Death of Journalist: Expressions of Sympathy.

Mr. Kenny: It is appropriate that the House note the passing of Mr. Dick Walsh, the esteemed journalist who served the public and this House over many years in his work at The Irish Times. He used the corridors of this House for many years, made contact with a great number of politicians and members of the public and could always be relied upon to report the truth as he saw it. I regret his untimely passing and think it appropriate that the House should note the extent and range of his public service in his duty as an objective journalist.

The Taoiseach: I join with Deputy Kenny in his remarks. It is only a few short weeks since I spoke at a reception to mark Dick Walsh's retirement. It is hard to believe that a man who was for so long at the heart of Irish political life has passed from us. I extend my sympathy to his wife, Ruth, and his two daughters, Francesca and Suzanne. There is no doubt that Mr. Walsh was a man of independent mind and deep convictions, dedicated in the pursuit of his craft and with strongly held views about Irish journalism. He had the opportunity to talk just a few weeks ago about how journalism and the media should develop in Ireland, a subject on which he had strong views. I extend my sympathy to his wife and children.

Mr. Rabbitte: It is appropriate that the House should mark the passing of arguably the finest political reporter and commentator of his generation. Dick Walsh was a punctilious reporter and an outspoken and forthright commentator. He bore his disability with great courage and good grace. His only complaint was to empathise with others with disability. Many endured his lash as a critic and columnist but he was never less than straightforward and honest, and a man of fierce independence.

He had a profound impact on politics and politicians over a generation. Mr. Walsh took an independent and courageous position in commentating on Irish politics since the Troubles, showing fierce resistance to the use of force in politics and defending pluralist principles and those of equality, peace and justice. It is appropriate that the House should mark his passing. I want to be associated with the remarks of genuine sympathy to Ruth and his children.

Mr. Sargent: There is a genuine sense of loss and the feeling of the passing of an era in hearing of the death of Dick Walsh. In many ways, the quality and consistency of his writing was a yardstick by which many others measured their views, whether in journalism or politics. It is doubly tragic that not only has Irish society lost somebody of the calibre of Mr. Walsh but also that he died so young and so soon after his retirement.

It is frequently said how rigorous is a life in politics, but the death of Dick Walsh, who was so dedicated to his profession, is a reminder to all of us that the life of a journalist can be difficult and demanding also. On behalf of the Green Party, An Comhaontas Glas, I express sympathy to his wife and family. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I join my colleagues in the House in expressing sympathy to the wife and family of the late Dick Walsh. I extend that sympathy to his colleagues in the journalistic profession, particularly his former colleagues at The Irish Times.

Mr. J. Higgins: The Deputies on the benches beside me wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy to the family of Dick Walsh upon his early and mourned death.

Members rose.

Order of Business (Resumed).

Mr. G. Mitchell: Regarding the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, the Taoiseach promised a remembrance fund commission. I presume that requires legislation, and I ask the Taoiseach when we will see it.

The Taoiseach: I am not too sure if it requires legislation. I will let the Deputy know in due course.

Mr. Gilmore: When I asked the Taoiseach previously about the publication of the housing private rented sector Bill, he told me it would be published before Easter. As we know, the publication of a Bill is now accompanied by considerable public relations fanfare, so I presume the Minister and his public relations retinue have now pencilled in a date for the publication of the Bill. What is that date?

The Taoiseach: I do not have the Minister's diary but the Bill is due in this session.

Mr. Gilmore: That type of reply is not acceptable any more. I am sure the Minister has some target date for the publication of the Bill, and the Taoiseach, who normally comes to the House briefed with every detail he can master in his folder, ought to make that date known to the House.

The Taoiseach: I suggest that the Deputy put down a parliamentary question to the Minister.

Mr. Gilmore: We are allowed, on the Order of Business, to ask about the timing of the publication of legislation. I asked the Taoiseach a specific question about the timing of the publication of this legislation. Will the Taoiseach give information on the target date for the publication of this Bill, which I believe is available to the Government?

The Taoiseach: The information is not available to the Government. Deputy Gilmore is entirely wrong. The parliamentary counsel has not yet completed the drafting of the Bill, so I cannot set a date and try to put pressure on the parliamentary counsel. The most I can inform the Deputy is that the Bill is expected to be introduced in this session.

Mr. Hayes: In the context of the redundancy (amendment) Bill, and in view of the fact that 150 people lost their jobs in Tipperary Town last Thursday, an hour after the Taoiseach had visited the area, I ask whether he would specifically request the Tánaiste to replace those jobs. TheLeas-Cheann Comhairle knows Tipperary town and understands the needs of those people.

The Taoiseach: The legislation is planned for this year.

Mr. Hayes: The Taoiseach was made very welcome in Tipperary Town last week. Then, at 4 o'clock on the same day, 150 people lost their jobs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is not relevant. The Deputy can only ask about promised legislation.

Mr. Hayes: In fairness, the Taoiseach's representatives in the constituency have been giving all sorts of briefings to the media-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is not relevant to the Order of Business.

Mr. Hayes: Will the Taoiseach at least comment on this and give the people of Tipperary some hope because-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Taoiseach has answered the question on proposed legislation. The Deputy should allow the business of the House to proceed.

Mr. Hayes: I am trying to-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: There are other ways for the Deputy to raise the issue. It is not in order now. Given the importance of the issue-----

Mr. Hayes: We are talking about the livelihoods of 150 people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Then the Deputy should go about raising the matter in the right way.

Mr. J. Higgins: We have a situation where billions of euros are being wiped off workers' pension funds because of the obscenity that after a lifetime of work, people's pensions and futures are made dependent on the global gambling casinos that are the stock exchanges. What is the Taoiseach doing about that, in the context of the employee protection Bill?

The Taoiseach: The legislation on protection of employees will come before the House in this session.

Mr. Sherlock: Will the Taoiseach say if the Minister for Health and Children will introduce legislation to deal with the report of the task force on medical staffing, assuming he has received those recommendations?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Does the Deputy have a question on proposed legislation?

Mr. Sherlock: Has the Minister received that report and will legislation follow? If not, when will the medical practitioners Bill be introduced?

The Taoiseach: The medical practitioners Bill is being prepared, but the report to which the Deputy refers has not yet been received by the Minister. When it is, the Minister will bring it to Cabinet.

Mr. Crawford: Is the Taoiseach aware that a further €20 million will be taken out of farmers' pockets through regulation as a result of the Minister's withdrawal of the use of vaccines and-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Has this got anything to do with promised legislation?

Mr. Crawford: There should be an opportunity to discuss this in the context of either the pharmacy Bill or the veterinary medicines Bill. Will the Taoiseach sit there and allow another €20 million to be taken from farmers?

The Taoiseach: The veterinary medicines Bill is designed to replace and update existing legislation regarding the veterinary profession and related activities. The Bill is currently being drafted and it is hoped that it will be available in the middle of 2003.

Ms Burton: On Committee Stage of the Finance Bill 2003, the now absent Minister for Finance confirmed to me that, as a result of members of religious orders donating their salaries to the orders, the State had to refund religious orders to the tune of €9 million in 2003 in charitable exemptions. I ask the Taoiseach when a charities Bill will be introduced so that we can see who benefits from what in relation to charities. The public is, rightly, extraordinarily generous to charities, and we have no charities legislation.

The Taoiseach: To answer Deputy Crawford, the pharmacy Bill will be introduced in 2004. Regarding the charities Bill to reform the law in the administration and regulation of charities, a public consultation process is envisaged prior to the preparation of the draft heads. The target date for the drafting of the heads is June 2005.

1 o'clock

Mr. Stanton: I would like to ask the Taoiseach about the progress of two Bills. In light of the possibility of flooding in east Cork as a result of coastal erosion, I would like to know when the coastal zone management Bill will be published. Will the public service broker Bill be published this year, as promised?

The Taoiseach: The heads of the coastal zone management Bill are expected early next year and it is expected that it will come before the House later in 2004. The public service broker Bill will be brought forward this year.

Mr. Crowe: When will the education for people with disabilities Bill be brought before the House? I would like the Taoiseach to outline what is happening with the ground rents Bill.

The Taoiseach: It is hoped that the education for people with disabilities Bill will be ready in this session. I understand that the consultation process is nearing an end and the Bill will be brought forward in this session. Legal and constitutional issues relating to the Bill and dealing with landlords and tenants have not yet been resolved.

Mr. Durkan: May I ask the Taoiseach about the current status and possible fate of the drug offenders Bill and the investigations Bill?

The Taoiseach: Work is at a preliminary stage on the drug offenders Bill, which will provide for the registration of convicted drug dealers with the Garda Síochána. It will also provide for stricter penalties for prisoners involved in the supply of drugs, in accordance with the commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government. I do not have a date for the Bill, which is at a preliminary stage.

Mr. Durkan: I asked about another Bill.

The Taoiseach: The investigations Bill will be brought forward this year.

Mr. Broughan: When I attended my first meeting of the party Whips last week, on behalf of the Labour Party, a clear understanding was given that there would be a debate on Iraq after the Adjournment tonight to allow Members to comment on the ongoing crisis there. I understood that such a debate would be held if it was deemed necessary.

We seem to have waited forever for the coastal zone management Bill, which was mentioned by Deputy Stanton. I am specifically interested in the first integrated plan, in Bantry Bay. A report in a newspaper today indicated that the Ministers for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and Communications, Marine and Natural Resources do not intend to provide further funding for this valuable project in west Cork. Will the Taoiseach ask the Ministers to review their decision about this pilot coastal zone management scheme?

The Taoiseach: I will pass on the Deputy's views about the coastal zone management scheme. I have already outlined that the House would have debated a completion of the UN position, but there has been no such change. We have had several debates and we will have another debate when the process develops further.

Mr. Sargent: I think that a vote is needed on Iraq. Before he goes to Washington, I would like to ask the Taoiseach, who is somewhere between Iraq and a hard place, if he intends to discuss the implications of the proposed comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty Bill while he is there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

Mr. Sargent: It is perfectly in order to ask about promised legislation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The only question that is in order is to ask the Taoiseach when the Bill will come before the House.

Mr. Sargent: I was about to ask that question. The comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty Bill was promised in April 2001 and again in mid-2002, but the Government is now suggesting that it will not come before the House before 2004. Given that we may be looking at the aftermath of nuclear detonation, with depleted uranium and nuclear bombs, in Iraq during the next couple of weeks, does the Taoiseach feel that the Bill should be brought forward? The Bill may be a historic irrelevance if it is not brought forward soon.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy should ask a question about promised legislation.

Mr. Sargent: The International Criminal Court, which is not supported by the United States and Iraq-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The provisions of the Bill are not appropriate to the Order of Business.

Mr. Sargent: Would the Taoiseach be able to avail of the criminal justice (international co-operation) Bill if the United States was part of the International Criminal Court system?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That question is not in order.

The Taoiseach: The draft heads of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty Bill, which will implement Irish obligations under the treaty, are being prepared and it is expected that they will be brought to the Government later this year. The Bill will come before the House next year. The criminal justice (international co-operation) Bill will allow for the ratification of a second additional protocol to the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Work on the heads of the Bill is in progress and the Bill is expected to be published in the middle of the year.

Ms O'Sullivan: Notice has been served of the intention to take strike action in the VECs on 24 March, a date which will have passed by the time this House sits again. Although agreement has been reached, a strike is being threatened because the Department of Finance has not advanced the moneys needed to pay the staff to fulfil the agreement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy should ask about promised legislation.

Ms O'Sullivan: The Minister for Finance is not here. The strike action will take place before the Dáil returns.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Has the Deputy a question about promised legislation?

Ms O'Sullivan: A Bill relating to the protection of employees is due before the House. The Taoiseach or the Minister for Education and Science, who is not present in the House, should intervene.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is not appropriate. The Deputy can raise the matter at a more appropriate time.

Ms O'Sullivan: There will be a strike, even though-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It is not in order on the Order of Business.

Ms O'Sullivan: -----agreement has been reached because money has not been supplied. Nothing is being done.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That matter is not in order on the Order of Business.

Ms O'Sullivan: May I ask when the protection of employees (fixed-term contracts) Bill will be brought forward?

The Taoiseach: I answered a question about that Bill earlier.

Mr. Costello: Arising from the Minister for Health and Children's unilateral decision to provide for the wholesale closure of wards and beds in hospitals throughout the country, especially Dublin-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy should ask about promised legislation.

Mr. Costello: I refer in particular to the Mater Hospital, where the Taoiseach was once employed. Is this not a breach of statutory duty?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy should raise the matter at a more appropriate time. There are provisions for the Deputy to raise such an issue.

Mr. Costello: May I clarify the point, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

Mr. Costello: The management of the hospitals have a statutory duty to regulate staff employment and management. A breach of those duties has been forced.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy cannot discuss that issue now. He should ask about promised legislation.

Mr. Costello: The Government's unilateral action has, in effect, compelled a breach of the legislation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Order of Business has concluded.

Competition Act 2002: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Ms Hanafin): I move:

That Dáil Éireann, pursuant to the provisions of section 18(7) of the Competition Act 2002 (No. 14 of 2002), hereby confirms the Competition Act 2002 (section 18(5)) Order 2002 (S.I. 622 of 2002) made under section 18(5) of that Act, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 23 December 2002.

Question put and agreed to.

International Agreements: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Ms Hanafin): I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the International Organisation of Vine and Wine Agreement 2001, which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 7 February 2003.

Question put and agreed to.

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003: Order for Report Stage.

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mary Coughlan): I move: "That Report Stage be taken now."

Question put and agreed to.

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003: Report Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 13 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Mr. Ring: I move amendment No. 1:

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

"3.---The Minister shall, as soon as may be, after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the adverse financial effect to lone parents in returning to the workforce under the Fás Jobs Initiative Programme and to report on the number of lone parents who have seen a reduction in their weekly income as a result of recent wage increases under the Programme.".

As I said to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on Committee Stage last week, an amendment is necessary to provide for lone parents who are involved in FÁS schemes. Such people have received an increase of €10, but they have lost €60 from their lone parent payments. I hoped the Minister would deal with this matter this week to assist those who are trying to return to the workplace and to better themselves so they will not be a burden on the State at a later stage. It is wrong that people who are receiving training so they can get a job should lose out, but they have lost €60 because the Government has not raised the ceiling to take account of the €10 increase. I will call a vote on this matter if it transpires that the Minister has not considered this amendment in the past week.

People on the job initiative scheme will also be affected. The ceiling pertaining to PRSI has not been increased and therefore they find that they have to pay PRSI. People who have been unemployed for many years and who joined job initiative schemes to be retrained to re-enter the work force find themselves being penalised simply because the Government gave them an increase of €10.

The failure to raise the PRSI ceiling had a knock-on effect. This is wrong because the people affected are the most vulnerable in society. They find it difficult enough as it is and the payments they are getting are not great. I hope the Minister can resolve this issue today. As she said on Committee Stage last week, it will affect only 400 people.

Mr. Kenny: A small number.

Mr. Ring: The Minister should increase the ceiling. Because the lone parents got an increase of €10 they are losing €60. The Minister should deal with this today and I hope she will respond positively.

Mr. Kenny: I agree with that very strongly.

Mr. S. Ryan: On Committee Stage, I felt the Minister understood the case the Opposition was making on behalf of some of the most marginalised in society and the effect the legislation was having on them. I hoped and expected that she would re-examine the issue to see what could be done.

The fabric of local communities is being damaged and the viability of several community employment schemes is being diminished. Community arts organisations are under serious threat. Amendment No. 13 refers to the necessity to deal with the problem of lone parents being hit by the failure to raise the PRSI threshold following the increase in pay in the job initiative scheme. This problem also renders the people concerned ineligible for the rent allowance.

The failure to adjust the threshold to correspond with the pay increase is putting the average male participant on the job initiative scheme into a different category, thus reducing the value of his increase. Furthermore, the requirement to be unemployed for five years or more to qualify for the back to work allowance is cynically restricting the possibility of finding suitable candidates for the scheme, and this is effectively terminating it.

The failure to make adjustments is affecting income, the ability to encourage people to come back to work, the benefit of that work to the community and the chances of attracting the right calibre of people into the scheme. I hope for a positive response from the Minister on all these issues.

Mr. Penrose: My colleagues have made an eloquent case and we spoke about the issue last week on Committee Stage. The problem in question is not just confined to Dublin. Last Friday, a young girl at one of my clinics stated that she had received a small increase. However the impact of this increase was to diminish her lone parent's allowance significantly. It also had an impact on her rent allowance.

The failure to raise the threshold will certainly have a significant impact. As Deputy Ring stated, about 400 people will be affected. However, this is not a huge number and therefore it should be possible to deal with the issue. Failure to raise the threshold will also result in a poverty trap, which I feel is not the intention of the Minister. She indicated on Committee Stage that she would discuss the matter with FÁS. Has there been a positive outcome to these discussions?

There are some significant development companies, set up on a voluntary basis, to bring people back into employment. The job initiative scheme is very worthwhile and its participants are involved in very important community programmes. Many people employed on them are paid a gross amount which is below the threshold for payment of PRSI. If an annual pay increase is made by FÁS and the annual PRSI threshold is not increased accordingly, participants become eligible to pay PRSI, which they would not have had to pay beforehand. When trying to co-ordinate all the relevant schemes it is difficult to ensure that their intent is not damaged by a failure to make necessary provisions in respect of PRSI.

On 6 January FÁS increased the gross weekly pay for job initiative participants from €286.35 to €298.40. The threshold figure below which PRSI was not payable in 2002 was €287, but this has not changed in 2003. Therefore the weekly gain from the increase of €12 will be neutralised. The increase by FÁS, made to keep wages in line with inflation, will be seen as a failure because of this anomaly. Some participants will stop availing of other benefits if the threshold figures are treated as per the PRSI sector.

There is much concern about this matter in the voluntary sector. As my colleague has said, lone parents can lose up to €60. I know one who is losing €53 or €54. Therefore, they will drop out of the very scheme in which they are encouraged to participate.

The Labour Party will press amendment No. 13 and support that of Deputy Ring very strongly. We gave the Minister an opportunity on Committee Stage to examine the matter, bearing in mind all the various bodies involved. I hope she has had positive discussions and will adjust the threshold to ensure that the people who are most in need do not lose out at this critical time.

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mary Coughlan): As promised on Committee Stage, my officials and I have taken on board the issues raised by the committee and there was contact with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

We must examine the job initiative scheme and the policy approach. As we all know, the scheme is one of the FÁS schemes in which many lone parents can participate. The intention of the policy is that people will gain a foothold in the jobs market through the scheme. My Department has taken into consideration the concerns that have existed over the years in terms of why people do not progress.

That is the reason we have a substantial income disregard of €293 per week for lone parents. Deputies will be aware that an increase in the payment to those on the jobs initiative scheme brought their income above the disregard. I have had discussions with Members of the House and officials from my Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to establish what can be done to address this anomaly. I am not in a position to increase the income disregard because of the effect of such a measure on consequential schemes. There is also an equality issue in terms of people on unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit who do not receive income disregards and would be justified in thinking we were more favourably disposed to others. It is our opinion that those who reach the threshold and are still entitled to the transitional payment outlined on Committee Stage will also be entitled to family income supplement.

Family income supplement is provided annually and the thresholds are updated at every budget. This means the issues which have arisen with regard to the jobs initiative scheme will not be problematic. If someone is above the threshold, they will receive the jobs initiative payment from FÁS, a reduced one parent family allowance and family income supplement which will bring their payment levels back up. After 12 months, the one parent family allowance will be reduced, but the family income supplement will increase while the thresholds will change at every budget. It is not a perfect solution, but it addresses the concerns which have been expressed by the Members of the House which I share. If this approach is agreed, we will progress with family income supplement and my Department will facilitate the 400 or so people affected with an application form. The difficulty with a threshold is that someone will inevitably come reach and exceed it. We are seeing the consequences of that. Substantial tax credits mean that in the cases I have outlined, lone parents do not pay income tax. I agree that overall the treatment of lone parents in the tax and social welfare codes is very favourable. Many Members will have been made aware of the OECD report which indicated that Ireland is the member state most favourably disposed towards and supportive of lone parents within the EU.

With effect from the 2000-01 tax year, all employees covered under classes A, B, C, D, E, and H with reckonable earnings of not more than €287 per week have been exempt from making an employee social insurance contribution. The introduction of the exemption was informed by the negotiation of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and was principally designed to increase the net pay of those on lower incomes. If the PRSI exemption thresholds were raised to €298.40 per week to facilitate those currently taking part in the jobs initiative scheme, they would have to be introduced for all employees within the same earnings band. To differentiate would be inequitable and discriminate against other categories of lower paid worker. The most recent figures available indicate that to implement such a measure would affect approximately 21,300 employments and cost in the region of €7.1 million in a full year. Therefore, it is not proposed to adjust the threshold at this time.

Class A employees with reckonable earnings of over €287 per week pay a social insurance contribution of 4% up to the employee earnings ceiling. Due to the flexibility of the jobs initiative scheme, the income earned exceeds what would constitute a normal take home pay for many on low pay. I am not in a position to change the PRSI exemptions which will have to remain as they are this year because of financial implications. It would be unfair and wrong to change the exemptions for people on the jobs initiative scheme. If they were changed, the measure would have to be introduced for all workers who find themselves at the threshold.

I hope the concerns of Members are addressed to some extent. I can provide them with an information note on the matter and ask my officials to facilitate those who require an application for family income supplement.

Mr. Ring: To be fair to the Minister, she has gone some way towards addressing the problem that has arisen through the recent payment increases in the FÁS scheme. I have spoken on Committee Stage about family income supplement which can be retained by those whose incomes rise during the year, but cannot be increased in the cases of those whose earnings fall. There is no appeals mechanism in place which means they have to wait for the annual review.

Mary Coughlan: There will not be a decrease in this. We are dealing with an increase.

Mr. Ring: I am referring to the overall scheme of things which we will be talking about later.

I understand the Minister's difficulty. If she increases the threshold for family income supplement, she will have to do it for all other schemes with inevitable knock-on effects. However, the Minister and her Department must examine this area to encourage people to do better for themselves. We are trying to get people to retrain and re-enter the job market. We do not want them to find that they are worse off if they adopt that course of action. Those on the jobs initiative scheme will question the loss of €60 and wonder about the effect on their rent supplement which might lead them to give up the payments to return to one parent family income. That is not good for society and it is not good for them. We want them to enter employment.

I have received much correspondence from a number of groups, particularly in the Dublin area, who are put out by this scheme. They feel it has a negative effect. I cannot criticise the Minister for making an effort to address this issue. We must wait to see what the knock-on effect will be on the people involved. I understand the costs to the taxpayer of providing threshold increases in all schemes, but the small number of people involved led me to believe the matter could be dealt with within the Department.

Mr. Penrose: I understand the Minister is somewhat constrained in dealing with this problem. We have received a great deal of correspondence on the matter which has a direct impact on people who are doing their best to escape the poverty trap. I realise the Minister fears dealing with the issue may create a different element of discrimination in the social welfare system. How many people will feel the impact of an increase in the threshold from €287 to €298.40? I heard the Minister say the cost would be €7.1 million.

The Minister is obviously aware that she must deal with this in some fashion and she has taken cognisance of some of the points made. However, it is important that something be done for the communities affected, particularly the participants in the jobs initiative scheme.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Cowley): Before we conclude, I am to inform the House that Report Stage amendments to the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003 in the name of Deputy Seán Ryan should also be in the name of Deputy Penrose. A printing error is responsible.

Debate adjourned.

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

Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed).

Priority Questions.

Crime Statistics.

121. Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when he expects that the crime statistics for 2002 will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7497/03]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): I am informed by the Garda authorities that the exact date for submission to me of the Commissioner's annual report for 2002, which will contain the Garda crime statistics for that year, has not yet been determined.

I understand statistics for the year 2002 are currently the subject of a validation process which must be completed before the final compilation of figures for inclusion in the annual report for 2002 can occur. Neither I nor my Department has any involvement in the generation, compilation or presentation of Garda crime statistics, and that includes the date by which the Commissioner's annual reports are produced in printed form.

Deputies may recall that last year I published provisional Garda crime statistics in respect of the year 2001 pending the preparation of fully validated statistics by the Garda authorities, in the interest of timeliness in reporting on a key quality-of-life indicator. Those provisional statistics were published in July 2002, and the validated figures, which were only slightly different from the provisional figures, were published in November 2002.

I now intend to engage in a similar process this year in respect of the 2002 figures. I propose to seek provisional statistics from the Garda authorities and publish them as soon as possible, without awaiting the compilation of the full annual report for 2002. I expect that these statistics will be available to me in the near future, and there will be no avoidable delay on my part in making them publicly available.

With respect to the annual reports for the year 2000 onwards, the format in which the reports present crime statistics has changed as a result of the PULSE information technology project. Specifically, the changeover to PULSE allowed the Garda to reorganise its crime classification system, so that it more accurately reflects the complex, modern criminal activities reported or known to the Garda Síochána. I remind the House that in January 2003, with Government approval, I established an expert group on crime statistics to examine the methods of collation and presentation of crime statistics by the Garda Síochána and other organisations involved in criminal prosecution.

In the context of the introduction of PULSE, the expert group will develop an accepted framework for the production and presentation of reported crime statistics over the coming decades. Such a framework, to be agreed following wide-ranging expert consultation, will also serve to inform and reassure members of the public of the integrity, validity and usefulness of official crime statistics. As part of its work, I understand the expert group is actively considering the issue of the timeliness of the production of Garda crime statistics.

Mr. Deasy: The new Garda PULSE computer system which records crime statistics was described recently by a District Court judge as "totally and utterly unreliable". I am sure the Minister has heard those remarks and I ask for his comments.

Mr. McDowell: I heard the remarks attributed to the District Court judge. If I may put it this way, I appreciate that he was frustrated in respect of some incident that came before him. I would be very slow to dismiss out of hand the PULSE system because it is the system that last year produced the figures which showed a major upswing in crime figures and which was the subject of some public controversy. I would be very loath to go back to the pen and paper method. I think the PULSE system is more reliable.

Mr. Deasy: Like the penalty points system.

Mr. McDowell: It would be a foolish and retrograde step to say that because there may be small hiccups in the PULSE system we should revert to a system which would allow a much more subjective view to be adopted by regional divisions of An Garda Síochána in presenting figures. Whatever inadequacies there may be in the PULSE system - and I do not believe they are as serious as the learned District Court judge's remarks suggested - it must be accepted that they are more likely to be more accurate than a system which is a donkey and cart method of recording everything by hand in ledgers.

Mr. Deasy: The Minister used the word "timeliness" in the last sentence of his answer when speaking about the crime statistics. I ask him how he can deal with a problem when he does not know what is the nature of the problem. Our crime statistics are produced months after the fact. Surely the crime statistics need to be published at least monthly.

Mr. McDowell: I have no principled objection to the production of monthly crime statistics if that would advance public awareness or enable a closer view to be taken on trends. I do not want to engage in unnecessary monthly publications in circumstances where a vast amount of time was taken up with twelve reports every year rather than one.

Mr. Deasy: That is what PULSE is for.

Mr. McDowell: I agree with the Deputy's point that as we become clearer-----

Mr. Deasy: What is the point of PULSE?

Mr. McDowell: -----about the reliability of PULSE, it should be possible, subject to validation, to make more frequent reports on the data available from PULSE.

In light of considerable public disquiet as to whether crime statistics were reliable in the past, I decided to establish an expert group to advise on the compilation and validity of crime statistics. The Deputy's point is an interesting one which I will put to the expert group. Should we have monthly or bi-monthly figures so that we could have a clearer picture on a more timely basis of crime statistics? Not everything has to be done on an annual basis.

An Ceann Comhairle: As we have exceeded the time limit, I call the Minister on Question No. 122.

Mr. Deasy: The issue is not the way the crime statistics are presented. The issue is that by the time a pattern of crime is identified our response is too late.

Mr. McDowell: I take the Deputy's point and I will bring his views to the attention of the expert group who are considering the question of punctuality and timing. It may be practical to produce periodical statistics on a far more punctual basis once everyone is satisfied the figures are valid.

Publication of Reports.

122. Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when he plans to bring forward legislative proposals arising from the reports for the Commission on Liquor Licensing; the proposals he is considering in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7527/03]

Mr. McDowell: The Commission on Liquor Licensing was established in November 2000. Its remit is to review the liquor licensing system and make recommendations for a system geared to meet the needs of consumers in a competitive marketing environment, while taking due account of the social, health and economic interests of a modern society.

As the Deputy will be aware, the commission has submitted three reports to date and I understand it is in the process of completing its final report. I spoke to the chairman today who told me it will be submitted to me in the coming fortnight. I will then seek Government approval to have it published in the normal way.

As regards legislative proposals to give effect to the commission's recommendations, I have already announced a codification of the entire liquor licensing code. The codification I have in mind has two aspects. First, it will consolidate into a single instrument the licensing law provisions currently scattered over many statutes, some of them dating back to the early part of the 19th century. Second, it will reform the licensing laws and for this purpose will draw on the valuable work of both the Commission on Liquor Licensing and the Strategic Task Force on Alcohol and the recommendations for reform set out in their respective reports.

As regards timing, the position is that preparatory work has already commenced and I hope a draft general scheme of the codification Bill will be ready by the middle of next year. While I am not currently in a position to outline the content of the codification proposal, not least because I am still awaiting the final report of the commission, I can outline a number of guiding principles. The aim should be a rationalisation of licensing law in order to make the intoxicating liquor code more accessible and user-friendly for licensees and the public alike. The importance of public order and public health aspects must be fully recognised to prevent and reduce the incidence of alcohol-related harm. Clear and coherent legislative provisions that leave no room for ambiguity or doubt are required to ensure compliance with, and enforcement of, the law. Open and transparent decision-making procedure, including adequate advance notification for designated notice parties and opportunities for public consultation, are essential. Objective criteria for granting licences are required that recognise, among other things, the need for an appropriate spatial distribution of licensed premises in order to serve the needs of local areas and their communities. Where possible, application and renewal procedures should be streamlined in order to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens and overheads.

Additional Information

Existing sanctions and penalties need to be reviewed and updated to fully reflect the gravity of offences in this area.

There is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed in advance of the codification exercise. In its Report on Admission and Service in Licensed Premises, published in December last, the Commission on Liquor Licensing identified certain weaknesses in the existing law in relation to drunkenness and pointed to the need to strengthen legislative provisions in this area. The commission made similar recommendations in relation to violent, quarrelsome and disorderly conduct on licensed premises.

Having considered the commission's recommendations, I decided that an urgent response was called for and I intend, therefore, to bring proposals to Government as soon as possible for the necessary legislative changes, including stronger penalties, as recommended by the commission. The necessary preparatory work is already under way in my Department and I hope to obtain Government approval for the amending legislation before Easter.

I take this opportunity to thank the chairman and members of the Commission on Liquor Licensing for their commitment and hard work over the past two years, and also thank all those organisations and individuals who responded to the commission's invitations to submit views and proposals for changes in the licensing laws and thereby assisted the commission in its work.

Mr. Costello: I did not expect a reply that was not related to the question. My question related to how the Minister proposed to deal with the report of the Commission on Liquor Licensing. Codification of the law, which already contains approximately 70 statutes, is a different matter. I am seeking an immediate response. The Minister is already on record in the media in regard to the issue. He has often enough leaked to the media that he intends to make proposals in regard to young people between the ages of 18 and 25 having mandatory proof of identification before being allowed into public houses, local authorities having a brief in regard to the allocation of licences and the hours of licensing and deregulation of the licensing laws. He is forever making speeches abroad about what he will do. However, his reply to me is that he will codify the licensing law sometime in 2004. I do not believe that can be done in 12 months.

I seek a specific answer from the Minister to the problems currently experienced in the licensed trade, including the manner in which licensed premises operate and the question of very large fatalities on the roads. A recent report indicated serious public order offences relating to under age and binge drinking. My question related to matters of that nature. I would like a response as to when he will have specific proposals on how to deal with what he is talking about to the media almost every day of the week.

Mr. McDowell: The Deputy asked a different question from the one he now claims to have asked. He asked when I proposed to bring forward legislative proposals arising from the reports of the Commission on Liquor Licensing. Since I have not got the final report, which is a major report of that body, apart from the interim reports received to date, I cannot tell him about the steps I will take. Unlike the Deputy, I have not been privy to the text of the final report of the commission. I am not in a position, therefore, to answer the Deputy by saying that I intend to bring forward specific recommendations arising out of a report I have not yet seen.

I pay tribute to the commission and its excellent chairman, Mr. Gordon Holmes, for all the work he has done. I assure the House that he told me this morning when I spoke to him on the phone that he will have the report with me in the next two weeks. When I know what the report contains, I will bring it to Government and the Deputy will then be in a position to ask me what I propose to do about it. Apart from that, I cannot engage in crystal ball gazing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We must proceed to Question No. 123.

Mr. Costello: The first part of my question asked when does the Minister plan to bring forward legislative proposals? He already announced he will receive the final report in two weeks' time. He answered a question I did not ask, which related to the codification of the liquor licensing code. When does the Minister intend to legislate specifically to deal with the four reports of the Commission on Liquor Licensing?

Mr. McDowell: I do not like to correct the Deputy unduly, but the question he asked was when do I plan to bring forward legislative proposals arising from the reports of the Commission on Liquor Licensing. Since the main report is yet to land on my desk, I cannot be more specific than I have been.

Criminal Prosecutions.

123. Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on whether there are similarities between the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry, the details of which his attention has been drawn to, and the patterns of wrongdoing by members of An Garda Síochána emerging from inquiries in County Donegal; his further views on whether the circumstances warrant the establishment of an independent inquiry into garda misconduct in this case; his further views on whether such an inquiry would serve the public interest; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7494/03]

Mr. McDowell: I am aware of the case to which the Deputy refers. I do not accept that the events which led to the establishment of the Morris Tribunal have any bearing on this case. Neither do I accept that the circumstances warrant the establishment of independent inquiry into the matter.

In August 1989, the person in question, along with another individual, was arrested on suspicion of membership of an unlawful organisation. In November 1989, a file was submitted to the DPP who directed, in March 1990, that the person in question be charged in relation to firearms offences. Subsequently the Director of Public Prosecutions directed that no charges were to be proceeded with in relation to the person. The Garda Complaints Board investigated a complaint from the person and in April 1992 advised him that the board was satisfied that the matter had been thoroughly investigated and was of the opinion that neither an offence nor a breach of discipline on the part of any member of the Garda Síochána had been disclosed.

Following an earlier parliamentary question from a colleague of the Deputy and other correspondence received from members of the Deputy's party, I requested a report on the matter from the Garda Commissioner. When I have had an opportunity to consider the Commissioner's report, I will communicate further with the Deputy and his party colleagues in the matter, particularly in relation to their request for a meeting.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The person named in the letter is James Sheehan from Ardfert.

If, as the Garda claim, he was found with a gun in his car, it is strange he was never charged. Likewise, if ammunition was found in his house why was nobody charged? If Mr. Sheehan was not charged and was later informed-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to refrain from mentioning names in connection with this question.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: He was later informed by the DPP that the charges against him had been withdrawn, when he had not been charged in the first instance. Despite the fact that the named person has made continual inquires since his arrest why, if they existed, were the gun and ammunition destroyed, supposedly on 19 July 2000?

Mr. McDowell: There is a long tradition that the reputations of individuals are protected by the procedures of this House. I do not wish to become involved in a debate on the merits or demerits of a person's involvement with the Garda Síochána. I have asked the Garda Commissioner to prepare a report for me. When I have seen it, I will be in a position to draw my private conclusions on some of the questions raised by the Deputy. I have already indicated that at that stage, I will be in a position to decide whether to meet with the Deputy and other members of his party who have raised this issue. It would not be fair, especially as the Deputy has named the person, for me to go any further at this stage in discussing the merits or demerits of what happened in 1989. It was a long time ago and I am not in a position to pass judgment on where the truth of the matter lies.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I have referred to more recent incidents, such as the one on 19 July 2000. If matters were still under investigation or if the named individual was continuing to pursue his case it is strange that that the gun and ammunition were destroyed. It raises questions about the Garda complaints procedure, which has been shown to be ineffective. Thankfully, it has been suggested that it should be changed.

If the Minister believes that questions remain to be answered, there should be a public investigation or inquiry into this matter because there are similarities between it and the subject under investigation by the Morris tribunal. It may not require a big investigation.

Mr. McDowell: I am informed that the firearm in question was destroyed in 2000, along with several thousand other firearms which had been collected over the previous ten or 20 years. It may be inferred from what the Deputy has said that a decision was made to destroy a firearm which was the subject of a current investigation. That is not the case. No significance should be attached to the fact that from time to time, the Garda destroy firearms in bulk which have fallen into its possession.

I retain an open mind on these matters. The Garda complaints procedure, to which the Deputy referred, concluded 11 years ago. In view of this, I am not in a position to offer any fresh insights as to its adequacy until I receive a report from the Garda Commissioner.

Juvenile Offenders.

124. Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the infrastructure he intends to put in place for the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7498/03]

Mr. McDowell: The Children Act 2001, introduces a range of innovative measures that will provide a statutory framework for the future development of the juvenile justice system in accordance with modern thinking and best international practice. Three Departments have a role in implementing the Act - the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Education and Science. The National Children's Office has responsibility to oversee the implementation of the Act and co-ordinate regular working group meetings.

The first commencement order under the Act in respect of my Department was signed by my predecessor on 23 April 2002. The order, which came into force on 1 May 2002, provided, among other things, for the establishment of the Garda diversion programme on a statutory basis and the introduction of a diversion conference based on restorative justice principles as pioneered in New Zealand; the establishment of the Children's Court; the introduction of a fines structure for children found guilty of offences and the payment of compensation by parents in respect of offences committed by their children; the introduction of a curfew for children found guilty of offences; court orders to parents to exercise proper control over their children; the updating of the law in relation to cruelty to children and persons who cause or encourage a sexual offence on a child; reversing the burden of proof on parents whose children are found begging; a limited clean slate in respect of most offences committed by children; and provisions relating to the safety of children at entertainments.

Garda youth diversion projects are crime prevention initiatives which adopt a multi-agency partnership approach to tackling crime and anti-social behaviour at community level. The role of the projects is to bring about the conditions whereby the behavioural patterns of young people towards law and order, can develop and mature through positive interventions and interaction with the project.

Mr. Deasy: The majority of young people before the Children's Court are from socially deprived backgrounds. Many of them are repeat offenders. That appears to be the real issue here. What is the Minister doing about it?

Mr. McDowell: It is correct that the majority of offenders, both juvenile and adult, come from deprived backgrounds. The Government's approach is directed by the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan. Its purpose is to develop a co-ordinated strategy across three Departments, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and Children and my Department.

It is not simply a matter of producing a pat solution. In many cases there are problematical social backgrounds.

Mr. Deasy: The Minister always mentions that aspect.

Mr. McDowell: In cases of deprivation there is a low achievement in education. Frequently there are opt-outs, which are sometimes caused by dysfunctional families or problems in relation to parenting and control of children. We live in a republic and children in particular are entitled to equal treatment by the State. Under the directive and the principles of social policy enunciated in Article 45 of the Constitution, children at risk and who come from the weaker sections of society are entitled to the special protection of the State.

Mr. Deasy: The Minister is describing the problem but he is failing to outline how he proposes to address it.

Mr. McDowell: The Deputy specialises in vapid questions, such as asking me what I am going to do about crime and youth crime.

Mr. Deasy: Give me a vapid answer.

Mr. McDowell: That kind of question does not wash with me.

Mr. Deasy: Recent research shows that one in three juvenile offenders is either a perpetrator or victim of sexual abuse. What is the Minister doing about that?

Mr. McDowell: The Deputy continues to engage in vapid nonsense.

Mr. Deasy: Does the Minister know of this research?

Mr. McDowell: He produces a trifling statistic and then asks me what I propose to do about it. What can I do in response to the Deputy's suggestions? If he wants me to take him seriously - I am positively disposed to doing so - he should resist his tendency to ask what I propose to do about minor factual statements he finds in various compendiums. If the Deputy wants to discuss any particular programme I will answer his questions. If he suggests that there is some deficiency in the system or programme-----

3 o'clock

Mr. Deasy: That is all right. Let the Minister just say that he cannot answer the question.

Mr. McDowell: The Deputy might as well ask me to amend or repeal the law of gravity. This is absurd.

Equality Authority Report.

125. Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the way in which he proposes to respond to the Third Annual Report of the Equality Authority which revealed widespread complaints of discrimination relating to gender, race and disability in the workplace and relating to members of the Traveller community in licensed premises; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7529/03]

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Dea): The Employment Equality Act 1998 prohibits discrimination in relation to employment on grounds of gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the Traveller community. The Equal Status Act 2000 prohibits discrimination on the same nine grounds in relation to access to and provision of goods and services. The functions of the authority, which was established under the 1998 Act, are to work towards the elimination of discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity on the grounds and in the areas covered by the equality legislation.

The Equality Authority annual report for 2002, which the Minister launched on 6 March 2003, shows that in 2002 the authority received 10,978 general queries for information about equality and related legislation. Nearly half of the queries related to parental, maternity and adoptive leave entitlements. During 2002, the authority opened 532 new case files across all nine grounds. Those figures compare with a total of 752 new case files opened in 2001. Of the case files opened in 2002, 227 refer to the Employment Equality Act 1998 and 305 refer to the Equal Status Act 2000. With regard to the workplace, 88, or approximately 39%, of the new cases under the 1998 Act related to gender grounds, 43, or 19%, related to race grounds and 39, or 17%, related to disability grounds.

Discrimination in relation to employment on grounds of gender and marital status has been prohibited since the mid-1970s. It is somewhat disappointing, therefore, that gender discrimination in employment, and in particular pregnancy related discrimination and dismissals, appear as a significant issue in the cases that are dealt with by the authority. However, it is heartening that during 2002 women who were dismissed because of pregnancy successfully sought redress under the Employment Equality Act in the Labour Court. This sends an unequivocal message to employers that such discrimination will not be tolerated.

I note from the Equality Authority report that under the Equal Status Act access to licensed premises still constitutes by far the largest category of case work on hand. It is a significant and welcome development that the number of cases taken on by the authority in relation to the Traveller ground under the Equal Status Act dropped considerably from 340 in 2001 to 89 in 2002. This, perhaps, points to a maturing of attitudes on all sides in relation to this issue.

As the Equality Authority is empowered by the legislation to provide representation only where discrimination complaint cases have a strategic importance, I welcome the development by the authority, in conjunction with the Irish Traveller Movement, in 2002 of a model for community advocacy which allows community-based groups to take on a role in supporting cases under the Equal Status Act 2000. This role is similar to that played by trade unions under the Employment Equality Act 1998. According to their annual report for 2002 there now appears to be a greater willingness on the part of Travellers and publicans to resolve issues without recourse to a full hearing before the Equality Tribunal.

As the Deputy is probably aware, in December 2002 the Commission on Liquor Licensing presented its report on admission and service in licensed premises. Although it did not make recommendations for changes in equality legislation, it nonetheless made a number of suggestions arising from issues raised in submissions received by the commission.

Additional Information

The commission made it clear, however, that those suggestions requiring legislative changes would need further consideration and a wider consultative process. The Department is currently conducting such a consultative process with the interested parties, including the Equality Authority.

I am satisfied that the equality infrastructure put in place, on the coming into force of the recent equality legislation, is sufficiently resourced to respond to discrimination in our society whether in the workplace or elsewhere. On the establishment of the Equality Authority in 1999, significant increased resources were provided for the authority compared with its predecessor, the Employment Equality Agency. The Revised Estimates for the Public Services for 2003 show that the grant-in-aid for the authority for 2003 is €5.16 million. There are a total of 51 staff, including 6 job-sharers, serving in the authority at present. I am of the opinion that this level of resources is sufficient to enable the authority to carry out its statutory function to work towards the elimination of discrimination in our society.

Mr. Costello: I thought I would get a direct and specific response to my question but it is mere waffle. I did not want an account of the functions of the Equality Authority or of the report which I have in front of me. I wanted to find out what the Minister's response is to matters such as that three quarters of all complaints in regard to licensed premises come from the Traveller community. How will he respond to that? The Minister has told me he will codify the law in regard to liquor licensing. By the time that is done we will all be grey and ancient.

What is being done about migrant workers? There is a huge escalation in claims in regard to migrant workers and the recommendations of the authority. The authority cannot do all the work itself. How will the Government respond to actively deal with the discrimination in this area? We see that 30% of all complaints brought by women relate to gender grounds. The number of claims on the issue of race have increased enormously. Will the Minister of State specify how he will deal with the serious issues of discrimination that have been highlighted?

Mr. O'Dea: There is an echo of Deputy Deasy's approach here. Deputy Costello is quoting facts of life and asking what I am going to do about them.

Mr. Deasy: There is an echo coming this way.

Mr. Costello: The Minister of State's reply is an echo of Ministers.

Mr. O'Dea: Deputy Costello will be aware, as someone who has been around for some time, that no Government can prevent people from discriminating. We have a whole body of criminal law which is backed up by a punitive system but people still commit crimes. We cannot physically stop people from discriminating. The question is basically meaningless.

Mr. Costello: We would love to know what the Minister of State is going to do. His answer is bankrupt and he has nothing to offer.

Mr. O'Dea: The Deputy asks what we are going to do about the many people who have been discriminated against. We have brought forward modern legislation, which is among the best in the world, to prevent discrimination. We inherited a situation from the previous Government, which included the Deputy's party, and have taken over an authority which was being funded to the tune of €700,000 a year. We have increased funding seven fold for that authority. The latest figure is €5.2 million and it now has a staff of 51. The legislation is in place and there is back-up from the Equality Authority. The legislation has only been in operation for the past two years but it is working. The fact that many people are coming forward and getting redress is indicative of that. In regard to the complaints taken under the Employment Equality legislation in 2002, only 30% of cases were successful.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We are over the time and must move on.

Mr. Costello: The Minister of State seems to think there is something wrong in us asking what the Government proposes to do about anything. One strong recommendation from the Labour Court mentioned in the report is that companies employing non-nationals recognise the difficulties etc. and make resources available to deal with the problems that-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It is not in order to quote during Question Time.

Mr. Costello: There is a full recommendation there. Perhaps the Minister of State will read it and do something about it.

Mr. O'Dea: My understanding is that the Labour Court is saying that employers should make resources available. We have this set of recommendations and are working on them. Despite the fact that we have legislation which is among the most advanced in the world, I am actively considering changes to strengthen the legislation. Those changes will be introduced within the next 12 months.