Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Members who contributed to the debate for their constructive comments. I will try to respond separately in regard to the two separate provisions in the Bill, first, in regard to the attempt to address the perceived deficiencies in section 3 of the 1971 Act, and, second, on the issues raised concerning Limerick regeneration.

Deputy Phil Hogan raised a number of concerns. There is a number of informed points to be made in this regard. In the 1960s and 1970s, when the original Act and the health Act were enacted, the constitutional view on Article 15 had not developed to the extent it now has, and there had not been the same number of High Court and Supreme Court cases on which to base a judgment of the sort being made with regard to this Bill and these bodies. It is very important to state that, whatever the difficulty, if it exists, there has not been an adverse finding in regard to the establishment of any of these bodies or, indeed, in regard to section 3 of the 1971 Act. This Bill arises because of the advice of the Attorney General that it is sensible and appropriate to take this action. If there is a difficulty, it is not in regard to the functions of the bodies but perhaps due to a deficiency in the wording of the 1971 Act, which is the focus on this occasion.

It may well transpire that this is an interim measure to address a perceived doubt which has arisen because of the Attorney General's advice and matters that have been brought to our attention. The Government, including the Minister, Deputy Gormley, and the Department, believe it is prudent to address a deficiency which has been brought to our attention, even if it is only a potential deficiency. In the event that the review which is under way judges that it is necessary, further legislation will be brought forward to address whatever shortcomings show up in the review.

Deputy Hogan also stated there may well be a series of Acts with similar defects, and he asked why these were not addressed at the same time as the health Act. The principal reason in most cases is that people were not aware it needed to be done. If other legislation requires similar treatment and is brought to the attention of the relevant Minister, an interim Bill of this sort, or whatever is required to address the issue, would be brought forward.

Deputy Hogan also queried the statutory effect of a retrospective provision and he gave the example of redundancy payments to workers in the Comerama case. One of the differences in this case is that the provisions of this Bill do not propose a change in the current operation of the bodies concerned. In fact, it is a confirmation of what is provided for in the order setting up the bodies arising from section 3 of the 1971 Act. It is not the creation of something new.

The Deputy had concerns about section 3(3) on the basis that it might be unnecessary since it restates the constitutional position. This is an interesting argument and one we have visited and revisited on many occasions in the House. Sometimes Members on the Opposition side propose amendments which, in their view, would strengthen the provisions of a Bill and these are frequently rejected by the Minister on the basis that they are superfluous or unnecessary. A practice has arisen whereby the provision in section 3(3) appears in many pieces of legislation, and this is continued in this Bill. It is an issue that can be teased out further on Committee Stage if the Deputy is so disposed.

My understanding is that the provisions in section 3(4) are designed to protect the superannuation and other rights of the staff of the bodies which still exist and in some cases of the employees of bodies which formerly existed. Deputy Ciarán Lynch inquired about the functions of the agencies and whether the enactment of this Bill would remove the agencies further from answerability to the Dáil. The answer is "No". All the legislation will do is confirm the legality of the bodies in question in the event of any doubt about them, which I hope will not be the case.

Deputy Lynch raised a number of interesting questions, some of which were raised also in the Seanad debate about the cost of the various bodies and the kind of services they provide. He gave examples in the case of two bodies, one of which is the Local Government Management Services Board where there has been an increase in personnel from 19 to 30 and an increase in costs. The work of that board has changed dramatically, mostly in regard to its promotion of the social partnership process and also, importantly, in the performance verification process. I understand that approximately half of the annual budget of the board is passed on to local authorities to enable them to develop the partnership process in each of their own authorities.

The increases have also come about against a background of a considerable body of legislation which was not in place up to 2000. A good example is the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 which caused a considerable amount of additional work for local authorities. It is also fair to say that in the event that the board did not exist, the only real alternative available to the 34 major local authorities, and perhaps some of the town authorities, would be to have their own staff do the work. I do not think anybody would suggest it would be desirable for each local authority to have its own Local Government Management Services Board trying to carry out all the staff dealings that are required, or trying to provide computer services to all of the local authorities. I suspect a minimum of two or three people per local authority would be required, which when multiplied by 34 would automatically put one into the low hundreds and perhaps even more people would be required. On the basis of the information available, it seems that the value for money element of providing these bodies at national level on behalf of local authorities has a significant amount to recommend it.

Deputy Lynch also spoke, as did virtually all speakers, about the Health Service Executive. He believed it added further bureaucracy and additional layers. This is not an area for which I have responsibility. It is a matter for the Minister in the Department of Health and Children to address. However, I accept this is a very real issue for everybody in the House.

Deputy Lynch referred also to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and its legislative powers to prosecute local authorities. Perhaps that example more than most others illustrates why it would be highly undesirable for the Minister to have a direct role in the EPA for example, taking account of its remit as a body which has a high level of responsibility.

Most of the other speakers referred to issues relating to Limerick. Obviously the three Limerick Members displayed an intimate knowledge of the challenges which some of the communities in Limerick face. Deputy Noonan made an important point based on his understanding that the CEO of the regeneration agency has indicated that it is not intended to house any of the criminal families in the new housing clusters. That throws up the kind of difficulty he mentioned for people in other communities who are clearly concerned that if approximately 600 people — the 60 families multiplied by ten — are to be housed somewhere, that there is a considerable risk that they will be housed nearer to them.

It is my understanding that not just the Limerick city authority, but all of the agencies which have responsibility across a range of areas in Limerick city are represented on the regeneration board. I believe there will continue to be an engagement with all the bodies as the regeneration project moves forward. That being the case, one would expect that the concerns coming from the various agencies will be brought forward and addressed at management level.

This important question was raised in varying degrees by the other speakers from Limerick. I will bring to the attention of the relevant Ministers all the issues that have been raised, some of which are the responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe. I will also make sure the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, is aware of the concerns raised, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, regarding justice issues, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, regarding health issues and the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, on education issues. My feeling is that they are already aware of them but it is always instructive to listen to Members from a particular constituency talk about the challenges that are the reality on the ground and the responses to them.

Deputy O'Donnell encapsulated it very well when he said there was a mix of hope and apprehension. When one comes from the perspective of the Limerick city constituency, one has a better knowledge than Members from other areas. That said, Deputy Durkan made a fair point that we all have some experience of difficulties, as undoubtedly has the Acting Chairman, Deputy O'Connor. However, this is a very specific issue and a considerable amount of money is being committed to it over an even longer period than indicated by Deputy O'Donnell.

If only for the reason that a significant amount of taxpayers' money will be expended, we need to get it right. A far more pressing reason is the quality of life — economic and social — of the people of those areas in Limerick city and, as Deputy O'Donnell said, their immediate neighbours who might have been consulted a little earlier and more thoroughly. At least that is being done now and it is an exercise in trying to establish a much better quality of life for people.

I accept there is a risk that mistakes will be made along the way. It is most important that the agencies and the regeneration bodies are open to hearing the views of the communities involved. It is also important that the views of the elected representatives at both city council level and Oireachtas level are taken on board as advice given in situations like this is always given for the very best reasons and with the intention of being helpful and supportive. How the rehousing of the criminal families is addressed is an issue that cannot be avoided and I will certainly raise it with my colleagues.

Deputies Noonan, Jan O'Sullivan and O'Donnell also raised the immediate policing issue. Deputy Noonan made a valid point on the necessity to wipe out the drugs trade which ultimately is what puts the money in the pockets of these people to provide them with the kind of equipment they have to carry out the terrible damage they inflict. His proposal on taking out the godfathers will be of interest to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

I was very taken by the approach of Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. She referred to the fact that this is a long-term project and that while immediate measures are required to be introduced, she outlined, along with Deputy O'Donnell, the long-term supports that the education system will need. I will be very disappointed if the school which made its presentation to the regeneration agencies got as negative a response as Deputy Jan O'Sullivan thought, especially in view of the fact that the Department of Education and Science and its agencies are represented on the board. Each of the Deputies said the 100 extra gardaí ought to be one of the immediate steps taken. While law and order issues are to the fore, there are many other issues relating to long-term intervention that will cost a great deal of money in the short term but unless that expenditure is made the process will not be successful.

All three Deputies referred to the previous unsuccessful regeneration attempt in O'Malley Park where much money was spent but only the bricks and mortar element was addressed. If that is the only element that is addressed on this occasion, I am sure they are correct that the project cannot be as successful as it might be otherwise. I accept that the success of the Ballymun regeneration project, from which lessons can be learned, can be of benefit to Limerick. The social services and education element have to be centrally involved in the process on an ongoing basis.

I will pass on the point made by Deputy O'Donnell who referred to the requirement of local authority tenants which is not extended to those on rent subsidy which is of some importance in this regard. Deputy Durkan made a point that nearly all of us suspect has some validity. In some cases the expenditure of time and effort that goes into trying to address problems does not meet with success. He also revisited the Health Service Executive versus health boards debate which is not relevant in this context but is important in the long term. In addition, he made a number of interesting and valid points about the nature of effective policing, such as the placing of a Garda station in the middle of an estate where there are difficulties, the provision of motorcycles, etc. The point he made about tackling anti-social behaviour, especially in the context of a local authority estate, is one we have not successfully addressed. The problem is not confined to Limerick, nor is it confined to big towns and cities. It can equally, or perhaps more so, be a difficulty in a small local authority estate in a small town or village. We have not dealt with this problem effectively heretofore.

The Deputy also pointed out that, in his view, the voluntary agencies cherry-pick their tenants and leave the local authority with much more difficult tenants to deal with. This reflects Deputy Michael Noonan's point on the possibility of providing housing in the regeneration project only to those who do not have criminal records and who have obtained certification of suitability from the Garda Síochána. Even if such a requirement were introduced, the city council would be left to deal with the accommodation requirements of a large number of people. A model will have to be found, not only in Limerick but at national level, to address the type of difficulties these people create. Perhaps we need to take action immediately, not necessarily by expending much more money but perhaps by deploying existing resources more imaginatively and directly and with more force that has been the case previously. This is an interesting part of the debate on the legislation.

The two regeneration bodies were established initially under the 1971 Act and are properly constructed and established under the legislation before us. If Second Stage is passed, Committee Stage will be taken in the committee rooms and I will welcome amendments tabled by the Opposition. Deputy Phil Hogan will be used to dealing with me from my time in another Department. I will give Opposition amendments thorough, fair and equitable examination and accept them if they have merit. I welcome interaction with Opposition Deputies and their commitment to play a constructive role in the passing of this legislation, however small or unimportant it may appear. Constructive input from Deputies from all sides is welcome, particularly if they bring slightly different perspectives to the table. I look forward to Committee Stage and thank speakers for their constructive comments.

See this speech in context