Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Nov 2005

Vol. 609 No. 2

Adjournment Debate.

Anti-Social Behaviour.

Mr. O’Shea

The phenomenon of gangs of hooded youths engaging in serious anti-social, intimidating, dangerous and unlawful behaviour is a serious aspect of urban life today and requires urgent attention by way of appropriate legislation and other measures. This was brought home to me in forceful fashion by events in the town in which I live, Tramore, County Waterford, in the lead-up to and at Hallowe'en this year. Many people in Tramore are left in a state of shock, anger and not a little fear. Tramore is essentially a well-policed law-abiding town not unlike many other towns of its type throughout the country. However, for some reason this year saw a marked increase in widespread serious disorder and anti-social activity.

The following is a description of some of the main aspects of this wholly unacceptable and intimidatory behaviour. Gangs of youths wearing hoods and Hallowe'en masks gathered at street corners and threw eggs at cars. Similar gangs threw eggs and stones at houses in housing estates. Bangers and other fireworks were let off in the public street. I understand an incident occurred where a gate pier outside a residence was damaged when a banger exploded. It was reported that a banger struck a girl on the shoulder and cleared a wall to land in somebody's garden. Gangs of youths threw onions, potatoes, tomatoes and eggs at passing motorists on the Ring Road. A hooded gang of approximately 40 people intimidated motorists by standing in the middle of the road without moving. Objects were thrown at passing cars near a major roundabout. Gangs of approximately 30 youths ran screaming and shouting and threw eggs at passing cars. Rubbish bins were overturned and a supermarket window was broken. It was also reported that gangs of up to 60 to 100 youths gathered at different times throughout Hallowe'en night in Tramore.

My recollections of Halloween until relatively recently are of a festival of good natured fun involving all the community, young and old. It used to be a time when young children called door to door collecting fruit, nuts and money and they were warmly welcomed and did their party piece in return. I was horrified to hear today of a six year old who dreads the month of October because of the bangers going off constantly.

Fireworks are an issue which I understand the Minister has indicated he intends to address. They are illegal in this State but are smuggled by the vanload or bootload from north of the Border. Some call for an outright banning of fireworks but I would consider this overkill. What is needed is strict control of their use. I understand that the legislation governing fireworks is 150 years old and that fines are derisory. I further understand that while fireworks can be confiscated from the person in possession of what is an explosive, that person cannot be charged with any offence. I look forward to the early publication of the detailed proposals of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the proper control of fireworks.

The issue of so-called hoodies also requires urgent attention. Many members of the community wear hoods so that there are difficulties in making it illegal to wear them where they are obviously being used to frustrate identification in situations where crimes are being committed or where there are breaches of public order. These hoods, which are as effective as balaclavas, also significantly reduce the effectiveness of CCTV. Ingenious measures are urgently required to curb hoodie activity which is a particularly intimidating and frightening aspect of crime and anti-social behaviour.

I am informed that in the main the gangs I have described are made up mainly of boys and some girls, in the 13 to 16 year old age group. Parents have a major role to play in dealing with the problem of hooded gangs of youths. Parents of children in this age group should ask themselves whether they know where their children are at night. Parents who are aware their children are collecting bangers, fireworks, eggs, onions and potatoes in October and early November should take appropriate action to ensure their offspring do not intimidate or endanger others or damage property. Where parents are clearly in dereliction of their duty in the public conduct of their children, there is a need for appropriate sanctions to ensure that they face up to their responsibilities.

I have described a particular problem in Tramore at a particular time but the underlying problems with the hoodie culture are countrywide and happen all year. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle can verify that on Hallowe'en night a fire tender was attacked in Kilkenny. The windscreen was smashed and two members of the fire service had to have hospital treatment, albeit for minor injuries.

Enough is enough. Parents need to take responsibility for their children who intimidate others and causing them suffering. If parents do not do so, the State must intervene. The Garda must be given every support by the State, legislative and otherwise, to deal effectively with this serious erosion of the quality of life of many. Restorative justice, where the perpetrators are compelled to restore the physical damage they have done and are also brought face to face with their victims, is an avenue which must be actively pursued. This is about giving communities back to the people and restoring formerly happy occasions like Hallowe'en to what they used to be.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. N. Ahern)

I am speaking on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who is unfortunately unable to be present. The Minister and I share the Deputy's concerns about anti-social and unlawful behaviour by gangs of youths at Hallowe'en and at other times of the year.

Strong provisions are already in place to combat anti-social and unlawful behaviour. The primary basis for the law regarding public order offences is the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 which modernised the law in this regard. Furthermore, because of the Minister's concerns about the abuse of alcohol and its contribution to public order offending and broader social problems, he brought forward tough new provisions to deal with alcohol abuse and its effect on public order in the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003. One of the provisions of the Act is to broaden the application of the temporary closure order penalty, which was originally introduced to combat under age drinking, to cover convictions for a series of offences, such as a licensee supplying intoxicating liquor to drunken persons and permitting disorderly conduct on the licensed premises.

The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2003 has also been enacted, the main purpose of which is to provide the Garda Síochána with additional powers to deal with late night street violence and anti-social conduct attributable to excessive drinking. It provides for the closure of premises such as pubs, off-licences, late night clubs and food premises where there is disorder or noise on or close to the premises, as well as the making of exclusion orders on individuals convicted of a range of public order offences in addition to any penalty they might receive under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994.

The Minister takes great satisfaction in the Government's decision of October last year to approve the recruitment of 2,000 additional gardaí to increase the strength of the force to 14,000. The additional resources will be targeted at the areas of greatest need, as is envisaged in An Agreed Programme for Government. The programme identifies, in particular, areas with a significant drugs problem and a large number of public order offences. It will also be possible to address other priorities such as the need to increase significantly the number of gardaí allocated to traffic law enforcement duties.

The Garda budget is now at an historic high level of more than €1.1 billion, representing an increase of 85% in the provision since 1997 when the provision stood at just €600 million. The Minister is pleased to note a reduction in cases of assault causing harm in 2004 compared with 2003. This trend has continued in 2005 with a 10.5% reduction in assaults causing harm in the third quarter compared to the same period last year.

The Minister believes the courts can give valuable support and protection to our communities in tackling anti-social behaviour. In this regard he is finalising legislative proposals to provide for anti-social behaviour orders. The Minister also intends, subject to Government approval, to introduce these proposals as Committee Stage amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill 2004.

Anti-social behaviour orders are not a radical new legal concept. It is a deeply rooted principle of our law that persons should be able to apply to the courts for protection against behaviour which interferes with their basic rights. As a principle it is similar to the existing power of the courts to bind over a person to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

The Minister's proposal will allow the Garda to apply to the courts by way of civil procedure for an anti-social behaviour order which will prohibit the person who is the subject of the order from behaving in an anti-social way. The orders will be civil orders and the question of an offence will arise only if the person in question wilfully defies the order and continues to engage in the anti-social behaviour which is the subject of the order.

The Minister attaches great importance to the development of a real partnership between the Garda Síochána and local authorities on matters affecting policing. His intention and that of the Oireachtas, as set out in the Garda Síochána Act 2005, is that joint policing committees and local policing fora established under them will provide arenas where the Garda Síochána and local authorities can co-operate and work together to address local policing and other issues.

The Minister has already introduced measures to combat the abuse of alcohol and the public order problems to which it gives rise. In addition, the Minister has recently published the general scheme of the intoxicating liquor Bill 2005 which will carry forward this work. The main purpose of the proposed legislation is to streamline and modernise our liquor licensing laws and will also contain provisions which will combat anti-social behaviour.

I can identify entirely with the points made by the Deputy. Local authorities are being proactive in some areas by providing entertainment or fireworks displays. I agree that it used to be one night but in some communities it continues for a week or a month. I agree with the Deputy's views on the role of parents. The Garda and others can help but some people seem to be of the view that when it comes to 31 October, it is time to go mad. We all have a part to play in getting to grips with this problem. Local authorities can help by trying to focus this energy and attention and have done so in part of my constituency which held a formal, official fireworks display this year. The more significant problem arises later at night when smaller children go home. I agree with the Deputy that serious problems arise in this regard. While much of the legislation is valuable, a more co-operative partnership approach is required at local level to ensure everyone pulls together.

Schools Amalgamation.

Dr. Twomey

The matter I raise revolves around educational needs in County Wexford. Some months ago, we had a discussion with the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, regarding the secondary school in Gorey. This is an interesting case because although the school was built for 900 students, it currently has an enrolment of 1,500 pupils. During our discussions with the Minister, she indicated she did not like secondary schools to have more than 750 pupils and it was not a good idea to have a primary and secondary school located on the same site.

Plans are afoot to build a new secondary school at Kilmuckridge VEC. Even if the school is built, it will not take more than 250 to 300 pupils. The Minister stated that a second secondary school should be constructed in Gorey to accommodate the additional students, rather than have such a large number of students on a single school campus, and I am prepared to take her word in this regard.

About a month ago, the Minister visited New Ross, a town with educational problems which we are trying to have resolved. The parents of pupils attending primary schools in the town and the boards of management of the schools in question have agreed to amalgamation of the schools, a conclusion also reached by the McCarthy report. As a result, the town is to have a primary school for boys and girls, respectively. During her visit, the Minister stated that all secondary schools in New Ross should be amalgamated and located on the same grounds as the new primary schools. The problem is that New Ross has five secondary schools, one of which has 600 pupils, while another has 800 pupils. The Minister's position on New Ross appears to contradict her statement on best practice made in Gorey and directly conflicts with her announcement to her party members. This contradiction has created considerable confusion in County Wexford as to what precisely is the Minister's position on school size.

The McCarthy report, which was published several years ago, has been given no support at Government level, despite representing the preferred wishes of all concerned. One cannot argue in favour of amalgamating secondary schools in New Ross, which combined have approximately 2,000 students, while arguing that another school in Gorey, which has 1,500 pupils, is so large as to require a further secondary school in the town. Will the Minister of State clarify what exactly the Department, under the current Minister, believes is the correct way forward for the educational needs of all students in County Wexford?

We fight constantly to secure an extension, a new school, additional services, resources or equipment and to reduce class sizes in our primary and secondary schools. When the Minister's statement on school crises in two different towns in the same constituency exposes such a major contradiction, it raises the question as to what is Government policy. Will the Government's position be clarified? Will it amalgamate primary schools in New Ross, as recommended in the McCarthy report, in a manner which is safe? Having just completed reading the Ferns report, it is clear children must be better looked after. What will be safe for the young students of New Ross? What is the most appropriate way to move forward with regard to the five secondary schools in the town? Will the Government provide for the building of a second school in Gorey? I hope the Minister of State does not argue the town does not deserve a second secondary school because Kilmuckridge VEC is about to be revamped, as this development will not compensate for the increase in population and rising number of pupils at Gorey secondary school.

Mr. N. Ahern

I thank the Deputy for raising these matters as it provides me with an opportunity to outline to the House the position with regard to the Department of Education and Science policy on multi-school campus arrangements and post-primary school sizes. In the first instance, where possible, the Department favours the development of multi-school campus arrangements. Conceivably, such an arrangement can consist of a primary and a post-primary school, a mix of primary school types, for example, a Gaelscoil and a multi-denominational school, or a mix of primary school types and a post-primary school.

The Department's policy in this area also extends to the development of facilities shared between schools and the development of shared community facilities in tandem with local authorities where this is feasible. The Department generally seeks to implement this policy where a number of new or replacement schools are required in an area at either or both primary and post-primary levels. While this infrastructure policy model applies irrespective of geographic location, it is most advanced in rapidly developing areas such as Dublin 15.

The purpose of this approach to the provision of school infrastructure is to minimise my Department's land requirements, thus reducing spiralling site costs, while at the same time providing local communities with new schools with enhanced facilities. With regard to the size of a new post-primary school, while a school of 750 pupils may be ideal in the view of some observers, ultimately the size of a new school will always depend on the projected level of demand for pupil places. This applies equally at primary level. Demand is established following an examination, usually in consultation with local authorities, of all relevant factors, including demographic trends, housing developments and the capacity of any existing schools to play their role in meeting the demand for places. The towns to which the Deputy referred are different in that New Ross is not expanding to the same extent as Gorey.

Generally, in areas of rapid and significant population expansion we can expect to see post-primary schools capable of providing for 1,000 pupils being built. In areas of lesser growth, school sizes can vary between 500 and 800 pupil places, again, strictly depending on the demographics and the likely pupil output from these demographics. Essentially, the size of a post-primary school, or primary school for that matter, will be unique to the demand emanating from the area in which it is situated. Ultimately, the Department wants to ensure a school is sufficient in size to meet the demand for pupil places in its area and can deliver a broad and balanced curriculum as resources are generally allocated based on enrolments.

With regard to Gorey, the Minister's recent announcement of a new post-primary school for that area is in response to her previous acknowledgements of the town's rapidly developing status. In this regard, the population is expected to double in the next six years. The project will be delivered by way of a public private partnership and steps are being taken to secure a site to enable this development. The emphasis was first placed on post-primary provision because of the relatively unique position in Gorey where inward migration is resulting, initially at least, in greater pressure for places at post-primary level than at primary level.

Having said that, the Minister acknowledged that pressure is being brought to bear on the primary sector in Gorey and the Department is examining long-term requirements at this level. This examination will be expedited to ensure that, in the event of an extra primary school being required, its delivery can be considered for inclusion in the public-private partnership bundle, which will include the post-primary school. This has already been taken into account in site identification procedures.

The Department would have no objection to both schools being provided on one site if it transpires that an extra primary school is required. It is significant that two new primary schools, a multi-denominational school and Gaelscoil, were recognised in Gorey in recent years. The position with regard to New Ross, where there is no significant population growth, is more complex. The Deputy will be aware that it has been the Department's objective to rationalise both primary and post-primary educational provision in this area for some time. There is general agreement locally to this development at primary level, but there is no agreement at post-primary level. At this point, it is not clear how long it will take to achieve any such agreement, or if agreement can be achieved.

In the circumstances, being aware of the conditions under which the primary schools are operating, and in recognition of their willingness to rationalise, the Department intends to progress developments for the sector if agreement for the post-primary side is not forthcoming in the near future. In the absence of agreement at post-primary level, the Department has no plans for a greenfield site development for that sector in New Ross. I hope that I have clarified the Department's policy.

Local Authority Staff.

Ms O’Donnell

I raise this matter in the light of acute public concern in my constituency of Dublin South. It relates to the fact that the former county manager of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Mr. Derek Brady, has recently taken up a senior position with a development company, Alburn Limited, which is responsible for the former M. J. Flood site in Sandyford Business Estate, where planning permission was granted on 27 July this year for a development, including 259 apartments and a 24-storey tower rising 162 metres over sea level. It will be the highest structure in the south of the county.

This proposal has understandably been highly controversial, resulting in over 100 opposing submissions to the council, including one from me. The matter is now the subject of an appeal to An Bord Pleanála. The basis for the objections, the scale, height and general inappropriateness, were largely ignored by the council, which went to some lengths to facilitate the proposal, including reversing the present one-way traffic system to a questionable two-way flow. Mr. Brady was the ultimate deciding officer at the time when permission was granted. Three months later, he has taken up a senior and highly paid position with Alburn. The perception of Mr. Brady having been in a conflict of interest regarding the development is compelling and requires investigation by the Minister.

The matter arises at a time of great desperation among residents of my constituency about the planning process and their capacity to influence it. It is also a time of massive development there. Several major proposals have been granted permission in the teeth of public opposition, and at times decisions have appeared inexplicable to both residents and elected representatives. Residents and Members are treated with disdain by the council and our views disregarded. Increasingly, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council appears driven more by revenue and rates than public interest or the proper planning and building of sustainable communities.

My constituents and I are not against development. They are sensible citizens who in the main are benefiting from our thriving economy and greatly improved infrastructural developments in Dublin South, including motorways and the Luas. However, they have the right to participate in a meaningful way in their area as it develops and modernises. Currently they feel that they have no say and no power, and as their Deputy, I feel the same.

I have written to the Minister in detail outlining my concerns about the scale, density and ad hoc nature of high-rise development in Dublin South, particularly in the Sandyford and Stillorgan areas. The Minister’s reply, understandably, is to refer me to the local authority. However, in my experience of dealing with the council over the past few years, it has been an exercise in frustration, and that must change. Perhaps the new manager will bring about a new culture of real democratic consultation. However, the appointment of Mr. Brady so soon after he had in his gift the granting of permission to his future employer raises the most serious issues, not least the integrity of the planning process. What are my constituents to think?

This requires urgent investigation by the Minister so that public fears can be allayed. When was Mr. Brady approached regarding his appointment to Alburn? Was it prior to the granting of permission, on 27 July this year? What, if any, was the true relationship between Mr. Brady and Alburn Limited when the application was being considered by him and the local authority? Was it such as to confer favourable status on the development? Is there a link between the granting of permission and Mr. Brady's new job? Does the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 apply to this matter? Surely the public interest must be protected from such conflicts arising in local authorities throughout the country. Have we learnt nothing from the tribunals?

As the local Deputy, I formally request that the Minister initiate an investigation into this matter, and I will, of course, accept its outcome. If Mr. Brady and the company in question have nothing to hide, I am sure that they will co-operate with an independent investigation. It is surely not in Mr. Brady's interest to have such a cloud hanging over his long record in public service.

Mr. N. Ahern

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. The public is entitled to expect the highest standards of conduct from all local authority employees. It must also be said that local government personnel have, by and large, a long tradition of honest and committed service to their communities. The core values underlying that tradition are integrity, impartiality and dedication to the public interest. The Local Government Act 2001 made provision for a new and comprehensive ethical framework for those involved in local government. That built on much longer-standing ethical requirements on local authority councillors and staff under planning legislation.

Part 15 of the Local Government Act, which entered force in January 2003, provided for the preparation by the Minister of codes of conduct for employees and councillors, which were subsequently developed and published in June 2004 to coincide with the formation of new councils of elected members following the local elections. The code of conduct for employees, which is a major step forward in local government, includes disclosure requirements concerning employment by serving personnel outside the sector and addresses situations concerning a conflict of personal or public interest.

Deputies will be aware that the tenure arrangements for county and city managers were changed in 1991. Managers are now employed on seven-year contracts, with provision for extension up to ten years. That raises the prospect of their retiring at a relatively young age. Therefore, it is to be expected that some managers will seek to pursue a career in the private sector once their terms of employment expire. I am sure the Deputy will agree that there is nothing wrong in that; they must be entitled to pursue employment opportunities after retirement. However, the issue is one of avoiding undesirable conflicts and the perception thereof.

The question of senior local government officials accepting outside appointments or consultancies following resignation or retirement is not subject to the code of conduct at present. Provisions of that kind were introduced to the Civil Service code only in September 2004, that is, some months after the promulgation of the new local government code. The Standards in Public Office Commission has made observations regarding the matter, including a suggestion for a moratorium on the take-up of employment by senior local authority personnel in consultancies or other areas of the private sector to which they could bring access or information gained in local authority employment.

The code is under active review in the light of experience since its introduction and as part of an assessment of the effectiveness of the regime. It is clearly now appropriate that the review also considers the acceptance by local authority employees of outside appointments and consultancy engagements following resignation or retirement. The Deputy can be assured that the Minister will bear in mind the general concerns raised this evening and that this debate will assist us in the review of the code. Perhaps the public concern, which I understand, will allow the matter to go forward and to be clarified quickly.

Genetically Modified Organisms.

Mr. Sargent

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment. I tried to do so by way of Standing Order 31 several times before the end of last month. This matter is urgent, particularly since we are now in November.

I asked that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, implement the safeguard clause provided for in EU Directive 2001/18/EC in line with the unanimous decision in the House in support of Ireland being GM-free in food, seed and agriculture. That decision came from the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government.

I also ask that action be taken urgently, given that live and viable seed, GT73, genetically modified oilseed rape, could germinate here and end our commercially advantageous GM free status. It is due to arrive here if it is decided by the commercial interests concerned to import it. By the end of last month it was possible for them to import it into Ireland. We are living on borrowed time. I ask the Minister of State to take into account the serious impact of this particular issue given that it has far-reaching and permanent repercussions in train for this country. We need an emergency response from the Government to the European Commission decision to legalise the importation of Monsanto's patented GT73 oilseed rape. It is the first live GMO seed to be authorised for use as animal feed in the EU, even though the spilled seed can, inevitably, produce a crop.

GT73 can now be freely imported into the Republic and Northern Ireland. The decision was taken against the wishes of the majority of EU member states. For some bizarre reason which, perhaps, the Minister of State can explain, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, abstained on the matter. If a single shipment of this GMO seed is unloaded on this island, contamination will be inevitable and irreversible. This means that in a few years' time, it may be impossible for Irish farmers to grow GM free brassica crops, including broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, radish, collards, kale, kohlrabi, mustard, oilseed rape and turnips, because of cross-contamination by seed dispersal and wind borne pollen.

All these contaminated crops will, in effect, belong to Monsanto. Farmers with contaminated land will have to pay royalties or face patent infringement lawsuits. They will have to put GM labels on their produce and may no longer be able to sell it in most EU countries. Many will lose their constitutional right to earn a livelihood as organic farmers. This has already been the case in countries such as Canada where quite an amount of legal precedent has been established to indicate what lies ahead for us unless the Government takes action.

Effectively, we are talking about the death knell for organic farming in Ireland. It is likely that the whole island of Ireland will be contaminated within a few growing seasons. The introduction of live GM seed to Ireland places Irish farmers in danger of being sued for breach of patent by the biotechnology companies should their conventional crops be contaminated by GM material. The risk is much wider than organic farming because of the possibility of legal repercussions for any farmer who has unwanted GM material growing on his or her land. This situation has occurred on numerous occasions throughout Canada, the US and elsewhere.

I again strongly urge the Government to take action by implementing the safeguard clause and to comply with the spirit of the decision taken on 15 June 2005 by the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government. Both of these committees gave unanimous cross-party support to Ireland remaining GM free and for the sovereign right of EU member states to ban specific GM products about which there might be questions of safety. I appeal to the Minister of State to take the decision now. If not, in future people will ask why the Government lay down and rolled over in the face of pressure from companies such as Monsanto.

Mr. N. Ahern

I thank the Deputy for the opportunity to outline the position on the authorisation by the European Commission on 31 August 2005 of Monsanto GT73 genetically modified oilseed rape. The House is already aware from replies to recent parliamentary questions that Ireland was among a number of member states that abstained in the vote at the Environment Council on 20 December 2004 on the Commission's proposal to authorise the product for use throughout the European Community as animal feed and for industrial processing. It is important to stress that the proposal did not include any provision for cultivation of the variety from seed.

Ireland's abstention at Council had regard to the long-standing positive but precautionary approach to modern biotechnology endorsed by successive Governments, the favourable opinion on the product from the Environmental Protection Agency as the competent Irish authority for the purposes of the directive following the agency's consultations with other relevant State agencies, and consideration of the product within my Department. It also took account of the views of the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government and the outcome of the earlier discussion of and vote on the product at the June 2004 meeting of the regulatory committee for the purposes of the directive.

Many misleading comments have been made about Ireland's abstention at Council. Among them is a suggestion — not made today — that had Ireland voted against the proposal, the Commission would not have been able to approve the product. This is simply not the case. To achieve a decision under qualified majority voting, 232 votes must be cast either in favour or against a proposal. In this case, 78 votes were in favour, 135 votes were against, and 108 abstentions were recorded. Therefore, Ireland's seven votes could not have tipped the scales either for or against the product. A qualified majority against the proposal could only have been achieved had other abstaining countries, namely, Spain, Germany, the Czech Republic and the UK switched from abstention to negativity.

Mr. Sargent

Ireland might have persuaded them.

Mr. N. Ahern

Another suggestion — this is reflected in the Adjournment motion — is that there will be inevitable and widespread contamination arising from the import of GT73 for animal feed. My understanding is that oilseed rape imported into this country is processed prior to its importation by crushing and its oil extracted. This minimises the possibility of live seed entering the environment.

The Deputy now seeks the invocation of the safeguard clause under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC to prevent the marketing of the product in Ireland. I clarify for the House that there are detailed specified conditions under which this safeguard clause may be invoked. These conditions include the emergence of new or additional information made available since the date of the consent and affecting the environmental risk assessment, or the reassessment of existing information on the basis of new or additional scientific knowledge which provide detailed grounds for considering that the product constitutes a risk to human health or the environment. Such conditions have not been fulfilled with the product in question, especially since the date of consent was 31 August 2005. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to seek to invoke the safeguard clause under Directive 2001/18/EC in respect of the importation of GT73 oilseed rape.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 November 2005.