Independent Monitoring Commission Bill 2003 [Seanad]: Committee and Remaining Stages.

SECTION 1.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Section 1 states:

"Agreement" means the Agreement between the Government and the Government of the United Kingdom establishing the Independent Monitoring Commission, done at Dublin on 25 November 2003.

Regarding the very important issue of arms and their use, no party - I emphasise no party - has used its influence more and to greater success than Sinn Féin in addressing this issue. It was not the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, or his colleagues in the Progressive Democrats who took the risks or made the difference. His moralising and his lofty lecturing carried and still carries no weight in the achievement of all that has been achieved in recent years. The Deputies representing Sinn Féin in this House are among those who have taken the greatest risks and are here because of their commitment to political address of the differences and difficulties that have bedevilled us as an island people for generations.

Mr. Deasy: Is this germane to section 1?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Ardagh): Section 1 concerns matters of interpretation in the Bill.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: That is correct.

Acting Chairman: Perhaps the Deputy will address them.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: My clear understanding is that what we are looking at here is a proposition that runs contrary to an international agreement between the two sovereign Governments endorsed overwhelmingly by the people of Ireland. The proposition before us in the Bill runs contrary to the essence, the letter and the promise of the Good Friday Agreement.

I have made these points very clearly to the Minister. I reject his remarks not accepting the right to have an alternative view, a different vision and a different opinion. He labelled my contribution as untruths. That is not the case. Time will tell which of us was reflecting on the factual interpretation and understanding of what is involved in the Bill before us.

The Minister is right in that it is about ending all paramilitary activity, but it is also about an ending to the imposed militarisation by the British Government of the lives of ordinary citizens and of whole communities, an ending of oppressive legislation and a new and shared beginning that is respectful of all mandates, which was not in evidence here on Second Stage.

I proudly stand before the Minister and state that I disagree with him fundamentally on this proposition. I state further that section 1, which claims to offer an interpretation of what is before us, fails to reflect the reality that is at the heart of this Bill endorsing British legislation that gives ascendancy and power to the British Government beyond the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and beyond the terms negotiated by representatives of the Irish Government, the British Government and all those parties who were a party to the Good Friday Agreement, including the negotiating team of the party I represent here. I indicated I will be opposing the passage of the first section.

Acting Chairman: These are just definitions.

Mr. Morgan: In commenting on the definition, is it an omission that it does not state clearly that the Bill is a distortion of the Good Friday Agreement, voted on by referendum across this island? I wonder whether it should state that the Bill undermines the intention of those who voted for that Agreement. Those who voted were way beyond the realms of support from my party or the Government parties. Nevertheless, the intentions were still the same, that a framework was built through negotiation and endorsed by the people. That is being lost through what is happening here with this legislation. It is a distortion of the Bill that the definition is not stated clearly.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): In so far as we are talking about section 1, I do not see any objection to the terms of section 1 by either of the two speakers who have spoken against it. I should say this for the record. I offered the Deputies from Sinn Féin the opportunity to deny in the course of this debate what I said earlier about where their loyalties lie. At the first available opportunity, although they choose to dilate another subject far beyond section 1, they have signally chosen to remain silent on that fundamental issue, from which I draw the conclusion that I was right and they were wrong.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: He would of course.

Acting Chairman: Section 1 deals with interpretations and definitions. I am sure there will be another opportunity for the Minister and honourable Members to discuss the matter.

Question put.

Deputies: Vótáil.

An Ceann Comhairle: Will the Deputies claiming a division please rise?

Deputies Crowe, Ferris, Morgan, Ó Caoláin and Ó Snodaigh rose.

An Ceann Comhairle: As fewer than ten Deputies have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 68 the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: In the course of his last contribution the Minister demonstrated once again that he believed he had Sinn Féin over a barrel. That is a foolish notion on the Minister's part and he should be very careful because he is the only one looking over the barrel and he might fall into it. We in Sinn Féin are democrats and are committed to the sovereignty of the people and to the democratic institutions established by them. If the Minister has not heard this from a Sinn Féin spokesman before, I state it clearly in my seventh year in this House, those institutions include this Dáil and the institutions established under the Good Friday Agreement. I wish to make that patently clear to the Minister.

Section 2(1) of the Bill states that the commission is "independent in the performance of its functions". As I said on Second Stage, nothing could be further from the truth as the Minister knows all too well and he knows my points are valid. Any concept or construction which seeks to hold a party accountable for actions by others and subjects that party to sanctions runs contrary to democratic norms. There is no independence in that. Elected representatives get their mandate from the people, no less than the Minister. The idea in this proposition that the British Government has a right to disenfranchise a section of the electorate by virtue of the unilateral powers vested in it by this Bill is contrary to the notion of independent action and is a travesty of democracy.

I have great respect for many on the Government benches, whom I know personally and who are highly committed to their constituencies and are proud of their service to the Irish people. I acknowledge that they serve the people but they do not fully understand or appreciate what this Bill will do. We are almost lone voices on this matter. I invite them over the Christmas break to sit down, analyse and study carefully what is involved in this because the only 50-50 position between the Irish and British Governments on the Independent Monitoring Commission is the cost. In each of the elements negotiated the British Government has taken the lion's share.

An Ceann Comhairle: That is outside section 2 of the Bill. We are dealing with section 2.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I am speaking about independence. Section 2 covers the status of the commission and the affirmation in the first part of that claims independence. There is no independence, as the Minister knows well, because he has given the British Government the power of unilateral action over the involvement and participation of democratically elected voices within the Northern institutions. If the British Government acts on the basis of recommendations or reports from the so-called Independent Monitoring Commission and gives effect to its power and powers of sanctions as now vested in it by the passage of this legislation, it will be in clear breach of the Agreement.

The Minister should mark my words because every avenue will be explored to ensure that a defence is presented in support of the democratic right of all elected voices on this island to properly participate within the institutions and structures guaranteed by the Good Friday Agreement. The British Government has usurped the Agreement and in signing an agreement with the British ambassador, the Minister is complicit in accommodating that, with a Bill complementary to one already passed by the British Parliament. How many of the Deputies here have had the opportunity to study the Northern Ireland so-called Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission) Act 2003 and recognised the dangerous powers it vests in the British Government?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is speaking outside the confines of section 2.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The notion in section 2 that the Independent Monitoring Commission is "independent in the performance of its functions" is a contradiction with the entire establishment and setting up of the commission and the powers involved in both sets of legislation presented at the British Parliament and now being forced through this House under guillotine. That is the reality. I reject the incorporation of the second element in this Bill on Committee Stage.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Morgan.

Mr. McDowell: Could I contribute on this Committee Stage?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Surely the Deputy has a right to speak?

Mr. McDowell: So do I.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I understood the Minister to have a right of reply.

Mr. McDowell: No. This is the Committee Stage.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: If other Members offer they have the right to speak.

An Ceann Comhairle: I will call Deputy Morgan but if the Deputy wishes to give way to the Minister as there is only one minute remaining that is for him to decide.

Mr. Morgan: If there is only one minute remaining that is another question. How independent is this independent monitoring agency?

Mr. McDowell: Deputy Ó Caoláin has already asked that question.

Mr. Morgan: How independent is the information and where will it find that information?

Mr. Deasy: Hear, hear.

Mr. Morgan: Will it come from the Northern Ireland police service, MI5, MI6, or from a host of British intelligence agencies? Does anybody know apart from a few Deputies in this House? There are some here who would happily abide by information from those sources but the majority know how those agencies behave and have seen the handiwork of their agents over many years. A recent example of the spin and the stories for which these agencies are responsible----

An Ceann Comhairle: That is not relevant to section 2 of this Bill.

Mr. Morgan: I am talking about the issue of independence. We were told by various governments, based on information they received from security sources-----

An Ceann Comhairle: It is now 2.30 p.m. and I am obliged to put the question.

Mr. Morgan: -----that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but obviously as we now know Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. On the basis of that information the entire peace process-----

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to resume his seat and allow me to put the question in accordance with an order voted on by the House this morning.

I am now required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That in respect of each of the sections undisposed of the section is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put.

Deputies: Votáil.

An Ceann Comhairle: Will the Deputies claiming a division please rise?

Deputies Crowe, Ferris, Gregory, Finian McGrath, Morgan, Ó Caoláin and Ó Snodaigh rose.

An Ceann Comhairle: As fewer than ten Deputies have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 68 the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil. A message will be sent to the Seanad acquainting it accordingly.

Question declared carried.

Independent Monitoring Commission: Motion.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland establishing the Independent Monitoring Commission which was signed on 25 November, 2003 in Dublin on behalf of the Government of Ireland by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 17 December, 2003.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is that agreed?

Deputies: Vótáil.

An Ceann Comhairle: Will the Deputies claiming a division please rise?

Deputies Crowe, Ferris, Gregory, Finian McGrath, Morgan, Ó Caoláin and Ó Snodaigh rose.

An Ceann Comhairle: As fewer than ten Deputies have risen from their places I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 68 the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

Question declared carried.

National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Ellis: I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Donovan.

I welcome the opportunity of making a small contribution on the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill. We all welcome this Bill and hope it will be passed and brought into operation as soon as possible. We are all aware that the office has been open since last February. This gives us an opportunity to look back on the economic development that has taken place in this country over the years. We are all aware that enormous strides have been made in that area. This Bill will provide structures to what has been an ongoing ad hoc operation in terms of development and relations in general, at a social or economic level. With this Bill we have an opportunity to regulate the situation.

We have seen enormous progress in this country over the past ten or 20 years. I recall the sort of problems we faced when I first became a Member of this House, which is perhaps further back than people might care to remember. The basic infrastructure, such as telephones, rail and road transport was lacking to a serious extent.

The first great step in Ireland's economic development was the introduction of free education. It was put crudely that free education was the opportunity to take the brains from the bog rather than leaving them in the bog. As a result of free education most people who desired it were given the opportunity to avail of second level and third level education. The benefits of free education may not have been foreseen at the time but the generation after the first beneficiaries of free second level education was fully aware of its importance.

Ireland's economy is now regarded as one of the most advanced in the world. Over 70% of the population have a third level qualification, which is of significant benefit. This statistic includes degree holders and those with training qualifications. It is important to ensure the education system continues to develop.

The National Economic and Social Development Office Bill may be summarised as a national policy and institutional framework which is consistently highly focused on competitiveness and employment creation, innovation and problem-solving. The establishment of such a body will no doubt make a significant contribution to economic development.

The rate of unemployment is at present the lowest in memory. During the recent economic downturn in other parts of the world, the Irish economy managed to continue to enjoy positive growth. This demonstrates the efforts of groups such as the trade unions, Government and local authorities. Every member of society, those dependent on social welfare and the employed, made a contribution to the development of the country. It is now regarded as the place to be.

The economic development has not been exclusively concentrated, as some would argue, on the eastern seaboard and in the major cities. Development of the road and rail infrastructure means that no part of the country will be far removed from first class services. Last week saw the further roll out of broadband technology. It is probably the greatest technological development to take place in our lifetime and will encourage economic growth and lessen isolation. I look forward to broadband being available throughout the country.

Over the years some NESC reports seemed gloomy about the prospects for economic development, but they always made a positive contribution on the subject of the improvement of the economy. It is imperative to establish a full-time National Economic and Social Development Office. For many years there were ad hoc arrangements which worked very successfully but they did not have the back-up and services necessary. The establishment by the Government of the National Economic and Social Development Office will make a significant contribution. The Bill is sponsored by the Department of the Taoiseach. It demonstrates that the commitment of the Taoiseach and the Government to national economic and social development is wholehearted and total.

This Bill will allow for sustained growth. The National Economic and Social Development Office will include NESC and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance. The primary role of NESDO will be to add value to the work of its constituent bodies by creating the conditions under which joint projects can be pursued and the potential for duplication minimised. The Bill sets up a grouping that will be co-ordinated and it will assist in the development of the entire economy. The most important decisions taken in recent times, such as the decision on decentralisation, will be of significant benefit. Rural areas will have the benefit of an influx of people in State employment.

I am pleased that Carrick-on-Shannon is to receive a section of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and another section is to be added to those already in Sligo. The Central Fisheries Board is being relocated to Carrick-on-Shannon. It is not desirable that centres such as Dublin, Cork and Galway grow at the expense of rural Ireland. Whether one lives in the north of Inishowen or Cahirsiveen, one is entitled to have the same opportunities for development as those living in Dublin. It is no longer a hindrance to live outside the Pale.

Many parts of the country benefit from much better social and educational facilities than in Dublin. The development of institutes of technology has made a significant contribution to economic and social development in the regions. They are a source of third level education which had previously been regarded as being beyond the means or young people or their parents. It has given those who did not have the chance of a degree course an opportunity to develop up to degree level. Many institutes including, the Sligo Institute of Technology, now offer degree courses.

The National Economic and Social Forum has a particular mandate to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the policies and programmes for tackling inequality. This includes the issue of social inclusion in the context of social partnership agreements. We are all aware of the benefits of social partnership agreements. The trade unions are to be complimented for the manner in which they stood up to some sectional interests to ensure the full implementation of their recommendations.

The Irish workforce has made an important contribution to the economic development of the country. I welcome the Bill and I look forward to ensuring that the National Economic and Social Development Office makes the same contribution as legislated for in this Bill as it has done in the ad hoc arrangement in the past.

3 o'clock

Mr. O'Donovan: I welcome the Bill and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak. I thank Deputy Ellis for sharing his time with me.

This Bill is a major step forward. We must compliment the Taoiseach on developing the National Economic and Social Development Office. It comprises the National Economic and Social Council, the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance. It is important to put this in context. During the 1960s Seán Lemass was credited with the industrial revolution. The Taoiseach must take credit for the revolution in modern technology and for bringing success to this country, which is probably second to none in the world in terms of economic and social development and growth. When the Taoiseach was Minister for Finance, he was able to work with the social partners and the trade unions to bring forward development plans which were crucial in ensuring stability.

The previous speaker mentioned free education, which was introduced in 1967. There were approximately 2,000 students in UCC when I was a student there. There are now more than 10,000 students at the college. The Cork Institute of Technology has approximately the same number of students. That is a significant increase over 20 years. Our success in that area should be recognised.

Many of my family live in America and other countries. When I travel abroad, whether to Great Britain, other countries in Europe, America or Australia, I get the impression from people who left our soil many years ago that they are envious of the Government's success. That did not happen overnight or by accident. The previous speaker said we have the lowest unemployment figures he can remember. They are the lowest unemployment figures in the history of the State. It was predicted by some of our opponents 12 months ago that our inflation and unemployment figures would rise. However, that has not happened, due to the success of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance. The prediction six or nine months ago was that inflation would rise to 6% or 7%. However, it has decreased significantly in the past two or three months.

Despite the forecast of doom and gloom, our unemployment figures are still low. When one compares that to other countries, such as Germany, whose unemployment figure is 10% or 11%, France, which has a similar unemployment rate, and the United Kingdom, we have done significantly well. I read recently that our GDP is the third best in the world. That success is linked to the approach taken by the Taoiseach. He must take credit for that success. If our inflation and unemployment figures and our interest rates were rising out of control, we would hear about it.

We should not forget our past. I was obliged to emigrate and the unemployment rate was at a record high when I came back in the early 1980s. Some 60,000 or 70,000 people left the country each year during the mid 1980s. Interest rates were at 18% or 19%. I remember a time in the mid 1980s when farmers' backs were against the wall as they had to borrow to develop their farms and to carry out environmental works to prevent pollution. They were encouraged to borrow money. Interest rates increased from 6%, 7% or 8%, which are extremely high by current standards, to 18% or 19%. Surcharges meant that the figure was higher than that in some cases. During the 1980s some people could not borrow money. Banks insisted that people had to save a minimum of £4,000 for at least two years before they would give them a loan. They would not take the risk. Everything has changed.

We often hear criticism about the housing situation in this country. I recently met representatives of the construction industry. It has reached its limit in terms of the number of houses built this year. It has delivered approximately 65,000 houses, which is phenomenal given the size of our population. If we can build 65,000 houses, America, which is the biggest economy in the world, should build approximately 2 million and the UK should build 900,000 housing units per annum. However, they are not building half that number. I am not saying there are no problems as regards social housing, but we have had significant success in recent years.

The previous speaker mentioned infrastructure. When I was elected to the Seanad in 1989, I did not have the Newbridge bypass on my journey from west Cork to Dublin. The Kildare bypass was recently opened, which will help motorists to save time on a long journey. The Watergrasshill bypass and the Lee Tunnel were built recently and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, recently opened the Skiberreen bypass. If it had been said in 1990, which is not long ago, that Watergrasshill or Skiberreen would be bypassed and that the Lee Tunnel would be built, people would not have believed it. Our economy was not doing well and the emigration and unemployment figures were high. The country's morale was at its lowest in the history of the State. The Government has done extremely well.

I praise the Taoiseach for bringing this Bill before the House. This will be the catalyst for further success. We have done well in this country and Dublin is probably the fastest growing city in Europe. There are still problems. We need Luas and an underground link from Dublin Airport to the city centre. Other infrastructural developments are also required, but much of the work is being done. I am delighted the Cashel and Fermoy bypasses have started and plans are under way for the Mitchelstown bypass. I welcome the Minister's announcement that he is proceeding to build a dual carriageway from Dublin to Cork. As someone who commutes on that route, I look forward to that development.

I wish you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and everyone in the House a happy and holy Christmas and a prosperous new year. I hope we will all be back here this time next year.

Mr. R. Bruton: I do not want to rain on people's parade in terms of partnership and the importance of this legislation. However, the introduction of this Bill should be an opportunity for us to seriously debate the position of social partnership as it has developed.

The NESC celebrated its fortieth anniversary this year, yet we are seeking to create a super structure to incorporate that in a legislative framework. I have not heard the full extent of this debate but from those whose contributions I have heard, there is no consciousness of the serious weaknesses in the partnership model as we have developed it. It is time for a searching analysis of the way in which the partnership model works.

Many people were dismayed by the benchmarking process, whereby insiders in the partnership system put a deal together. The information on which pay settlements were to be based was never made available to the taxpayers who have had to pay for it. All the information was shredded and was not available under the Freedom of Information Act. No one receiving the awards knew why they were to get them. The Government was supposed to embrace a serious agenda to change the public service. Some 75% of the award was to be conditional on that reform, yet the Government put forward no such agenda. None of the so-called partners was pushed beyond any of its established positions as part of the benchmarking agreement to deliver quality and improved public services to people who depend on them. Instead, we will see next year, as we have this year, many services for the most needy in our community being curtailed because pay is pre-empting budgets.

We have seen cuts in the crèche allowance for the most disadvantaged children. I know the sort of people who are in receipt of this allowance in my area and they are highly disadvantaged families who need this support. The same argument applies in respect of those who require the dietary allowance. We have ended up doing the very opposite to what a sensitive partnership arrangement should have done. That is not an accident; it has happened because of serious flaws in the way the partnership has been put together. Patients, parents, consumers, environmentalists and others had no seats at the partnership talks. Essentially, the partnership comprises the old producer-dominated structures. Trade unions and employers are still the first division players who drive the partnership's agenda.

It is no surprise that we have created rip-off Ireland in recent years, having given such credence to the views of producers in our system while ignoring consumers' rights. We have some of the worst consumer legislation, which has remained unchanged in recent years. Any initiatives on consumer protection have come from the EU, which we seek to transpose into our domestic legislation, but consumers have no say in the partnership model and neither do parents. As a result, the producer unions and management companies have called the shots on education reform. The parent organisations are extremely weak and we still have no accountability for what is happening in our schools. For example. we do not know what the literacy standards are in any of our schools because there is no obligation to create structured reports on school performance. This is no accident. It is because of the way in which we have given producer interests so much control in the partnership process and they have slowed down the pace of public service reform.

They may not be paragons virtue on the neighbouring island but they have certainly started to reform the accountability of educational institutions. Under a more accountable system here, we might be able to find out why a school is not doing well and then do something about it. Most schools that are not performing well are probably in disadvantaged areas where teachers are working hard with the most disadvantaged pupils, yet they do not get access to additional resources because we, the legislators, do not see what the problems are. We do not get the sort of reporting that we ought to. A genuine partnership that tries to embrace such problems would not tolerate a situation where one in five students leaves school without sitting the leaving certificate. One in six leaves school unable to read or interpret the instructions on the side of an aspirin packet. That is a blight on the education system. Unless we face up to those difficulties and put in place structures to bring them continually to our attention, we will be failing to develop a proper partnership model.

It is no accident that Sustaining Progress, the deal the Government cut with the various partners, including the unions, has never been debated in this House. No one regards that as strange. Some 166 people were elected to this House to shape the way the country is run and resolve conflicts in society - and there are many such conflicts that need to be addressed - yet that partnership agreement never came up for debate and our views could be expressed.

All the previous agreements were debated in the House but, perhaps unconsciously, the Government now sees the Oireachtas as being less and less important in making decisions about our economy and society in general. Whether deliberately or by accident, the Government has become an ally of the lobbyist approach whereby important conflicts are not resolved openly here by elected representatives but in back rooms where aficionados of different bodies have access to the Government in order to shape and conclude deals. That is not the sort of political accountability we want to see in a modern democracy. If partnership becomes allied to this diminution in the importance of the Oireachtas, as it has in recent times, it will be a bad deal both for social partnership and parliamentary democracy.

The Oireachtas is effectively copper-fastening what is already there, while the Taoiseach has the power to change matters as they evolve. However, there is no attempt by either the Taoiseach or his Ministers to challenge seriously whether the partnership deal is achieving what we want it to do. The collapse in the importance and public recognition of the Oireachtas has occurred because alternative fora are available to people who want to influence the decision-making process. These fora are predominantly unelected and unaccountable.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but the Minister of State is entitled to reply at 3.15 p.m. because the proceedings must end at 3.30 p.m.

Mr. R. Bruton: The Opposition only got five minutes of the available time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It is a matter for the Minister of State to decide whether she requires 15 minutes for her reply.

Ms Hanafin: I will be happy to give Deputy Richard Bruton another few moments, if he so wishes.

Mr. R. Bruton: I will be brief. We should step back and ask whether or not the partnership as it is now constituted - with the first division players, including the employers and trade unions, and a mixed group representing the community and voluntary sectors - is really meeting the needs of a modern democracy. There are big issues concerning the accountability of the decision makers in that partnership process and how the Oireachtas should interface with the developing partnership model. Giving the Oireachtas 15 places on the National Economic and Social Forum is ridiculous. It is not the way in which the Oireachtas can hold the partnership model to account. We, the elected representatives, should hold these bodies to account for their decisions.

The partnership process was born at a time when the economy had become a basket case and deep industrial divisions were costing us jobs. People came together to deal with those issues and avoid self-destruction but because partnership was part of an important recovery period, we have overlooked its weaknesses and have been unwilling to scrutinise it properly. Unfortunately, I do not see in this legislation any way in which the Oireachtas and its elected Members can challenge the often false consensus that passes for this type of debate.

I heard a former trade union leader - I will not name him, although most people will know to whom I am referring - remarking recently at the 40th anniversary of the partnership process how conformist the system had become and how much uniformity of opinion was emerging through the process. That is bad because many of the challenges we face require robust debate by elected representatives, such as ourselves. That sort of robust debate is being lost, however.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Ms Hanafin): Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Teachtaí ar fad a labhain ar an mBille seo, a Bill which allows us to implement one of our commitments under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, namely, that the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, the National Economic and Social Forum, NESF, and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, NCPP, would be located within the National Economic and Social Development Office.

It is some months since the Bill started its passage through the Dáil and quite a number of Deputies have spoken on it. Even in the few months we have been discussing it, we have witnessed the way the economic climate has changed, both globally and at home. It is in that context, when looking at this particular Bill, that we can see the importance of it in terms of how well the economy has done, the way we managed to overcome the challenges facing us and in comparing what happened in 1987 when the idea of partnership started. That is something that was addressed today by Deputies Ellis, O'Donovan and Bruton. It is useful to remember the position in 1987-----

Mr. R. Bruton: Partnership started 40 years ago.

Ms Hanafin: Sorry, I mean the national agreements. The first national agreement was back in 1987 and it is worthwhile remembering, as Deputies pointed out today, that the unemployment rate was 17.5%, inflation was 12%, emigration was at its highest and, as the two Deputies on this side of the House mentioned, the infrastructure and borrowing situation we were in at that time. We have come a long way from that and built an economy that is much admired, not just here but abroad. The progress made has been outstanding. It is always useful to remind ourselves that the unemployment rate is just over 4%, the inflation rate is just over 2% and that we remain a very competitive country. The reason we are so successful is because of partnership and the various agreements negotiated. We strongly believe we need to continue that if we are to remain competitive.

The discussions with the social partners over the past number of years focused realistically on the economic position but also on the social situation. They deal not just with competitiveness but also with economic growth and ensuring that people across the board can benefit from the process. The one point I would probably accept from Deputy Bruton is that we may have missed an opportunity to discuss Sustaining Progress in this House. That is something that probably should become part of our regular agenda when agreements are reached and it is something we will look to in the future. The goals are ones to which we all aspire: economic inclusion based on full employment; consistent economic development that is socially and environmentally sustainable; social inclusion; a commitment to social justice; and a continuing adaptation to change.

I am disappointed that from the beginning to the end of this debate, each of the Fine Gael contributions have been critical of the partnership process.

Mr. R. Bruton: As are the partners themselves. The Minister of State should talk to them.

Ms Hanafin: It cannot be a coincidence that it started with the contribution of the leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Kenny, when he decided to question the whole process. There is no problem with questioning a process but to be entirely critical of the way it has worked is too negative a view of a process which has obviously worked for the benefit of this country for the past number of years and which continues to work.

I do not accept that partnership is a type of club that excludes the disadvantaged in our society and which only has people of influence in it. One only has to look at the membership of the community and voluntary pillars to see that sitting around the table are individual members like CORI, the INOU, the NYC, Protestant Aid and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Those very groups represent the most disadvantaged in our society. There are various other strands including Age Action Ireland, representing older people, the Irish Council for Social Housing, the Children's Rights Alliance, etc. How can one claim, therefore, that it is an advantaged club and that the people who should be socially included are being left out?

Another major point which has come up frequently in this context is that those who sign up to partnership agreements do not represent the rank and file membership of the organisations they represent. Benchmarking has crept into this debate as well. What saddens me about the benchmarking debate, particularly from the perspective of Fine Gael, is that it appears to think that benchmarking will be paid to anonymous people doing anonymous jobs sitting in anonymous places. What we are talking about are the nurses in our hospitals, the gardaí on our streets, the teachers in our schools and our public servants who ensure that the mechanism of government works well. These are the people who will benefit from benchmarking and who will, from next month, get the money they deserve for the work they are doing based on a comparative process of salaries at other levels here and abroad. It is to their credit that the various groups involved in working out benchmarking ensured that people down the line would gain in terms of their salaries and, in return, give the type of service expected of them.

Deputy Bruton talked about the role of partnership in education. He will be the first to admit that over the past number of years the concept of partnership, albeit not formally recognised in much legislation although it is in some, has crept into many of our schools. As late as yesterday I was in a school in my own constituency, St. Anne's in Shankill, albeit to announce its new building, and I met 30 parents who go into the school every morning to do reading classes with groups of children. That is a direct involvement of parents in that school every day. One of the parents told me that if they see a child one day who is not good at reading it might be because the child is just tired but if the same child is not good at reading the following day and the day after that, obviously there is a problem. That is the type of partnership that is working on the ground and will tackle the type of issues Deputy Bruton talked about in respect of literacy. The concept of partnership exists but what has to be overcome is the fear among parents in disadvantaged communities that they are being excluded in some way from the school but that will not be addressed by way of legislation. That has to happen by way of encouragement, entitlement and working closely together on the ground. I believe that is happening.

Another issue raised in terms of social partnership was whether the process was inclusive. Of all aspects, the NESF is a good example of how the social partnership institution can be inclusive. We have talked here about the various bodies involved in it, and it is a forum on which we can have representatives of the Oireachtas, employers, unions, farming organisations, the voluntary and community sectors, central and local government and Independents. It might be useful, however, if all the parties in this House made their nominations to that body so that Members of the Oireachtas could have their voice heard on it. It is unusual to have that combination of people sharing their thoughts, developing policies and coming up with ideas. It is intended that this will continue because I am aware it is successful.

As a woman I regret the fact that the National Women's Council and the Community Platform decided not to accept the terms of Sustaining Progress. I believe they not only isolated themselves but many women also. Not being part of social partnership is to their detriment if not to the detriment of the partnership process as a whole.

One of the issues raised by a number of Deputies in the debate was the question of resources. The savings being made are as a result of the three bodies being relocated into one premises in Dublin. There is no effect on staff, and there will not be any cutbacks in that area. It is just a saving in terms of relocation.

Another issue raised was the importance of the small economy, etc., but Deputy Carey raised the idea of being competitive. The role of partnership 40 years ago and in 1987, when we had the first agreement, was quite different from what it is now but that does not mean it is not valid. It is as valid today as it was on the first day but it is playing a completely different role now to the role it played then. That is why I find Fine Gael's criticism of it particularly disturbing. Instead of examining how it reflects the type of society in which we now live and its current social and economic requirements, the party appears to do little other than knock it. I would be worried about the future of partnership if the Fine Gael Party was ever elected to Government. Partnership has delivered a strike free economy, wage agreements and the involvement of social partners in a manner never achieved before.

I hope we will be able on Committee Stage to tease out some of these ideas and that in doing so, Deputies will come to realise and accept the value of the various bodies working in this area, particularly those referred to and to which the Bill refers. I am sure Deputy Finian McGrath, who made a number of particularly interesting points on the legislation, will participate in the Committee Stage debate.

Mr. F. McGrath: The Government must not forget to pay the teachers. Deputy Richard Bruton does not want to give them their benchmarking payments.

Ms Hanafin: I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002: Referral to Select Committee.

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

That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Finance and Public Service, in accordance with Standing Order 120(1) and paragraph 1(a)(i) of the Orders of Reference of that committee.

Question put and agreed to.

CEISTEANNA - QUESTIONS.

Priority Questions.

National Stadium.

1. Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the timeframe involved in the assessment of the proposal presented to him by the IRFU on 10 December 2003 to provide a new stadium for rugby, soccer, and Gaelic football if required; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31719/03]

2. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the matters discussed at his meeting with the IRFU on 10 December 2003; if he has received proposals from the IRFU for the upgrading of Lansdowne Road; his views on the proposals submitted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31715/03]

3. Mr. Connolly asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if consideration is being given to the annual leasing of Croke Park from the GAA; the feasibility of re-leasing this venue to other sporting bodies during this lease period; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31718/03]

5. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism his position on the provision of a new national stadium; if he has yet brought a memorandum to Government on this matter; if Abbotstown is still under consideration as a venue; the costs involved in each of the options under consideration; when a final decision will be taken on the provision of a national stadium; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31552/03]

Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism (Mr. O'Donoghue): I met the IRFU on 10 December and received from them further proposals on development options for Lansdowne Road, with a view to providing state-of-the-art facilities which would address the stadium requirements of the major sporting bodies. These proposals are complementary to the options tabled by the IRFU and FAI earlier this year, involving the provision of a 65,000 seater stadium at a number of locations, including Abbotstown and Lansdowne Road.

These discussions were resumed on 16 December when I met IRFU and FAI representatives in my office. They presented supplementary information by way of elaboration on the 10 December proposals. The thrust of this latest proposal is to present an option for the redevelopment of Lansdowne Road capable of meeting the needs of the major sporting bodies. I am having this new material evaluated in consultation with the Office of Public Works, which acts as technical adviser to my Department on the project.

With regard to the opening up of Croke Park or possible lease arrangements, I reaffirm my frequently expressed public view that this is a matter for the GAA alone to consider and decide on. My position on this issue is known. I do not, however, wish to engage in hypothetical speculation on issues around suggestions that the GAA should lease Croke Park to the Government or any other methodologies for that matter.

Taking account of the issues highlighted in the various proposals for stadium development, the outcome of my discussions with the sporting bodies as well as the information gleaned in response to the initiative to secure privately funded facilities, and taking into account the likely demand on the Exchequer to fund such a facility, it is my intention to present to the Government for decision the various options for meeting the stadium needs of the sporting organisations at the earliest possible date. In this regard, I wish to place on record once again that the Abbotstown site will be one of the options before Government.

Mr. Deenihan: Surely the Minister agrees it is now time to move from vanity to sanity and from dreams to reality? The time for dithering, obfuscation and procrastination is now over. A report by Ove Arup Consulting Engineering is strongly in favour of building a new stadium at Lansdowne Road, which would include seating for 50,000 people and cost approximately €250 million, of which €80 million would be returned to the State in tax. The facility would be a new, modern international stadium with strong aesthetic qualities, which would receive positive recognition internationally due to its world class facilities. It would also have a minimal impact on adjoining residents because of the curved profile of the east and west stands and the low level of the north and south stands. It would concentrate spectators towards the centre of the pitch and capacity would be adequate for most fixtures. In addition, it would be good value for money and could accommodate GAA fixtures. Surely the proposal warrants an immediate decision.

I am concerned that the Minister has again stated he will make a decision at the earliest possible date. Will he be more definitive and clarify when he intends to make a decision on the proposal by the IRFU, which is supported by the FAI, the Fine Gael Party and, I am sure, the other party spokespersons on sport? Fine Gael and other parties have been recommending this solution to the Government for four year. It is now decision time. The IRFU and FAI are losing out considerably due to Government inaction and its failure to make a decision. We are faced with the potentially embarrassing situation internationally of the FAI being forced to decide shortly where to play home matches, while the IRFU could also be forced to consider other options, including playing their home matches abroad. Opening up Croke Park is another question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I remind the Deputy that this is Question Time and he should ask questions.

Mr. Deenihan: The issue before us is about making a decision on a well-costed stadium proposal. Will the Minister make a decision and present definitive proposals to Cabinet in January? Will we have a decision in one month?

Mr. O'Donoghue: This Government has nothing to be ashamed of with regard to the provision of sports facilities or investment in sport, which has been massive. Since the Taoiseach first brought the position of sport to the Cabinet table in 1997, the amount of money allocated for sport has increased from approximately €17 million to €176 million per annum. Developments, such as the national aquatic centre, have been a tremendous credit to the Government and country.

It is incorrect of the Deputy to suggest I have been dithering. The opposite is the truth. In September last year, the Government made a decision to the effect that it could not proceed with the proposal at Abbotstown from Exchequer funding due to economic circumstances and mandated me to seek expressions of interest from the private sector, which I duly did. Once these were evaluated, I asked the sporting associations, the IRFU and FAI, to make proposals, which they did. Subsequently, they sought an opportunity to provide some clarity on their proposals, which they also did, and the Office of Public Works has been examining the proposals in the interim. In those circumstances, I fail to see the logic of Deputy Deenihan's argument.

The current position is that I have sufficient information, other than the final evaluation of the latest document presented by the IRFU and FAI, to go to Government. This documentation should be ready soon and I have stated publicly my wish to bring the relevant memorandum to Government for decision at some point in January. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the memorandum will include the various options the Government can consider and, having done so, it will, in its wisdom, make a decision. I have also repeatedly indicated my personal desire to construct a new stadium, because the IRFU and FAI unquestionably require a home. I believe the sporting public has also identified the need for such a stadium.

Mr. Wall: Each time the Minister has been questioned in the House in the past six months, questions on a national stadium have been taken as a priority. However, despite all the reports, it seems that no conclusion has been reached. When the relevant reports from the IRFU and the FAI came on stream I thought a decision would finally be made. The Minister has conceded that all the Opposition parties have supported his endeavours.

Media coverage on the latest meetings of the IRFU and FAI indicates the total cost of their proposals would be €250 million. When the VAT reclaim etc. is removed that brings it down to a possible €85 million. Will the Minister say whether an offer of £50 million from Mr. J. P. McManus is on the backburner as regards a national stadium and facility? Mr. McManus has a reputation for supporting all sports, including soccer, due to his links with Manchester United. It would be a cheap stadium for the Government if one was to take the reclaim of the VAT and the offer of £50 million into account. That would possibly put the provision of the IRFU and the FAI at around €35 million, which would make it good value for them. This would be an obvious solution given the problems facing the FAI as regards the European and world championships and the safety and health factors that the IRFU will face.

Is it not time that we put this to bed and moved on? It is raised continuously at Question Time and is covered regularly in the media. I was concerned when, within a few days of his meeting with the FAI and the IRFU, the Minister indicated that he would like Croke Park to be opened to other sports. That may muddy the waters in terms of the Government's intentions. A concrete proposal now exists, which, given the facts as regards costs presented in the media, could be the cheapest option for the Government. I would ask the Minister to bring this to Government, get it done and dusted and allow the IRFU and the FAI to move forward with their plans for the Six Nations Championship and the world championships and allied arrangements. Will the Minister say when a decision will be made and when this matter is to be put to bed once and for all? Let us stop muddying the waters and be positive as regards reaching a decision.

Mr. O'Donoghue: I have been clear and consistent from the outset as regards this issue and have repeatedly stated that a new stadium is necessary. I have also been fair and open with all of the sporting organisations concerned. I let them know my views and my door has been open at all times to discuss the issue. On 10 December, the IRFU requested further time to make another submission and I gladly acceded to that because I believe all sides of the argument deserve a hearing.

Deputy Deenihan, in the course of his contribution, seemed to indicate that the Ove Arup report comes down in favour of Lansdowne Road. That is a matter for interpretation. Others will strongly argue that any stadium should be at Abbotstown on the grounds that it would provide the opportunity for future Governments to build a campus there which could host major international events in years to come. They pointedly refer to the tremendous success which the National Aquatic Centre has been during the recent European short course championships. Experts on swimming from across Europe were laudatory of the facilities and records were broken. It is a great tribute to the resilience and progress of Irish sport that the Government has located such a facility there.

In answer to Deputy Wall, I have not had the opportunity of advising Mr. McManus of the precise proposals, but I am sure I will in due course. When I do, Mr. McManus will no doubt make up his own mind. However, I would like to record again my deep appreciation of the magnificent gift of £50 million he has offered the State towards the construction of a national stadium. I hope this has dealt with the matters raised. The issue is one which requires decision. It is clear from FAI and IRFU statements that these bodies regard their positions as untenable. I fully understand and appreciate that and have articulated that view.

Mr. Connolly: I thank the Minister for his reply and note that today's questions are largely on the same theme, sport. That generally reflects public opinion. Will the Minister say if he has been involved in any meetings with the GAA, formal or informal, with regard to the future use of Croke Park and if he considers that such meetings might be of benefit? If the Government was to lease Croke Park, it would remove the dilemma of Rule 42 for the GAA. This would make sense. As Deputy Deenihan stated earlier, we have many international matches next year and it would be terrible if we had to go abroad when a fantastic stadium such as Croke Park exists. There should at least be discussions on this.

Does the Minister believe it would be beneficial to take a lead role and invite the IRFU, the FAI and the GAA to round table talks? Their respective constitutions may not allow any of these bodies to initiate such talks but the Government should take the initiative in this regard. That might be beneficial for all three organisations. Religions that are diametrically opposed to each other can share the same church buildings. Sports bodies should be able to share the same facilities as well. In general, the same sports fans go to soccer and GAA matches and go racing. Such a move would facilitate such sports people. To have a world class stadium used in this fashion would send out a positive message about Ireland. I would ask the Minister to take the initiative in this regard. Croke Park is officially used only 21 times per year. That is an under use of a fantastic resource. Will the Minister consider taking a lead role by inviting the three national organisations to talks?

Mr. O'Donoghue: I doubt if there has been a Minister who has met the GAA, the IRFU and the FAI on more occasions within the same timeframe, since I assumed this portfolio. As regards Croke Park, even if the GAA hierarchy wanted to negotiate it could not do so, as Deputy Connolly will be aware. It would require a vote of the congress of the GAA to lift Rule 42. As regards the resolution of the problem, I have consistently stated that Croke Park on its own is not the solution. That much is clear. The FAI and the IRFU have also made it clear on numerous occasions and have outlined their cogent reasons in this regard.

As I have been outlining for some time, the memorandum is being finalised and it will go to the Government.

Since I was appointed Minister, and I do not mean to blow my own trumpet, there has been clarity about the options. We have also engaged fairly with the relevant sporting organisations. The sporting public wants the issue resolved to ensure that rugby and soccer can prosper. Indeed, it is also the public's wish that the same would apply to our national games.

Mr. Deenihan: All Members agree that a second stadium is needed for rugby and soccer. The question is about where and when. It is also important that the Minister state his personal preference. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will make a definitive statement in January on whether the stadium will be in Abbotstown or Lansdowne Road? Will the Minister indicate his personal preference? It is a fair question and he must have a preference. The IRFU and the FAI firmly support the Lansdowne Road proposal. That should be enough to convince the Government that this is the optimum site. Fine Gael has always favoured the Lansdowne Road option because of cost and location. The infrastructure already exists and that would save money. There is also a feeling among the sporting fraternity that this is the optimum site.

Mr. O'Donoghue: The principal Opposition parties have been most supportive of the concept of a new stadium for which I am grateful. It would be unfair not to acknowledge it. It would also be remiss of me not to confirm that some of the Independent Members, including the two who are present, have indicated that they are supportive of the concept.

I am a great lover, like Deputy Deenihan, of large balls, round balls, oval balls and so on-----

Mr. Connolly: The Minister should be careful. He should not go there.

Mr. O'Donoghue: -----but I do not have a crystal ball.

Mr. English: We only have high balls.

Mr. O'Donoghue: Therefore, it is not possible to give Deputy Deenihan the definitive reply he seeks, much as I would like to do so. What I can and will do is put the position to the Government.

Mr. F. McGrath: The Minister should not drop the ball.

Mr. O'Donoghue: Indeed. I have also been trying to juggle the balls. I will not drop it.

Mr. English: The ball is in the Minister's court.

Mr. Wall: The Minister had a meeting with the president of the GAA, Seán Ó Ceallaigh, on 23 October. Did the Minister make him aware at that meeting that the IRFU and the FAI did not see Croke Park as the answer to all their problems? My second question relates to the costs of the proposed new stadium at Lansdowne Road. The cost is said to be €250 million. If the same 55,000 seat stadium that is proposed for Lansdowne Road was located in Abbotstown, would the cost be the same?

Mr. O'Donoghue: The question of whether the proposed stadium for Lansdowne Road could be transferred to Abbotstown for the same cost reminds me of the song "If We Only Had Old Ireland Over Here". It is a difficult question that will have to be resolved by the Office of Public Works, which will cost the various options we will subsequently put to the Government.

I have tried to keep all the sporting organisations informed of progress on the options. People have been frustrated by the fact that meetings had to take place, reports had to be produced and examined by the Office of Public Works and that the issue has to be brought back to the Government. However, I have no intention of going to Government will half-baked proposals. I will go with proposals that are solid in their own right and let the Government make its decision. The last thing I would do is go with ill thought out proposals because that would be self-defeating and would not do justice to the sporting organisations.

Mr. Deenihan: It is different from the Punchestown approach.

Mr. O'Donoghue: Horses for courses.

Mr. Connolly: Will the Minister respond to my suggestion earlier about exploratory talks? They might prove fruitful for all three organisations. This is an interim, not a lifelong, solution and the lease could be reconsidered after a period of years.

Mr. O'Donoghue: My apologies for not replying to Deputy Connolly. I have had meetings with the IRFU, the GAA and the FAI and there have been some joint meetings. I understand where each organisation stands and I am aware of their feelings about what is required in a new stadium. Such a meeting might yield results in the context of there being a positive proposal to discuss but, at this point, I am not in a position to put a definitive proposal to any of them and they are aware of that. Until I am, I doubt that a meeting of the type envisaged by Deputy Connolly, although the suggestion is well intentioned, would be of benefit.

Abbey Theatre.

4. Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if progress has been made regarding the refurbishment of the Abbey Theatre; the expected timescale involved in providing the new theatre and ancillary facilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31732/03]

Mr. O'Donoghue: On 29 January 2003, the Government authorised me to invite expressions of interest by way of public invitation from the private sector in participating, on the basis of a PPP, in the capital redevelopment of the Abbey Theatre in or around the vicinity of the site of the existing theatre. My Department, with the Department of Finance and the Office of Public Works, is working to implement that decision.

To be compatible with the functions, profile and status of a national theatre and to address the acknowledged defects with the existing theatre, a redeveloped premises would need to meet certain requirements. It would need to be a signature development, representative of a national theatre in the 21st century. It would have to be in an appropriate civic setting and form part of the overall urban regeneration represented by the O'Connell Street integrated area plan and the north-east inner city plan. There would be three significant enlarged auditoria - the Abbey, the Peacock and a third multipurpose space. There would also have to be: a dedicated education and outreach facility; a publicly accessible archive; restaurant/bar; improved public areas; disabled access for audiences and artists; and best practice theatre production facilities.

For the Abbey and the Peacock to function efficiently, effectively and without compromise, their basic functioning must not depend on movement of goods and people by mechanical lift. In essence, this means that the stages of both the Abbey and Peacock theatres must be positioned at ground level. In addition, both theatres must have easy access, also at the same level, to the scenery store and the prop store. It is agreed between the management of the Abbey and the OPW that there is a requirement for a ground floor footprint that is considerably larger than now exists. For the theatre to stay in its existing location, therefore, it will be necessary to acquire properties adjacent to the existing premises.

The Office of Public Works has received a report from property consultants who were engaged to assess the property acquisition issues arising in this context. That report is now being considered. The ultimate timeframe that will apply to this development is not yet clear.

4 o'clock

Mr. Deenihan: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Given that the Abbey Theatre will celebrate its centenary next year, it is important to make progress on this issue. The Government decided four years ago to build a national stadium and as yet there is no stadium. I hope the Abbey saga will not continue for another four years.

Is the Minister familiar with the two reports commissioned and completed in 2001 by his predecessor? Would it be a good idea if he revisited the proposals contained in the report? Would it be possible for the report to be published? I understand the reports suggested that the problems now being faced by the OPW and the Abbey authorities regarding space could have been resolved by moving to Grand Canal Harbour.

In the context of providing a new national concert hall, surely it is not too late to consider the possibility of a joint venture between the National Concert Hall and the Abbey Theatre? There is a model for this in Sydney which some of us visited recently. The chief executive of the Sydney Opera House would be willing to advise on his experience in Sydney, having travelled throughout the world, including to Japan, America and Europe, looking at similar models where opera and drama are conducted under the one roof. This saves a lot of expense. There could be joint ticketing and a state-of-the-art facility. It could be an icon which would represent this generation. Before proceeding further, the Minister might revisit the reports. Perhaps he should get advice from people like the chief executive of the Sydney Opera House who comes from Lurgan. It is not too late to go forward.

In the event of the OPW getting the required space, when does the Minister propose proceeding to a formal invitation for expressions of interest in the event of a definitive decision being made to go ahead with the Abbey project on the existing site?

Mr. O'Donoghue: Obviously reports of this nature contain commercially sensitive information on properties and so on. Therefore it would not be desirable to publish them.

On the question of timeframes, the best I can do is take each step at a time. There is little point in speculating as to what timeframes might be involved because I do not know. If we are to have meaningful invitations for expressions of interest, it is important to have a realistic chance of attracting worthwhile responses. It is important at this point to get the process right from the point of view of securing a successful long-term outcome. Proper preparation must be done and, unfortunately, time is of necessity involved.

On Deputy Deenihan's suggestion in regard to the Sydney Opera House, I wish I could convince the Minister for Finance of the merits of the Deputy's suggestion. In the current climate, I am not hopeful of doing so. We are trying to proceed by way of a PPP.

Arts Council.

6. Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he will elaborate on the reasoning behind the decision to advise the Arts Council to set up a special committee on the traditional arts; if consultations were sought on same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31628/03]

11. Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the role of the recently announced Special Committee on the Traditional Arts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31564/03]

Mr. O'Donoghue: I propose to answer Questions Nos. 6 and 11 together.

Irish traditional arts are a precious and fundamental part of our national cultural life. In an increasingly uniform world, our arts, like our language, say something special about who we are, where we came from as a people and what distinguishes us and our culture from others in the world. Very many people enjoy the traditional arts, but even those whose taste runs in other directions would say that our distinctive Irish art forms are special, that they are worth protecting and that if we lost them we would be much the poorer.

I am aware of the sense of dissatisfaction that exists within the traditional arts sector with the treatment that the sector has received over the years. Accordingly, I have now set up a special committee on the traditional arts under the Arts Act 2003, as I promised, to examine these issues in detail and to furnish a view to the council by September 2004. The committee's task is to formulate advice to the Arts Council, not to dictate to it.

The special committee system is in my view a well balanced one. The chair, who is selected from the membership of the council, and two ordinary members, are appointed by the Minister of the day, with the remaining two ordinary members appointed by the council itself. The terms of reference for the committee provide that its advice should include specific recommendations regarding the future role of the Arts Council in respect of support for the traditional arts, taking account of existing support systems, facilities and funding programmes for supporting the traditional arts across all Government Departments, non-Governmental agencies and local authorities; the applicability and relevance of the terms 'amateur', 'professional' and 'voluntary' in contemporary practice in traditional arts and, if the committee considers it appropriate, proposals for an effective framework for assessing funding proposals.

This should include a review of whether the position of the traditional arts in the cultural life of the nation is appropriately reflected in the assignments within the council's authorised staffing complement. Proposals must be framed in accordance with the Government's current policy on the need to reduce public service staff numbers.

Mr. Gogarty: The Minister will be aware that when the Arts Bill was being debated major reservations were expressed by the arts community on section 21 of the Bill. It is a long time since that flawed Bill was debated but as it has been passed there is nothing we can do. Even though the Minister is passing the issue on to a special committee, there may be some room for him to intervene. What steps will he take to ensure traditional music does not become divided from other sections of the traditional arts? When section 21 was being debated, it was pointed out that if there was a traditional section on one side-----

An Ceann Comhairle: The purpose of Question Time is to elicit information from the Minister. There is a time limit on questions and a number of Deputies wish to offer. The Deputy should confine himself to asking questions.

Mr. Gogarty: In regard to both traditional music and the traditional arts, how will the Minister ensure that the sense of unity is restored?

Mr. O'Donoghue: The objective of the amendment to the relevant section of the Arts Act was to ensure there would be no marginalisation or ghettoisation of the traditional arts or any part thereof. This has been achieved by the establishment of a standing committee which will advise the Arts Council. There will be no council within a council. The Arts Council will not be dictated to by me or by the committee.

I am anxious to ensure that we will have a coherent policy for the traditional arts in the future. I have made clear on a number of occasions the importance of the traditional arts remaining within the mainstream of Irish art forms. This is uppermost in the minds of the Arts Council and the committee dealing with the traditional arts. If a coherent policy is formulated arising from the deliberations of the standing committee, which will be of limited duration, we should then try to secure sufficient funding to enable the policy to be given artistic expression.

Mr. Wall: When the Arts Bill was going through the House, section 21, on which we all received numerous representations, was the part most debated. I happen to agree with the structure the Minister has put in place. It is reflective of what is required to obtain an overall picture of the position of the traditional arts. My only concern is that, as has been stated in the media, this committee must report back by 1 September 2004.

An Ceann Comhairle: Does the Deputy have a question?

Mr. Wall: Yes. If the committee is to carry out a trawl of local authorities and other areas of interest, is the time provided not too short? The end of 2004 would be preferable to 1 September 2004 as a deadline if we are to obtain the full picture.

Mr. O'Donoghue: I admit the timeframe is relatively short, although it must be pointed out that Deputy Deenihan wanted me to construct a €250 million stadium in 18 months.

Mr. Deenihan: I did not say that. I wanted the Minister to make a decision on the stadium. There is quite a difference.

Mr. O'Donoghue: It is true the time is limited. I appreciate Deputy Wall's support for the amendment when it was introduced. It is short because there is growing expectation among people interested in this area that at long last a coherent policy will be established and they will be able to see results from the Arts Act in the short term. I hope we can achieve that. To ensure it happens, we have placed a heavy responsibility on the members of the committee. They fully understand this and realise that much time and work will be required to formulate the advice the committee will give to the Arts Council. However, the Arts Council itself is constantly making progress and will perhaps be able to develop the policy over the longer term.

Mr. Deenihan: Will the Minister confirm whether the standing committee will report directly to the Arts Council or to the Minister himself? A commitment was made to set up a standing committee on education. Does the Minister intend to direct the Arts Council to carry out a similar process in this area? Will he confirm it is his wish that the Arts Council should provide for the traditional arts more than 1% of its funding, as it has done in the past? Does he think the report of the standing committee will ensure adequate funding for the traditional arts?

Mr. O'Donoghue: The report of the standing committee will be directed to the Arts Council, which is charged with formulating the policy.

Mr. Deenihan: The Minister set it up.

Mr. O'Donoghue: I set up the committee in the sense that I instructed that it be set up. The Arts Council appointed the chairperson and I appointed the other two members. The advice from the committee goes directly to the Arts Council, which formulates the policy.

With regard to the percentage of funding to be given to the traditional arts, Deputy Deenihan will be aware that under the legislation the Arts Council is entirely independent in the exercise of that function and must be allowed, for sound reasons, to make that decision itself. I have expressed the wish that the traditional arts be adequately funded, but I have no direct control over the matter. My function is to try to obtain a sufficient amount of money from the Minister for Finance for the Arts Council, which allocates the funding independently. I am pleased that the amount of money for the Arts Council budget for next year has been increased by 19%. This should be of enormous benefit to the sector.

I have expressed a desire to institute a standing committee on education and I know Deputy Deenihan has also expressed this wish in the past. It is a praiseworthy objective. I am not sure whether we will set up the committee in the immediate future as I am concerned about having too many standing committees at once. We will keep the matter under review and I will consider it seriously.

Tourism Industry.

7. Ms Burton asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if the high level implementation group to drive forward and monitor implementation of the report of the tourism policy review group, New Horizons for Irish Tourism: An Agenda for Action, has yet been established; the membership of the group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31555/03]

30. Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism when he intends to appoint a top level implementation group to advance the recommendations of the tourism policy review group's recent report, New Horizons for Irish Tourism: An Agenda for Action; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31441/03]

Mr. O'Donoghue: I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 30 together.

I am close to finalising the composition and membership of the high level group to implement the tourism action plan recommended by the tourism policy review group and I expect to make an announcement in the near future. Notwithstanding the setting up of the implementation group, a number of the recommended actions directed at my Department and the tourism State agencies are already under way. For example, the tourism unit of my Department has been reconfigured, advertisements seeking expressions of interest for the national conference centre have been placed in the media and bilateral consultations have taken place with the Department of Finance on taxation and with the Department of Health and Children on the anti-smoking regulations.

Fáilte Ireland's recently published summary operational plan for 2004 outlines how many of the recommendations in the report of the review group have been incorporated into its operational planning in the areas of product development, skills training and tourism marketing. A welcome development by Fáilte Ireland has been its new initiative to address the cost of insurance across the sector in co-operation with industry representative groups, including the Irish Hotels Federation and the Restaurants Association of Ireland.

Similarly, Tourism Ireland has completed an examination of the recommendations contained in the report of the tourism policy review group that affect the areas within its remit. It has incorporated a number of these into its three year marketing strategy and detailed operating plan for 2004, which I launched in Dublin last week. Their marketing, trade activity and access strategies are in line with the review group's overall framework. While the bulk of marketing resources will be focused on the best prospective markets for Ireland - Britain, the United States, France and Germany - Tourism Ireland will also continue to look for opportunities in developing markets. It will play a leading role in supporting additional direct, convenient and competitive access services into Ireland.

Mr. Deenihan: Will the Minister confirm that this high level implementation group will have clear responsibility and a timeframe for each set of actions? Will the group address the question of competitiveness? During the last Question Time I mentioned that Ireland has the highest wine tax, the second highest beer tax and the third highest spirits tax in Europe. It is now the second most expensive of the 15 EU member states. Although it was fifth from the bottom in 1999 it is now markedly more expensive than our main competitors, such as Greece, Spain and Portugal. It also has the second highest VAT rate in the eurozone - Germany has the highest. Our VAT rate, 13.5%, may be compared to those of France, 5.5%, and Spain, 7%. Will the high level implementation group tackle these major issues?

Our greatest problem is competitiveness. We are pricing ourselves out of the market. Most of the price increases responsible for this are directly controlled by the Government, in the form of the Minister for Finance. He did nothing about this in the recent budget other than to increase the tax on petrol, which added to our lack of competitiveness. Will the implementation group address this issue when it implements the recommendations of the report?

Mr. O'Donoghue: As I recall, one of the recommendations in the report deals with the issue of competitiveness. It suggested that there should be no increase in excise duty on alcohol or food in the budget.

Mr. Deenihan: Actually it recommended a decrease.

Mr. O'Donoghue: The Minister for Finance took account of this, among other sources.

The issue of competitiveness is dealt with in the report. The implementation group will be charged with implementing all recommendations which are feasible. In that regard I intend to appoint a tightly knit group. Within a period of six months we will seek a progress report. After the implementation group has been in existence for a year there will be a forum where it will be possible for interested parties to discuss with the group its progress on implementation.

I regard the task of the implementation group as of pivotal importance. It will ensure that Ireland's tourism image and product remains at the highest standard and that we are able to compete with the best internationally and that we have the relevant access to enable people to get here. I am confident those whom I have identified as suitable for membership of the implementation group are capable of doing the business.

Mr. Wall: Will the implementation group be appointed before 2004? On the issue of the common denominator of insurance, how can Fáilte Ireland deal with this matter? If there is a need for legislation, will the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment have to deal with it? To say the group will look at insurance in the overall is a bland statement. Given that a Department other than the Department of Arts, Tourism and Sport deals with insurance, how will the link be created to address what is the major problem? The Minister was correct in what he had to say about addressing the insurance problem. How can it be done if it is not in the realm of his own ministerial control and is not linked to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment?

Mr. O'Donoghue: Fáilte Ireland has embarked upon an exercise with the tourism industry to gather and collate information which it says will ultimately lead, unquestionably, to reduced premia for the industry. The Deputy will be aware of the work of other Departments in this area and has referred to them. Pivotal to the Government's approach is the Personal Injuries Assessment Board.

It is my intention to set up the implementation group in the near future, probably in early January. At this point we have identified nearly all the members of the group. An appropriate statement will be made in January.

Swimming Pool Projects.

8. Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism his plans to further develop and support the development of swimming pools during 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31639/03]

Mr. O'Donoghue: The closing date for receipt for applications under the current round of the local authority swimming pool programme was 31 July 2000 and 55 applications have or are being dealt with under this round. Because of the long lead-time associated with such projects, it can take some time for projects to come to fruition. Of the 55 projects, 11 have been completed, four are under construction and 40 are at one of the three principal pre-construction stages of the approval process. Of these 40, five are at tender stage, 18 are at contract document stage and 17 are at the preliminary report stage.

The provision in my Department's Estimates for 2004 for the local authority swimming pool programme is €15 million. This represents an increase of 67% on the estimate provision of €9 million for 2003. All of the 2003 provision of €9 million will be spent by the end of the year.

The normal provisions applying under the programme will continue to apply in 2004. Projects must complete each of the four principal stages - preliminary report, contract documents, tender approval and construction. The maximum grant available under the programme is €3.8 million, subject to the total grant not exceeding 80% of the eligible cost of the project or, in the case of projects located in designated disadvantaged areas, 90% of the eligible cost. Grant-aid is formally allocated when a tender has been approved for the project. In addition to pool construction, approved grant aid may also be applied towards the cost of a toddler pool, sauna and steam room.

Approval for projects in 2004 will depend on a range of factors, the most important being the availability of project financing in the local authority, some of which have more than one project within the programme. In addition, such factors as compliance with technical and procedural requirement at each of the various stages of the process and the nature of managerial arrangements must be taken into account.

Mr. Stanton: I congratulate the Minister on getting more money this year for the swimming pool programme. How many projects are ready to proceed to construction? What amount of money will be allocated to these projects? When will he announce the next round of projects to be given the go ahead? Has he given any consideration to a league table, whereby local authorities would know where they stood and who is next in the queue, as has happened with the schools building project in the Department of Education and Science? Has any decision been made this year on swimming pool projects?

Mr. O'Donoghue: On the question of the status of the projects, 11 have been completed, four are at construction stage, five are at tender stage, 18 are at contract document stage, and 17 are at preliminary report stage. I understand that of these 17, five are seeking approval of preliminary reports, one is preparing a new preliminary report, seven are preparing preliminary reports and four have submitted feasibility studies.

The maximum grant aid is €3.8 million. It is must be clear that the number of pools that can be sanctioned must be within my budget for swimming pools. We are making progress. Sometimes progress can be slow because of the various stages involved and that creates its own difficulties. I am anxious to see the swimming pool programme progress in the course of the next year. More funds are available under the programme than heretofore.

The sanctioning of contract documents and approval for tender procedure is dependent on the stage which the project has reached. Our view is that we may have sufficient funding to advance to tender stage about four pools next year.

Mr. Wall: Like Deputy Stanton I welcome the fact that more funding is available for swimming pools because of their importance for schools which use them on a daily basis. The Minister listed a number of projects which are at various stages of construction. Was he referring specifically to new swimming pools or are there any refurbishment projects? Two pools in adjoining constituencies in Naas and Athy have made application for funding for refurbishment works and some new facilities.

Mr. O'Donoghue: The programme is for new pools and for refurbishment. Both are included.

Mr. Stanton: Will geographic location have a bearing on the Minister's decision when he decides to sanction projects? In regard to the four pools which he hopes to sanction this year, when will he be in a position to make that announcement?

Mr. O'Donoghue: I do not know precisely when I will make announcements. I am aware the Deputy is from Cork and that there are two swimming pools in his constituency, one in Cobh and one in Youghal.

Mr. Stanton: Well done.

Mr. O'Donoghue: His colleagues, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, and Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, have informed me of that also.

Mr. Stanton: I thank the Minister.

Departmental Estimates.

9. Ms McManus asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he will make a statement on the Estimates for his Department for 2004. [31566/03]

Mr. O'Donoghue: The allocation for my ministerial Vote group, as published in the Abridged Estimates for Public Services on 13 November last, is €432.2 million. This Vote group consists of Vote 35 in respect of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, which has been allocated €423.7 million and Vote 18, the National Gallery of Ireland, with an allocation of €8.5 million. I am very pleased that the allocation for my Department, representing an increase of 8% over the 2003 figure, will enable me to continue the Government's programme for the development of the arts, sport and tourism sectors.

With regard to the arts, film and culture areas, the total funding increases from €93 million in 2003 to almost €112 million for 2004. With a 19% increase in funding for the Arts Council to €52.5 million, I am able to provide the council with the financial commitment to continue and develop its work. I have also been able to increase significantly the financial resources that will be available to the Irish Film Board. The successful organisation of the cultural programme associated with the forthcoming Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, the organisation of an Irish festival of culture in China and the celebration of the 100th anniversary of Bloomsday will be particular priorities in 2004.

In relation to the sports sector, I have been able to secure increased funding of over €176 million for 2004, which includes an amount of €67 million in respect of the activities of Bord na gCon and Horse Racing Ireland. With such a significant increase in funding for the development of sport, I am able to increase support to the Irish Sports Council to €30.75 million to allow it to continue and enhance its wide range of programmes aimed at increasing participation in sport at all levels. This increase is particularly appropriate in an Olympic year. Increased funding is also provided for the development of sports facilities throughout the country in 2004. The Deputy will be aware that the 2004 sports capital programme was advertised on 30 November 2003 with a closing date for receipt of applications of 16 January 2004.

The Estimates for 2004 also include an allocation of almost €114 million for tourism services, representing an increase of 6% over this year. Here the emphasis will be on increased funding for the tourism marketing fund where a record provision of €31.5 million will enable major marketing programmes to be rolled out in key target markets. There is also increased support for the tourism State agencies to begin the process of implementing the recommendations of the tourism policy review group which sets out a new vision and strategy for Irish tourism for the ten year period to 2012.

Mr. Wall: Why has the allocation for advertising and publicity in the Minister's Department increased by 100% this year? Is this because of the EU Presidency? Why has the figure increased from €75 million to €150 million?

Can the Minister explain the reduction from €170 to €70, which is 59%, in loan subsidies for small business expansion? If the Minister does not have the information to hand, will he send it to me at a later stage.

Mr. O'Donoghue: I will communicate the replies to Deputy Wall, as he has requested.

Mr. English: Funding for the arts plan was lower than expected last year. Now that the Minister has more money available, how long will it be before the arts plan is back on track?

Is an increase in the number of local sports partnerships envisaged? There are only 14 or 15 of them at the moment. Is it planned to increase funding to existing partnerships and to increase the number of partnerships? They are very effective.

Mr. O'Donoghue: It is appropriate that the Deputy should ask that question. The Sports Council increased the number of sports partnerships by four during this week.

The implementation of the arts plan is a matter for the Arts Council itself. The council will decide how to proceed. The concept of multi-annual funding of an arts plan is something the Arts Council decided itself. That is fine, except that the Minister with responsibility for the arts must go to the Minister for Finance every year to discuss his budget for the following year. It is simply not possible for any Minister, irrespective of who he or she is, to give a guarantee of roll-over funding, as the Arts Council proposed. Things just do not work like that. The Minister for Finance must look extremely carefully at his priorities, options and resources and do the best he can for the country. That is not an easy task. I am particularly grateful to the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, for his deep understanding of the problems of the arts sector. The manner in which he responded has been magnificent and the arts sector across the country acknowledges that.

Mr. Wall: Is Tourism Ireland responsible for the tourism aspects of our inland waterways? In Kildare we have two canals and the rivers Barrow and Liffey, but we do not seem to develop our waterways to their true potential. A number of boating companies operate on the canals and on the Barrow but they do not seem to reach their potential as waterways in other countries do. Does development of the waterways as a tourist attraction come within the Minister's remit?

Mr. O'Donoghue: For the most part the inland waterways are in the control of the Office of Public Works. I know this because I was for a period in the early 1990s Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works. The OPW is certainly responsible for the Ballinamore canal. Tourism Ireland's only responsibility is for marketing the country on the international stage and, in doing so, it refers to tourism facilities such as the inland waterways. Fáilte Ireland does the same when advertising within the country. The Office of Public Works has most to do with the inland waterways.

Abbey Theatre.

10. Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the level of interest which has been received to date from the private sector regarding the redevelopment of the Abbey Theatre; when it is envisaged that a decision will be made on the project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31562/03]

Mr. O'Donoghue: The Government, on 29 January 2003, authorised me, as Minister, to invite expressions of interest by way of public invitation from the private sector in participating, on the basis of a PPP, in the capital redevelopment of the Abbey Theatre in and/or around the vicinity of the site of the existing theatre. My Department, with the Department of Finance and the Office of Public Works, is working to implement that decision.

For the theatre to stay in its existing location, it will be necessary to acquire properties adjacent to the existing premises. As I indicated in my reply to a similar question yesterday, the Office of Public Works has received a report from property consultants who were engaged to assess the property acquisition issues arising in this context. That report is now being considered.

The ultimate timeframe that will apply to this development is not yet clear.

Mr. Wall: I have listened to the Minister's reply.

Question No. 11 answered with Question No. 6

Decentralisation Plans.

12. Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the number which are currently housed in leased office space or premises in respect of the sections of his Department or boards or agencies operating under the aegis of his Department it is proposed to decentralise; the annual amount paid in rent in each case; when the lease runs out in each case; if there are financial penalties involved in the breaking of the lease in each case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31570/03]

15. Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the functions or sections of his Department, or boards or agencies operating under the aegis of his Department, it is proposed to decentralise; the proposed location in each case; the criteria used for the selection of the location in each case; the total number of staff to be transferred; the discussions he has had with representatives of staff involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31569/03]

Mr. O'Donoghue: I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 15 together.

My entire core Department is being transferred to Killarney. The cultural institutions - the National Museum of Ireland, the National Library of Ireland and the National Archives - which form part of my Department will remain in Dublin. Three State agencies under the aegis of my Department are also being decentralised. The Irish Sports Council will transfer to Killarney, the Arts Council to Kilkenny and Fáilte Ireland to Mallow.

A wide range of factors has been taken into account and balanced in selecting locations for the new decentralised offices. These factors include the need to achieve a fit with the national spatial strategy, in terms of the gateways, hubs and their respective catchments; the location of existing decentralised offices; the desirability of clustering a Department's decentralised units within a region; the importance of respecting the scale and character of locations in terms of their capacity to absorb the number of new jobs involved; the existence of good transport links by road, rail and air; and the general infrastructural capacity in the areas selected. There are approximately 146 staff serving in my Department, 223 in Fáilte Ireland, 45 in the Arts Council and 24 in the Irish Sports Council.

The building occupied by my Department in Kildare Street is owned by the Office of Public Works which also leases the building in South Frederick Street and the Irish Sports Council's premises in Fitzwilliam Square. The Arts Council has commercial lease arrangements with two landlords for adjacent buildings in Merrion Square. The total rent is €249,748 per annum. Termination arrangements must be negotiated for the unexpired portion of the leases, 14 and 13 years respectively, and the council is seeking professional advice in this regard.

Fáilte Ireland staff are located in office accommodation at Amiens Street, which is owned by Fáilte Ireland and which houses, in addition, a direct training centre, and in leased premises at Baggot Street Bridge and Pembroke Row which accommodate 76 and 53 staff, respectively. The rent for the premises on Baggot Street Bridge and on Pembroke Row is €345,140 per annum, with the leases due to expire in September 2060, if we around for that, and March 2017, respectively. It is not yet clear what, if any, penalties or advantages will arise in the case of the early termination of these leases.

The Secretary General of my Department briefed departmental staff union representatives and the CEOs of the three agencies on the day the decentralisation programme was announced. The matter was also discussed at a meeting of the Department's partnership committee on 15 December. I was to have meetings with the chairs and CEOs of the three agencies on 17 December but unfortunately I had to go to a funeral in County Clare and was therefore obliged to cancel the meetings, which will take place in January. Finally, for the information of the House, Deputy Parlon was not responsible for decentralising my Department to Killarney.

Mr. English: It is not Parlon country.

Mr. Wall: There must be no signs on the road down to Killarney. He must be going by rail.

We are lucky that some civil servants are being decentralised to Athy and I welcome it. What is the timescale for this? It is very important that there is no interference with any of the State agencies which will develop tourism and that they are not fragmented. In other words, the linkage between them should be maintained. Has the sub-committee on decentralisation been set up in the Minister's Department or is that in its infancy? Has the Minister received requests from civil servants seeking to be moved to that famous county, Kerry?

Mr. English: The Minister will be able to pop home for his cup of tea at lunchtime. He will enjoy that. I presume the Minister is going to consider the option of leasing the buildings, rather than terminating all the contracts. Keeping them and leasing them to someone else might be more financially advantageous than terminating the leases.

Mr. O'Donoghue: It is anticipated that it will take three years to decentralise the Departments. Every effort will be made to try and do it within that period. There are those who might say I could take out a consultancy on decentralisation so we will try to do it as early as possible. The assignment of the leases is important and I am sure the leases will allow for that provision to occur.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Adjournment Debate Matters.

An Ceann Comhairle: I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 21 and the name of the Member in each case: (1) Deputy Allen - the Taoiseach's intervention in a planning enforcement matter in Roscommon County Council by writing a letter to the council asking that the proceedings be stopped; (2) Deputy Durkan - the failure to provide the urgently needed facilities at Maynooth post-primary school, County Kildare; (3) Deputy Broughan - the urgent need to reform the planning laws to better regulate the all-night and 24 hours a day, seven days a week opening of shopping centres, as at Donaghmede, Dublin 13, and Artane, Dublin 5, which are closely adjacent to residential estates.

The matters raised by Deputies Allen and Durkan have been selected for discussion and will be taken now.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE.

Planning Issues.

Mr. Allen: This issue is connected with the unauthorised development of quarrying at Glenanommer townland, Athleague, County Roscommon. I am grateful to the Taoiseach for coming in here this evening to clarify the matter because it is an important issue. Given that the Dáil will not be sitting again in plenary session until 27 January it needs to be clarified before then. The Dáil will sit on 20 January but we will not have an opportunity to put questions to the Taoiseach. When this matter arose I was mystified to hear a Kerry county councillor on "Morning Ireland" explaining the Taoiseach's position and Senator Brady was on television at lunchtime also explaining the letter.

Any letter coming from the Taoiseach's office is the responsibility of the Taoiseach, especially in a situation of this serious nature involving an enforcement order by Roscommon County Council. One is inclined to be sympathetic to the circumstances of the owner of the property and I share that feeling. It is, however, a cause for concern that this matter was not in the Taoiseach's constituency. If people felt they needed to make overtures to Roscommon County Council why was it not done by a local representative, although that too would have been questionable? A letter from the Taoiseach to a middle-ranking official in Roscommon County Council suggesting that he would be grateful if action was taken could be interpreted as saying that if that line of action was not taken he would be very ungrateful.

Mr. McDowell: That is stretching the point.

Mr. Allen: For a middle-ranking official to get a letter of this nature could be seen as a form of intimidation. It was wrong for the Taoiseach to use his office to attempt to interfere in a legal enforcement process involving an unauthorised quarrying development in County Roscommon. The officials could feel intimidated and pressurised into terminating or freezing the legal proceedings in this case. In any case of this nature there are the developers and those who are affected by the development. It was unfair not to take into consideration other parties affected by this. I am glad the Taoiseach has come into the House to explain how he could have seriously interfered with the enforcement, which is effectively a legal process being undertaken by a local authority.

The Taoiseach: I am grateful to Deputy Allen for raising this matter on the Adjournment and I am happy to take this opportunity to come into the House and clarify it. I accept the Deputy's point that it would not be possible not to deal with it, although it is a constituency matter for which I am not answerable in this House. No Taoiseach is answerable in the House for a constituency representation but I do so because there is a break coming up and I appreciate Deputy Allen's point.

As Deputies are aware, today's edition of the Irish Independent carried a front page story that suggests I interfered in the planning process. In a statement issued this morning I categorically refuted this disingenuous charge. After reading the comments made here this morning in the House, I am pleased to have this opportunity to deal with the matter in the Chamber. I am saddened to see that the Opposition sought to make a political football out of what was a compassionate gesture on behalf of a constituent with a close family member suffering from cancer.

In the interests of accuracy, and as requested by Deputy Allen, I want to set out for Members the factual position as to how this issue was dealt with by my constituency office and on the basis of the information made available to it at the time. On 10 November 2003, Mr. Kevin Murray, who is resident in my constituency, attended a clinic in my office in Drumcondra. As I was otherwise engaged on Government business, the clinic was taken by my constituency colleague, Senator Brady. Mr. Murray informed Senator Brady about the operation of a family quarry at Scrine, Rahara, County Roscommon and that this was the subject of an unauthorised development case taken by Roscommon County Council.

At the clinic, Mr. Murray also stated that his brother was at that time attending St. Luke's Hospital receiving chemotherapy treatment for cancer. He made the point that the case with Roscommon County Council was causing much stress for his brother at a time when he was receiving critical and debilitating medical treatment. Mr. Murray asked if there was any possibility that, on humanitarian grounds, the case could be put on hold until his brother's treatment had finished.

On 12 November, two days after Mr. Murray met Senator Brady at the constituency clinic, a letter was issued from my constituency office stating that I would endeavour to assist in this matter. On that same day, 12 November, another letter was issued to Ms Marion O'Grady, the planning enforcement officer of Roscommon County Council. The relevant section of this letter concerning Mr. Murray's brother states, "brother, Brian, is in St Luke's Hospital at present receiving Chemotherapy treatment for cancer and I would be grateful if you could arrange for this case to be put on hold until Brian's treatment is complete." In concluding this letter, Ms O'Grady was asked if she could look on this request sympathetically.

I want to unequivocally state that the only motivation in making representation on this matter was from a compassionate perspective. It is a blatant distortion of the truth to suggest that there was any attempt to interfere in the planning process. At no time did I seek to influence the council's decision regarding the unauthorised development case. My involvement related solely to a request that the matter would be put on hold until Mr. Brian Murray had completed his medical treatment. This was done on humanitarian grounds. As I made clear in a reply to one of Deputy Allen's questions, the reason I got involved in this is because his brother lives quite near me in Drumcondra.

It is important to also put this letter in context in terms of the information Mr. Murray gave to my constituency office. The quarry had been in operation since 193