Serious issues are at stake. I have no wish to fall foul of the farming community but certainly I am crying foul today. The Minister, her officials and those behind this legislation cannot speak out of both sides of their mouths on this matter. The Minister cannot say that she is in favour of balance and biodiversity while introducing this Bill. Section 40 is an assault on the landscape and habitat. It is an assault on conservation, our wildlife and our natural heritage. I note that the Title of the Bill is rather innocuous - the Heritage Bill 2016. It is a Trojan horse for an attack on our heritage. It represents an assault on our natural heritage and landscape. No one in his right mind would extend the hedge-cutting, hedge-burning and scrub-burning season by a full two months while claiming to have any regard for wildlife, heritage, conservation or habitats. I strenuously oppose that section and I urge the Minister to reconsider it. It should be withdrawn and I hope it makes no further progress in this House. Moreover, I hope it makes no progress in the Lower House and that time betrays and delays it to the point where it falls with the Government and never sees the light of day again.
I live in the countryside. All the decent farmers I know respect the landscape, habitats and nature. They believe biodiversity is important for food production and the balance of nature. They know it is important for all other aspects of a sustainable lifestyle in the countryside, including those referred to previously, such as tourism and natural heritage, aspects which attracts so many visitors.
I am sick and tired of people speaking out of both sides of their mouths, talking about our natural heritage and how much they respect, love and value it. This is not valuing our natural heritage, wildlife, flora or fauna. Is the Minister honestly trying to tell me that the farmers of this country need two further months in the year to tend to hedgerows? I do not think so.
I have heard it all today. While I have great respect for my colleagues, Senator Eamonn Coghlan and Senator Michael Comiskey, from whom I take advice on agricultural and farming matters, and indeed I take advice on other matters from Senator Coghlan, I did not know until today that hedgerows throughout this country have a habit of attacking people. It is absurd to suggest that the briary thorns of a blackberry bush amount to just cause to bring in these draconian measures.
Everyone should tend to their hedgerows. The landscape should be maintained and we must have balance, but there is already provision in the case of road safety issues. If road safety concerns arise, the law already provides for intervention to deal with it. It is a ruse to suggest there are road safety or pedestrian safety issues. It is a guise to introduce this measure under a two-year pilot programme. It will never be clawed back or rolled back. It will be in place forever.
People come to this House week after week saying they are concerned about our heritage. What about the curlew, the golden plover, the skylark, the meadow pipet, the yellowhammer, the greenfinch and the linnet? They will be decimated if we desecrate the hedgerows in March and August as proposed in this legislation. It is absurd. There has not been adequate consultation. The Bill was published in Christmas week. Now, here we are trying to sneak it through in the dying days of the Government and the House. It is not necessary. I know of no farmers calling for this measure. If there are unique examples or extenuating circumstances where hedgerows have to be addressed, there is already provision in law for that to be tackled.We are here talking about green food, green technology, green energy, green economy and green jobs. It is paying lip service. There are talks about climate change. There is nothing green about the provisions in this Bill. There is nothing pro-heritage in the proposals in section 40. It is anti-environment, anti-conservation and anti-habitat. It is an attack on the wildlife and the countryside of this country. It is not pro-rural Ireland. Most right-thinking farmers and landowners would agree with me that there is adequate provision in law to address hedgerows in the existing timeframe and if one needs to extend beyond that, one can seek permission to do so as it is allowed. We are here blue in the face paying lip service to the climate change issue.
This is a further attack on the countryside. It is not good for the economy, for the countryside or for our conservation policies. It is an attack on the landscape, and that is even before I get to the issues around the canal by-laws. The Minister's predecessor, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Deenihan, tried to introduce those and we saw them off three years ago, and now here we have another Trojan horse attempt to sneak them in before the Government is dissolved. Those by-laws are not robust by-laws. They are also draconian by-laws to curb ordinary decent people trying to use the canals of this country.
I do not agree with this Bill. It does not enjoy my support and I will not be supporting it.
]]>In some instances I do not agree with the Minister that it is just a natural phenomenon and a matter of climate change. Some of it is man-made and we are causing some of the flooding ourselves. In some cases it is State agencies which are responsible. The ESB has a role and the OPW and Coillte have roles. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has a role but it seems to me that, in some instances, they do not all sing from the same hymnsheet and they certainly do not co-operate with, assist and support each other. In some cases, some of their objectives and purposes are at odds and we must address this. This was clearly shown at the height of the flooding when Bord na Móna was draining bogs and pumping water into an already flooded Shannon basin.
]]>In the case that I mentioned, a man collapsed - almost fatally - within a mile of the hospital on a Sunday morning but no ambulance was available. That makes no sense. There are issues with resourcing and staffing. While a central hub in Tallaght may work efficiently and effectively from an accounting point of view, we must consider whether it is effective from the point of view of patient safety and patient care, with particular regard to the status of Portlaoise hospital and the demands placed on it by the size of the population that it serves.
]]>Today, I have a bleak warning for the Minister of State.The National Ambulance Service, NAS, is overstretched, under-resourced and understaffed to the point of lives being put at risk. I make no bones about saying that. It is a difficult job at the best of times and a stressful one on a good day. It is intense work. The service is often the lifeline between the community and life-saving medical intervention at a hospital, including surgery.
The service cannot cope with the demands being placed on it. I do not raise this matter lightly and I have witnessed what is happening at first hand. How is it possible that a hospital as large as the one in Portlaoise, which serves a large catchment area that includes south Kildare, north Tipperary and the entire midlands, is often left without any ambulance cover whatsoever? That is the reality. In the past fortnight, ambulances from Portlaoise were dispatched to places as far away as Enniscorthy to pick up the slack resulting from a lack of ambulances covering Kilkenny, Carlow and Waterford. How can this be possible? Ambulances from Portlaoise have been dispatched to Carrick-on-Suir in south Tipperary, leaving the midlands without ambulance cover for hours on end. This is not acceptable or sustainable.
Ambulance drivers and paramedics are at their wits' end and are being stretched beyond belief. I witnessed this before Christmas at a commemoration of UN veterans in Portlaoise. A man collapsed at the event within a mile of Portlaoise hospital but there was still no ambulance after 45 minutes because the vehicles had been dispatched to elsewhere. However, paramedics who had been attending the commemoration - it was an Army and Air Corps event - had the skills and training necessary to resuscitate and save him. He had to be brought to hospital in a car after they deemed him fit to be moved. No ambulance was available. I am not making up stories or crying wolf. The ambulance service cannot operate at its current staffing and resourcing levels.
This issue is feeding into doubts about the future of and safety and staffing levels at Portlaoise hospital. There are question marks over the 24-7 accident and emergency unit. In an unprecedented move this week, Laois general practitioners, GPs, raised questions about why the HSE had not come forward with a plan to commit to the hospital's future status, including a 24-7 accident and emergency service of which the ambulance service would be a core part. That announcement was supposed to be made in September but the issue has been fudged and long-fingered until after the election. This is not acceptable and I will not countenance any situation in which the ambulance service in Portlaoise is diminished or under-resourced further or where there is any question of a threat of undermining the hospital's status, its 24-7 accident and emergency service and the proper resourcing and staffing of same.
]]>We first tabled motions on the issue in the House two years ago when Mr. Phil Hogan was Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. Three reports were ordered by him and his successor, but on each occasion, the EPA came back stating, "There is nothing to see here. Everything is squeaky clean. You can sleep easy in your beds." The people of Portlaoise are not sleeping easy in their beds. One does not need to have won an award at the young scientist exhibition last week or to be a rocket scientist to know that if one boils oil at 80, 90 or 100 degrees, the toxins and carcinogens emitted will not good for people's health. This is wrong; it is a scandal and needs to be addressed. It needs to be stopped. We have a responsibility in that regard. I commend the Leader for running on orderly and good House. He has facilitated us previously by bringing in Ministers on umpteen occasions to address this issue, but the EPA continues to dodge and duck and fail to answer the question. It has failed to do its job and protect the public interest.
]]>As the Minister of State noted, the Department and Teagasc have estimated the value of the bee pollination process at between €50 million and €60 million per annum. Bees are providing a free service and deserve a little payback, as it were. For this reason, we must protect and value them and develop the honey industry, which is currently small in scale. We have an opportunity to develop a rural enterprise and enable Irish honey to join other Irish food products on the world stage.
]]>While apiculture is a niche sector within our food production and agriculture industries, it almost beggars belief that there is no reference whatsoever to it in the Harvest 2020 document that was drawn up by the Government to set out our objectives and ambitions with regard to food production in this country. Most of the 3,000 enthusiastic beekeepers who are operating in this country keep bees as a hobby rather than for commercial purposes. In my own area, the long-established Dunamaise Beekeepers Association, which is based in Stradbally, County Laois, has passed down the tradition of beekeeping within families and communities down through the years. Many of the members of that association have produced and harvested honey of such world-beating quality that they have won medals and cups on the world stage for their produce.
It is astounding that this country, which is renowned for its agrifood sector, its food production and its food exports, imports 90% of the honey that is consumed here. It is hard to believe, but my point is that it does not need to be the case. We could turn it around so that it becomes a fantastic win for honey production, for beekeepers and for employment in rural Ireland in this niche sector. I will set out what is required to do things differently. While honey production is not a big-ticket item like beef production or dairy production - it is not anything of that order - there are certainly great prospects for jobs to be created and for niche rural industries to be spawned in this sector. A number of actions are required if that is to happen. First, an all-island approach needs to be taken. I am sure the Minister of State, as someone who comes from the north of the country, would appreciate that fact.Bees by their nature do not respect, regard or identify with borders. They do not fly over large expanses of water either, which is an advantage in our case. As we are an island nation, we can develop honey which has an integrity and which is produced within a defined area within the European Union. That would be to our advantage in terms of marketing a high quality product, organically produced and so forth.
The native Irish honey bee has adapted to our intemperate climate. While most people believe that bees are only out and about in the sunshine, that is not the case. They are busy pollinating and making honey as long as it is not raining, which is another challenge to which they have adapted. Some of the challenges that both bees and beekeepers find difficult to deal with include the introduction of foreign hives which can introduce disease, parasites and hybridisation which weakens the strain of the Irish honey bee and limits its ability to adjust to the Irish climate. Beekeepers are seeking a ban on the importation of foreign hives, which has already been done elsewhere, including on the Isle of Man. Beekeepers want to prevent interloping bees from places like Italy weakening the Irish bee stock.
Apiculture offers great opportunities and potential not only as a hobby, but as a commercial pursuit. In countries like Poland, one can study apiculture at university and emerge two or three years later with a recognised qualification in this area. We have totally ignored apiculture but there is an opportunity for us to engage, embrace and develop the sector for everyone's benefit.
]]>As resources become available and as the budgetary situation improves, as we will see outlined on this budget day, more resources should be put into this scheme, because it is vital. I would like to see an emphasis on the breakfast club. I would also like to see the scheme administered in a transparent and open manner. I know it is important to the Minister of State that we have value for money and an open and transparent tendering processes. There is quite a bit of money involved. We must also ensure that good-quality meals are being served to the children, that they are of a high nutritional value and that it is not just tokenism. It is important to ensure that we get not only value for money but also good nutritional value from the meals we serve. I am looking forward to the Minister of State's reply regarding how the scheme is currently being rolled out and how it can be improved.
]]>I take into account what the Minister of State has said regarding the range of other reforms in terms of open disclosures and the different approach now being taken, but the substantive issue is that the Government has put on the record formally here that a substantive and significant reform of the process is under way and will result in legislation being introduced later this year. This is welcome and I hope we are all still around to see that.
Reform is a slow moving train but I would at least like to nudge it out of the sidings in this regard. I would also wish to replace the equally slow moving gravy train that can get caught up in some cases. Regardless of what some colleagues might think, I am not having a cheap cut off anyone, but there are some outrageous examples of protracted cases log-jammed in the High Court which run up unnecessary legal bills. This is not good for the State or the citizen. I do not wish to disrespect the Minister of State's reply but the next case coming down the tracks relates to the swine flu vaccine and the resulting instances of narcolepsy experienced in some families. Unfortunately, because of the current system, the HSE and the Department of Health are not engaging with the families. This matter will therefore end up in the courts. I would like to see it perhaps being an example of the courts being avoided. I understand that the families would prefer that.
I will now turn to the other points made by colleagues. I do not wish to get bogged down in an adversarial situation, but I have to put on the record that it is unfair that while some reforms have been slow in coming, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has achieved significant reforms in other areas. We have had, for example, the following: reform in the areas of freedom of information; the introduction of an independent charities regulator; an independent Garda authority; the register of lobbyists; and transparency in appointments to State boards and invitations being sought. So it is not true to say there has been no significant reform. We have made significant progress and, along with colleagues, I keenly await the progress on Seanad reform.
The expert working group on Seanad reform, which includes former colleagues from this House, Dr. Maurice Manning, Mr. Pat Magner and Mr. Joe O'Toole, has brought forward proposals which deserve serious consideration. I think the recommendations are worthy and deserve to be implemented. I would like to see this reform happening but it does take time to address these matters. This Government has achieved significant reforms and it would be unfair not to put this on the record. Unfortunately and typically Sinn Féin has done what it always does, namely, it has left the building. They shoot first and then don’t even ask questions, they leave the building and do not wait for anyone else’s view or explanation. The only courts in which they seem to want to represent anyone are kangaroo courts. I will certainly not take any lecture from anyone in Sinn Féin regarding its concern for the small person. I saw no interest from Sinn Féin in the case of Maíria Cahill when she turned to them for help and assistance. I shall treat the Sinn Féin tuppence worth here today with the contempt it deserves.
I conclude by thanking the Minister of State, Deputy Phelan, for bringing to the House the good news that reform of this system is under way and that significant legislation is on its way. Hopefully that will result in a change of approach and a change of culture which will be good news for everyone.
]]>What I seek is for some common sense and compassion to be introduced into this culture so that the State Claims Agency acts on behalf of its citizens and not in conflict with them. We must remember that the State Claims Agency operates under the mandate of the Oireachtas and the Legislature so the responsibility ultimately rests with us to change that system and we can do so. I am not saying we should throw it out, I am saying we should reform it. We can have a hybrid system. Why do we not have mediation? Why do we not have independent arbitration first before we go into the long, arduous process of a difficult court case? I have been told by members of the legal fraternity that very often the only thing agreed when they take a case in good faith on behalf of a plaintiff is the name of the plaintiff and that they are actually standing in court that day. They step back from everything else and have to slog it out and prove everything, every minutia, every iota, every step of the way for years on end, while the case drags through the High Court in the name of the State. They are certainly not doing it on our behalf and in our names. This is wrong.
There is an opportunity here not only to save tens of millions of euro on behalf of the taxpayer, because that is the kind of bill that we are looking at. We can also show our citizens that the apparatus of the State is not pitched against them but is there to help and support them, and that it is accepted that we were wrong and that the damage has been done. It is possible to accept such in a no-fault scenario. This system works very well in Australia, for instance. We can have a situation in which people can receive interim settlements, periodic payments, and a settlement and compensation where no fault is ascribed or sought.It removes the need for families to be unnecessarily dragged through the courts, where they could run up hefty legal bills and run the risk of losing and having to pay costs to the other side, namely, the State. Institutions of the State such as EirGrid and An Bord Pleanála are increasingly being pitched against our own citizens and communities in the courts, which is wrong.
The State Claims Agency represents 129 different apparatuses, bodies and institutions of the State. It currently has over 7,000 cases on its books, with a potential liability of €1.5 billion. We have done our research here and we can see that the pattern has been the same over the past decade. On average, settlements are now reaching in the order of €100 million per annum. A further 50% is being added to those settlements in the context of legal costs and expenditure on behalf of the State Claims Agency and plaintiffs.
This is a very straightforward proposition. We are asking that the system, particularly in the area of medical negligence, be reformed. It would be a win-win situation for families, citizens, communities, the courts system and even the insurance industry. The adversarial approach means that insurance premiums are skyrocketing. My colleagues who are qualified in law will speak to this. It has reached the point where insurance companies have refused cover to surgeons and consultants. There is no end in sight.
I am aware that a further round of cases is listed on the courts' schedule for early next year. The parents taking them do not want to go to court. They want to sit down with the HSE and reach a fair and reasonable settlement. Their children have been inflicted with narcolepsy as a result of the swine flu vaccine which the State administered, albeit in good faith. It is accepted that the vaccine has had a profoundly negative impact on these young people's lives. Many of them have now gone through school and college and are young adults, and are still waiting for the State to put its hands up and admit it made a mistake and offer to help. Instead of that, the State is fighting them tooth and nail. It is not being honest and it is going to drag these citizens through the High Court.
We will see the outcome on the six o'clock news - we will pay out millions, eventually apologise and pay the lawyers more and more in the process. The apology will be lame and pointless for the families who have had to endure this system. We cannot wash our hands of it or say it has nothing to do with us. I implore the Minister of State to use her good offices in order that action will be taken to reform the State Claims Agency. Families should have the option of an alternative system in the form of a no-fault settlement process under mediation.
]]>That Seanad Éireann: - commends the Government for the comprehensive and successful process of political reform upon which it is engaged;
- calls on the Government to consider engaging in further reform, in particular to consider a review of the role of the State Claims Agency;
- calls further on the Government to consider undertaking such a review, with a view to bringing to an end lengthy, arduous and costly litigation between citizens and State agencies, and to replacing an adversarial and confrontational legal culture with a more user-friendly, prompt, no-fault system of settlement and compensation.
I welcome my colleagues and particularly the Minister of State who is taking the motion. I thank the Government for accepting the motion without amendment and I gain some heart from that, that there may be an inkling of some movement on the Government side to actually look at this area. I thank Senator Landy for his support and interest in the matter. It is also great to see Senator Colm Burke here who has a direct professional knowledge and interest in this sphere.
I was contacted when this motion was tabled and asked what the motivation behind it was and what was going on. There is nothing going on but the motivation is quite simple and straightforward. I am always horrified, as I think most right-thinking people are, when I see the phrase "the State versus" on television or in the newspapers. I have always been of the view, perhaps naively, that the State should always have the interests of its citizens at heart. The State and its apparatus, functions and institutions should support and assist the citizen and intervene on citizens' behalf whenever they need it or when they are in distress or require support. This should be at the core of their value system and modus operandi.
Unfortunately that is not always the case. One would want to have a heart of stone some evenings while watching the 6 o'clock news. It is harrowing to watch and is all too frequent. This is something that Senator Bacik and I have discussed. On the day that we tabled this motion originally, yet another case unfolded on the front pages of our papers and on the 6 o'clock news in which yet another family were, in my opinion, unnecessarily dragged through the courts to seek justice. Very often this is after years of trying to achieve fair play on behalf of their family or children. We must bring this to an end. It is unnecessary as are the legal costs and the legal treadmill that we set in motion when the State takes an adversarial and obstructive position against the interests of the individual. This is clearly a David and Goliath struggle because most families do not want to be in court. They certainly do not want to end up in the High Court for years on end through no fault of their own to seek justice and a settlement and compensation on behalf of their children. Very often we add insult to injury by dragging the case out.
The State is not acting in my name or on my or our behalf when it does this so I do not know from where this culture and system emerged. We could perhaps easily point a finger at the legal fraternity. That would be unfair. We could point a finger, perhaps, at the insurance industry where the culture is to accept nothing, to own up to nothing, not to accept any fault, blame or liability and to let a case drag on. Very often the plaintiff is the small person in the equation, with little or no resources, taking on the giant, which is the apparatus of the State, which is deemed to have deep pockets. Those deep pockets are the pockets of the Irish taxpayer.
]]>In the first instance, I would like to say that I would not be in favour of abolishing the television licence fee. I would have to stoutly disagree with my esteemed colleague because I think that would be tantamount to not only pulling the plug on RTE but to pulling the plug on public service broadcasting and everything that goes with that and everything that we expect to go with that. This is not an issue about RTE or the television licence fee. For me, it is about standards, public service broadcasting, diversity of ownership and content, and the quality, credibility and independence of the content. That would be a very dangerous road to do down.
It is through no fault on the Minister's part but successive Governments have failed down the decades to address the thorny and complex issue of media ownership and control. As a result, the media mergers and the media competition legislation that we ultimately introduced last year was a classic example of closing the stable door after the horse had well and truly bolted. It is immaterial to me who owns the commercial media, in broadcasting or in print in this country. It is immaterial to me whether it is Johnston, Mooney and-or O'Brien or any other O'Brien. What is important for me has never been what gets into print or into broadcasting but what does not get there. It is what is prevented for whatever reason that is important.
Very often some of the best programming can take months, if not a year or more, to research and to finally get to print or to get to broadcasting. If we were only to assign commercial criteria, we would not be getting the standard of programme, to be fair to RTE and it is easy to beat it up, and I agree with some of the comments my colleagues have made. RTE is in place in one part to hold the public bodies of this country to account, certainly to hold the Government of the day, politicians and public figures to account but, by the same standard, it should not be afraid to have the mirror of accountability and transparency put up against its organisation and operation. It is also a public body but sometimes it bristles when we dare to ask a question or to probe into its activities and standards, and that is unfortunate.
The commercial stations provide a very valid public service broadcasting remit throughout the country. We have all become fond of our local stations. As I drive through the country, I like tuning into the local stations to hear what is going on in that community and get a flavour of what is happening in that area. We have very good stations in my community where we have Midlands 103 and in Kildare we have KFM. As Senator Mooney mentioned, we have our own Gay Byrnes, Pat Kennys and Seán O'Rourkes in Will Faulkner and Shane Beatty who do tremendous work for the community by holding the public system and the State to account on a daily basis, and people tune in and enjoy that.
It is not a question of our beating up RTE to help the other local stations. The two prospects of supporting RTE in its remit and helping local stations are not mutually exclusive and we should not see them as being at opposite ends of the spectrum. However, I would like to add a note of caution. I come from a background of having had a legacy of 30 years working in the regional press, the local newspapers, which also provide a very strong local function within their local communities, local parishes and across the different counties. It would be unfair on them in a competitive and commercial context to be put at an unfair disadvantage if we were, for argument sake, to subsidise or support commercial radio stations at the expense of small local newspapers which are also struggling in the current climate of flux, change and challenge that the media sector is going through. It is quite a convulsion.
The Minister has been around as long as I am and he will remember the famous song, "Video Killed the Radio Star". It seemed like that at the time but video has gone and the radio has survived and is prospering. We do not know how this is going to pan out or where it will end up, but we are entering into a new era. It would be wrong to pull the plug on RTE, to try to undermine it. Certainly it should be challenged and expected to present and produce programming of the highest standards in current affairs, news, the arts, agriculture, in all the spectrum that we expect from a strong State public service broadcaster, but to say that it could do that and at the same time abolish the licence fee outright would not be compatible or sustainable. That would be a dangerous place to venture and, certainly, it is not a view I would support. While it is easy to beat up RTE and some of its precious presenters, we have to look beyond and behind that and see on the day-to-day basis the quality programming we get on television and on radio and the information provided to the public in an independent fashion, regardless of who is in government or who is the Minister. Certainly, RTE puts it up to the Government of the day and that is a good thing. It does so across a whole range of public bodies and public services that need to be held to account.RTE cannot have its bread buttered on both sides - and with jam - through both the licence fee and commercial revenues, and then not fulfil its public service remit. The Minister should instruct, or at least advise, RTE management that it is high time they provided space on the Saorview band to broadcast the Oireachtas TV channel. Under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 2009, sections 125 and 126, RTE is obliged to do so. It is getting millions in what my colleague, Senator Mulcahy, refers to as a subsidy and yet it refuses to broadcast Oireachtas TV. It wants another €1 million from the Exchequer, the Government or the taxpayer before it will agree to do so. RTE cannot have it both ways. The Ceann Comhairle and the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission have engaged exhaustively with RTE and ComReg for four years now. I am of the view that the station has failed to live up to its public service broadcasting remit. There is a provision in the Act for the Minister to advise and direct RTE to do so.
Ironically, RTE went to the courts to seek permission to broadcast elements of debates in the Dáil. Those elements were already being broadcast constantly on the Oireachtas TV channel via the Oireachtas website, Sky, UPC and Eircom. While those three commercial channels broadcast Oireachtas TV, the State broadcaster, whose duty and responsibility it is to do so, continues to dodge the issue and refuses to broadcast it. It is time RTE lived up to its status as the State broadcaster. It must accede to our request and, if it does not, some intervention from the Minister will be timely.
]]>We have a difficulty in this country with what has been referred to as implementation deficit disorder. This can result from local resistance and suspicion, which is well founded in some cases, such as those in which State agencies try to impose structures and projects on the community. That is why I believe organic projects that are built by communities from the ground up, with local ownership and community buy-in, work very well. I am in favour of direct community input from the ground, in collaboration with State agencies, when work is being done in areas such as conservation, habitat protection, biodiversity education, eco-tourism, adding value to the landscape and protecting wild flora and fauna. It is estimated that this range of activity is worth up to €2 billion per annum to our economy. As I have said, it is spearheaded by bodies such as the Irish Environmental Network and Irish Rural Link. However, it has certainly been the poor relation in terms of lottery funding to date. I have seen successful projects on the ground in my own community organised by groups such as the Abbeyleix Bog Project, the Portarlington Community Development Association and the Mountmellick justice and environment group, which is inspired and led by the local Presentation sisters. These organisations have done great work to restore areas such as river walks and to reclaim bogs to make them available to communities to enjoy. Their work has climate change benefits and all sorts of ecological and environmental dividends. Communities are proud of these groups, which are spread across the country, and feel they have ownership of them. I would also like to mention the work that has been done at Fenor Bog in County Waterford, the Wexford Slobs and Wildlife Reserve, Clara Bog in County Offaly, the Ballybay wetlands in County Monaghan, the Cabragh wetlands in County Tipperary and the Ballyhoura Mountains in County Limerick.
If the Government takes the great opportunity it has to support such projects throughout the country, it will get a really good bang for its buck. Those who support this kind of community organisation really get good value. The dividend in terms of community buy-in, public participation and tourism, and the economic and environmental benefits, cannot be exaggerated. There is an opportunity to get good value for money. I think that was the purpose - the pure and real intention - of those who first founded the national lottery and provided for the allocation of this funding in 1986. I do not want to pick on anyone when I say that in my view, national lottery funding was never supposed to replace core Government funding for services. It was supposed to be an additional benefit for communities. I know the Cathaoirleach is an avid and enthusiastic golfer, but I do not think national lottery funding was ever intended for the construction of new golf clubs. I do not think that was the purpose or intention of this structure when it was designed. It was supposed to provide additional resources to voluntary and community organisations, which were supposed to be the main beneficiaries. I would like to see us revisit the matter to ensure that the allocation of the next round of national lottery funding is grounded in such a principle. I am particularly keen for us to make up for lost ground in terms of projects that pertain to the natural environment.
]]>I welcome that the Minister has decided to take a belt and braces approach with this legislation to ensure security of the data protection system. The Bill before us will address any remaining concerns in this regard and it paves the way for the roll-out of the new postcode system this summer. Most people will welcome postcodes, particularly those involved in businesses or logistics. As someone who lives in rural Ireland, I answer my door every day to people who have called to the wrong address. People living in the countryside often facilitate each other by accepting deliveries on behalf of their neighbours. This can be a nuisance if one is waiting on a delivery, however, because it can cause delays. On a more serious note, it can also delay emergency services. Ambulances and fire services are dispatched through a centralised system. The system is not without its shortcomings, one of which is the lack of local knowledge. I have first-hand experience of fire tenders and ambulances being directed to the wrong location because of the lack of a detailed address. Time delays can have dire consequences but I hope the new postcode system will be embraced by the emergency services and ensures a prompt and precise response to calls. This system can save lives if it is used effectively.
There was unnecessary confusion over the roll-out and ownership of the new system. The legislation provides clearly that the postcode system will remain the property of the State and postcodes will be free to members of the public.
]]>Senator Tony Mulcahy has set out two examples of the kinds of incidents that can occur with devastating and disastrous consequences for the workers and the environment. Therefore, any measures that can be put in place to prevent such incidents should be put in place. We have only to get these things wrong once and then it is too late. We are dealing with the area of prevention. Once an incident occurs it is too late to address it. Colleagues across the floor have made valid observations which should be taken into consideration. A bond is a good idea. Who is going to chase down the developers of the sector and the industry once a rig or a well has expired and run its course? It is important that the infrastructure is not left to rust at sea or in close proximity to the shoreline and whatever other infrastructure is in place. The onus is on anybody who has developed rigs and wells to put things back as they found them and to decommission the facilities properly. There have been incidents around the country where that has not always been the case. It has happened in the case of mining developments and in the chronic situation in Cork where the taxpayer continues to pick up the tab for restoring facilities in the former Irish Steel plant in Cork harbour. Again, the taxpayer has had to clean up a really dangerous hazard and environmental mess left behind by the industry when it closed down. It is important we do not have those kind of scenarios.
We have a pitiful record in terms of enforcement of regulations from child safety to financial regulation to charities regulation. I do not have any confidence whatsoever in the Environmental Protection Agency in terms of how it goes about its business. I am glad it is not the assigned authority in this instance. The CER has been selected as the competent authority. In terms of resources, competence, skill sets and staffing how will it police the legislation? How will it ensure compliance? In recent decades basic building regulations were not adhered to or respected. We can have all the rules and regulations we want but if they are not enforced and policed, they are virtually pointless. We found out after the building boom was over that only a small percentage of building developments were inspected by planners to ensure that the conditions that had been applied had been adhered to.
This is important, robust and timely legislation but it will not be worth the paper it is written on unless the competent authority, in this case the CER, has the resources to ensure and insist on compliance and that, as colleagues have pointed out, the penalties for non-compliance are sufficiently imposing to ensure shortcuts will not be taken. As we have noted in the House, the consequences for human life, wildlife, sea birds, fish stocks and the broader environment and ecosystems could be devastating in the extreme for generations to come should an accident occur.
It is welcome that this legislation is before the House and it is important that we tease it out here, but my concern is that the regulations as set out should not be dealt with in a light touch, self-regulating or self-policing fashion. The CER should have the teeth, the personnel, the skill sets and the resources to police this legislation and to ensure it is enforced and complied with.
]]>I beg to differ with the Minister on one point. I believe the group chief executive officer added to the confusion and created a great deal of anxiety when he went on the airwaves, without consultation with anyone, and certainly not the public representatives or the community, and speculated as to the future prospects for 24 hours, seven days a week accident and emergency services. As far as I am concerned it would be an untenable position to consider phasing out those services or returning them on an 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. basis. It is no longer an accident and emergency department unless it is operated on a 24 hours, seven days a week basis.
]]>