate with the Taoiseach or the Minister concerning disclos- ure requests, and the Data Protection Commissioner in connection with the Commissioner's functions under the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003." While this oversight broadly echoes similar approaches used in, for example, the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill 2009, Mr. Tom McIntyre, speaking in the context of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, raised concerns about the effectiveness of this form of supervision scheme. He stated: . . . this oversight system has been almost entirely opaque from the outset. The annual reports of the Designated Judge — since the position was created in 1993 — have consisted every year of no more than a single line stating that the operation of the Act has been kept under review and its provisions have been complied with. There has been for example no discussion of what steps have been taken to keep the operation of the Act under review; whether the individual files were reviewed; the volume of surveillance being carried out; and whether mistakes were made in carrying out surveillance (such as targeting of the wrong individual or number) and, if so, what steps were taken to safeguard against such mistakes in future. There is similarly no publicly available report of the Complaints Referee indicating what complaints, if any, have been made and-or upheld. This may be contrasted with the most recent Annual Report of the UK Chief Surveillance Commissioner which reveals, amongst other things, that 23,628 authorisations for directed surveillance were granted to law enforce- ment agencies; and 60 different law enforcement agencies were inspected during the year. . . The reports of the designated judge are not exactly what one would call models of transparency. There is no reason that we should not have a provision in the Bill which would guarantee that statistical data is made available. There is an irony in that because, if one examines section 9 of the Bill, one will see there is provision for an annual statistical report to the European Commission, as required by the directive, but not to the Oireachtas or to Irish citizens. At least this report should be laid before the Oireachtas. The opaque nature of the Irish oversight system also becomes obvious when compared with the equivalent report in the United Kingdom. The relevant official in the UK is the Interception of Communications Commissioner. That individual is a retired judge who has similar functions to our designated judge. However, his most recent annual report runs to 24 pages in total, nine of which are devoted to data retention issues. Granted, the UK system is on a much larger scale, but one key difference is that the UK commissioner does not see his role as limited to the narrow question of legality — instead his report goes into detail about mistakes which were made and explains what is being done to prevent further mistakes. It would be desirable to establish a greater role for the designated judge along these lines. I hope we can address those issues on Committee Stage. The functions of the designated judge and complaints referee are too limited. One of the problems with the role of the designated judge under section 12 is that it envisages him or her as being engaged in a largely paper-based exercise. Section 12 gives the designated judge "the power to investigate any case in which a disclosure request is made". Let us suppose however that a junior garda informally pressurises an Internet service provider, ISP, employee to hand over information — perhaps for some private purpose. In that case no "disclosure request", as defined in section 6, would have been made, thus leaving a question mark as to whether the 290 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage judge has any power to investigate. It might be possible to read section 12 widely to find such a power — but it would be desirable for it to be made clear. ´ The judge's role under section 12 is also limited to "ascertain[ing] whether the Garda Sıoch- ´ ana, the Permanent Defence Force and the Revenue Commissioners are complying with" the Act. As such, the judge does not appear to enjoy any power to, for example, make sure that ISPs and telcos are storing this information securely or are responding appropriately to requests. Similarly, the role of the complaints referee under section 10 hinges on there being a "disclos- ure request". As such, he or she would have no power to investigate if, for example, a news- paper were to bribe a telecoms employee for access to information. I refer to a recent case where a red top, which I will not name, was recently implicated in a similar phone tapping scandal. Those problems are to some extent mitigated by the fact that the Data Protection Commissioner might investigate those situations but the Data Protection Commissioner will not have the same oversight powers. The Act should clarify the functions of the designated judge and complaints referee and make clear what is to happen in borderline cases. There is uncertainty about to whom the Bill will apply. The Bill takes, essentially verbatim, the loose language of the directive and in section 1 defines a service provider as "a person who is engaged in the provision of a publicly available electronic communications service or a public communications network by means of fixed line or mobile telephones or the Internet". Those are wide, and imprecise definitions and given that specific statutory obligations are created an element of doubt can arise. There are many various applications and we do not know how the provisions would apply to or affect those who use webmail, webmail-like applications, open WiFi, and voice Internet messaging. The list is endless. There is such a broad scope and range of technologies that it is our view that the definitions need to be clearer. That will cause panic and confusion across the sector and will have seriously damaging consequences for Ireland's ability to promote itself as a destination for high-tech industries. I wish to read into the record a copy of a letter received by the Minister from the ICT Division of Engineers which speaks further to the concerns they have about the Bill: We first observe that electronic data is diverse, and increasing in its diversity. Telephone, mobile phone and text messaging are well established, along with electronic email messaging. However, in many communities it is now more common to use social networking sites — such as Facebook, Bebo, and LinkedIn — for direct person to person, and person to group communication. Such communications use a different technology than email, and cannot necessarily be detected by software which specifically tracks email. Further, direct internet messaging — such as AIM, MSN, Yahoo Messenger and Skype messaging — are also extremely common. Finally of course Twitter is also now perhaps the most prevalent of them all, and can be used both for instant person to person communication, as well as person to group communication. No doubt next year, there will be another new communication technology.. Our concern is that as criminals become aware of the legislation pertaining in Ireland, they may well be able to displace their electronic communication modes to new ones for which legislation has yet to be passed. [That issue needs to be raised as well.] On a different track, we would note that in today's world, much electronic communication is international in nature. Correspondents (of instant messaging, email, social networking, twitter and so) may not always be within the Irish jurisdiction, and not even within the EU. We gently draw this to your attention, and assume your legal advisors are considering the consequences of capturing information relating to citizens and companies from outside the 291 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage ´ [Deputy Sean Sherlock.] EU who may not be covered by Irish legislation. [That point must be addressed by the Minister in response to this debate.] With today's falling costs of storage, there is no particular great concern over the cost of the physical hardware. However, safely and securely storing and then retrieving (perhaps after several years) increasing quantities of information does have implications on the busi- ness processes of the service providers concerned. There is the aspect of capturing the information in the first instance, based on the number of modes of communication. That will run into billions if one takes the two year retention period into account. That issue will have to be addressed. Following that, there is a significant cost implication for businesses as a result of that. In this country we are talking about the possibility of a smart economy. What the legislation does is incurs a further cost on businesses by virtue of the data retention period. Wider issues arise in terms of the jurisdiction of the legislation ` vis-a-vis the fact that we trade internationally and messages pass internationally. That is some- thing that must be addressed by the legislation. No justification has been given for a two-year retention period for phone data. Under the directive, member states are free to choose a data retention period between six months and two years. The UK adopted a standard 12 month period. I am not aware of any justification as to why the Bill opts for the maximum two years for telephone data. The European Com- mission's own research on police requests for data has shown that the overwhelming majority of requests are for data which is less than three months old. If the Garda experience is different then some evidence to that effect would be desirable. As to the budgetary implications of this legislation, I have serious reservations about the undue cost that would be borne by businesses as a result of that measure. Again, I refer to the Oireachtas research service that focused on the budgetary implications. It stated the Bill is silent on the likely costs to be involved in implementing and complying with the provisions of the directive. According to the status report on the transposition of the directive by EU member states and EFTA and the regulatory impact assessment prepared by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the State will not reimburse service providers the costs involved in complying with the obligations under the Bill, even though "service providers have complained that management of data would impose heavy costs that they would in turn have to pass on to businesses and consumers". The net effect of the legis- lation, arguably, is that we will retain all sorts of data, 99.9% of which will be superfluous messages that pass between ordinary citizens. This will be stored by the service providers. There will be a cost for that storage and the consumer will end up paying that cost. I accept the principle that there must be data retention. However, there must be balance in terms of how long it is retained and whether it is necessary to retain data for two years. I believe it is unnecessary. It is impractical and in the context of crime prevention measures, I am not convinced that retaining data, particularly Internet data, for a period of two years will catch more criminals or undo a terrorist organisation. We must exercise a little common sense in our approach to the legislation. With that in mind, we will seek to amend the legislation significantly to reflect our views. ´ Deputy Aengus O Snodaigh: This is a very important Bill relating to the retention of data. Since I was first elected to the House in 2002 I have argued that while I accept there is a requirement to retain some level of data, we should not go down this road unless there is legislation to protect that data, give power to the Data Commissioner to investigate and have 292 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage full access to what is being retained and provide for protections and safeguards to ensure nothing untoward can happen with the data that is retained. People have argued that the reasons for data retention are mainly to help law enforcement agencies and make it easier for those agencies to secure convictions quickly. There is some logic to that argument. However, consider the rapidly changing nature of the data we are discussing — we are talking about telecommunications and, in particular, the significant use of the Internet — and the rapid turnaround of mobile telephone numbers and mobile telephones. Two year old data would be obsolete and, in fact, might end up hampering criminal investi- gations by causing the diversion of time and resources to chasing up culs-de-sac. The connection between information retained two years ago and somebody who had access to a mobile tele- phone two years ago might not lead to the expected results. The proliferation of telecommunications and other forms of digital media has made data retention a great deal easier. Now, one can retain data by pressing a button whereas back when Sherlock Holmes and others were investigating crimes everything had to be written in longhand and duplicated. They did not have access to technology. By pressing a button one can retain all the bills for mobile telephones and all the connections made between one mobile telephone and another. The same applies to computers. A very significant amount, probably too much data, will be stored. It then becomes a difficulty when one must interrogate the database to glean some type of information which might offer a lead, only for that lead to end up in a cul- de-sac. Obviously, the Garda and other law enforcement agencies are accustomed to chasing leads that bring them down culs-de-sac, but given the potential scale of the data we will be retaining the potential for many culs-de-sac is overwhelming. Also, given the fact that the ´ ´ Garda Sıochana is hampered by not having the best equipment or the required number of ´ gardaı dedicated to tackling crime, because many of them are stuck behind desks where they should not be, it means their valuable time could be wasted. There are major problems in that regard. A six month data retention regime would probably be far more efficient and help law enforcement agencies across the European Union. This Bill was triggered by our failure to transpose properly into Irish law what was required under a European Union directive. I ´ believe it was in 2002 that the former Minister, former Deputy Sıle de Valera, in the last item ´ of business of that Dail, rushed through the data retention legislation with little scrutiny or thought. It provided for retaining data for over three years, rather than for a maximum of two years as the European Union had requested. ´ ´ Obviously, the Garda Sıochana, with the additional powers it has been given and with the ability to seek judicial power to retain certain data, could identify the key targets it has rather than have the wholesale trawling exercise for which this type of legislation provides. Every last item of telecommunication or correspondence will be retained. I might pick up my telephone and dial a number inadvertently which reaches somebody who, in two years, might be the subject of an investigation. What if I dial that number and then sit on the telephone and it rings the number ten times again? That has happened. The first name in the telephone book in my mobile telephone is my wife's. If I sit on the telephone, it might ring that number ten times. However, what if the wrong telephone number is the last number dialled? I could become the subject of a criminal investigation two years hence, with all that it entails, if that number happened to belong to somebody who warranted a criminal investigation. This applies to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of mobile telephone numbers and mobile telephone users across the European Union. There is major concern about this data and the failure of the European Union, particularly of some member states, to put in place proper data retention safeguards. A 2007 report, the 293 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage ´ [Deputy Aengus O Snodaigh.] Privacy and Human Rights Report, ranked different countries in the European Union in this regard. It refers to the endemic surveillance society — the "Big Brother" concept. The report found that the 12 member states, including Ireland, which it examined were involved in a systematic failure to uphold safeguards. Nine member states were held in the report to have some safeguards but weakened protections. Only one member state, Greece, was described as having adequate safeguards against abuse. There is a potential for abuse and one could have inadvertent incidents, of which I could cite many more examples, or miscarriages of justice. In respect of data retention, Ireland and ten other member states were awarded the lowest grading of "extensive surveillance/leading in bad practice". Under the directive, retention is required for between six months and two years. In Britain, the standard retention period is 12 months, whereas under these proposals data will be retained for one year in the case of Internet records and two years in the case of telephone records. Those who propose the reduced periods claim it is a great decision but they fail to mention that we are in breach of European law. As I and others have pointed out since 2002 and, in particular, since the introduction of the 2005 legislation, Ireland is in contravention of European Union rules. Despite this, it has taken until now to reduce retention periods and rather than reducing them to below the maximum permit- ted by the EU, they have been set at the maximum levels. Digital Rights Ireland has raised major concerns about data retention by State agencies, such ´ ´ as the Garda Sıochana and Revenue Commissioners, under existing rules. The industry has also raised concerns about who will manage and pay for the system and the potential for abuse. What will happen if laptop computers containing stored data are lost, as has occurred regularly? It is easy to store this data and just as easy to leak, lose or sell it. What will happen if this occurs? As far as I can determine from the text, there is no compulsion on the service provider or the State to inform people whose personal data is lost or inadvertently or intentionally leaked. The data to be stored is not a couple of names or addresses but includes details of a person's Internet use for one year, including all sites visited. There is no guarantee that the owner of a computer is the person who visited the sites in question or that the owner of mobile telephone made a particular call. The potential for leaks of information is significant. Some people argue that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. After 15 years in jail, members of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four and others who have been falsely imprisoned in this State and in other jurisdictions will say that argument does not hold in every ´ circumstance. Deputy Niall Collins of the Fianna Fail Party used a similar argument in July during an interview on Matt Cooper's radio programme, "The Last Word". When he was asked whether he would publish his telephone bills, including his telephone records for the previous year, he answered to the effect that he did not understand what was meant by the question. Under this legislation, information will be retained on every single call one has made on one's mobile phone. This data could be leaked or inadvertently or maliciously used against individuals. No one can argue there are not those in the Department of Justice, Equality and ´ ´ Law Reform and Garda Sıochana who have not engaged in malicious leaking of data against republicans and others. I have seen photographs which were taken in Garda stations published in newspapers in this State. The only people who have access to this information are gardaı. ´ Similarly, a previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would not even admit to me in the House how many Deputies were having their telephones monitored. I have not yet asked the same question of the current Minister. How many current Deputies have their tele- phones monitored by the State? Despite the fact that this type of activity, which is unacceptable in a democracy, is taking place, the Minister expects us to sign away access to all information 294 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage about our telecommunications in order that it can be analysed, interrogated and, possibly, leaked. Laptop computers containing significant amounts of data have been lost in this State and overseas. The Health Service Executive, for instance, recently lost a laptop containing a sub- stantial quantity of data. The information people provide when filling in application forms for ´ the HSE, FAS and other organisations could be useful to journalists and the private sector. Marketing companies want access to names, addresses and information on who one calls and so forth. Providers of Internet and mobile telephone services could use information on an individual's mobile phone and Internet usage to try to sell him or her their products. For example, a mobile telephone company which retains information on my telephone usage for two years will be able to determine that I mainly use numbers with the 085 prefix and make most of my calls at night. It could then try to encourage me to buy into a programme or scheme which makes it more money and costs me more money. That is a potential outcome of this legislation. While I accept that the data will be retained for a specific purpose, questions remain as to who will manage it. Will the Minister provide an assurance that nothing untoward will happen? I recognise the additional safeguards in the Bill, including a provision on judicial supervision, but they do not go far enough. Under this provision, I must submit an application to find out what data has been retained and whether it has been leaked, rather than the other way around. Data protection should have been strengthened before the legislation was introduced. Data retention will create significant costs, even in terms of physical storage, although I accept that technological devices are becoming smaller. For example, a small, 500 GB external hard drive I recently installed in my office would have taken up a full office ten years ago. Nevertheless, given the scale of the data to be retained and the periods for which it must be held, large-scale systems will be necessary. These will also have to be secured and monitored and a backup provided in case the system shuts down or something happens to the storage facility. Providing these systems and the necessary safeguards will generate a cost. Is it a cost to the State or to the Internet service providers or telecommunications providers? There is a cost — it might be outlined in the Bill; I may have overlooked that part. In Finland the Ministry of the Interior, when the original proposal by the EU was put to it, worked out that if the measure was adopted at the full scale as intended at the time it would cost \5.5 billion to operate it properly and efficiently in line with what was expected of it. That is a huge cost. Finland would have a similar cost to here. What is the cost? Who will pay for it? The taxpayer always ends up paying for it — are people aware of what is intended? They are some of the concerns. I will enjoy the opportunity to tease out some aspects of this if I get a chance to do so on Committee Stage. When I first started to research the retention of data I came across a story — I do not know if it is true — that when the European Union first started discussing the retention of data by all of the member states it explained the concept to the various Ministers. One Minister or official at the meeting said his or her country — it was Britain — had a system in place for the previous five years. It had what was called the ECHELON programme in place well ahead of the European Union whereby it, along with the US, tracked every single item of telecom- munications traffic between Ireland, the European Union and America through the Chelten- ham and Capenhurst facility. Everything went across the ocean. The system was retained for the benefit of MI5. It was not in place just to look at terrorism. There were financial implications. It was tracking businesses and everything else, which had nothing to do with anything. It was planning the future of its economy and was using the data to facilitate it. That was when the European Union discovered the extent of surveillance by the British on it, not just on Ireland. There are significant dangers, in terms of the "Big Brother" society or potential for that when 295 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage ´ [Deputy Aengus O Snodaigh.] one starts to retain data at the scale we are discussing. That is why I urge, once again, that we bring in proper data protection legislation which allows the consumer — those whom the surveillance is geared at — access to the information which is being stored so it is not wrongly stored or abused. Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Deputy Peter Power): I welcome the opportunity to contribute at the end of this debate and thank all Deputies who contributed to it. In his opening speech the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, conveyed the importance of data information in the investigation of serious crime, including gangland and transnational crime, and in safeguarding our country against terrorist activity. As data retention is a tried and tested valuable tool in the investigation of crime and in safeguarding the security of the State, it has not received as much attention as some of the more recent high profile initiatives from my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Ahern, for fighting crime, in particular gangland crime. These include the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act and the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act, which passed into law as recently as July. It is ironic that criticism of this legislation, indeed criticism generally of the need to retain and disclose data, even if only coming from a small number of sources, comes as we are ensuring that the practice has a firm statutory backing with real and credible safeguards which have been called for all around the House. I would like to refer to the memorandum of understanding, mentioned in the debate, that is ´ ´ being negotiated between the Garda Sıochana, the Permanent Defence Force, the Revenue Commissioners and the representative associations of the vast majority of telephony operators and Internet service providers in the State. There have been recent misleading references to the memorandum in the press and the media. It is neither secret nor sinister. It is a work in progress and will not be finalised until the Bill is enacted. As the legislation will come into operation on the day it is signed into law, it is very important that the providers are in a position to comply with their responsibilities under it and the only way that can be achieved is for advance discussions to take place with the law enforcement authorities that are entitled under the legislation to make disclosure requests. The negotiations in Brussels on the directive took place at a time of very rapid developments in technology. This was recognised by the Commission and the member states. It was clear that the directive could soon become out of date and less useful as an investigatory tool for law enforcement agencies if it tried to over-interpret the data which it was intended should be retained and disclosed. For that reason, the Commission established two committees for the purpose of identifying problems in implementing the directive. One of the Committees consists of national experts from a number of member states, including Ireland. The types of problems the committees addressed were related to matters such as the obligation to retain data, who should retain it and the type of data that need not be retained, such as spam. These issues fed into the discussions on the memorandum of understanding. All sides involved in those dis- cussions recognise that it is to the benefit of all of them, and ultimately to the benefit of law enforcement in this country, if the Garda, Revenue Commissioners and the Defence Forces know what the providers can reasonably retain, within the parameters established in the directive, and that the providers know what is required of them under the directive by the law enforcement authorities. Far from being a sinister or arrogant development, the purpose of the memorandum is to simply ensure that the directive operates as intended and it is a very welcome initiative by all concerned in its negotiations. It does what would not be feasible in the Bill, that is, set out in more detail what is required to be retained under the directive. For example, there has been 296 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage some comment on which provider should retain a particular piece of data. Recital 13 of the directive states that data should be retained in such a way as to avoid it being retained more than once. Accordingly, if more than one service provider is in possession of particular data, only one need retain it for the purposes of the directive. The detail on which provider retains duplicated data can only be agreed in discussions between the service providers and the law enforcement authorities. The question of human rights and privacy rights always arises when legislation such as this Bill is proposed. I have already mentioned that the intrusion into persons' privacy is minimal. No content is retained or disclosed under the directive or the legislation, contrary to what ´ might be taken from Deputy O Snodaigh's contribution when he referred to my fellow Limerick man, Deputy Collins. Deputy Collins was merely making the point that he, like any other person, is entitled to his privacy and should not have all his telephone data and records open for public scrutiny. That is a certainly a matter of privacy, but it is not unreasonable to expect ´ it. This is what Deputy Collins referred to — I heard the interview to which Deputy O Snodaigh referred. Deputy Collins stated very clearly that if he was a suspect in a serious criminal investi- gation it is not unreasonable that his telephone records and the contacts he may have had with particular alleged criminals would be available to the Garda. There is a real distinction between having one's private records open to the public and one's specific telephone calls to alleged ´ perpetrators of crime being available to the gardaı and the Bill reflects that distinction. What is meant, for example, regarding the content of a telephone call or e-mail or websites visited is that what is retained could be compared to an envelope with a note inside. What is required to be retained is the address on the envelope with the note inside being destroyed. That is the correct analogy. The directive itself addresses the human rights implications in recital 9. The directive states: Public authorities may interfere with the exercise of that right only in accordance with the law and where necessary in a democratic society, inter alia, in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Because retention of data has proved to be such a necessary and effective investigative tool for law enforcement in several Member States, and in particular concerning serious matters such as organised crime and [transnational] terrorism, it is neces- sary to ensure retained data are made available to law enforcement authorities for a certain period, subject to the conditions provided for in the Directive [and which are obviously now enshrined in this legislation]. The adoption of an instrument on data retention that complies with the requirements of Article 8 of the ECHR is therefore a necessary measure. It can be deduced, therefore, that the directive has been fully examined and cleared from a human rights perspective. I would like to respond to some of the points that were made during this debate. Deputy O ´ Snodaigh suggested that the accidental dialling of wrong numbers could lead to a criminal investigation. If a person is found to have made ten telephone calls to the same person, acciden- tally or otherwise, that could not form the basis of a criminal investigation. However, it could be used as corroborative evidence of a pattern that might lead to the building of a case. The Deputy's suggestion that such a pattern could form the basis of a criminal investigation calls into question his support for the concept underpinning the legislation. The retention of data of this nature is a real and effective investigative tool, as it can provide the sort of alibis and exculpatory evidence that can lead to people being cleared. It is ironic that the Deputy men- tioned the case of the Birmingham Six because if this legislation had been in force and in effect 297 Communications (Retention of 8 October 2009. Data) Bill 2009: Second Stage [Deputy Peter Power.] when that case was first considered, and if the technology necessary for it had been available, it is distinctly possible that the Birmingham Six would not have been convicted. Deputies Charles Flanagan and Sherlock questioned the need to retain data for two years, given that most other countries have provided for periods of six or 12 months. It is clear that the directive allows data to be retained for between six months and two years. The Minister has been advised by this country's law enforcement authorities that the minimum period required for the retention of telephony data is two years. Similarly, he has been advised that the minimum period in the case of Internet data should be 12 months. As the Minister explained in his opening speech, the provision of a two-year period for telephony data represents a reduction of one year on the law that pertains in this country at present. The majority of data is requested within six months of it first being generated. However, the quality and potential of older data makes its retention for a longer period essential. When a gangland criminal is charged with an offence, it may be necessary to request telephony data that is up to two years old as it might help to identify other members of the gang. Similarly, if a person is arrested in this State on suspicion of being a member of an international terrorist organisation, telephony data from the previous two years may help to identify whether the organisation in question has been prepar- ing a major terrorist outrage. I remind Deputy Charles Flanagan that it is not very long ago since an innocent member of the public was gunned down in my home city of Limerick, a number of years after a member of his family had given evidence in a criminal case. We have introduced legislation to try to deal with such cases. I can easily foresee circumstances in which data retained for longer than 12 months might prove to be relevant when a prosecution is brought. While such examples make the case for a longer period to be provided for in this legislation, I accept that an appro- priate balance needs to be struck. As Deputy Sherlock correctly pointed out, we need to retain a sense of reality in this regard. Law-abiding members of the community who are not expected ´ to be the subject of requests by gardaı under these provisions have nothing to fear from the legislation. Instead, their rights and freedoms will be protected by effective legislation that helps to track down those criminals who are prepared to threaten the freedoms and rights of ordinary citizens. The proposed two-year retention period for telephony data would be one of the longest retention periods in the EU. Most member states have legislated for a retention period of 12 months, with two or three opting for a mere six months. It is understandable that member states which are legislating for data retention for the first time would wish to steer a middle course. The 12-month retention period for Internet data seems to be consistent with the mainstream approach taken by other member states when implementing this aspect of the directive. Issues such as the retention periods are likely to be addressed in the Commission's review of the operation of the directive, which will take place towards the end of 2010. ´ When Deputy O Snodaigh spoke about the security of retained data, he questioned whether Members of this House might be under surveillance. I hope I understood his point correctly. It would be odd if Members of this House had some form of immunity from prosecution or investigation by this country's authorities. The Italian constitutional court ruled yesterday that the idea that those in public life — members of the government, parliamentarians and legis- lators — might be treated differently is offensive to that country's constitutional position. I ´ suggest that the same applies in Ireland. Deputy O Snodaigh's suggestion, if I understood it correctly, was an odd one. The Deputy also raised concerns about the security of retained data. I assure him that the Minister and I, like all Deputies, are concerned about recent high-profile lapses in security, many of which have been due to computers being mislaid. The directive obliges the providers of such services to attach the same security measures to retained data that they would attach to all other data. In light of recent stories about data being lost, service 298 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage providers and public bodies have been reviewing and tightening their security measures, partic- ularly those relating to encryption. In his opening speech, the Minister mentioned that he established a data protection review group about a year ago on foot of lapses in data security. The review group called for submissions from the public and various interested parties. Given ´ his interest in the matter, I assume Deputy O Snodaigh made a submission to that forum. The Minister called for submissions on the website and by invitation to parties that had previously expressed an interest in this issue. The group is putting together a consultative document that will describe the various issues from legal, technical and regulatory perspectives. The options identified by the group will be outlined in the document, which is almost ready for publication. A final call for contributions will be made when that document has been published, before work commences on the review group's final report. The Deputy will have an opportunity to make comments at that stage. I have dealt with most of the issues that were raised while I was in the Chamber. The important legislation before the House has to be examined in the overall context of recent surveillance Bills and other Bills that have been introduced to tackle gangland crime. It responds to the fact that we are living in an era of highly organised crime. It has been men- tioned that we have all been familiar with organised crime over many years, but it should be stressed that the modern version of such crime is organised on a much more technically sophisticated level. It behoves us as legislators to respond to these new technologies by introducing effective tools to deal with them while at the same time protecting the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. Question put and agreed to. Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Referral to Select Committee. Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Deputy Peter Power): I move: That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, in accordance with Standing Order 122(1) and paragraph 1(a)(i) of the Orders of Reference of that committee. Question put and agreed to. Communications Regulation (Premium Rate Services) Bill 2009: Order for Second Stage. Bill entitled an Act to provide for the regulation of Premium Rate Services by the Com- mission for Communications Regulation and to amend the Communications Regulation Act 2002 and to provide for connected matters. Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Conor Lenihan): I move: "That Second Stage be taken now." Question put and agreed to. Communications Regulation (Premium Rate Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage. Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Conor Lenihan): I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I was about to address the Acting Chairman, Deputy Charlie O'Connor, as "Ceann Comhairle". 299 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O'Connor): Please do not. Deputy Conor Lenihan: Perhaps he will be Ceann Comhairle next week. Deputy Charles Flanagan: It may be wishful thinking on the part of the Minister of State to address his constituency colleague as Ceann Comhairle. I do not know if he will be that lucky. Deputy Conor Lenihan: I would love it if he was appointed Ceann Comhairle next week because I would have an easy ride in the next general election. Acting Chairman: I remind Deputies that it is not appropriate to draw the Chair into debate. Deputy Charles Flanagan: The Chair might also like it. Deputy Conor Lenihan: It would make my work as a Minister of State a lot easier. I am pleased to present the Communications Regulation (Premium Rate Services) Bill 2009 for the consideration of the House. This Bill is an important part of the Government's legislat- ive programme and when enacted will transfer the regulation of premium rate services from the current regulator, RegTel, to the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg, and provide for more effective regulation of the sector in the interest of consumer protection, which is its primary purpose. The Bill is the result of a review of the regulation of premium rate services in Ireland involv- ing consultation between officials of my Department, RegTel, ComReg, the Attorney General's office, key market players and other stakeholders in the industry. The Minister of Communi- cations, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, initiated the review following a significant increase in complaints from the public concerning premium rate services, particularly subscription services, and concerns raised by the Attorney General about the current statutory basis for the regulation of this sector. Following the review, the Minister decided that the regulatory function should be transferred to ComReg by way of an extension of its functions under the Communications Regulation Acts. This will ensure that an effective regulatory regime is established in accordance with Government policy on agency rationalisation. Before going into the main provisions of the Bill, I would like to set out for Deputies the background to the premium rate sector in Ireland and the rationale for the Bill. Premium rate services are content services provided primarily over fixed line and mobile telecommunications networks that are charged to a consumer's telephone account by his or her network operator at a price which exceeds the cost of communications carriage alone, that is, the cost of a normal telephone call. These services, which are accessed by means of a specific telephone number prefix, include information and entertainment services such as directory inquiries, weather fore- casts, traffic news, sports results, chat lines and horoscopes, and services such as competitions, mobile ring tones and logo downloads. The premium rate services market is currently regulated by RegTel, an independent and limited private company, by means of a code of practice produced by RegTel to which all service providers are required to adhere. RegTel is funded by a levy on the service providers and network operators that carry premium rate services. This is essentially an industry self- regulation model. There are approximately 370 service providers offering premium rate services over the networks of 12 operators. Between 2001 and 2007 annual revenue grew from \31 million to \95 million, an increase of over 200%. Given the current difficult economic climate, revenue for the current year is likely to decline to about \80 million. Clearly, this is a dynamic market which provides significant returns to service providers and network operators. 300 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage While the vast majority of service providers operate within RegTel's code of practice, a small number of non-compliant providers bring the sector into disrepute. The poor experiences of consumers at the hands of these non-compliant service providers in recent years have under- mined confidence in the regulation of the sector and, according to the network operators, is impacting on the take-up of services in the Irish market. It is widely believed that if the sector was effectively regulated, consumer confidence and demand for services offered would increase. Premium rate services are distinctly different in many respects from standard telephone services. The main features that set them apart and warrant more regulatory intervention in order to protect consumers are issues relating to the supply chain, content, price and trans- parency. As the premium rate service consumer is in contract only with his or her telephone network operator, he or she has to pay that network operator for the premium rate service, which usually originates with a premium rate service provider and may even be delivered through intermediaries. The length of the supply chain between the originating premium rate service provider and the consumer is a factor in determining the need for regulation. Many premium rate services such as weather forecasts, traffic reports or sports results, although typically more expensive than ordinary telephone communications, require only light regulation. Other forms of content offered over telephone networks, such as adult chat lines, require tighter regulation because of the risk that minors may access them. The content of a service must not be such that it facilitates or encourages anything that is unlawful. Prices for certain types of premium rate services can result in substantial charges on a telephone bill or pre-pay card if the consumer is not vigilant or if the phone is used by a child or other user who is unaware of the potential to generate telephone bills that can cause surprise and distress. A further reason for regulation, and an area that gives rise to the vast majority of complaints both in Ireland and elsewhere, is the lack of transparency in relation to subscription services offered by a small but significant group of providers. In many cases, consumers who thought they were engaging in a one-off transaction have found that they inadvertently agreed to sub- scribe to a premium rate service whereby they receive subsequent content over their phone line or mobile and are charged for this service on an ongoing basis. This problem has been most prevalent where consumers enter competitions without realising that they have signed up to an ongoing subscription service which incurs substantial costs. The new regulatory framework proposed in this Bill aims to address any issues that may arise in regard to the provision of premium rate services, particularly in the areas of supply chain, content, pricing and transparency. The Bill proposes a licensing regime backed up by effective enforcement powers. This will ensure that the consumers of such services are pro- tected from the unscrupulous practices of a small number of providers who until now have been able to exploit weaknesses in the current regulatory regime. It replaces the current self- regulatory regime based on contractual arrangements between RegTel and service providers with a more robust licensing regime backed up with effective enforcement measures. Enforcement is a key element of effective regulation and appropriate remedies and sanctions are vital to secure regulatory compliance. It is in this context that the enforcement proposals in this Bill have been drafted. Involving the industry in enforcing proper standards is an important element of effective regulation. I acknowledge that the majority of companies operating in the sector are reputable and through various initiatives have played an important part in maintaining high standards. In order to maintain this level of engagement with the industry in the regulation of the sector, the Bill provides that a code of practice drawn up by ComReg in consultation with all interested parties will remain an integral part of the new regulatory regime. The industry was fully consulted during the preparation of the Bill and I am happy to say that it strongly wel- 301 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage [Deputy Conor Lenihan.] comed its provisions. I believe that following its enactment consumer confidence will be enhanced and the sector will enjoy further development and growth. The transfer of the regu- latory function to ComReg will not impose any charge on public funds as provision is made in the Bill for the costs of regulation to be funded by a levy on the industry, as is the case at present. Provision is also made in the Bill for the transfer of staff from RegTel to ComReg, thus ensuring that the valuable expertise built up by RegTel over the years is retained and that no existing staff member suffers any loss as a result of the transfer of function. Apart from the regulation of premium rate services, the Bill makes provision for ComReg to issue appropriate emergency directions to operators with a view to minimising customer disruption and providing continuity of access to emergency services in the event of an operator exiting the market. Current legislation does not enable ComReg to take action to restore a telephone service within an appropriate timeframe in such cases and this provision will address this deficiency. The Minister also intends to introduce an amendment on Committee Stage to Part 5 of the principal Act, designating the National Roads Authority as a road authority for the purposes of that Act, to facilitate the installation of next generation infrastructure. This provision will facilitate the roll-out of fibre optic throughout the country to provide additional broadband backhaul connectivity to those areas of the country that require it. I now turn to the text of the Bill itself. As an explanatory memorandum on the Bill has been circulated, I do not propose to go into detail on each section but rather to highlight the main provisions of the Bill in the order they appear in the text. Section 3 amends section 10 of the principal Act to provide for the commission to have the additional function of regulating premium rate services, which is the primary purpose of the Bill. Sections 4 and 5 provide for the licensing of services, the terms and conditions that may be attached to a licence and the information that premium rate service providers shall provide to ComReg upon request. This new licensing regime is designed so that ComReg may prescribe the type of service and service provider that will require a licence and will enable ComReg to vary the conditions that will apply to particular types of premium rate services. The definition of premium rate service in the Bill is necessarily broad so as to capture not only existing types of services but also services that may be developed in the future as a result of developments in technology. It specifically excludes broadcast services, such as pay-per-view, which could, if not specifically excluded, come within the scope of the definition, as these are regulated by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. Certain types of premium rate services will be subject to tighter regulation than others. For example, services such as weather forecasts, traffic news and other information type services will be subject to less stringent conditions than on-going subscription services, advice or chat services that may involve substantial charges on a phone bill or pre-pay card. Accordingly, ComReg will be able to specify different conditions for different types of service in an objective and proportionate manner. Sections 6 to 8 provide the enforcement measures that ComReg may apply against non- compliant service providers. Under section 6, ComReg may apply to the High Court for the immediate suspension of a licence where it considers such suspension is necessary to protect users or potential users of premium rate services. This is an important provision as swift action by ComReg may be necessary to prevent the continuation of an offending service until further investigative and enforcement action is taken by ComReg. Section 7 provides that if ComReg finds, following an investigation, that a service provider has not complied with or has breached a condition of a licence, it shall notify the provider of 302 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage its finding and shall require the provider to remedy any non-compliance within a specified period. The intention here is that such a remedy can include a refund by the provider to affected consumers as is provided for in the current code of practice. The procedure for making such refunds can be provided for in regulations to be made by ComReg specifying the terms and conditions to attach to a licence, which should clearly spell out the obligations imposed on the provider of the service on refunds. Where a premium rate service provider has failed to comply with or remedy the breach within the time period specified under section 7, ComReg may, if it considers it appropriate to do so, and having notified the licence holder of its intention and having considered any rep- resentation made by the licence holder, revoke, amend or suspend for a period, the licence. If the failure to comply with a condition is considered by ComReg to be a serious breach, the revocation, amendment or suspension takes effect upon notification. Section 9 provides that a service provider aggrieved by a decision of the Commission to refuse, suspend or revoke a licence has the right of appeal to the Circuit Court against the decision within seven days of notification of the decision. Sections 10 and 11 provide for offences relating to the provision of unlicensed premium rate services and for overcharging for services or charging for services not supplied. It also provides for the court, on the application to it by the commission following a conviction, to make an order revoking the licence and prohibiting the licensee from reapplying for a new licence, either permanently or for a fixed time. These enforcement provisions are designed to give ComReg maximum effectiveness in deter- ring non-compliant service providers from operating in the market. The requirement that each service provider must apply for and hold a licence covering the services it provides is significant. It enables ComReg to refuse to grant a licence under specific circumstances or, if granted, to specify the conditions that attach to any particular licence. It also provides a mechanism whereby a licence may be amended, suspended or revoked, depending on the nature of any non-compliance with the conditions of the licence. It is important for the industry as a whole that the small number of service providers that are responsible for the large number of complaints from consumers are subject to dissuasive sanctions and, if necessary, may have their licences suspended or revoked. The vast majority of service providers who are compliant need have no fear of these provisions. On the contrary, they have welcomed the proposed provisions as an effective response to those who are bringing the whole sector into disrepute and undermining public confidence in the industry. As I stated earlier, the involvement of the sector itself in maintaining high standards through a code of practice is an important element of effective regulation. Section 13 of the Bill provides for the preparation and publication of a code of practice by ComReg following consultation with interested parties and with other statutory bodies. Apart from consultation with service providers and other stakeholders in the industry, this would include consultation with bodies such as the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, which has statutory responsibility for broadcast content, a medium through which many premium rate services are advertised, and the National Consumer Agency, which has overall responsibility for protecting consumer interests. In this way, a consistent approach by the relevant statutory bodies in both consumer protection and content related regulation will be ensured. Compliance with the code of practice will be a condition of a licence and, consequently, non-compliance with its provisions may result in a sanction being imposed. The Bill also provides, under section 16, for the transfer of staff currently employed by Regtel to ComReg on the same pay and conditions to which they were entitled while in the service of Regtel, subject to the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance. This will 303 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage [Deputy Conor Lenihan.] provide ComReg with the expertise and resources necessary to enable it to carry out its new function effectively from the outset. In order to minimise customer disruption and to ensure continuity of access to emergency services, section 18 provides that ComReg may issue an emergency direction to an operator providing wholesale access to another operator, in the event of the exit from the market of that other operator. Deputies may recall that a situation arose in 2006 where an operator informed its customers that it was no longer in a position to provide them with a service. While ComReg played a significant role in mediating a solution that allowed those customers to switch to an alternative service provider, it had no statutory basis on which to do so. This provision rectifies that situation. The Bill is an important measure in contributing to the effective regulation of premium rate services in Ireland. The proposals it contains are measured and proportionate responses to the challenges that will face ComReg in establishing effective regulation of these services and protecting the users of those services. I am confident that the provisions contained in it will result in greater consumer protection and confidence and growth in the industry. Apart from the amendment to Part 5 of the Principal Act, to which I referred earlier, and any amendments of a technical legal nature that may be agreed in conjunction with the Attorney General's office, I do not intend to introduce any substantive amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. I look forward to hearing the views of the Members of this House and their assistance in facilitating its early passage into law. I commend the Bill to the House. Deputy Simon Coveney: This necessary Bill is welcome on a number of levels. First, it reaffirms the principle that we should be trying to amalgamate the various different regulators dealing with the communications and broadcasting area generally into one strong well- resourced regulatory body, and ComReg is the appropriate body for that. In the same way that Deputy McManus and I would have made the case that perhaps the new broadcasting authority should also have been amalgamated into one strong communications regulating body, I wel- come the removal of Regtel and the transfer of the functions from Regtel into ComReg, while also giving extra powers in the area of premium rate services to ComReg. This is an area that has grown too big in recent years to accept that voluntary regulation is sufficient to deal with the potential abuse possible from the targeting of very vulnerable mobile phone users in many cases, but also of vulnerable fixed line users in some cases, for the profits of companies that are providing premium rate services. I do not want to give the impression that companies that provide premium-rate services should be pariahs; they should not. There is a genuine industry in information transfer and it will be increasingly important in the future as people rely predominantly on their mobile communication devices, although also on fixed-line services and their computers, to update them with information that is useful for work or of general interest. We cannot stop this tide. People will be using mobile hand-held devices for all sorts of services we probably cannot imagine. A major feature of this will be the transfer of information and the charge for that information. Our challenge as policy makers and protectors of the public interest is to protect people from scams, from people who are willing to abuse the transfer of information, and from people who will take advantage of genuine ignorance in consumers and, in many cases, children who are not capable of anticipating the abuse that may occur. In case anybody thinks this is a small niche area, I will give some figures. Premium-rate services on fixed lines and, particularly, mobile devices represent an industry that was worth \95 million last year. In 2008, Irish people received 76 million chargeable premium text mess- ages. We are talking about multiple messages for every person who has a mobile telephone in 304 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage Ireland. Some are specifically targeted because they are easy targets and we need to protect these people. We must ensure that there is a regulator and that he or she is on top of the technological advances that happen constantly and has the power to penalise people when they break the rules. ComReg is now being asked to put in place and enforce a code of practice. We have given it the power to impose fines of up to \250,000, which is appropriately large for companies who are consistently abusing their position, as has been the case in certain instances. There is growing concern about this issue among the public. If we consider the figures from last year we will see that Regtel received more than 6,000 complaints about premium-rate services, compared to only 1,700 the year before. This represents a fourfold increase in the number of complaints. It also corresponds to a dramatic increase in the number of texts and other premium-rate products. This is not all about text messages; there are also telephone psychics, weather forecasts, music, sports updates and many other services. Many of these are useful, but the issue is whether they are properly advertised and charged for. Another interesting trend is the number of people who have contacted the regulator to obtain information on how to unsubscribe from a service. For example, a child may come home from school and say he or she signed up to a service to keep up to date with the Top Ten singles charts, but the information is now arriving every day and he or she does not know how to stop it. Parents are finding themselves in a position of ignorance in this regard. Last year, 22,000 people contacted RegTel to ask them how they could unsubscribe from services. There are a number of demands and concerns that the public have to which we must respond not just through this legislation, but also by giving ComReg the resources to engage in an education process of both parents and children, as well as consumers generally, with regard to premium-rate services. I ask the Minister to consider the resources that will be available to ComReg to do this. Increasingly, people need such information quickly. It is to be hoped that they will be able to obtain it on-line from ComReg, but they should also be able to make a telephone call to hear in simple English how they can stop a premium-rate service. They should also be able to find out how to inquire about whether the service is safe and whether the company is reputable and has a licence. If, for example, a parent is trying to protect his or her child from a premium-rate service, he or she should be able to get information on the provider of the product. I welcome the legislation, but we need to put a full package in place. I apologise as my mobile telephone is ringing. Deputy Conor Lenihan: I hope it is not an unsolicited premium-rate text message. Deputy Simon Coveney: It is not. It is my wife, actually. Deputy Conor Lenihan: The Deputy does not know how to stop her. Deputy Simon Coveney: I assure the Minister of State it is not unsolicited. Deputy Conor Lenihan: ComReg cannot help the Deputy there. Deputy Simon Coveney: We need to put the full package in place. The committee on which Deputy McManus and I sit discussed this issue in some detail in the context of mobile telephone bullying and the targeting of young people and pupils in schools by cyber-bullies. This was simply a non-issue five years ago, but it is one now because of technological advances and the fact that the vast majority of people above the age of about six now have mobile telephones. Some people have two or three mobile telephones or different types of PDA device. I ask the Minister, in the context of this legislation, to consider also the issue of cyber-bullying. Even though it is not directly related to this Bill, there is certainly a link. 305 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage [Deputy Simon Coveney.] I will provide some figures on the use of mobile telephones by young people. Fifty-five percent of all five to nine year olds in Ireland now have a mobile telephone, while 90% of ten to 14 years olds have one. A total of 410,000 children under the age of 14 have a mobile telephone, and that number is growing. I expect that in the not-too-distant future 90% of five to nine year olds will have some form of mobile telephone. All these people are seen by the industry as consumers, even though they are children. They need protection not only from potential abuse by their peers — in the form of text bullying between young people — but also from elements within the industry that may well see them as a soft target. I am glad to say the vast majority of service providers will not behave in that way, but we must ensure that this does not happen because young people can inadvertently sign up to premium-rate services without even knowing about it, whether they are on a "pay-as-you-go" tariff or a monthly payment. We have had the mobile telephone companies before the committee on at least two occasions to ask them what they are doing on a voluntary basis to respond to cyber-bullying, and we are not happy with the pace at which the industry is responding to the issue. There has been some progress; I will not go into the products being provided by individual operators, but some are better than others. I would also like to see ComReg being given the power and the capacity to monitor the industry. It should be able to let the industry know it is being monitored on this issue and that if these products do not become available on a voluntary basis, it has the go- ahead from its political decision makers to introduce enforceable codes of conduct. The premium rate services and cyber bullying issues are linked, which should be mentioned a great deal more in this discussion. One could make the case that an adult fooled into believing he or she is obtaining from a premium rate service a product at a cheaper price than that which he or she is actually paying should know better and that if he or she does not they should learn more in order to know better, unless there is blatant abuse in respect of which ComReg needs to deal with the provider. More than half of all five to ten year olds have mobile phones and we must protect them. If the industry is not taking this seriously we must come down on it like ´ a tonne of bricks. I am willing to do that as are members of the Labour and Fianna Fail parties who are members of the committee. I would like included in this legislation a mechanism which signals to the industry that we are taking this seriously. We hold a stick over the alcohol industry in that if it does not act responsibly in terms of alcohol advertising we can legislate to force them to do so and we need to do the same in respect of mobile telephone operators in the area of child protection and cyber bullying which could potentially abuse vulnerability. I believe this type of approach would get cross-party support. I ask the Minister of State to consider this matter and to have his officials look at it. On the technical side another problem with premium rate services which I have experienced is how one unsubscribes from a service. Unsubscribing from a service is sold as a simple mech- anism. It is stated that one need only text "Stop" to a particular number and one will no longer receive the unsubscribed messaging service. However, that does not always happen. I have tested the system and while it often works, other times it does not. I tried to unsubscribe from a premium rate service in regard to political information but I continue to receive messages from the service. ComReg's challenge is not alone to regulate the industry but to provide consumers with basic information and a channel of communication. This will ensure that there are consequences when people do not obtain the type of service they could reasonably expect. Last year Regtel 306 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage reimbursed to consumers almost \20,000 arising out of issues such as inability to unsubscribe to a service and so on, which is happening on a fairly widespread basis. What this legislation sets out to do is correct. ComReg is the appropriate body to regulate this industry. I would like if the Minister could do a little more with the legislation, although I accept what is contained in it is good. Also, we should put in place a warning mechanism which ensures the mobile telephone industry, as well as the premium rate service industry, is aware we believe there is a developing problem in terms of cyber bullying, on which we do not have a handle and with which the industry must assist us in finding solutions, which do exist. Some of the products becoming available severely limit the capacity of children as targets. While I believe this Bill will have an easy passage through the House, Fine Gael may table some amendments on Committee Stage in respect of cyber bullying. While we can make generalised comments in our contributions on Second Stage debates of legislation, we do not in terms of legislation need to respond in an overly restrictive or harsh way in a space that is constantly developing and modernising. Cyberspace is doing just that. We do not want Ireland to develop a reputation as a country over-regulating or restricting investment and business opportunities in this area of essentially selling information via a communications infrastructure or network. The legislation strikes the right balance in that regard. We are asking ComReg to do four tasks in terms of putting in place a code of practice, new offences for overcharging, fines and licensing. There is always a balance to be struck between over-regulation and taking an overly protective approach to consumers that will drive investment in this area to other parts of Europe or the world, which would be a lost oppor- tunity. Ireland needs to create a new economy which is based on information and IT infrastruc- ture and on the sharing of information and services be it from a Government and public services point of view or from within the private sector. I accept we are not trying to create a type of police state in this area of communications because by and large the vast majority of premium rate services are subscribed to on a volun- tary basis because people want the information and are happy to pay for it. This is an industry that in my view will continue to grow dramatically year on year. I believe the level of chargeable texts, currently 76 million, may double in the next five years and that the industry will in the same period grow from \94 million to approximately \500 million. It is a service consumers want and will choose. The challenge for us is to allow that marketplace and the employment and opportunities that go with it to develop while at the same time protecting vulnerable people who do not have the knowledge or capacity to recognise when they are being over-charged or abused. I look forward to addressing the legislation line by line on Committee Stage and trying to improve it. Deputy Liz McManus: I support the purpose of this Bill. It makes sense to put the regulation of premium rate telecommunications services under the same roof as the regulator of telephone services by amalgamating ComReg and Regtel. I, like Deputy Coveney, wish the same thinking had led the Minister to the amalgamation of ComReg and the broadcasting authority but that is a matter for another day. It is worth noting the good work done by Regtel over the years. Self-regulation always has risks but it should be said that Regtel has played a significant role in protecting customers and delivering best practice. It is important that this change upon which we are embarking is for the better and builds on the experience garnered by Regtel since its inception in 2001. ComReg will be in a better position to regulate the industry. It is bigger, better funded and has stronger links with other market players but it is vital that the Minister does not inadvertently or other- wise fall into the trap of weakening the existing powers of regulation. 307 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage [Deputy Liz McManus.] The Bill deals with two parties, the regulator and the licence holder, and defines clearly the relationship between the two in terms of licensing arrangements, penalties when offences are committed, resourcing and powers and accountability responsibilities similar to those that apply to telecoms and postal services. There is, however, a third party who is central to this debate and should be central to this legislation — the consumer. The Bill is largely enabling the amalgamation of two bodies but it has a serious flaw, one big hole below the waterline that needs attention: the problem of consumer refunds, which are not mentioned in this legislation. According to the Bill, ComReg "shall notify the provider of the findings and require the provider to remedy any non-compliance or breach". The power to order refunds, however, should be expressly set out in the Bill. In addition, the Bill should empower ComReg to set out in regulations the mechanism for refunds which would not require the wronged consumers to incur time or expense pursuing claims for compensation. Under the present regime, a code of practice signed up to by service providers, RegTel may order refunds to be made to consumers where necessary. The sums can be high. The last RegTel annual report for 2007-8 lists refunds of approximately \200,000. One case accounted for 85% of the total refunded. Following RegTel's intervention a service was suspended without having resort to any formal procedures. A total of 27,000 consumers were removed from the database with the service provider agreeing to make a voluntary refund of \179,000 to the people affected. This is a significant amount which is greatly appreciated by the customers in question. In the Bill, however, under the proposed new regime there is instead a penalty for overcharging — a fine of up to \5,000 euro in a District Court, with higher penalties in higher courts. It should be pointed out that overcharging is not the major problem experienced by the public and it makes little sense to single it out for legislative sanction alone. The major problems relate to subscription services and how to get out of them, misleading promotions and failure to warn people when they have exceeded price thresholds. Last year 6,000 complaints were made to RegTel about subscription services and premium rate services. While the majority of service providers comply fully with the current code of practice there is no doubt that many people including children have been ripped off by a small handful of profiteering shysters. According to the current regulator, up to 95% of companies pose no problem and behave within the law. It is worth noting that under the RegTel regime, Ireland has been free of the television voting scams that have damaged the reputations of BBC, ITV and Channel 4. The rogues exist, however, and it is vital that customers benefit from this new law. Like other TDs I have received complaints from constituents about the problems they experience. The costs run up by phone customers in many cases were exorbitant. There are many examples where customers were unfairly charged and were then faced with a battle to obtain refunds. For example, one phone customer outlined how he topped up his mobile by \20. Twenty minutes later, although he had made no phone calls he was down to \12 and then \2. His \20 credit was gone within half hour. After making inquiries, he went to ComReg and found that a premium service provider had debited his account. He is convinced he did not send this company anything to authorize them to do this. Another person had up to \80 taken from his account. Initially this person went to RegTel, ComReg and the Small Claims Court to no avail. RegTel did eventually manage to get on to the company to get the company to write to him. A constituent contacted me with the following experience: 308 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage Yesterday my husband and my son were scammed out of money in the same day. Both were mobile phone scams. The first one was when I logged on to the Irish jobs website and followed a link which called for candidates for castings in the TV show "The Tudors". I put my son's phone number in and then he received 4 texts within a two second period and had lost \20 call credit. I told him to text back stop immediately. I was so annoyed as I had topped up his phone as he is doing the leaving cert and needed his credit. At the very bottom of the web page it said \5 per text but nothing about receiving 4 texts for \20. I contacted the company who said they would refund him, I am very dubious about receiving any money back. My husband John topped up his phone by \25 yesterday and received a text immediately for something he did not sign up to. He was charged \2.50. When he disputed this with 02 they said he must have signed up to something. He emphatically denies this. They charged him another \2.50 for the stop text he sent. I also contacted the government agency dealing with this. They did take the details but said we would have to chase any refunds from this companies themselves. By the way they all charge a premium rate while on the phone to them trying to obtain refunds from them. As my husband did not sign up for anything someone else must have entered his number either by accident getting a digit in their own phone number incorrect, or someone being just malicious. What is to stop anyone logging on to these sites and entering phone numbers of people they have a vendetta against? Irish Psychics Live is one of the premium rate services run by Realm Communications which has been under the watchful eye of RegTel. In June this year it was reported in the Sunday Tribune that Realm Communications made a pre-tax profit of nearly \1.75million for the year ended 30 April 2008, down from \2.25 million a year previously. This has been put down to the successful "Stop" campaign run by RegTel. The profits in this business are considerable even with an existing code of practice. Retained profits at Realm Communications stand at just under \8.5 million. Realm's directors' pay and other emoluments rose to more than \300,000, up from \135,000 the previous year. A caller to "Liveline" outlined how he received a bill of \1,108 for one night from Irish Psychics Live. This person had mental health issues but RegTel's code of practice that a call must be terminated by forced release when a charge of \60 is reached was clearly not followed in this case. No prosecution followed. RegTel has managed to tackle some of the rogue companies to some effect. Among the measures which were somewhat effective was a code of practice which put a limit of \60 cost per call, with a warning given to the customer after having spent \30. A requirement that operators of psychic, tarot and horoscope services must clearly state that they are for entertain- ment purposes was also welcome. The public campaign educating phone users about how to deal with unwanted texts from service providers was well advertised and effective. This cam- paign empowers customers to opt out of receiving unwanted texts by simply replying with the word "Stop". It is clear that we are in a new era of communications. Technology is moving fast and it is difficult for any regulator to keep up to date with companies intent on making profit on the backs of cheating vulnerable people. I would suggest that section 5 be amended to take into account the changing market. ComReg is required in the Bill to list every class or type of PRS that must be licensed. It would be better to have the presumption that services must be licensed and to give ComReg the power to exempt certain classes. This is a safer option and allows for future innovations to be regulated. 309 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage [Deputy Liz McManus.] The present regulatory system is not perfect but it does allow the current regulator to tell the networks to freeze payments to a service provider for a service in dispute. This is a very useful sanction so why does it not appear in the Bill? Instead, errant service providers can be fined, which is well and dandy, but no consolation to the unfortunate consumer who ran up a huge bill because a service provider "forgot" to send the price warnings it was supposed to. As we all know court proceedings can be slow while a freeze of payments hurts straight away. To be fair, the Bill sets out a sound legislative basis for the prior licensing of premium rate telecoms services that are necessary and welcome. I applaud the Minister and his Department officials for that, but it is noteworthy that it only deals with two parties, namely, ComReg and the service providers who become licence holders. The consumer is invisible; a powerless bystander in a legislative transaction between the regulator and the regulated. If it were a road traffic measure it would be punishing the bad driver, but offering nothing to the victims who suffer injury. I was a little concerned when the Minister of State said that he would not be proposing any substantial amendments. I hope that the Minister of State will have an open attitude to the amendments that I will be tabling to this Bill when the time comes. It is a good Bill, but with co-operation, it could be great Bill. For example, section 7 should be expanded to mention refunds explicitly. It needs to be expanded to empower ComReg to deal with minor breaches, which represent the every- day currency of regulation. ComReg needs backing in this Bill to get the people's money back without running down to the courts every time. That power must be incorporated in the Bill if it is not to be challenged in the courts. Children are vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous operators. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has expressed his concern about this issue. He said: "Children especially are inadvertently running up large bills on their mobile phones. Essentially, they are subject to a scam." If the Minister wants to be taken seriously he has an opportunity to add a provision in the Bill that when mobile phones are sold, the name and age of the intended user be registered. In that way, much of the problem of under age access to inappropriate premium rate services can be resolved. No doubt he will encounter opposition from business, but it would be a good safeguard. In the meantime, parents need to register their children's mobile phone with the phone company, making sure the child's age is given. There is a small matter which may not be significant but is worth mentioning. Section 6 allows for an application to be made to the High Court to suspend a licence. Section 8 allows ComReg to suspend a service. I question whether these provisions should not be in reverse order, so that the first step is for ComReg to stop the service. If that does not work, it asks the High Court to do the job. I suggest that section 8 should come before section 6 and then be followed by section 10, which contains the penalties where an earlier effort fails. The order may not matter, but in the interests of clarity it might be helpful to make the reversal. I propose that ComReg be empowered under section 6 to suspend temporarily any licence either in full or any particular services provided under a licence, until such time as an investigation can be completed. This provides for swift action while an investigation proceeds. RegTel currently has that power. The Bill requires ComReg to apply to the High Court in an emergency, something that is unnecessarily burdensome. There is also a need to create a criminal sanction for breaching licence conditions as a deterrent to curb harmful practices. Various PRS providers have been prosecuted by the Data Protection Commissioner in the District Court and ComReg should be afforded similar powers. Again, the consumer is protected where the regulator has such powers. 310 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage There is a curious mention in the explanatory notes attached to the Bill on a number of amendments to the Communications Regulation Act 2002, relating to the carrying out of works on public roads to facilitate the laying of fibre optic cables. Nobody would object to the purpose involved. However, I have been in this House for many years, and I cannot ever recall sections of a Bill which relate to another Act being flagged on Second Stage as an intended bolt-on, without us having sight of those sections. It is a kind of virtual legislating which flies in the face of everything we do here. Second Stage is where these sections should be debated, not Commit- tee Stage. It is not acceptable that we are to take on trust what should be a matter of public scrutiny and information. I want to express my opposition to what is shoddy work by the Minister. If these sections are not now in the Bill, then they should form part of a separate Bill. Second Stage is part and parcel of the legislative process, but this element is being intro- duced on Committee Stage and we cannot see it. That is a completely different situation from where amendments arise during the period between Second Stage and Committee Stage. I am uncomfortable with the issue, to put it mildly. I hope that the Minister is open to amendments and at least takes on board the outline of the amendments I proposed. There is always a danger when the Opposition brings forward amendments and the Minister has all the power he wishes to slap them down. It would be in the interests of the Minister and in the regulation of premium rate services that we get this right. That means putting the consumer centre stage in this Bill, because it is ultimately all about the consumer, rather than RegTel, ComReg or people making money in an industry. This means we have to deal with issues such as refunds for consumers, and making sure the licensing regime still works in a very moving market where innovations come up all the time. ComReg may not be in a position to deal with such innovations if there is not an automatic presumption that a service must be licensed. None of us can keep up fully with what is going on in the telecommunications world because it is moving so rapidly. There also needs to be a regime for breaches in licences. I am talking about practical amendments here. I am not talking about changing the spirit of the Bill, simply about improving it. If the Minister consults with his officials, I would be sur- prised if his advice is not to take on these particular points. They are to do with tweaking rather than altering the nature of the Bill. Considering the bank of knowledge that has been built up by the experience of RegTel, we will be doing a disservice if we do not use it to best effect. That means amending this Bill in small but very significant ways. Deputy M. J. Nolan: I welcome this Bill. Anybody in public life will have come across examples of scams on children who use mobile phones. We must remember that mobile phones are a way of life in this country. We should distinguish between the minority of premium rate companies that are abusing the situation and the service providers that are largely 2 o'clock well run, well organised commercial operations. The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has been examining this particular area for some time. We visited a number of the service providers and they run a very upfront, professional operation. It is unfortunate that the issues highlighted by the public get all the publicity and that we fail to see the good work being done by commercial mobile phone operators. It is timely that this Bill is brought before us for the prior licensing of premium rate sub- scribers. It is frustrating to hear the problems experienced by individuals. Most families could highlight occasions when this form of extraction of money has been used against them or their extended families. A number of families have contacted me in the past two or three months to report blatant abuse by such premium rate services. We must try to achieve a situation where rates are more transparent so that when people are invited to enter a competition or to answer 311 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage [Deputy M. J. Nolan.] a question they are aware that by doing so they are signing up to a premium rate service. During the summer I saw an advertisement on television for one of these services, but I had to get very close to the television to see the small print which gave the cost of the service. That is not the way to do business. I commend RegTel and ComReg on the work they are doing in this area. However, more must be done, although many people have yet to be convinced of that. The 6,000 complaints made to RegTel last year are evidence there is work to be done. There is a comprehensive provision in the legislation before us with regard to the licensing of premium rate services. This is welcome because in informal talks we have had with people in the industry we have been told their experience is that many of the operators are based overseas. These operators set up a shelf company here and work through that. When they have extracted a significant amount of money from Irish mobile phone users and RegTel or ComReg eventually catch up on them, they close down, liquidate in some cases, and leave. However, by then they have already amassed significant revenue from unsuspecting Irish customers. I welcome the provision in the Bill that provides that the names of the directors of companies and their contact numbers must be submitted in order to secure a licence. I understand that currently many directors just establish another company. They change the name of the com- pany, but it is the same individuals behind them. Having changed the name, they start up again and work for five, six or seven months before they are caught. It is important this provision is enforced. It is also important that conditions can be attached to licences, particularly where experience has shown some such companies have a track record of sailing close to the wind or have used shoddy practices in the past. Section 8 allows the commission to revoke, amend or suspend a licence, but must notify the holder of the licence or proposer and afford them an opportunity to make representations within seven days of the commission's proposal. I note too that the commission can revoke, amend or suspend a licence within a short time. Where there is clear evidence of an abuse, it is important the commission, having investigated the matter, acts quickly. Previous speakers have highlighted cases of abuse, the majority of which came to light through the use of prepaid mobile phones. In some of the cases I have come across of people with a bill pay phone, abuse has continued for a number of weeks and it is only when sub- scribers have received their bills that the abuse has come to light. At that stage a huge amount of expense has been incurred by the subscriber as a result of being unaware of the extent of the abuse involved through their phone usage or responses to questions sent to their phones. The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has examined the question of cyber bullying. A number of companies have been proactive in trying to deal with this problem and over the next few months we will see even further advances with regard to the protection of children, young children in particular. We are concerned about cyber bullying and any legislation we introduce should include an open-ended section which, by ministerial order or regulation, will allow the Minister or regulatory authority to change or amend the regulations. Technology changes at such a fast rate that if we had to wait and depend on legislation to be passed, we would encounter significant difficulties before such matters could be resolved. While self-regulation has worked by and large, the Minister and ComReg can make a serious input with regard to abuse by premium rate services. The majority of premium rate services are straightforward, upfront and positive and it is only in a minority of cases there is abuse through the premium rate text service. It is that area with which we are trying to deal in the 312 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage Bill. We must regulate and sort out the problem of deliberately misleading information being put out in the form of an introduction or which sucks young people into a premium rate service. Self-regulation is not working in this area and regulatory authorities, not just here but overseas where the same problem exists, must introduce legislation to overcome the problem. I welcome the legislation and hope it has a speedy passage through the House. I hope that amendments which will enhance, improve and strengthen the Bill will be taken on board by the Minister. Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Conor Lenihan): I thank all Members who contributed to this debate. Their contri- butions were extremely positive. I take this opportunity to reassure them with regard to some aspects of their contributions. Deputy Coveney focused on the increasing revenue stream com- panies derive from premium rate services, a valuable benefit to those companies. However, it is important, as Deputy McManus said, that the consumer is not lost in the rush to embrace these services. Deputy Coveney is correct in saying we will see an increase in the revenue stream from these sources in the future. It is a long time since I worked in the mobile phone industry — I am a long-term inmate of this place at this stage — and I find it extraordinary to see the extent to which the level of texting and services offered via text and mobile phone or fixed line telephones have opened up. This will continue the more fibre we lay and the more the technology improves in terms of the telephone instrument and its software. We will see an increasing diversity of development in this area and we need to put the consumer in a position whereby he or she is not second placed to the industry and its voracious appetite to develop further chargeable services. Deputy McManus's assertion that the balance needs to be right in any regulation we introduce here is important, so that ComReg, the new Regulator of this area of activity, can impose sanctions and guide behaviour or misbehaviour as it occurs within the industry. I was pleased to hear most Deputies preface their remarks about the difficulties encountered to date with Regtel, with the very strong caveat that, broadly speaking, it has been an effective self-regulatory experience. However, some people have been able to evade that regulation because, in effect, they are rogue operators not succumbing to industry norms or the best practices demanded by the industry. That is why we are putting it on a proper footing. We have yet to receive permission from the Minister for Finance for it, but one of the key aspects to this is the transfer of the staff from Regtel to ComReg so that the people conducting the regulation in the State-sponsored new regulatory body will be working from a position of strong knowledge and experience developed at Regtel. That is a valuable reassurance to Deputy McManus in particular—— Deputy Liz McManus: I would be more reassured if the Minister of State had the permission. Deputy Conor Lenihan: ——who had concerns about the transfer or change from Regtel to ComReg, namely, that similar powers, sanctions and scope of action should be available to the industry and consumers of its many different offers. She may take some reassurance from that. I cannot tell the future as to whether I shall be supervising the Committee Stage of the legis- lation, but I should like to reassure Deputy McManus that the Minister, Deputy Ryan, will be open to sensible proposals that strengthen the Bill in an appropriate manner. He does not, and neither do I, envisage substantial amendment to the Bill, but we should all welcome the robust strengthening of the legislation. That needs to be teased out in greater detail. We need to note also that the "stop" campaign has been successful. I believe Deputy Coveney raised this issue. 313 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Second Stage [Deputy Conor Lenihan.] This was an awareness campaign launched on television and radio by Regtel in autumn 2007 to help people to unsubscribe from these services. There were 20,000 calls as a result and the campaign was repeated in spring 2008 at a cost of \270,000. The industry, therefore, has made a substantial commitment towards encouraging people to learn more and to find out how they can unsubscribe. I would be interested in the details. I do not know whether Deputy McManus wishes to share her husband's poor experience on—— Deputy Liz McManus: It was not my husband, but a constituent. I keep well away from people who provide services. Deputy Conor Lenihan: I am sorry, I thought the Deputy was referring to her husband. Whatever the case, we should welcome the details if that is agreeable to the constituent, because it is these examples or practical experiences that help us to understand what is hap- pening. It is very disturbing and the industry needs to take warning from us and the Govern- ment generally, if there is a suspicion that people are scamming or "skimming" as in former years in the banking industry where small percentile amounts were deducted across a large swathe of customers, amounting to a great deal of money. This is practised in casinos, I under- stand, as well. If this type of practice develops where software is being used to scam or skim people of their money, however inadvertently — there is no "stop" button to stop that type of elaborate programming — much more robust powers will need to be given to ComReg. Any incident that involves someone being deducted, having not subscribed to a service, is a very serious matter, and it behoves us as public representatives to bring such matters forcefully to the attention of ComReg. At one level the regulators are removed from us, but it is important that we, too, put them under pressure when we learn of individual cases of this type. Deputy Nolan made the point that we must distinguish between the scam merchants and the reputable operators. This industry, largely speaking, is reputable. We must now ensure those who are not are chased out of the industry and we can enjoy some of the benefits that derive from it, as we do already, whether it is for weather forecasts, or people using maritime resources at the weekend to get relevant timely information. All of these services are valuable and of some societal benefit, I suspect, even where they are premium charged. We need to see their development. I am conscious of the fact that I am standing in for the Minister, Deputy Ryan, but I am also the Minister of State with responsibility for science, technology and innovation. We can achieve great societal benefits as well as economic gains from using these technologies appropriately. The issue of cyber bullying is complicated and clearly comes under the aegis of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern. However, the industry has been promoting campaigns in this area, and making technology available that makes it easier for parents to stop, block or prevent this type of activity. It is very difficult and challenging behaviour. It was with a certain foreboding that I allowed my young children to have mobile phones as presents recently. I am reassured to some extent, because it seems that children use mobile phones more for the games than the telephone calls, which surprised me. Again, there is an issue here as regards the advertising of games that may be downloaded. It is important that only appropriate games can be downloaded and we really are dependent on ComReg to ensure young children are not exposed to games that are inappropriate, whether relating to violence or other unsavoury aspects. 314 Communications Regulation (Premium Rate 8 October 2009. Services) Bill 2009: Referral to Select Committee Deputy Simon Coveney: The problem is that there is no mechanism to do that. We need a code of conduct for that area and only ComReg can do that. Deputy Brian Lenihan: That is correct, and I shall be looking to ComReg to do that because this is a very dangerous area, where children can be exposed to extremely violent games at a young age and assume this is some type of normal behavioural pattern. It is an area of enor- mous challenge for ComReg. I was genuinely surprised at my children. I assumed I was facing into a series of very expensive pay-as-you-go top-up bills, but the main reason mobiles are being used in my children's case — and in the case of many others, I believe — is to swap and exchange games of one type or another through the bluetooth connection and to download them. As technology emerges in the future, that will be a major area of concern for parents and children and ComReg would be well advised to focus on it. We hope that whatever Com- Reg and the industry do in their consultations together will address this issue to avoid problems down the line. I thank the Deputies and reassure them that we shall be open to accepting amendments on Committee Stage. I do not want to relegate them as being insubstantial, although I believe that inference may be taken from the script where I said we were not envisaging substantial amendments. However, if through the ingenuity and interest of the Deputies opposite, and in recognition of the hard work of the committee already in this area, there are significant issues they believe can and should be addressed by this Bill, then we shall do so. As regards the technical point raised by Deputy McManus, the reason for the delay is that the draft amend- ment is still with the Attorney General and that is why she has not had sight of it. However, we shall bring that to her attention. Again, if there are specific detailed issues which Deputies want clarified before we get to Committee Stage, they should feel free to contact us and we will try to clear up any details. Deputy Liz McManus: Does that mean we will be sent a copy of the sections that are with the Attorney General? Deputy Conor Lenihan: Yes. We can easily facilitate the Deputy in that regard. I will ask the officials present to make contact with the Deputy with a view to ensuring she is fully au fait with the Bill before Committee Stage. Question put and agreed to. Communications Regulation {Premium Rate Services) Bill 2009: Referral to Select Committee. Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Conor Lenihan): I move: That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, in accordance with Standing Order 122(1) and paragraph 1(a)(i) of the Orders of Reference of that committee. Question put and agreed to. Sitting suspended at 2.20 p.m. and resumed at 3.30 p.m. 315 Priority 8 October 2009. Questions Ceisteanna — Questions. Priority Questions. ———— Naval Service Vessels. 1. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence the age of each ship in the Naval Service; the schedule for replacement of each ship; the costs involved in the replacement; if safety or other concerns have been raised as to the suitability of each ship for continued usage by the Naval Service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34970/09] Minister for Defence (Deputy Willie O'Dea): The following are the ages of the eight ships in the current flotilla: LE Emer, 31 years; LE Aoife, 30 years; LE Aisling, 29 years; LE Eithne, 25 years; LE Ciara, 25 years; LE Orla, 24 years; LE Roisın, ten years; and LE Niamh, eight ´ ´ years. Naval vessels have a minimal lifespan of approximately 30 years. Accordingly, three ships are due for replacement now and over the next few years — LE Emer, commissioned in 1978, LE Aoife, commissioned in 1979 and LE Aisling, commissioned in 1980. Following a detailed examination of the needs of the Naval Service within my Department, a vessel replacement strategy for the Naval Service was put in place. The strategy combined with a continuous process of refurbishment will ensure that the operational capability of the Naval Service is maintained at a satisfactory level. Following Government approval in July 2007, a tender competition for the purchase of replacement vessels for the Naval Service commenced. The competition provides for the poten- tial purchase of up to five replacement vessels — two offshore patrol vessels, OPVs, with an option of a third and one extended patrol vessel, EPV, with an option on a second. The options that I mentioned provide an effective value for money opportunity, at locked in prices, to provide replacements for Naval Service vessels which will reach the end of their service life in the years immediately following the current three vessel replacement programme. In so far as the OPVs are concerned, the tender competition has progressed to the stage where we now have a preferred bidder in place and contract negotiations are all but concluded. However, no contract has yet been signed as this requires Government approval on funding. This will be considered in the context of the Estimates and budgetary process for 2010 which will include consideration of the McCarthy report. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage pending the outcome of these deliberative processes nor would it be appropriate to divulge the proposed cost of the replacement OPVs as this information is commercially sensitive and the procurement process has not yet been completed. On the larger EPVs, my Department intends to complete the contract negotiations for the OPVs before the second stage of the EPV competition is initiated. As with the OPVs, any decision to award a contract for the purchase of an EPV must be approved by the Government. With regard to safety, there is a programme of continuous planned and preventative mainten- ance to ensure that all Naval Service vessels are kept in a seaworthy condition and the Naval Service will send ships to sea only in such a condition. As Minister for Defence, the health and safety of all Defence Forces personnel and compliance with the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007 are of utmost importance to me. The acquisition of modern new vessels will ensure that the service will be fully equipped to carry out its day-to-day roles in enforcing the State's sovereign rights over our waters and our 316 Priority 8 October 2009. Questions fisheries and meeting Ireland's obligations in the area of maritime safety and security and fisheries protection. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Will the Minister confirm whether an article that appeared on a national newspaper on 11 September last, stating that he was seeking \104 million for two new patrol vessels and a sail training vessel, is correct? Did he approach the Government for this funding at that time? Is he aware that during the summer when the three ships in question, LE Emer, LE Aoife and LE Aisling, were in dry dock for cleaning purposes faults and structural cracks were dis- covered on the hull of the ships? This must be serious. Is the Minister concerned about this? I understand that as ships get older, the noise level emanating from them increases. The reports I receive state that there is excessive noise on these ships. Is the Minister making provision to measure this noise in case it might cause damage to those on board? I am sure the Minister would agree that the Naval Service is now playing a more important and vital role, especially in the interception of drugs coming into this country, and for that reason alone he should make a case to Government for the immediate replacement of these three vessels. Deputy Willie O'Dea: On Deputy Deenihan's first question, I recall that interview which took place at Haulbowline naval base. A number of members of the media to whom I spoke on that occasion asked what was the position on the ship replacement programme and I told them I was seeking funding from the Government to replace, over a period of time, three ships that are nearing the end of their useful lifespans. There was speculation about the amount of money that would be involved. A figure of \104 million was mentioned. I would hope we would be able to do it for less. We are discussing specific figures with the preferred tender, but until such time as I get approval from the Government I do not want to say any more on that. The House can be assured that I am making strenuous efforts in the course of the budgetary dis- cussions we are having at present to get money for ship replacement. I am aware that, further to the LE Emer being power washed recently, a hole of approxi- mately 4cm in diameter was found in the hull. Following an ultrasound operation put in place to test the hull generally, two other areas gave rise to concern. As a result, the steel from the hull has gone to a laboratory and tests are being conducted. Of course, repairs were carried out where they were necessary. It required a further dry-docking of the ship for an extra three weeks, and an extra \100,000. It was a fairly expensive job. That is what happens when ships get older and that is why we must replace them after a certain period of time. On the noise issue raised by Deputy Deenihan, I am aware that noise is a problem in the three oldest ships. It is not a problem in the newer ships and it certainly will not be a problem in any replacements. We have conducted surveys on the three oldest ships. We have spent money on the LE Emer, which is the oldest ship. The jury is still out, to a certain extent, following tests on whether it has necessarily done a great deal of good and we are now faced with perhaps incurring considerable expenditure to alleviate the situation on the LE Emer. We are examining that closely at present. Those are the problems one encounters as ships get older. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Will the Minister confirm that the LE Emer is seaworthy and that he is merely concerned about its general health and safety? According to the press report, the Minister mentioned that he was seeking permission from the Government to spend the \3.8 million derived from the insurance on Asgard II following its sinking. Is he making provision at this stage for a replacement sailing vessel for Asgard II? An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is an extension of the question. 317 Priority 8 October 2009. Questions Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: It is not. Deputy Willie O'Dea: On the Deputy's first question, I am obviously concerned with health and safety and I am assured by the Naval Service that it has done the appropriate repairs to the LE Emer. I am further assured by the Naval Service that it will not send a ship to sea unless it is satisfied beyond any shadow of doubt that the ship is seaworthy and safe. However, as I stated, problems are developing in the older ships because everything has a lifespan. A ship's lifespan is approximately 31 to 33 years. The McCarthy report seemed to suggest it could be longer in certain cases but I do not necessarily agree with that. There is a specific question later on the other matter Deputy Deenihan raised. However, the insurance money has been paid. It is in a suspense account in my Department, which means, in layman's language, that I cannot touch it without permission from the Department of Finance. I have sought that permission and I am still awaiting a response. Defence Forces Review. 2. Deputy Brian O'Shea asked the Minister for Defence the progress he has made on the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Strategic Review of the Defence Forces Medical Service. [34969/09] 5. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence the progressmade in imple- menting the recommendations of the PA Consultants Report on the Medical Services; if the representative associations have been consulted on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35068/09] Deputy Willie O'Dea: I propose to take Priority Questions Nos. 2 and 5 together. The PA report is an important milestone in addressing the challenges to the provision of medical services in the Defence Forces. Implementation will take time and commitment. This is being achieved in consultation with the representative associations. On receipt of the report in June this year, I asked that implementation of the recommendations proceed immediately. The PA report reviewed the medical services required for the Defence Forces in light of their roles and operations, assessed the current arrangements for the provision of medical services and proposed a model for future delivery of medical services. As the House will be aware, the consultants have recommended a programme of major change. The high level recommendations include a centralised command structure for the medi- cal corps and the creation of a medical services management and administrative function which structure will provide strategic planning, resource allocation and overall responsibility for the management and delivery of the medical service. It also proposes the development of medical officer lead care teams, together with a refocusing of medical staff on appropriate clinical tasks. The report also recommends steps leading to a reduction in the number of doctor interventions and medical assessments and better management of health services outsourcing. The report reaffirms the need for a dedicated medical corps and addresses the challenges facing the Defence Forces in the recruitment and retention of medical officers. The structure and systems recommended have been designed to meet the demands and needs of the modern Defence Forces both at home and abroad and provide medical officers with a fulfilling and rewarding career. The governance structure proposed in the report for the delivery of change in this area has been put in place. It consists of a high-level steering group composed of senior military and civilian personnel. The role of the steering group is to provide planning guidance, to clarify the approach to recommendations where required and to ensure the project is implemented effectively. 318 Priority 8 October 2009. Questions A dedicated programme group with civilian and military representatives is now co-ordinating a range of projects. It is making progress on a number of the PA recommendations, including the structure of the medical corps, the alignment of Defence Forces and medical corps strategies and the development of medical information systems. Preparatory work has also commenced on the recommendations on training and education, clinical issues and the centralised com- mand structure. Valuable consultation has occurred with the representative associations in the preparation of this report. The consultants had a number of meetings with the representative associations and received submissions from them. In addition, the consultants conducted a workshop with the main stakeholders, including the representative associations, to update them on progress and to validate views on a number of issues. Progress on the ongoing preparation of the implementation programme is being reported to the associations through the partnership medical sub-group and through the normal conciliation and arbitration, C&A, process. The associations will be also formally consulted on the imple- mentation programme when it has been approved by the steering group. Any issues within the scope of representation can be then addressed through the C&A scheme. Deputy Brian O'Shea: I am not convinced there is any great urgency in what the Minister has outlined to us. He is talking about structures, but we need results. The Minister must agree that the report was quite an indictment of the present system. For example, the Defence Forces are high users of primary health care compared with the civilian population and other armed forces, and the current requirement for medical assessment is not met, with a shortfall of approximately 60%. What I find worrying is the statement in the report that, "The Medical Corps does not take a systematic, information-based approach to planning and management of services". Does the Minister have a timeframe for bringing about this large cultural and struc- tural change in the services? What is there is obviously adequate, although we have not alluded to the fact that there is a major problem with recruitment. Has there been any improvement in recruitment since the Minister set about implementing the recommendations in the report? All in all, the report describes a shambles. This needs to be put to rights quickly. Deputy Willie O'Dea: Naturally, I do not accept the Deputy's contention that there is no urgency. I have informed the Department and the Defence Forces that I want progress in this area as a matter of urgency. As the Deputy recognises, it involves a revolutionary change in the provision of medical services within the Army. It is a sea change; we are turning the whole system, which is no longer adequate, on its head. This will take time and we need to bring people with us, which is one of our major problems. We must sit down and talk to people, whether they are from the representative associations, the general Army staff, or the medical corps. One of the recommendations of the group was that we set up an implementation strategy, which we have done in the form of the steering group and the progress group. The latter has done quite a lot of preliminary work and hopes to report back to the steering group within the next two or three weeks. As I see this evolving, there are a number of specific tasks that need to be done — what they call in departmental jargon "work packages". I am hoping most of those will be done within the next 12 months. Some can be done immediately, while others will require longer consultation. Once those specific tasks have been done and practical matters attended to, the rest will fall into place. I am considering a timeframe of 12 to 18 months for implementation, which is short in view of the depth and width of the report. The Deputy asked about difficulties with recruitment. I accept what he said about the report's conclusions about the current system, but let me remind the House that under the present system, when it is unable to provide the service for which it has been designed, we 319 Priority 8 October 2009. Questions [Deputy Willie O'Dea.] outsource the rest of the work. People are not left without medical attention, whether at home or abroad. That is an important point. If we can put in place the new system as recommended by the consultants, there should be no problem with recruitment because we will not need to recruit many more. We will be able to reduce the establishment of the medical corps, which is at present 47, although there are only 24 working there. In addition, it will be a more rewarding and challenging career — one in which medics are practising medicine rather than spending all their time on administration. They will also get recognition for the work they have done in the medical service of the Defence Forces. However, we are just starting to implement the report, so it would be unrealistic to expect a flood of recruits. I have no doubt that when the report is fully implemented it will be much easier to recruit. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: I am inclined to agree with Deputy O'Shea about the urgency in implementing the recommendations. In the summary of the major work packages required for the delivery of the future medical services, most of the proposals seem to be scheduled as immediate or short term. Looking at the page, one can see these words all the way down. That no recommendation has yet been implemented from a report that took a number of years to produce and was published last June means it cannot be a matter of urgency. This is not the message that is given out. The general feeling among the representative bodies is that the Minister should get on with it so they can know what hand he is playing in this. They feel the recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible because they have been waiting around for so long. I want to ask the Minister about a particular aspect of the report, although he may not be able to answer it here. The report, as he knows, successfully identified many of the obstacles that deter non-consultant hospital doctors from entering careers in the Defence Forces. One of the main issues is that time served in the medical corps is not recognised by professional training bodies. Since the report was published, has the Minister consulted with the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and the Irish College of General Practitioners to secure the necessary recognition for doctors who have served time in the medical corps? This is a critical issue. If the Minister could ensure such recognition, I am assured more doctors would join the Defence Forces. Deputy Willie O'Dea: Deputy Deenihan is right in that the timescales for many of the recom- mendations in the report are short term or urgent. That is true for the most part, but there are also recommendations that will require some time to implement. As I said, I am aiming for a timescale of 12 to 18 months, which is short in view of the revolutionary nature of the report. We are talking about moving from a situation in which each officer commanding in a particular area is in charge — he or she decides what medical services are delivered and what the doctors do within his or her brigade — and towards a centralised command structure based in Dublin, the Curragh or wherever. That is a sea change. In addition, qualified doctors who are currently engaged in considerable amounts of administrative work will no longer be doing so but instead will be providing medical services. The number of unnecessary assessments, which, in my view, are a waste of a qualified doctor's time, will be reduced, thus ensuring more efficiency. In addition, we must ensure recognition for people so it will be worth their while, career-wise, to enter the Army. Deputy Deenihan asked if I had consulted with the Royal College of Physicians and so on. I have not done so because I personally am not implementing the report. It is a matter for the Defence Forces to implement it and report to me. Naturally, my Department will maintain 320 Priority 8 October 2009. Questions oversight in the matter. The Department, in its discussions with the Defence Forces, has pointed out that the portrayal of the Army as a rewarding career is central in terms of attracting people. If work in this regard has not already commenced, it is about to do so. Initial contacts may already have been made. I will communicate with the Deputy on the matter. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I call Deputy O'Shea on a brief supplementary question. Deputy Brian O'Shea: What I found most alarming in the report is the finding that medical corps activity is not aligned to the strategic requirements of the Defence Forces, which is a major indictment of what is happening. It underlines the urgency of the matter. The whole system is seriously out of sync. I am aware the Defence Forces is responsible for implementing the recommendations. However, I put it to the Minister that he must adopt a hands-on approach and ensure that, on a week to week basis, progress is being made. The Minister stated that procedures in terms of sickness absence in the Permanent Defence Force is a driver of primary care demand as most sick leave requires certification by a doctor. As I stated earlier, there is a shortfall of 60% in this regard. The expert panel found that PDF policy emphasis on medical assessments is excessive and inconsistent with international defence health practice. The system, as described, is a shambles. Will the Minister assure us that he will adopt a hands-on approach and drive this? An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: A final supplementary question from Deputy Deenihan. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: I suggest the Minister invite the steering committee to address the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights on this issue. The oppor- tunity presents for the setting up of a general practitioners training course within the medical corps. This would ensure that people who join could pursue, as part of their training, a general practitioners training course which would be of assistance to them in the community. This might encourage a number of people to join. The last figure we received in respect of medical practitioners in the Defence Forces is 23. How many have we now and how many of them are non-national? Also, how many nurses are there in the Army? Deputy Willie O'Dea: Deputy O'Shea expressed the urgency of this matter, of which I am aware. My Department is represented on the steering and progress groups. I will keep in touch with staff of both groups. The Army medical service, developed in the 1930s and 1940s and perhaps suitable for the prevailing situation then, has not kept pace with change. I agree there is non-alignment between the strategy of the medical corps and that of the Defence Forces. We must, therefore, bring them into line. The current service is demand driven and we need a strategy driven medical service. That is the reality of the situation. It is what we must achieve. The Deputy can rest assured I will keep in close touch with the steering group in this regard. On Deputy Deenihan's suggestion in regard to a GP training course and inviting the steering group to address the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, I will discuss both issues with my officials. The current number of doctors is 24, one third of whom are non-national. I will check the figure for the number of nurses and communicate the information to the Deputy. Ministerial Transport. 3. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence the cost in the years 2002 to date in 2009 of the ministerial air transport service; the average cost of usage per Minister as charged; the full economic cost of the usage had it been charged; the average distance travelled 321 Priority 8 October 2009. Questions [Deputy Jimmy Deenihan.] by journey per Minister; the procedure by which usage is authorised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34971/09] Deputy Willie O'Dea: The ministerial air transport service, MATS, provides the Government and the President with an independent, flexible and effective air transport service to assist in meeting national and international obligations. The service is more flexible than commercial air travel in that it is not bound to set routes, timetables or schedules. This flexibility can be very important in a wide variety of situations. For example, where EU meetings end up taking longer than originally expected, it is vital that departure times can be altered as required at short notice. This helps Ministers to fulfil to the greatest extent possible all of their duties at home and abroad. The service also has the distinct advantage of being able to operate from military air bases with all the flexibility that this brings, namely,. Government jets can fly closer to many intended destinations using military, rather than civil airports, and this can lead to substantial savings in travel time. The service offers a degree of privacy for the conduct of official business during flights which is not available on commercial flights and allows Ministers to carry out their duties with the maximum of efficiency. The availability of the service for special tasks in times of crisis ensures independence of movement on critical occasions. The ministerial air transport service is primarily provided by the Gulfstream IV and Learjet 45 aircraft, which were specifically acquired for that purpose. The Gulfstream IV was acquired in December 1991 and the Learjet entered service in January 2004 as a replacement for the Beechcraft Super King Air. The Beechcraft continued in use until January 2009 as a back-up aircraft for the MATS, in addition to its primary role as a pilot training aircraft. However, it is no longer available for Ministerial air transport or any other taskings. Helicopters are used for ministerial air transport in situations where, for operational reasons, fixed wing aircraft may not be available, the point of destination may not be close to an airport and in circumstances where there is a requirement for greater flexibility than can be delivered by fixed wing aircraft. The CASA maritime patrol aircraft is occasionally tasked with MATS flights in exceptional circumstances and where the dedicated MATS aircraft are not available. Additional information not given on the floor of the House. The use of any Air Corps aircraft for ministerial transport is subject to authorisation by the Taoiseach, taking into account several factors such as the necessity to undertake the engage- ment and amount of notice received, the demands of the particular schedule, the availability and suitability of other travel arrangements, overall cost considerations, the numbers in the delegation and security considerations. Once approved by An Taoiseach, all operational matters are settled directly between the office of the Minister in question, the Department of Defence and the Air Corps. My Department follows normal practice in the aviation business of costing aircraft by refer- ence to the cost per flying hour under either of two headings, namely, the direct cost, that is, the costs which are additional to those associated with having the aircraft and which only arise when the aircraft is flown, including maintenance, fuel and support services such as catering costs, cleaning services and airport handling charges; and the total cost, that is, the direct cost plus the costs associated with having the aircraft, for example, depreciation and personnel costs. The average hourly costs associated with Air Corps aircraft used in providing the ministerial air transport service in the period in question are contained the following tabular statement. I would like to emphasise that the direct and total costs quoted are average costs which are calculated by taking a number of variables into account. It is not possible to assign an exact cost 322 Priority 8 October 2009. Questions to any particular mission or Minister. These figures are kept under review and were updated in 2002, 2005 and 2009. The current estimated hourly costs associated with the Gulfstream IV are a direct cost of \4,050 per hour and a total cost of \7,890 per hour. The current estimated hourly costs associated with the Learjet are a direct cost of \1,270 and a total cost of \2,950 per hour. These two aircraft are the dedicated aircraft for the ministerial air transport service. Ministerial usage of the service averages at 660 hours per year since 2002. Further details of hours flown per aircraft type are contained in the second following tabular statement. The cost of the ministerial air transport service is funded through the Defence Vote and not currently charged out to Ministers. With regard to distance travelled by members of the Government on Air Corps aircraft, I am advised that the Air Corps does not use this method to calculate aircraft utilisation and, therefore, information on distance travelled is not available. Table 1: Costs Associated with Air Corps aircraft used in the provision of the Ministerial Air Transport Service Aircraft 2002 2005 2009 Average Average Average Average Average Average Direct Cost Total Cost Direct Cost Total Cost Direct Cost Total Cost Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour Per Hour \ \ \ \ \ \ Gulfstream IV 2,500 5,550 3,500 7,100 4,050 7,890 Learjet 45 — — 1,000 2,100 1,270 2,950 Beechcraft 900 1,400 1,200 1,600 1,320 1,770 CASA 1,000 2,400 1,250 2,800 1,335 2,820 EC135 — — — — 430 1,590 AW139 — — — — 1,470 3,130 Alouette 800 1,400 1,100 1,700 — — Dauphin 1,700 2,800 1,650 3,100 — — Table 2: Hours Flown by Ministers on Air Corps Aircraft Year Type Hours 2002 Gulfstream IV 335.00 Beechcraft 21.83 CASA 9.92 Dauphin 3.33 Alouette 11.08 TOTAL 381.16 2003 Gulfstream IV 505.37 Beechcraft 79.67 CASA 8.42 Dauphin 9.17 TOTAL 602.63 2004 Gulfstream IV 487.08 Beechcraft 121.67 Learjet 413.08 Dauphin 21.55 TOTAL 1043.38 323 Priority 8 October 2009. Questions [Deputy Willie O'Dea.] Year Type Hours 2005 Gulfstream IV 395.75 Beechcraft 90.00 Learjet 293.83 CASA 6.92 Dauphin 19.58 Alouette 1.00 TOTAL 807.08 2006 Gulfstream IV 411.52 Beechcraft 89.75 Learjet 232.67 CASA 2.50 Alouette 11.17 EC135 34.75 TOTAL 782.36 2007 Gulfstream IV 281.33 Beechcraft 69.83 Learjet 170.25 CASA 2.42 A111 2.00 EC135 19.17 AW139 15.08 TOTAL 560.08 2008 Gulfstream IV 344.92 Beechcraft 70.67 Learjet 234.33 CASA 4.58 EC135 23.17 AW139 22.67 TOTAL 700.34 2009-to date Gulfstream IV 179.50 Beechcraft 0.75 Learjet 186.50 EC135 7.67 AW139 12.83 TOTAL 387.25 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: I believe the Minister was coming to the more pertinent part of my question. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The reply is lengthy and the Minister has only two minutes to reply. If the Deputy asks a brief supplementary question the Minister may be able to provide him with a lengthy reply. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: I am sure the Minister will agree that this service should be based on need and relevance rather than convenience. Perhaps he will confirm the number of flying 324 Priority 8 October 2009. Questions hours by Ministers in, for example, the past year or if that statistic is not available to him for 2008. What was the actual flying cost per hour? Deputy Willie O'Dea: There is a direct cost and indirect cost involved. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: We are aware of that. Deputy Willie O'Dea: Which cost is the Deputy seeking? Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: The total cost. Deputy Willie O'Dea: The total cost includes the cost of depreciation of the aircraft, including wages, salaries and simply having the aircraft. One then adds to that figure the cost of fuel, maintenance, landing charges and so on and one gets the total cost. It costs a particular amount of keep the aircraft. The average per hour, taking the total cost, depends on the type of aircraft used. I will go through the figures for the different aircraft. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: The Minister need only give the figures in respect of Gulfstream IV. Deputy Willie O'Dea: The costs in that regard are the highest by far. For 2009, the average total cost is \7,890 per hour and the average direct cost is \4,050 per hour. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: A trip to Brussels takes approximately two hours each way and the aircraft could be parked for a number of hours, costing up to \40,000, whereas a scheduled flight to Brussels for a person travelling business class costs approximately \2,000. Is an effort made at all times to consider the use of scheduled flights internally and externally so as to reduce the budget for this service? For how many flying hours did the Ministers use the jets and the helicopters in 2008 and last year? The Minister did not answer that. Deputy Willie O'Dea: The total to date in 2009 is 387.25 hours. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Was that just on the jet? Deputy Willie O'Dea: No, that was the total for everything. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: What are the figures for within the country? Deputy Willie O'Dea: Am I answering a question or is this an exchange across the floor? An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I am facilitating an exchange, if the Minister is happy with that. It is the best way to elucidate information. It would help, however, if one Deputy would sit down. Deputy Willie O'Dea: The total to date in 2009 is 387.25 hours. I will issue a tabular statement to the Deputy that includes all years from 2002. We had only a few days to put the information together but he will get it all. I have answered dozens of questions and freedom of information requests on this and all the information the Deputy is seeking is already in the public domain. We will, however, make it available again. 325 Overseas 8 October 2009. Missions Overseas Missions. 4. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Defence his views on the recommendation in the Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes that Ireland end its participation in Chad in March 2010 and rationalise its overseas commit- ments to a smaller number of key missions; if it is intended to implement this recommendation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35067/09] Deputy Willie O'Dea: Despite the current difficult economic circumstances, the Government continues to support and commit resources and personnel, wherever it can, to support peace, security and development in troublespots throughout the world. Following Ireland's participation in the EU-led mission to Chad, the mandate of which expired on 14 March 2009, Ireland's initial commitment to the follow-on United Nations Mis- sion in the Republic of Chad and the Central African Republic (MINURCAT) is for a period of one year to 14 March 2010. Planned expenditure levels for my Department will be considered as part of the Estimates and budgetary process for 2010. This will include consideration of the report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes. Decisions on all of the issues arising, including continued participation in MINURCAT and in other overseas missions, will be a matter for the Government in the context of the Estimates. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage pending the outcome of the Estimates process. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: This has been a successful mission, with very few incidents, led initially by Lieutenant General Pat Nash. It resulted in positive recognition of the country. Foreign missions are the lifeblood of any army so it is important from both a humanitarian and a logistical point of view that this mission would continue after March and the 4 o'clock Minister must signal his intentions soon. It took \20 million to move the equip- ment out to Chad and set up camp there. What will it cost to bring back that equipment instead of continuing the mission, which will be mostly paid by the United Nations? Deputy Willie O'Dea: I agree this has been a successful mission. There were initial doubts due to the logistical difficulties, the absence of air access and difficult terrain. General Nash and his people overcame those difficulties and the mission has been an outstanding success. Foreign missions are indeed the lifeblood of a peace-keeping defence force, which is what our Defence Forces are. I take the point about the costs of sending people to Chad. The EU force came to an end on 14 March and the mission was then taken over by the United Nations. We have committed ourselves up to 14 March 2010 anyway, so the question is if we go beyond that. Our mission to Chad costs about \7.5 million net per annum, even though we are getting money from the United Nations. The question of whether we can afford to continue will be a matter for the Estimates process. As the Deputy knows there is a crisis in the public finances and we must all find savings. I take the point about the money spent getting people out there and the success of the mission. I will recommend to Government when I am preparing my Estimates that we remain in Chad beyond 14 March 2010. I cannot give a definite guarantee the Government will agree to that but it is what I will propose. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: I have consistently raised the issue of medical evacuation. The facilities that existed during the EU mission are no longer available. If the mission continues, will the Minister ensure medical evacuation facilities will be put in place? 326 Other 8 October 2009. Questions Deputy Willie O'Dea: If after the budgetary process the mission continues beyond 14 March 2010, and even in the interim, I will ensure that matter is attended to. Question No. 5 answered with Question No. 2. Other Questions. ———— Defence Forces Strength. 6. Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Minister for Defence the number of members of the Perma- nent Defence Force by rank who have retired to date in 2009 before reaching the mandatory retirement age for their rank; the number by rank who have retired on age grounds; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34803/09] 23. Deputy Dinny McGinley asked the Minister for Defence the impact the moratorium on recruitment and promotion is having on the operational effectiveness of the Defence Force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34808/09] Deputy Willie O'Dea: I propose to answer Questions Nos. 6 and 23 together. I am advised by the military authorities that the number of officers of the Permanent Defence Force to retire in the period 1 January to 30 September 2009 before reaching the mandatory retirement age for their rank was 25. A further 23 retired on age grounds. In the case of enlisted personnel, the number discharged prior to reaching the mandatory retirement age was 228, while 47 retired on age grounds. Including figures for deceased personnel, this brings the total number of personnel to leave the Permanent Defence Force to 335 up to 30 September 2009. The tabular statements I will provide to the Deputy give a detailed breakdown of the figures by rank. I am keenly aware of the impact that measures such as the moratorium on recruitment, promotion and acting appointments are having on the Permanent Defence Forces in light of the very high turnover rate that is part of any military organization. The turnover rate has increased significantly in recent months. I am advised by the military authorities that the strength of the Defence Forces at 30 September 2009, the last date for which figures are available, is 10,081. My focus is on retaining the capacity of the organization to operate effectively across all roles. This will represent a significant challenge in the coming months. I am in contact with my colleague the Minister for Finance with regard to targeted exemptions from the moratorium. The impact of the moratorium is being kept under con- stant review. I have secured the Minister for Finance's approval for the recruitment of 42 Army and Naval Service cadets this year. Approval has been also received for 42 acting-up positions for the current Chad contingent and 20 acting-up positions for the next Kosovo deployment. Sanction has been also received to fill the posts of Deputy Chief of Staff (Operations), two posts at Brigadier General and the Director of Military Prosecutions by way of promotion. Within the past week the promotion has proceeded of 10 NCOs who had commenced the process prior to the moratorium. I am advised that at this time the Defence Forces retain the capacity to undertake the tasks laid down by Government at home and overseas. 327 Overall Discharges — Officers Other Reason Lt Gen Maj Gen Brig Gen Col Lt Col Comdt Capt 2/Lt Total Retirement On Age Grounds 1 2 5 5 10 23 Discharged Before Reaching Mandatory 1 1 4 3 5 9 2 25 Retirement Age Deceased 1 1 Total 1 1 3 9 8 16 9 2 49 8 October 2009. Overall Discharges — Enlisted Personnel 328 Reason Sgt BQMS CS CQMS Sgt Cpl PTE 3* PTE 2* Apprentice Recruit Total Major Retired On Age Grounds 1 2 5 12 15 8 4 47 Discharged Before Reaching 2 6 5 9 39 30 117 10 3 7 228 Mandatory Retirement Age Deceased 1 5 2 3 11 Questions Total 3 8 10 22 59 40 124 10 3 7 286 Discharged – Enlisted Personnel Rank Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total Sgt Major 1 2 3 BQMS 1 2 1 1 3 8 CS 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 10 Other CQMS 3 3 2 1 2 2 6 2 21 Sgt 7 3 3 3 6 7 9 9 7 54 Cpl 2 4 7 4 7 9 5 38 PTE 3* 7 13 7 5 7 15 16 22 29 121 PTE 2* 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 10 Apprentice 3 3 Recruit 4 1 1 1 7 8 October 2009. Total 26 22 19 13 25 30 40 52 48 275 329 Discharges — Officers Rank Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total Lt Gen 1 1 Maj Gen 1 1 Brig Gen 1 1 1 3 Questions Col 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 9 Lt Col 2 3 1 1 1 8 Comdt 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 15 Capt 1 1 2 1 1 3 9 2/Lt 1 1 2 Total 7 3 9 3 1 4 6 5 10 48 Other 8 October 2009. Questions Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: The Minister's establishment figure for the strength of the Defence Forces was 10,500 and already the figure has fallen to 10,000. If this trend continues it could fall to 9,500 by the end of 2010. The Minister will accept that there is a brain drain and generally the command structure will be damaged. There are now positions of command that are not filled, which could lead to confusion and, further down the road, a threat to lives on overseas missions. I welcome the Minister's comments on promotions, because people were leaving the Defence Forces for that reason. There is a leave of absence scheme for the public service at the moment, but that does not apply to the Army. People are certainly very annoyed because it does not apply to them. Deputy Willie O'Dea: Through the implementation of the White Paper since 2000, we have seen significant changes in the Army, in terms of the quality of personnel, equipment and training. My advice is that the organisation is now in a very healthy state in terms of personnel and equipment. It is true that the McCarthy report proposes that we reduce the size of the Permanent Defence Force from 10,500 to 10,000 over two to three years. In the meantime, we have a moratorium on recruitment to the public sector, which includes the Army. Almost uniquely among public service organisations, there is a very high turnover of personnel in the Army. Many people who were not due to retire on age grounds left the Army for one reason or another, even since 1 January 2009. The fact that we cannot recruit to replace those people means that the overall number is dropping quite precipitously. I do not accept Deputy Deenihan's contention that the command structure is falling apart, but I do accept that there are problems. In a detailed submission I sent to the Minister for Finance, I have asked to be allowed to recruit people at least to replace the people we are losing until the Estimates process concludes and we decide whether or not to implement the recommendations of the McCarthy report in whole, in part or not at all. We have problems with people who are acting up to positions but who are not getting the appropriate allowance. These people are also affected by the moratorium. We are also having a problem with pro- motions. I have got around some of those problems, as I indicated in my original reply, but I have made submissions to the Minister for Finance on the other issues. I am hoping that we will have a decision on that before the next question time on defence issues. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: There is much unease among the Defence Forces at the moment, and I think the Minister got that cold wind yesterday when he was at the PDFORRA con- ference. They are just not happy. People must be encouraged to stay in the Defence Forces. Unlike other public service bodies, they reacted to the white paper and reduced their number from over 14,000 to 10,500. They have complied with every request that was made of them. When the Defence Forces are asked to do something, they do it. However, they now feel they ` are being victimised vis-a-vis other public service sectors. The Minister must support the Defence Forces. He will have to get some concessions on promotions. The moratorium on recruitment must be reviewed at the end of the year. It is one of the few proposals from the McCarthy report that has already occurred without even being implemented. Deputy Willie O'Dea: Which proposals on defence from the McCarthy report does Deputy Deenihan actually support? Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: I support many parts of the report. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Questions come from the Opposition for the Government. 330 Other 8 October 2009. Questions Deputy Willie O'Dea: I am waiting to find that out. Maybe we will find out before 4.45 p.m. As I have acknowledged to the House, the moratorium—— Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: The Minister is rattled. Deputy Willie O'Dea: I am not in the least bit rattled. The Deputy flatters himself. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Minister, without interruption. Deputy Willie O'Dea: I have already acknowledged that the moratorium is having a part- icular impact on the Army, because of its large turnover of people. We are now down to 10,081, whereas we should have 10,500. We are being affected by the moratorium more than any other public service organisation. I have made that case very strongly to the Minister for Finance and I appreciate Deputy Deenihan's support. I am sure he supports me in that case. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Absolutely, but the Minister for Finance is not listening to the Minister for Defence. Deputy Willie O'Dea: That remains to be decided. We have quite a few concessions so far, but the recruitment, the acting up and the limited number of promotions are all absolutely vital. We will have decisions on that very shortly. The budgetary process is only beginning today with regard to Cabinet meetings. The conditions of the Army have improved out of all proportion in the last ten years due to investment in training, infrastructure, quality of personnel, equipment and so on. This has happened because the Government has invested a great amount of money in the Army. At the moment, we have a crisis in the public finances. Every Department has to take its share of the pain. We do not like taking it, as we would prefer to be spending money rather than cutting back. We all want to be liked, but I know of Deputy Deenihan's claim to be in favour of public expenditure reductions. Which proposals from the McCarthy report that deal with defence does he favour? Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: I am favour of many of the proposals, but Deputy O'Dea is the Minister, at least for another week. Deputy Brian O'Shea: The Minister informed us that 25 officers from the Defence Forces retired before reaching the mandatory pension age, as did 228 enlisted men. He has indicated that most of those are from the Army, but how exactly did they break down? Was there any pattern to the retirements of these people? Did it come later in the year or earlier in the year? We are dealing with a period from 1 January to 30 September. Is there a trend towards more people retiring as the year went on? I understand people are concerned that gratuity lump sums will be taxed in the forthcoming budget. That seems to be a major issue. I congratulate the Minister on the issue relating to the 42 Army and Naval Service cadets. It was an achievement and we should acknowledge that. However, why has there been no recruitment into the Air Corps for the last two years? Deputy Willie O'Dea: I do not have the figures in the body of the answer for the breakdown from the Army, Naval Service and the Air Corps, but I think the Deputy will find it in the tabular statement. If it is not there, he can get back to me and I will obtain the figures for him. I do not know the details of the time pattern of retirement either, but I will get the information for him in so far as I can do so. 331 Other 8 October 2009. Questions [Deputy Willie O'Dea.] I do not think Deputy O'Shea expects me to tell him what the position will be with respect to the gratuity. I cannot offer any words of reassurance or otherwise on that issue. That is a budgetary matter and it will be decided. Deputy Brian O'Shea: We will know after Saturday whether the Minister will be allowed to decide. Deputy Willie O'Dea: Deputy O'Shea will know the exact position in December when the budget is delivered by the Minister for Finance. Deputy Brian O'Shea: The Minister is optimistic. Deputy Willie O'Dea: I am optimistic by nature. I will also get the Deputy some up to date information on the Air Corps. Defence Forces Reserve. 7. Deputy Damien English asked the Minister for Defence his views on the recommendation in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes that the allocation for the reserve Defence Force be reduced by two thirds; if it is intended to implement this recommendation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34784/09] 11. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Defence his views on the opinion expressed in the Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes regarding the reserve Defence Force. [34848/09] 29. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence his proposals in regard to the future of the reserve Defence Force. [34850/09] 38. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Defence the plans for the future of the reserve Defence Force; and the number at present and the projections for the future. [34692/09] Minister for Defence (Deputy Willie O'Dea): I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 11, 29 and 38 together. The Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes included a recommendation for full year savings of \5.6 million, arising from a two thirds reduction in the strength of the reserve Defence Force. This is one of many recommendations contained in the report. Planned expenditure levels for my Department will be considered as part of the budgetary and Estimates process for 2010. This includes consideration of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes. The decisions on all of the issues arising will be a matter for the Government. As this is the subject of an ongoing deliberative process, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this point. The Government introduced a moratorium on recruitment to the public service with effect from 27 March 2009 and, as with the broader public service, the defence organisation is required to operate with reduced funding. My first priority for the reserve was to consolidate the gains that have been made over recent years. In this context, limited recruitment in order to replace existing members who leave during the course of 2009 was sanctioned. This ongoing limited 332 Other 8 October 2009. Questions recruitment is being closely monitored and will be kept under review in light of the uptake of paid training and the future budgetary provision available to the Department of Defence. At the end of August 2009, the total strength of the reserve was 6,973. While the budgetary provision for training of members of the reserve has been reduced for 2009, a total of 60,000 paid training man days has been provided. This is sufficient to allow all current members to undertake paid training during 2009. The budgetary constraints and moratorium on recruitment have also required the postponement of overseas service for members of the reserve for the foreseeable future. The Reserve Defence Force review implementation plan has provided the framework for the development of the reserve over recent years. Revised organisation structures came into effect in October 2005 and the reserve has been reorganised along similar lines to the Perma- nent Defence Force. In line with the plan, new equipment, clothing and opportunities for improved training have been delivered. The development of an integrated element of the reserve was intended to further enhance the capability of the reserve. In line with the plan, a pilot integration programme was introduced in 2007 and extended into 2008. The numbers participating in these pilots were disappointing and this element of the plan has not achieved the intended results. As the Reserve Defence Force review implementation plan is reaching its conclusion, there is a requirement to critically examine the progress that has been made to date and to consider options for the future development of the reserve. This will be informed by the valuable lessons learned from the implementation process. In addition, the Reserve Defence Force was selected for review as part of the 2009–11 phase of the Government's value for money and policy review initiative and this review is scheduled to commence in the near future. It is anticipated that the review, together with the general budgetary situation, will also assist in informing decisions regarding the future development of the reserve. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Will the Minister confirm the breakdown between effective and non-effective participation of the 6,973 members of the reserve? How many of these reserve members attended training courses this year? I understand from what the Minister has said that the integrated reserve has now been put on the back burner and it is likely he will not persevere with that proposal. Also, the front line reserve was promoted as part of the overall plan. What are the plans now for the front line reserve? It would be easier to put those plans in place rather than put the integrated reserve in place because the front line reserve would include former personnel of the Defence Forces. Deputy Willie O'Dea: The figure for those classed as non-effective as of 1 August is 989. With regard to the integrated and front line reserves, my focus is on preserving the reserve at a reasonable strength. I do not accept fully the recommendations of the McCarthy report. I am trying to do my best to preserve the reserve and to consolidate the progress we have made in implementing the initial 2000 White Paper on the reserve over the past number of years. On the integrated reserve, only approximately 300 people have trained for this, which is disappointing. Both the integrated reserve and the front line reserve will have to wait for the moment. As the Deputy knows and as I have informed the House, we are committed to a second White Paper on Defence to take matters forward from here. Both matters will be dealt with in that context. 333 Other 8 October 2009. Questions Deputy Brian O'Shea: The Minister knows both Deputy Deenihan and I will support his efforts in maintaining the strength of the Reserve Defence Force. With regard to the current strength of the reserve, the McCarthy report proposes reducing it by a further 2,000. Is that correct? I am concerned in that regard. The numbers in the Permanent Defence Force numbers are also decreasing and if the trend for this year, so far, is repeated next year and the following year, we could have well over 1,000 fewer members of the Permanent Defence Force. The tasks carried out by the Reserve Defence Force to augment the work of the Permanent Defence Force are important, for example, the provision of armed escorts, of logistical support and security of vital installations. Does the Minister expect we will reach a stage where the combined manpower of the Permanent and Reserve Defence Force will not be adequate to take on all the tasks needed in support of the civil power and the national interest? Deputy Willie O'Dea: With regard to the Deputy's first question, what the McCarthy report proposes is that we reduce the reserve by two-thirds, with a view to saving \5.6 million. There- fore, only one-third of what remains of the reserve would survive the McCarthy proposals. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: What figure did McCarthy work on? Deputy Willie O'Dea: I think he worked off the figure at the beginning of the year, approxi- mately 7,500. Therefore, he was talking in terms of having a reserve of approximately 2,500. Deputy Brian O'Shea: The figure the Minister gave for the current strength of the reserve was 6,973. Is the two-third reduction McCarthy proposes a two-third reduction on the White Paper figure or the figure as it stands? Deputy Willie O'Dea: I think it is the figure at the beginning of the year, which was approxi- mately 7,500. Deputy Brian O'Shea: That number is further reduced at this stage. Deputy Willie O'Dea: Yes, but I will double check the situation for the Deputy. When the moratorium was first introduced, we were advised by the Department of Finance it also applied to the reserve. We had a situation where we had a certain number of non-effective people each year — people who do not turn up for training etc. — and numbers were continually dropping, so I got sanction from the Department of Finance for limited admissions to the reserve to keep it up to the strength it was at the start of the year, which was approximately 7,500 or 7,600. We have been recruiting on a phased basis to bring the numbers back up to that number and are committed to not letting the reserve fall below that number. I am very anxious to preserve the reserve, but am prepared to do whatever we have to in order to engage in the budgetary process. On the other question asked by Deputy O'Shea, I am also determined to preserve the maximum number of people in the Permanent Defence Force. The McCarthy report recom- mends we reduce numbers to between 10,000 and 10,500 in total, but does not make it clear whether it sees that as a permanent reduction or a reduction during the period of the financial crisis. However, McCarthy suggests the reduction should be made over a two to three year period. Due to the moratorium, numbers have already reduced to just over 10,000. This is a matter for discussion between me and the Minister for Finance, but I am committed to main- taining the greatest possible strength in both the Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force. 334 Other 8 October 2009. Questions Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: More than 1,000 people qualified for admittance to the reserve this year, but only 200 were selected. Therefore, 800 young people who went through all the procedures and who complied with fitness tests and character assessments were left disap- pointed. How much does it cost to recruit one reservist? An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is a very specific question. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: If the Minister does not have the information, that is fine. The point I am making is that it makes sense at this time to encourage young people to join the reserve. It gives them discipline, keeps them fit, gives them a sense of responsibility and a sense of nationhood. Rather than discourage people from joining the reserve, we should be encouraging them. Has the Minister any intention to encourage more people to join the reserve? What plans has he to encourage them or will the decline continue, irrespective of the McCarthy recommendations? Deputy Willie O'Dea: I find myself, once again, in total agreement with Deputy Deenihan. We should be encouraging people to rejoin the reserves. The changes we have made in terms of better equipment, training, uniforms, etc., are an encouragement in itself, as well as the fact that we have targeted gratuities — the more training one does the more one earns, or as near as possible. Basically we are going through a difficult time but I want to re-emphasise to the House that I am committed to the reserves. Deputy Deenihan's initial question is a good one because it occurred to myself to ask why, if we are committed to maintaining 7,600 or whatever at the start of the year, have we only taken on 200, because we are supposed to take on another 700 or so under that mandate? The Army has told me there is recruitment on a phased basis. The director of the reserve force decided on the criteria in which he would recruit people. Some of the people selected, then, were not interested, but I have asked the Army to speed it up. It is agreed that it is happening too slowly and the Army is going to speed it up. A number of the young people, as mentioned by the Deputy, will be accommodated, hopefully, in the very near future. Deputy Brian O'Shea: Given that there are 450,000 unemployed and the figures are rising and the fact that reserves are recruited from the 17 to 35 age cohort, is there merit in the Minister having discussions with his colleagues, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to see whether there are ways to use the Reserve Defence Force to upskill people, to occupy them usefully and put them into services that support the civil power, so that they might, for instance, retain their welfare payments or whatever? We need to think outside the box, and rather than accepting the projected reduction in numbers — no doubt while the Minister will fight his corner, there may be some inevitability about this — we will need to look at other ways to cater for that group of people who, because of unemployment, need to be upskilled and involved in activities that raise their self-esteem and give them a sense of usefulness. This would be in terms of providing services that are in the public interest and that would add to our society. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Is the Minister aware, as I pointed out previously, that young people, especially close to the Border, are joining the reserve force in Northern Ireland, another jurisdiction? Surely it is somewhat embarrassing to us in the Republic that we cannot accommo- date these people here. 335 Other 8 October 2009. Questions Deputy Willie O'Dea: As regards Deputy OShea's question, I stand open to correction. I thought that if somebody in receipt of social welfare wanted to become part of the Reserve Defence Force, that would not interfere with his or her entitlement. That was my understanding of the position. Deputy Brian O'Shea: My point is that there should be an extension of the arrangements already in place. Deputy Willie O'Dea: I take the Deputy's point and we should use the Reserve Defence Force more in relation to the unemployed in terms of reskilling, etc. That is something I shall think about. With regard to Deputy Deenihan's point I was not aware that there were great numbers of people flooding across the Border to join the reserve in the North. However, I shall take his word for it. As far as I am concerned, my job involves facing cutbacks in my Department and a specific recommendation from Mr. McCarthy, whose report constitutes the backbone of what we are considering in terms of budgetary matters at the moment, to the effect that the Reserve Defence Force should be cut by two-thirds. My priority is to keep as many as possible not only in the force but also in the Permanent Defence Force. When we come to discuss these matters, I will not be found wanting, and I appreciate the support of the Opposition. Public Expenditure Review Report. 8. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence his views on the opinion expressed in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure prog- rammes that there is no need for two large Army barracks in Dublin. [34849/09] 12. Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for Defence his views on the recommendation in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes that his Department's property portfolio be rationalised; if it is intended to implement this recommendation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34775/09] 14. Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Defence his views on the recommendation in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes that the number of barracks be reduced; if it is intended to implement this recommendation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34768/09] 26. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Defence his views on the recommendation in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes that the future of Cathal Brugha Barracks be reviewed with a view to possible sale; if it is intended to implement this recommendation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34772/09] 41. Deputy Ciaran Lynch asked the Minister for Defence his plans, arising from the report ´ of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes, to rationalise the property portfolio of his Department. [34854/09] 60. Deputy Jan O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Defence his proposals in regard to ration- alising the number of Army barracks here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34847/09] Deputy Willie O'Dea: I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 12, 14, 26, 41 and 60 together. 336 Other 8 October 2009. Questions The Defence property portfolio is kept under ongoing review by military authorities and the staff in my Department to ensure the most effective use of military resources having regard to the roles assigned by Government to the Defence Forces. This includes ongoing review of the organisation, structure and formation of the forces and the consequential requirement for military barracks and other properties. The funding realised from the disposal of surplus property together with pay savings has provided resources for the modernisation of the Defence Forces and has been invested in new infrastructure, equipment and training area development. Any further properties that are considered surplus to military requirements will continue to be disposed of and the funding invested to meet the current and future equipment and infrastructure needs of the Defence Forces. A process of consolidation has recently been undertaken with the movement of the Defence Forces out of Monaghan, Longford, Lifford and Rockhill Barracks. The question concerning the need for two barracks in Dublin, along with the issue of any further consolidation across the Defence Forces as a whole, will be among the issues to be considered in the context of the Estimates process having regard to the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes. Cathal Brugha, which is referenced in that report, is a very significant installation with a wide range of facilities, accommodation and storage depots and would be costly to replace. This will need to be factored into our consideration, particularly in the current financial situation. Consideration will also need to be given to the operational requirements of the Defence Forces and where personnel would be relocated. The recommendations in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes and the decisions on all of the issues arising will be a matter for the Government in the context of the estimates and budgetary process. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage pending the outcome of these deliberative processes. Deputy Brian O'Shea: I share the misgivings about an installation of the size of Cathal Brugha Barracks being taken out of the Army property portfolio at a time when the national finances are in crisis. Will the Minister not agree that this is not the time to be disposing of property, in the first instance? As he pointed out, there would be a very significant upfront cost, as the McCarthy says, in terms of finding alternative accommodation. The McCarthy report says the rationalisation of premises would contribute to the reduction in numbers in the Permanent Defence Force. I am not sure what he means by that. Does the Minister have an understanding of that statement in the report, to the effect that the rationalisation of premises will contribute to the reduction in numbers? Does he mean, in fact, that if places are closed it is easier to get rid of people? Deputy Willie O'Dea: Anybody reading that would have to interpret it in his or her own way. All I can say is that my interpretation might not be that far from Deputy O'Shea's. I agree with him that it is a very bad time to be disposing of a property such as Cathal Brugha Barracks. It is an enormous property, very well located in Dublin and would have yielded a fortune if disposed of a couple of years ago during the height of the boom. This is a very bad time to be selling it since the market is flat. As the Deputy rightly points out, and the McCarthy report recognises this, there is an upfront cost which would have to be incurred before the sale would take place. We would have had to provide some place for people to go to. Basically, we are looking for ways to save money now 337 Other 8 October 2009. Questions [Deputy Willie O'Dea.] rather than ways to spend more. I do not envisage anything will be happening in that regard in the near future. For information purposes I should inform the House that we have about 30 smaller units throughout the country, empty at present, which we believe may be gradually sold. We are appointing valuers to see what type of money we should be seeking for them. Some of them are old with specific types of usage only and as such would not be suitable for certain types of development. We are looking at this in the immediate future. We are not looking at the imminent disposal of Cathal Brugha Barracks, however. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Where there might be an opportunity for a community to acquire a unit, say, among the 30 the Minister said were being sold, would sympathetic consideration be given in the event, rather than to an individual who might buy the premises for commercial purposes? On the issue of the barracks that were closed can he give us any update as regards any proposal to put those properties up for sale and what are the maintenance costs, now that they are closed? Have approaches been made by communities for the use of any of those barracks? I believe such an approach has been made to the Department of Defence in regard to the Donegal barracks. Will the Minister give favourable consideration to this suggestion if approaches are made? Deputy Willie O'Dea: While I do not have the information to hand, I will get the complete up-to-date position for the Deputy in regard to the plans for barracks that are closed, the maintenance costs and so on. During the last period of barrack consolidation, we made some facilities available to local communities, as the Deputy is aware. Times are tougher now and most of those properties will be sold off by public tender. However, we have the right to allocate them directly to communities or to other State organisations if we so wish. All I can tell the House is that I will consider any proposal that comes in, and I will do so as sympatheti- cally as possible within the constraints upon us. Deputy Brian O'Shea: Is there a security cost in regard to protecting the 30 premises listed? The Reserve Defence Force has a role in the staffing of military posts during periods of Perma- nent Defence Force deployment. Is this a way in which savings could be effected where private security is currently being provided? Is there a scenario whereby the role of the Reserve Defence Force could be increased so that they could provide the security? In the context of what I suggested earlier, namely, getting more people involved in the Reserve Defence Force, I suspected there might be grounds for going ahead with such a development and, while there might not be any saving as such, the money already being spent on security could be used in this manner. Deputy Willie O'Dea: That is a useful suggestion, which I will certainly discuss with my officials. Defence Forces Property. 9. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Defence his views on the recommendation in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes that the full market value of rent should be paid by overholders of married quarters; if it is intended to implement this recommendation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34778/09] 10. Deputy Sean Barrett asked the Minister for Defence the number of overholders resident ´ in married quarters of the Defence Forces; the rental charged to overholders for the use of the 338 Adjournment 8 October 2009. Debate Matters quarters; the average length of time overholders remain in Defence Force quarters following their discharge from the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34751/09] Deputy Willie O'Dea: I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 10 together. Defence Forces married quarters are provided to serving members until their retirement or resignation. The Defence Forces regulations state that the quarters must be vacated within 15 days of leaving the service. There are 52 married quarters currently overheld throughout the country — 39 in the Curragh, 11 at Cathal Brugha Barracks, Rathmines and two in Dublin 7. Ten of the properties at Cathal Brugha Barracks are in the process of being sold to the current occupants. The charge for married quarters accommodation is currently in range of \42.16 to \80.76 per week for enlisted personnel and between \381.22 to \411.22 per month for officers. Overhold- ers, if they are in receipt of a pension or gratuity, pay an additional 10% on these charges. There are some cases where there is no pension or gratuity and, as a result, it is not possible to deduct at source the relevant charge. The period of time that overholders remain in Defence Forces quarters following their dis- charge varies with each family and their particular circumstances. As such, an average would not appropriately reflect the particular circumstances of each individual's situation. Officials in my Department are currently putting in place procedures to address each individual overholder on a case-by-case basis in order to rectify this situation in the interests of the Department, the military and the families involved. Any increase in the charges will be considered as part of the Estimates and budgetary process for 2010. This will include consideration of the recommendations in the McCarthy report. Any decision, as with decisions on all of the issues arising from that report, will be a matter for the Government. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage pending the outcome of these deliberative processes. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: Given that the overholders are concerned about their future, I ask that every effort be made to be sympathetic towards them. Where local authorities are con- cerned, I ask also that efforts would be made to rehouse these people in local authority houses in co-operation with the local authorities. Deputy Willie O'Dea: I agree. Ten of the 11 properties at Cathal Brugha Barracks are under negotiation at present with the current occupants at a very competitive price. The other over- holders will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and we will be as sympathetic as possible. Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate. 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 Paul Connaughton — the proposed cessation of turf cutting on raised bogs; (2) Deputy Simon Coveney — the future plans for community development projects; (3) Deputy Lucinda Creighton — the provision of a new school for St. Mary's national school, Donnybrook, Dublin; (4) Deputy Dan Neville — high levels of suicide during times of recession and high unemployment; (5) Deputy Joe Costello — the need to deal with anti-social behaviour 339 Anti-Social 8 October 2009. Behaviour [An Leas-Cheann Comhairle.] and the use of illegal fireworks at Hallowe'en; (6) Deputy James Reilly — the need for remedial safety works to be undertaken at Ward Cross, County Dublin; and (7) Deputy Chris Andrews — the need to promote Georgian Dublin and have it designated as a UNESCO heritage site. The matters raised by Deputies Joe Costello, Simon Coveney, Paul Connaughton and Luc- inda Creighton have been selected for discussion and will be taken now. Adjournment Debate. ———— Anti-Social Behaviour. Deputy Joe Costello: I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for choosing this Adjournment matter. We are coming close to Hallowe'en and the perennial problems that arise in the context of the Hallowe'en festivities. Very often, it becomes an issue of fear and concern to many, particularly the elderly, rather than a celebratory period of religious commemoration. In my constituency, there was virtual mayhem in a number of areas last year and I do not want this to reoccur this year, which is why I am raising the issue at an early stage this year. Last year, a factory was burned down in the Docklands, a restaurant was burned in very suspicious circumstances, a fire brigade was stoned, 12 men were arrested and two gardaı ´ suffered broken noses in the Dorset Street area and there was rioting in O'Devaney Gardens, ´ where gardaı were effectively imprisoned for periods of time and a number of unoccupied flats were set on fire. The Dublin Fire Brigade service was called out to 800 incidents in the city and the ambulance service attended over 500 calls. All of that cost the taxpayer well over \1 million. Something in the region of 100 tonnes of tyres and pallets were seized by Dublin City ´ Council officials and gardaı. The situation is that in an area in the heart of the city of Dublin, Hallowe'en is an excuse for rampage and mayhem rather than an opportunity for good-natured or religious festivities. We need to consider carefully the case of the coming Hallowe'en. What makes the situation worse this year is that Hallowe'en falls on a Saturday and we will end up with an entire weekend of late night activities and bonfires of tyres, which are environmentally damaging, at all hours of the day and night. To compound the problem on this occasion, fewer resources are available. ´ ´ The Garda Sıochana has already indicated to me that the local authority has not got the resources to provide trucks to pick up the tyres and pallets that will be hoarded over this month for Hallowe'en. If there are much greater quantities of flammable material than in previous years, it does not require any great effort to imagine that the situation will be worse than it was in previous years, particularly last year. It is almost as though Hallowe'en is an excuse — a culture, almost — for young people to engage in these activities and to do so in conjunction with alcohol. Many youngsters who would not normally be seen with cans or bottles in their possession are seen with them around the bonfires. We must carefully consider the issues concerning off licences. I know off licences close at certain times on St. Patrick's Day and this may be something to consider. The fact is that fireworks are legal in Northern Ireland but illegal in the Republic and we all know they are bought very easily along the Border. What level of Garda activity will be under- taken in this area? Those who do not recycle their tyres but leave them readily available for young people to take must be prosecuted. It happens all the time in the lead-up to Hallowe'en 340 Anti-Social 8 October 2009. Behaviour that tyres, which cost a certain amount of money to be recycled, are left available by garages and other outlets to be stolen. In the interests of our emergency services who do good work, and of the elderly and young people, it is time to put in place adequate policing facilities and recreational facilities for young people to ensure that we do not have more than mayhem at Hallowe'en, as the situation could easily result in a fatality if we do not take adequate care. Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy John Moloney): I apologise to Deputy Costello for the absence of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, this evening. I thank the Deputy for raising this matter on the Adjournment. The Minister shares his view, and that of communities throughout the country, that anti-social behaviour at Hallowe'en must be prevented to the greatest extent possible and kept under control. The Garda authorities take proactive steps each year to combat anti-social and criminal behaviour around Hallowe'en by putting specific provisions in place and will do so again this year. Particular attention will be paid, especially in the Dublin metropolitan region and Border divisions, to prevent and detect the organised importation for sale of fireworks in the lead up to Hallowe'en. Since the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, it is an offence for any person to possess a firework with intent to sell or supply, without a licence; to throw an ignited firework at any person or property; and to light unlicensed fireworks in a public place. The penalties for those offences have also been significantly increased. Proactive policing arrangements will be in place to cover the period up to, and the night of, Hallowe'en. Additional patrols will be carried out, as considered necessary by Garda manage- ment, by uniformed personnel as part of high-visibility policing initiatives, supported by district detective and drug units, divisional crime task forces, traffic corps personnel and community policing and mountain bike units. ´ ´ The Garda Sıochana also engages with local communities, local authorities and other stake- holders, such as Dublin Bus, in putting plans in place to address issues that arise around the Hallowe'en period. It puts liaison arrangements in place for the removal of identified stockpiles of combustible materials. Through the schools programme and other local programmes, ´ ´ members of the Garda Sıochana publicise the message that fireworks are illegal and highlight ´ the dangers associated with illegally imported fireworks. Gardaı also advise managers of off- licences to ensure that their staff are made aware of their obligations under licensing legislation relating to the sale of alcohol, in particular to under age persons. ´ ´ Members of the Garda Sıochana from local community policing units ensure that any infor- mation received regarding bonfires and other anti-social behaviour is acted upon in advance of Hallowe'en. During this period additional public order patrols will, as necessary, be directed to pay particular attention to areas where anti-social behaviour and drinking in public might occur. ´ ´ More generally, all members of the Garda Sıochana proactively target public disorder and anti-social behaviour. Areas identified as public order hot spots by local Garda management are the subject of additional foot and mobile patrols. Incidents of public disorder and anti- social behaviour reported to the Garda authorities are the subject of investigation and are dealt with appropriately in accordance with the law. More than 643,000 offences have been detected since the commencement of Operation Encounter by the then Commissioner in February 2002 to target public disorder and anti-social behaviour against the local and business communities, with particular emphasis on alcohol-related behaviour. 341 Community 8 October 2009. Development [Deputy John Moloney.] Strong provisions are already in place to combat anti-social behaviour. The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 modernised the law in that regard. Furthermore, the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 contains provisions to deal with alcohol abuse and its effect on public order. In addition, the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2003 provides the Garda with powers to deal with late night street violence and anti-social conduct attributable to excessive drinking. The Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 gives further powers to the Garda to tackle misuse of ´ alcohol, which is too often at the root of crime and anti-social behaviour. Gardaı now have the power to seize alcohol in the possession of under-18 year olds which they suspect is for con- sumption in a public place. They can also seize alcohol where they reasonably believe there is a danger of public disorder or damage to property and require a person to leave the place. They also now have the power to issue fixed charge notices for the offences of intoxication in a public place and disorderly conduct in a public place. These notices will lead to a more efficient and effective use of Garda resources and avoid court proceedings where an offender pays the penalty. The Criminal Justice Act 2006 strengthened the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 to make it an offence to assault, or to threaten to assault, or to impede medical personnel in a ´ ´ hospital, people assisting such personnel, a member of the Garda Sıochana, a prison officer and a member of the Defence Forces, members of the fire brigade and ambulance personnel. I am confident that the Garda Commissioner will deploy the considerable resources of per- sonnel and equipment available to him to combat the anti-social behaviour which unfortunately is apt to take place during the Hallowe'en period. Community Development. Deputy Simon Coveney: I spoke to the Minister with specific responsibility for this area yesterday evening and he explained that he would not be able to be here this evening. I under- stand I will have an opportunity to meet him next week to discuss the matter. I wish to put a number of issues on the record. I look forward to the official response from the Minister in writing. I am very concerned at the current plans to essentially dismantle the community development project infrastructure across the country and to amalgamate those projects into regional and local partnership schemes. A number of years ago there was an independent assessment of the CDP, community development project, structure. It was highly complimentary in terms of value for money because the vast majority of people linked with community development projects are volunteers. For anyone who is not familiar with the structure, essentially, an administrator and a project co-ordinator are put in place in the heart of a community to work with local voluntary groups in the areas of youth work, adult education, re-training, development skills for interviews or CV preparation, and care of the elderly. It is the job of the co-ordinator and administrator to assist voluntary groups to develop their capacity and skill base locally. In my constituency there are two CDPs, one in Ballyphehane-Togher and the other in Mahon. The one I am most familiar with is in Mahon. There are eight CDPs in Cork. What the Minister seems to be proposing, which is bizarre, is to amalgamate all eight of those CDPs into one partnership model. The partnership offices are on the north side of Cork city in Blackpool. It would be one thing if that solution were the result of an evaluation process but 342 Community 8 October 2009. Development we are in the middle of an evaluation process of CDPs, yet the Minister has announced what will be the new structure. That does not make sense to me. I do not think anyone would have a problem with an assessment of CDPs, of which there are 180 across the country, in terms of delivering value for money in communities. Some of the 180 projects probably need to go. New areas have probably developed in the past five to ten years that need new CDP structures put in place. Nobody has a problem with the Minister seeking value for money and requiring a cut in expenditure and costs, but what I do have a problem with is the Minister prescribing a new structure before the evaluation process is com- plete as, in essence, he is giving a signal to the people carrying out the evaluation as to what he wants them to determine at the end of that process. One cannot get the same value from local community structures if one amalgamates them into a regional management entity because one takes away locally based decision making power, the capacity to make decisions quickly, the taking into account of local concerns and responding to local concerns. The cost to the Department of the two employees 5 o'clock in the community development project in Mahon is, I understand, approximately \130,000 per annum. However, through their fundraising efforts with other local voluntary groups, these individuals generate more than \250,000 from other sources, including Departments. They are a catalyst for successful, efficient and improved voluntary services in the Mahon community. We need these types of services more than ever for obvious reasons. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his approach towards community development projects to ensure that we can keep what has been a great success in empowering local communities from a structural point of view. Deputy John Moloney: I apologise again for the Minister's absence. The Deputy will recall that the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs was established against a background of concern at the multiplicity of structures and agencies through which local and community development schemes and programmes are delivered. The Department inherited many local and community programmes that were established and operated under different Departments. There was an inherent danger of fragmentation of services and diffusion of resources. The cohesion process initiated by the Minister to address these concerns resulted in a dramatic reduction and simplification of local delivery structures for a range of rural develop- ment and community development programmes. The Department still has a wide agenda of reform to advance. The next phase, now under way, concerns improving and joining up the outputs from programmes, as well as further con- solidating structures. The local development social inclusion programme, LDSIP, and com- munity development programme, CDP, are the Department's two main social inclusion-com- munity development programmes. Both have a community development element and are delivered through separate local delivery structures. The Minister of State, Deputy John Curran, has indicated that his strong view is that a single focused programme with a single integrated delivery structure is needed to maximise the impact of these two programmes which serve disadvantaged communities. The Centre for Effective Services is preparing proposals for the Minister in this regard, which will draw on good inter- national practice and independent advice. The Minister hopes to receive these proposals in the near future with a view to rolling out a new programme early next year. The Minister's overall aim is to ensure that, from 2010, disadvantaged communities will benefit from a more focused programme with clear objectives and simplified and streamlined delivery structures, leading to significant administrative savings and impact efficiencies. In advance of proceeding to establish a single programme across community development projects 343 Turbary 8 October 2009. Rights [Deputy John Moloney.] and partnerships, the Department has initiated an evaluation of individual CDPs. Many of these projects span two decades with diverse activities. The Minister hopes to have proposals from his Department in the near future. The Minister envisages that the main elements of the new integrated programme will com- prise a small number of unambiguous goals to be achieved through clearly articulated outcomes for disadvantaged communities. Continuous evaluation and measurable targets will also be key features of the new programme, which the Minister hopes to launch for early 2010. While he cannot be specific at this stage about the impact on specific bodies in particular areas, disadvan- taged communities will benefit from a more focused programme with clear objectives and simplified and streamlined delivery structures. Turbary Rights. Deputy Paul Connaughton: I place on record the disgust, annoyance and downright oppo- sition of thousands of turf cutters to the impending decision to prevent them from cutting their turf on their bogs for domestic purposes. In recent months, large numbers of people — up to 400 people — have attended meetings all over the west to protest in the strongest possible manner about the cessation of turf cutting on the 32 raised bogs under the EU habitats directive. Thousands of signatures have been collected, acres of space have been given to this problem by local media and local radio extensively covers the many and varied objections rural people have to this atrocious attack on their personal lives. This is not an ordinary protest where people slowly retreat into the background when they have made their point. Turf cutters are prepared to make concessions and have no major problems in having the various bogs taken over under the EU directive, provided their plots of turbary are left for turf cutting for domestic purposes. Surely in bogs such as my own at Carnagopple, Mountbellew, County Galway, which extends to almost 1,100 acres, of which no more than 60 acres are used for domestic turf cutting, it is possible to come to an agreement to acquire the 98% of the bog that is unused without interfering with the turf cutting area. I ask the Minister to revisit the primary European legislation, the habitats directive, with a view to having its transposition into Irish law scrutinised in an effort which would allow the Government to meet its commitments under the directive, while providing flexibility to allow existing turf cutters to cut domestic supplies of turf. I strongly suggest that great thought and negotiation skills be employed to deal with this problem as otherwise what I and all other turf cutters believe is an unjustified attack on the history and customs of rural Ireland will provoke great contention, anger and opposition. On a commercial basis alone, given the dreadful mess our economy is in, one must ask the reason the European Union or a national government would want to prevent people from supplying their own domestic fuel supplies at a time when the price of imported oil is steadily rising to a record level. The Exchequer does not have a red cent to pay for anything, without resorting to the use of taxpayers' money to pay turf cutters for bog they do not want to sell. I call on the Minister to take this issue seriously because if flexibility and goodwill are not shown to turf cutters, there will be great opposition to the confiscation of the bogs next spring. Deputy John Moloney: I am pleased to take this Adjournment on behalf of my colleague the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Ireland's raised bogs are important and unique habitats hosting ecosystems that are extremely rare. In recent history, almost all of western Europe's peatlands have disappeared or been severely damaged. While Ireland has around 60% of the remaining uncut areas, less 344 Schools Building 8 October 2009. Projects than 1% remains of Ireland's active raised bog, that is, raised bog on which indigenous flora are still growing and peat is forming. Ireland is required to protect habitats of European importance under the habitats directive of 1992. Active raised bog is a priority habitat under the directive. It is also protected under our own legislation, the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997 in respect of special areas of conservation and the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 in respect of natural heritage areas. Turf cutting is scheduled to end at the end of the current season on 32 raised bog special areas of conservation. Outside these 32 bogs, cutting may continue as normal. This means it may continue in the vast majority of areas. In particular, blanket bogs which comprise most of the areas of peatland are not affected by the arrangements. Of the 1,500 to 1,600 raised bogs in the State, only 130 bog complexes are designated and turf cutting is to cease in 2009 on only 32 of these bogs. This approach is in accordance with the ending of a ten year period of grace given by the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in 1999. The grace period was designed to allow turf cutting for domestic purposes to continue on these special areas of conservation for up to 10 years while domestic turf cutters found an alternative source of fuel. A similar ten year derogation still applies to bogs designated after 1999. When natural heritage areas were designated in 2004, under an agreement with the farming organisations another ten year derogation was put in place allowing cutting for domestic pur- poses in these areas until 2014. However, since then, a review of the state of our bogs — an examination on the ground — has revealed severe and continuing damage by domestic turf cutters. In the ten years since commercial cutting was ended in designated areas, some 35% of the remaining area of active raised bog has been lost through domestic cutting and its associated drainage. We are losing a further 2% to 4% of our remaining active raised bog per annum. The overall scientific assessment of this habitat is "unfavourable, bad", which is the worst of three categories. European Union member states which report such unfavourable habitat status must take measures to ensure improvement. In light of the scientific evidence, it is clear that continued turf cutting on these sites is not compatible with their preservation. Since 1999, the Government has actively encouraged the cessation of domestic cutting by buying traditional turf cutting rights through a voluntary scheme of compensation. This covers SACs and NHAs. Earlier this year an interdepartmental working group on the cessation of turf cutting in designated areas began examining all the implications of cessation, including the question of replacement fuel sources. It invited and received submissions from interested groups and indi- viduals. In the past few weeks it met representative groups concerned with turf cutting and with groups concerned with protection of the bogs. It is due to report, with recommendations, later this year. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, appreciates that this is an issue of concern to a number of Deputies, particularly in regard to the impact any cessation might have on those who rely on their bog plots on designated sites as a source of fuel. This is a central consideration of the interdepartmental group and will be fully considered in its advice on how the Government should meet its obligations regarding protecting at least a portion of what remains of this irreplaceable part of Ireland's and Europe's natural heritage. Schools Building Projects. Deputy Lucinda Creighton: The recent and impending cuts in the education field are of concern to everybody on both sides of this House. In this case it is encouraging that there is a 345 Schools Building 8 October 2009. Projects [Deputy Lucinda Creighton.] potential solution on the horizon. I wanted to bring this matter to the House and put it on the record. I intend to speak to the Minister directly in the coming weeks. There is a profound and severe lack of primary school places in the Donnybrook parish area. There is huge pressure on St. Mary's national school, which is located on Belmont Avenue, for a number of reasons. I understand in the current school year some 60 pupils were turned away — they were just the ones who went to the bother of applying for a place. It is well known in the area that there is major pressure for places for junior infants on the school. The reason is that a school in Miltown was closed due to the sale of institutional lands there. There is no English-speaking primary school within the parish of Beechwood, so there is major pressure from neighbouring parishes to access places in St. Mary's school. It is an excellent school of the highest possible quality, with excellent teaching staff and very encouraging results, but there is huge pressure on it. There is an onus on the Department of Education and Science to find a solution, that is, an alternative site for the school. It has been sanctioned for an upgrade, although I do not know if the funding for it will come down the track. An extension was sanctioned for the school to be built upwards as the existing site is inadequate and cannot be expanded in terms of square footage. However, that is currently parked. Even if it were to go ahead, it is not a satisfactory solution because there is no space to expand the play area. The idea of accepting additional students to school which does not have the facilities to accommodate them is not a realistic solution. However, there is a potential solution. RTE has a massive site comprising 32 acres in Donnybrook and is currently proposing that Dublin City Council agree to rezone the site from Z15 for institutional use to Z10, a much broader use, to enable it to develop its lands and allow for the development of commercial, retail and residential units on the site. There is an opportunity because RTE is very keen to develop the site and there seems to be a willingness from it to entertain the idea of giving something back to community. There is not only a willingness and a preparedness to do that, but there is also an obligation under the Planning Acts that there be community gain through the process of any such development. In this area the form of community gain, which would be recognised as essential by all parties and almost all of the local residents, would be a school, which is a top priority. This is not something which has been proposed by parents of children in the school but by all generations, young and old. Everybody identifies this as a real crisis issue for the area and one for which there is a potential solution at hand. There is an obligation for community gain. Having had discussions directly with RTE and the city councillors for the area, I found there is a willingness to examine the proposal. We now need some sort of action. The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy O'Keeffe, has a very important role in recognising that there is an opportunity to secure a site for the area and there is a need for him to be proactive, creative and seek a solution to the problem and challenges which face the area in terms of the primary school. The opportunity presents itself in terms of RTE and the onus is now on the Department of Education and Science and the Minister for Education and Science to be proactive in the area and speak with RTE. The barriers between Departments should not be allowed to cause an unnecessary blockage in the system. Deputy John Moloney: I recognise the Deputy's involvement in progressing the site identified in advance of coming into the House. I am happy to respond on behalf the Minister, Deputy O'Keeffe, and I want to thank the Deputy for raising this matter. It gives me the opportunity 346 Schools Building 8 October 2009. Projects ´ to outline to the Dail the Government's strategy for capital investment in education projects and also to outline the current position in regard to the school referred to by Deputy Creighton, namely, St. Mary's national school, Donnybrook, roll number 19727G. Modernising facilities in the Department's existing building stock as well as the need to respond to emerging needs in areas of rapid population growth are significant challenges. The Government has shown a consistent determination to improve the condition of our school buildings and to ensure that the appropriate facilities are in place to enable the implementation of a broad and balanced curriculum. The forward planning section of the Department of Education and Science has carried out a study of the country to identify the areas where, due to demographic changes, there may be a requirement for significant additional school provision at primary and post-primary levels over the coming years. This study has been conducted using data from the Central Statistics Office, the General Register Office and the Department of Social and Family Affairs in addition to recent schools' enrolment data. The study indicates that the requirement for additional primary provision in 2010, 2011 and 2012 is likely to be greatest in more than 43 selected locations across the country, based on significant changes to the demographic profile of those areas. This information has been circulated to all existing school patrons who have been invited to bring forward proposals for the expansion of existing schools or indeed to put themselves forward as patron for any new primary school, should it be required. The requirement for the establishment of new schools will of course be lessened where it is possible to expand and extend existing schools in those areas. The forward planning section of the Department is in the process of carrying out an analysis of each location to identify the school accommodation requirements up to and including the school year for 2014 to 2015. When the required reports have been completed for these initial areas selected, the forward planning section will continue to work on preparing reports on a priority basis for the remainder of the country which will include the Montrose and Donnybrook area. Currently the school referred to by Deputy Creighton has a project in architectural planning to extend and refurbish the existing school on Belmont Avenue. The refurbishment project has been assigned a band 2.1 rating. This project is at an early stage of architectural planning and additional information to the addendum of the first stage submission is currently awaited from the design team. Some 256 pupils are enrolled at St. Mary's national school. The school has eight classes, two of which are based in prefabricated classrooms. When the current project has been completed, the school will have nine mainstream classrooms. The brief for the project includes the conver- sion of some existing classrooms to ancillary accommodation and their replacement with four new full-size classrooms which will be provided as additional accommodation. A degree of additional ancillary accommodation will also be provided. The Minister met a delegation from the board of management of the school, including its chairperson and its principal, on Tuesday of this week. At the meeting, the school authorities informed the Minister of their tentative exploration of the possibility of acquiring a site within RTE's Montrose campus for the develop- ment of a new school. This was the first time such a proposal was brought to the attention of the Minister or the Department. The representatives of the school were at pains to stress that it is a tentative prospect at best. Indeed, the proposal from the RTE Authority to seek rezoning of the Montrose site is at an early stage. The school authorities clearly stated that their priority is to make progress with the refurbishment project on the existing site. They added that they do not wish to follow a dual-track approach that might cause the project to be delayed. As the meeting concluded, the school authorities once more expressed their clear commitment to pursuing the refurbishment project at the existing school site. I thank Deputy Creighton for 347 The 8 October 2009. Adjournment [Deputy John Moloney.] giving me an opportunity to outline to the House the current position with regard to the building project at St. Mary's national school in Donnybrook. ´ The Dail adjourned at 5.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 13 October 2009. 348
Pages to are hidden for
"DAIL EIREANN"Please download to view full document