Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach the progress of the structured Church State dialogue initiated by his predecessor; when he last met the principal participants; the plans he has for future meetings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23279/10]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach the position regarding his office's dialogue with churches and faith communities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24332/10]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach if he will report on progress in respect of the structured dialogue with the churches and faith communities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25054/10]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.

Since the process was inaugurated in February 2007 by my predecessor, general and bilateral meetings have taken place with most of the participants. I am very pleased with the progress to date and I look forward to further meetings with the dialogue partners.

I met the Church of Ireland archbishops in 2009 as part of the process and this was my first specific encounter with the Church-State dialogue since I became Taoiseach. I recently met with the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and we discussed the dialogue process. Contact at official level has continued with various churches, faith communities and non-confessional organisations. I am looking forward to meeting with other partners in the process in the future.

The process of structured dialogue was envisaged from the outset as a flexible channel of consultation and communication on broad issues of mutual concern, which would supplement the normal bilateral and sectoral exchanges with the churches on specific policy issues by individual Departments. I am satisfied that it will develop in years to come to be a valuable means of addressing issues of change in society. I am confident that the opportunity to exchange perspectives and address issues of mutual concern in this way with key institutions of civil society will be of great benefit to all the participants given the importance of the faith dimension to the lives of so many of our citizens and the greater pluralism of religious affiliation and practice in Irish society.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has outlined the various meetings that have taken place over the past year and a half which come under the heading of structured dialogue with the churches. These meetings do not appear to be any more frequent or extensive than the normal type of periodic meeting that would take place between church leaders and Government. Where does the structured dialogue - as it is called - differ from the normal discussions that would take place anyway between churches and Government? The Taoiseach indicated the structured dialogue process is now more than three years in existence. What is the agenda, or is there an agenda, for the dialogue and what is the end point, if there is one, envisaged as part of this dialogue?

What discussions has the Taoiseach had with the religious congregations in respect of the contribution they will make to the redress for institutional child abuse? He had a meeting on 15 April with religious congregations and survivors of child abuse. I sought to question him about that meeting, but he transferred the question to the Minister for Education and Skills, who confirmed it is the Government's objective to secure a 50:50 share of the €1.36 billion total compensation that arises from the residential institutional abuse. The most recent reply I received from the Minister informed me that officials would now engage with each of the congregations with regard to their current offers and to how the objective of a 50:50 sharing of the overall costs would be achieved, and that there would be further consultation with the congregations and with the survivors and their representatives about how the fund would be used. When does the Taoiseach expect agreement on this or can he update the House on whether agreement has been reached on the 50:50 share? What consultations are taking place with the congregations and the former residents on how those moneys will be put to use?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The dialogue that is taking place with the churches is broad and can relate to broad economic issues or issues of mutual concern as to how society is developing. Dialogue with the churches is a good opportunity for both sides to hear the various perspectives and policy priorities in which they are involved. There is no end point to such a dialogue and it should continue. I do not see it as being for a particular number of months, meetings or years and then ending. It is ongoing dialogue.

On the question of the situation with the congregations, there were separate meetings with representatives of the religious congregations and groups representing survivors on 15 April. At those meetings, I advised that the Government had considered the panel's report, together with the individual responses from the congregations to the call for further substantial contributions, along with a range of issues raised in the aftermath of the publication of the Ryan report. I stated that the Government's view was that the overall costs in responding to the residential institutional abuse, which are now projected to reach €1.36 billion, should be shared on a 50:50 basis between the taxpayers and the congregations responsible for the running of residential institutions. The congregations are offering significant additional contributions that they have valued at €348.51 million. While more detailed work and discussion is necessary with the congregations in respect of the detail of their property offers, on the assumption these contributions are fully realised, the congregations' collective contributions to date, when account is taken of the original €128 million contribution under the 2002 indemnity agreement, now amount to €476.51 million. This leaves a target of more than €200 million to reach the 50% share of the overall projected costs, which would amount to €680 million.

The Government has proposed to each congregation a process to establish how the objective of achieving a 50% share can be reached over time. The Government has requested that additional contributions be provided to the greatest degree possible in cash as a contribution to the planned national children's hospital. The Government also announced a proposal to use the cash element of the congregations' current offers of contributions, which will amount to approximately €110 million over the next few years, to establish a statutory fund in keeping with the all-party motion passed by Dáil Éireann, which supported the proposal for a trust to be set up and managed by the State for the support of victims and to other education and welfare purposes. As the Deputy indicated, officials are engaged at present with each congregation in respect of its current offers and how the objective of 50:50 sharing of the overall costs could be achieved. Where schools have been offered by congregations as part of their contributions, the detail of such offers will form part of these discussions. Among the issues arising in this regard will be the nature of the continuing use of these buildings, educational or otherwise.

That is the current position of this process. As for the structured dialogue, it affords an opportunity from time to time for the State to meet representatives of the churches and to hear what are their concerns regarding societal developments generally. The economic conditions and outlook have been the dominant theme of public affairs in recent times, with particular emphasis on the realignment of Exchequer income and expenditure. I expect to be able to join colleagues in meetings with the churches on these issues, for example, and intend to arrange a meeting with all the parties to the dialogue process on a plenary basis in the near future.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, I support the continuation of the structured dialogue with the churches. My concern was that there did not appear to be much activity taking place. It did not appear to be any more intensive than would have been the case without it being called "structured dialogue". In respect of the Taoiseach's reply to me on the discussions with the religious congregations about sharing the costs of the measures that must be taken to provide redress for the survivors of institutional abuse, when does he expect discussions with the congregations to be concluded to the point that there is agreement on the 50:50 share? Do the congregations accept there should be a 50-50 share? Are the discussions now about how this is to be composed and when is this likely to be brought to a conclusion?

As for the uses to which the additional moneys are to be put, does the Taoiseach have plans to have further discussions with the survivors or the representatives? As the Taoiseach is aware, there was unease and upset regarding the meeting that took place on 15 April and some dissatisfaction was expressed about its outcome. Does he have plans to have further discussions with the survivors with regard to the uses to which the money will be put?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As for the issue regarding the question of the congregations, the Government set out its position and they obviously brought forward the assets they had available to them for offer. As I stated, the valuation was €348.51 million, in addition to the original contribution of €128 million under the 2002 indemnity agreement. In our view, we need to engage with them on a further contribution. The congregations had to listen to the Government's view at that meeting. The Government is prepared to work with the congregations in whatever way we can to achieve the objectives set out. They emphasise that we will be dealing with each individual congregation on that point. That is what we are doing at the moment.

There is a continuing need to ensure that what has been offered is arranged to be transposed as suggested. That work is continuing. The Department of Education and Skills has been liaising, and continues to liaise, with the survival groups on those matters. We outlined to them what the Government envisaged in terms of the cash element of the trust fund, an idea which formed part of the agreed motion passed by Dáil Éireann. We are working on that issue as well.

Different views were put forward by various survivor groups on a number of matters. They are entitled to state those positions but it is for Government, on the basis of having had an expert panel examine all of the issues, namely, the assets that were available for consideration to deal with the matter as far as the congregations were concerned, to come to them with the considered view of the panel based on the information available to it. It was a constructive meeting. I accept there will be disappointments from various quarters but those were constructive meetings where the Government outlined the position as clearly as possible and set out what we believed was achievable and what was in prospect based on the facts of the situation as they were before us. I would not like the Deputy to feel the meeting was not constructive; many constructive contributions were made at those meetings.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the matter the Taoiseach has just addressed and the meeting of 15 April, is he aware that great upset was caused for some in attendance at that meeting by the indication that a percentage only of what was to be secured from the religious institutions would make its way to them and their loved ones? Given the advanced years in most cases of survivors there was an incredulity on the part of some I met. Did the Taoiseach not have the same experience? One could question the value of a trust fund for education and training when the average age of the survivors is 60 years of age, some of whom are much older again, and were not considering education and retraining at that point. They were hoping to enjoy a period of time for themselves and their loved ones in a very different reality to that which had been a big part of their life story to date.

In the light of the strong - I do not overstate the case - exception taken by some of the most prominent voices among the group, including a former elected representative of the Taoiseach's own party, who was hugely angered by what was outlined on that day, will the Taoiseach revisit the detail of what he outlined again today in the House? Does he not accept that the critical first matter of address is the need of the approximately 15,000 people, the survivors for whom the experience of their childhood impacted right through their adult life, and who are the very core of what this is all about? We are seeking a degree of restitution, a transfer of funding to help and assist a better quality of life, peace and an opportunity to effect closure for many of those people.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Deputy have a question?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Those are my questions in that regard.

With regard to the very important dialogue with the churches and faith communities, have the issues of the ownership, management and patronage of schools been addressed in the course of the series of meetings, which I hope will continue? Does the Taoiseach not accept that the structure of primary education and the patronage of primary schools throughout the country are such that 98% of primary schools are in denominational control? Recent figures suggest 58% of parents support the continuation of that formula. In other words, 42% of parents of children attending primary schools would like to see a new and different arrangement. Has the Taoiseach noted - I am sure he has - that the Catholic Church has recognised the need for a more balanced provision? Have these matters been addressed?

Has the Government conveyed to the various churches and faith communities its intent to bring about a more democratically accountable primary school structure throughout the State that is all-encompassing and inclusive, recognises and respects all faith traditions and church beliefs and is more reflective of the real make-up of Irish society today?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the first matter, obviously the question of restitution has been dealt with. The very purpose of the redress board arrangements, established through the legislation we passed, was to provide for restitution and remove the process from a legalistic, adversarial court environment. The standards of proof that would be required in a court system were not required by the redress board. That people suffered abuse was taken as a fact. People obtained redress on foot of the evidence and experiences brought before the board. This worked very well. The full cost, €1.36 billion, represents a significant effort by the State to recognise that it had to take responsibility, along with others.

The fact is that the redress scheme was a very speedy way of dealing with the precise issue to which the Deputy referred, that is, having court-style proceedings in each case. One could easily speculate how long such a process would take and how difficult it would be for individuals. The matter was agreed in the House through the redress board legislation.

It was my job, on the basis of the expert panel's work and the submission of details on the assets and liabilities of the congregations - there was much discussion on what constituted the factual position - to let those concerned have the factual information and indicate to them what we believed was the best way forward based on the issues that arose. Some had certain views that they had already expressed on this matter in terms of information being provided to the individuals concerned again. There was an all-party motion in the House regarding the establishment of a trust fund, which was regarded as the best mechanism by which that task could be done, in addition to the individual redress people had obtained through the redress board facility provided for through legislation in the House. That is the position. I simply conveyed the Government's view to all the survivor groups to clarity the point and indicate precisely the circumstances that obtained.

The question on education is, as the Deputy knows, a matter for the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills. During discussion with representatives of the Catholic Church in November 2009, it was agreed that the Department of Education and Skills would look at identifying a sample number of areas of relatively stable demographics where a requirement for the establishment of new primary schools is unlikely to emerge in the foreseeable future, where the provision is exclusively Catholic and where there is limited diversity of provision at present. Work on the identification of ten such areas has now been completed within the Department of Education and Skills. The aim is that these areas can be used to trial the modalities by which the number of Catholic schools can be reduced thus releasing some schools for other patrons. The Tánaiste will shortly be informing the Government on the matter ahead of the publication of details of the sample areas.

On the present situation regarding new schools or new buildings, it is already Department of Education and Skills policy that new school buildings built on sites owned by the Minister are owned by the Department to be then leased to the relevant school patrons. This is, in effect, a reversal of the traditional relationship the State had with the traditional school patrons.

On transferring ownership of all existing schools to State ownership, I am satisfied that the current model, whereby the Minister enters into a lease with the school patron, remains a valid model for the existing stock of national schools, particularly in view of the likely costs associated with the purchasing of such lands which also assumes that the landowners in question would be willing to enter into voluntary sales of their lands. The Department's investment by way of a new building and/or extension or refurbishment works on lands not owned by the State is secured by way of a lease. In circumstances where the school patron wishes to sell the lands, the patron is required to apply to the Minister to surrender the Minister's interests, and it is generally policy that in processing such requests a suitable refund is sought from the patron.

On balance, therefore, I am not convinced there is a compelling case for the State to seek to take over the legal ownership of the total existing stock of schools. What is being done in the case of the new schools, as I stated, is that we have reversed the situation. In the case of the existing stock of schools, as I stated, there is a pilot programme being brought forward by the Tánaiste to look at various modalities as to how one would reduce the number of Catholic schools in an area where the demographics are steady and exclusively Catholic at present. In other situations in developing areas, one is seeing a diversity of patronage taking place.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A brief supplementary from Deputy Ó Caoláin. There is not much time in the slot.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the first reply the Taoiseach gave regarding the survivors of religious institutional abuse, has it ever been reflected to him, as it has been to me, by some of those survivors and spokespeople on behalf of many of the survivors involved that the Government's formula for the distribution, utilisation and employment of the moneys and the transfer of assets from the religious institutions was tantamount to rubbing salt in wounds that had been inflicted from their childhood? That is how strong the language was when reflecting on that 15 April disclosure by the Taoiseach to those same survivors. I am told that they left the Taoiseach in no doubt of their strong rejection of what was proposed and how they were now to be dealt with in terms of the distribution of the transfer of assets and cash. If he can add something further to that, I would welcome it.

On the education issue that I raised with the Taoiseach,-----

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Could we have a question? We seem to be imparting information all of the time.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----while the focus of the question is on the churches and the faith communities regarding the issue of patronage of schools in tandem with the exploration of what changes can come about, has the Government direct engagement with Educate Together, which has been instrumental in bringing about a united primary education network-----

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That question is much more appropriate to the line Minister.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----and which is embarking on efforts to establish its first secondary school premises in the State, something that I wish well and encourage?

On the Taoiseach's engagement with the churches and faith communities, was the issue of the civil partnership addressed in the course of the most recent or previous engagements with the churches and the faith communities? If so, what was the position articulated?

Did the Taoiseach avail of the opportunity to inform those with whom he was engaging that the Civil Partnership Bill apparently has the support of all political voices in the House and is, hopefully, proceeding accordingly to conclude within a short time?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are survivor groups that did not express themselves in the way he suggests at those meetings. There were others that did. My job was to outline in what way we were going to be in a position to implement those areas of the motion addressed here in the House. There may well be areas of the motion that some survivor groups would rather see worded or dealt with differently but ultimately, the situation is that the taxpayers of the country have made provision for €1.36 billion in redress in regard to these appalling issues that arose for many people. We believe that a 50:50 split in terms of the contribution to be made by the congregations and the State is an objective that should be achieved. We have outlined our position. Therefore, in respect of those assets that are being provided, the need for the State to be accorded that 50:50 split is based on the fact that we have taken on the 100% monetary liability in terms of the redress board at the moment, less the moneys involved in the 2002 indemnity scheme and the subsequent discussions we had with them following the Ryan report on the need for them to make a much larger contribution. That is now in the process of being established and worked through.

That being the case, the trust fund to deal with the education, health or welfare issues that would arise for survivors becomes the mechanism by which we deal with the continuing needs of individuals who have obtained their redress through the redress board. Continuing issues that arise for groups or individuals come through the trust fund mechanism. That is the message that was conveyed by me on behalf of the Government, taking into account all of the considerations that needed to be taken into account. That is where things stand. The question of re-opening the redress issue did not arise. As far is the Government was concerned, we have established the means by which we can continue to provide support and assistance, namely, through a trust fund mechanism.

In regard to the question on civil partnership, that issue has not been raised formally through the structured dialogue with me. I have made the point in regard to it that everyone in this democracy is entitled to give his or her point of view but the Government has brought forward this legislation for the purpose of dealing with matters that arise. The Civil Partnership Bill has, we believe, been very carefully prepared with clear legal advice about the requirements of the Constitution. Addressing the position of those who will seek to benefit from the terms of the Bill should not be seen as detracting from the importance of marriage or the family or, in particular, their constitutional position. While others are entitled to take a different view, it will be for the Members of the Oireachtas to determine the law of the land following full reflection and debate. The Government is committed to its enactment.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regarding Educate Together and alternatives to the church patronage system, while-----

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is an issue that would need to be taken up directly with the Minister for Education and Skills. I would not have the specifics in that area.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to ask the Taoiseach three questions, two on this matter and one on another. First, the independent panel that reported last November assessed the statements of the religious congregations. I understand that the final cost of the responses was approximately €1.36 billion, of which 50% was to be provided by the religious congregations. They made an offer of €348.51 million, leaving a shortfall of in or around €200 million. Is this the correct figure or thereabouts and what progress has been made in regard to making up that 50%?

Second, concerning the €110 million cash element of the congregations' offer of €348 million, has the way it is to be distributed and administered been finalised?

Will legislation be required to deal with this?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The figures mentioned by Deputy Kenny are broadly correct. The first issue is to realise the value set out in respect of the assets, buildings and properties brought forward by the congregations for submission to the State. They were valued at €348.51 million but more detailed work and discussion with the congregations is necessary on the detail of their property offers, assuming these contributions are fully realised. The collective contributions to date from the congregations, when account is taken of the original €128 million contribution under the indemnity agreement, will amount to €476.51 million. Taking €1.36 billion as the total cost, 50% of that is €680 million and this leaves just over €200 million to be provided. We are considering doing that over the longer term. We need to deal with what is before us. We must engage with them as to the further contribution they can make because the objective of 50:50 is a fair distribution of the costs.

From the outset the congregations have not stuck to the €128 million in the indemnity agreement. They have come forward and indicated a willingness to work constructively with the Government on these matters. They have brought forward further significant contributions based on valuations they have given us to that amount. We recognise that as being a substantial contribution but we believe the 50:50 split based on the total cost at the moment will require a further contribution in due course over the longer term. We are engaging with them on this matter.

We announced a proposal to use the cash element of the current offer of contributions for a trust fund. We can arrange for the transfer of other aspects in due course as part of a process.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I believe in the process of the structured dialogue that has been running for a number of years. Is there a timetable for meetings? Do these conversations take place once or twice a year or is the programme devised by the Government? Is a specific agenda or theme followed or do conversations arise from the circumstances that are topical in the news? I took the opportunity to meet the moderator of the Presbyterian Church when he was here. His church was interested in seeing a continuation of the structured dialogue. He raised the matter of the Presbyterian Mutual Society. The Taoiseach is well aware of the details. It applies to a greater extent north of the Border but substantial numbers of people in the Twenty-six Counties have lost heavily because the mutual society was outside the scope of the guarantee offered by the British Government. Was that matter considered part of the structured dialogue and does the Government have an interest in relating this on the next occasion the structured dialogue takes place? The moderator pointed out that a significant number of people have lost very heavily. The Taoiseach is aware of the figures involved. Perhaps he can indicate if it was a topic of discussion or is likely to be discussed on the next occasion.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was not raised with me by the moderator. I am aware of the issue and I know it was taken up with the British Government directly to see if anything could be done. I am not sure there are easy answers available. We are not part of that commitment. We have listened attentively to the issue but it is being dealt with by the British Government in respect of a government interface with the Presbyterian community.

On the issue about structured dialogue, the point is taken that there has not been a plenary session during my term as Taoiseach; it is one I will arrange in the near future. As I said, it is something we must provide on an ongoing basis and the issue of how frequently it should meet can be discussed at the next plenary session.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We need to move on. Does Deputy Kenny have another supplementary? Ar aghaidh leat, Deputy Gilmore.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am conscious that the next batch of questions are on-----

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, and we will finish questions to the Taoiseach at 3.15 p.m.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are also on Northern Ireland and, in fairness, we would probably want to give them more than five minutes today.

I want to ask the Taoiseach two questions. The first is in respect of the 50% of the package that will come from the religious congregations. It is intended that some of that will be in cash and some by way of transfer of property. On what basis is the property transfer being calculated? Is it on a current valuation or on the basis of some previous valuation because there could be a wide difference in what that would amount to, depending on when it was valued?

Second, in respect of the meetings we all had with the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church, one issue the delegation flagged as something we might examine in this jurisdiction, and I bring it to the attention of the Taoiseach, are difficulties that are arising where churches are recruiting religious personnel - clergy people - from outside the State and where in some cases separate visa arrangements apply in this jurisdiction to those which apply in the United Kingdom. There are cases where the responsibilities of clergy people are in both jurisdictions - Northern Ireland and the South. I ask the Taoiseach, perhaps with the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, to examine the visa arrangements with a view to ensuring there is a smooth process whereby if a church is recruiting clergy people who require visas there is not undue delay in the processing of visa applications for those operating in this jurisdiction.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. That matter was mentioned to me by the moderator. I asked the official attending the meeting to follow up on that and to contact the Department of Justice and Law Reform to determine in what way we might be able to assist if there are individual cases where problems are being experienced regarding people from outside the country coming to work here as ministers in the various churches. If there was a question of families coming at a later stage not being accommodated as one would like, that is something we would need to examine to determine in what way we can adapt our procedures to make sure we deal in a humane way with any issues that arise, that the bureaucratic response does not dominate the position and that we can sort it out. That is something I have asked to have examined and wish to talk to the Presbyterian Church about to determine the specifics in any given case.

Regarding the other matter, valuations have been placed on the properties by the congregations themselves. What we must do is work through these issues. The objective is to reach a 50-50 position. The purpose of the expert panel was to evaluate, based on the congregations' submissions and the interaction that took place between the expert panel and the congregations, the full position regarding their assets and their liabilities. There is also the concern of congregations, which is justified, in terms of how they care for the elderly members of their own congregations and provide for them for the future, which is fair enough. That needs to be examined also. Subject to the valuations submitted, the Government made the point that in its view further contributions would be required. It is an ongoing process to see how we can work with them to get to that point and achieve that objective. The benefit of the expert panel's work is that we have a clearer view as to the real position rather than relying on anecdotal evidence which only causes confusion and raises or lowers expectations as to what is available for further consideration in dealing with this issue adequately. We must get that objective evidence and work in as practical a way as possible towards dealing with it.