Vol. 608 No. 4
85 D'fhiafraigh Mr. McGinley den Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta an bhféadfadh sé cuntas a thabhairt ar na hiarrachtaí agus an dul chun cinn atá á ndéanamh ag údarás na Gaeltachta maidir le cruthú fostaíochta sa Ghaeltacht, go speisialta chomh fada is a bhaineann sé le poist teanga, poist táirgíochta agus poist atá bunaithe ar an teicneolaíocht; agus an ndéanfaidh sé ráiteas ina thaobh. [30958/05]
Is cúis sásaimh dom go raibh bliain mhaith i dtéarmaí fostaíochta ag Údarás na Gaeltachta le linn 2004, tar éis na ndeacrachtaí a bhain leis na blianta 2002 agus 2003.
Bhí 7,507 duine i bhfostaíocht lán-aimseartha agus 4,470 duine i bhfostaíocht shéasúrach agus pháirt-aimseartha i dtionscail ar thug an t-údarás cúnamh dóibh le linn 2004, méaduithe de 2% agus 6%, faoi seach, ar an mbliain roimhe. Cruthaíodh 1,071 post nua lán-aimseartha, sin é méadú de 2% ar an mbliain roimhe. Bhí glan-mhéadú de 161 post lán-aimseartha ann don bhliain.
Tháinig méadú ar an bhfostaíocht i bhformhór na n-earnálacha i 2004 trí infheistíocht a aimsiú do sheirbhísí nua-aimseartha agus laghdú ar líon na bpost a cailleadh. Mar a tharla i 2003, is i réimse na seirbhísí agus tionscal an bhia a bhí na méaduithe is mó, sin é 48% agus 28%, faoi seach.
Ag cur san áireamh an iomaíocht ghéar san earnáil déantúsaíochta le blianta beaga anuas, tá straitéis an údaráis le tamall dírithe ar fhostóirí seirbhís-bhunaithe, ar nós fhorbairtí neamh-thrádála gnó, a mhealladh chun na Gaeltachta amach as cathracha, chomh maith le forbairt a dhéanamh ar lár-ionaid mheán agus ar ionaid teagmhála do chustaiméirí. Anuas air seo, tá an t-údarás ag obair go gníomhach chun tairbhe a bhaint as na deiseanna fostaíochta a bhaineann le hacmhainní mara agus le hacmhainní nádúrtha eile mar aon leis an eacnamaíocht shóisialta, na healaíona, turasóireacht chultúrtha agus teanga, soláthar d'oideachas tríú leibhéal agus gnóthaí teanga-bhunaithe.
Tuigim go bhfuil suirbhé na bliana 2005 ar siúl ag an údarás faoi láthair agus go mbeidh na torthaí sin ar fáil roimh dheireadh na bliana.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an mhioneolas atá tugtha aige maidir leis an dul chun cinn atá déanta ag an údarás go speisialta sa bhliain 2004. Ar ndóigh, bhí blianta iontach deacra aige idir 2000 agus 2003, agus is cinnte gur cailleadh poist táirgíochta agus tionsclaíochta ar fud na nGaeltachtaí uilig. Caithfidh straitéis úr a bheith againn le rud éigin nua a chruthú in áit na bpost a cailleadh. Tá lúcháir orm go bhfuil iarracht á déanamh chuige sin i mo cheantar, go speisialta le poist teanga-lárnaithe a chruthú. Tá a fhios ag an Aire faoi sin. Tá poist a bhfuil baint acu leis an teanga san ollscoil i nGaoth Dobhair, agus is rud maith é sin.
Tá, áfach, teorainn le líon na bpost teanga-lárnaithe ar féidir a chur ar bun agus a choinneáil. Tá géarghá i gcónaí le bunfhostaíocht agus buntáirgíocht. Ní féidir linn dearmad a dhéanamh de sin. Tá sé iontach tábhachtach go ndíreofaí isteach ar phoist tionsclaíochta a thabhairt ar aghaidh chomh maith leis na poist sin atá bunaithe ar chultúr agus teanga. Is gné thábhachtach í sin, ach le heacnamaíocht fholláin a bheith againn, tá gá le tionsclaíocht agus poist táirgíochta chomh maith. Tá lúcháir orm go bhfuil muid ag díriú isteach ar na hacmhainní nádúrtha, an bia, an fheirmeoireacht agus an iascaireacht. Ba cheart don Aire béim a chur air sin i mbliana agus sna blianta amach romhainn fá choinne déanamh suas ar an easnamh phoist táirgíochta sna Gaeltachtaí i láthair na huaire.
Thiocfainn leis an Teachta. Tá ceist curtha aige atá thar a bheith stuama agus ciallmhar. Caithfimid réimse leathan fostaíochta a chruthú, agus má bhreathnaímid ar aon chathair atá ag fás, feicfimid go mbíonn réimse leathan fostaíochta ar fáil. Maidir leis an treo a bhfuil rudaí ag dul go náisiúnta agus go hidirnáisiúnta, tá níos mó jabanna bunaithe ar sheirbhísí, tógáil agus rudaí mar sin chuile háit, agus tá níos lú jabanna bunaithe ar fheirmeoireacht agus déantúsaíocht. Sin treo nach féidir leis an nGaeltacht éalú uaidh, agus mar sin, tá gá le jabanna seirbhíse de chuile chineál, na cinn teanga-bhunaithe san áireamh.
Agus é sin ráite agam, tá gá freisin le jabanna a chruthú sna hearnálacha eile. Tá gá jabanna a chruthú ar bhealach ar bith ar féidir é sin a dhéanamh. Tá sé spéisiúil a bhreathnú ar an chéad 1,071 jab dár cuireadh ar fáil anuraidh. Bhí 61 jab, nó 6%, ag baint leis na hacmhainní nádúrtha. Tá sé sin aisteach go leor. Tá mé féin an-bháúil leis. Bhí 303 jab ag baint le bia, agus, go deimhin féin, tá mo Roinn féin ag obair go díreach ar mhaithe le forbairt tuaithe ar chúrsaí bia. Tá deis iontach ann, ós rud é go bhfuil bunábhar iontach maith ann. Cruthaíodh 86 jab i ndéantús eile, agus 21 jab in éadach agus teicstíl, nó 2%. Bheifí ag súil leis sin, mar tá sé deacair iad sin a chruthú anois. Cruthaíodh 82 jab san innealtóireacht, nó 8% de na jabanna, agus 518 jab i seirbhísí. Ní bheadh an figiúr sin do sheirbhísí gan choinne, leis an bhfás atá ar fhostaíocht seirbhíse chuile háit — teile-ionaid agus mar sin de nach déantúsaíocht iad. Bhí cruthaíocht jabanna i nGaoth Dobhair ar an mbealach sin.
Mar sin, feicfidh an Teachta go bhfuil leath na jabanna anois cruthaithe as seirbhísí agus an leath eile cruthaithe as déantúsaíocht, innealtóireacht, bia agus mar sin de — leath agus leath. Is é an remit atá ag an údarás ná jabanna a chruthú. Mar a tharla, i láthair na huaire, tá deiseanna an-mhaithe ann freisin ó thaobh jabanna teanga-bhunaithe de, agus beidh a leithéid ann ar ball i nGaoth Dobhair nuair a fhosclóidh an t-ionad ollscoile agus is buntáiste mór é sin.
Cad é go díreach polasaí an údaráis i láthair na huaire chomh fada agus a bhaineann sé le poist atá bunaithe ar sheirbhísí? Tuigim go raibh deacracht ann go dtí seo cúnamh a thabhairt do phoist agus obair den chineál sin. An é sin polasaí an údaráis san am i láthair, nó an bhfuil athrú meoin agus dearctha tagtha ar an údarás go dtugann sé cuidiú agus tacaíocht d'fhostaíocht ar nós seirbhísí?
Caithfimid bheith cúramach anseo. Ní bheadh, agus ní raibh, aon chúnamh ar fáil le haghaidh miondíola, nó retailing. Ní bhíonn aon ghá leis. Is iad na cineáil seirbhísí a bheadh i gceist ná glaoch-ionaid, mar shampla, de réir mar a thuigim, i gcomhthéacs an údaráis. Cruthaíodh poist san earnáil chlosamhairc agus mar sin de — na jabanna a thagann isteach faoin eacnamaíocht sóisialta, chomh maith le seirbhísí agus ant-oideachas tríú leibhéil. Níl sé i gceist, áfach, go dtiocfaidh an t-údarás chun cúnamh a thabhairt do sheirbhísí a bheadh ann ar aon bhealach. Níl gá níos mó sa nGaeltacht, sa ngnáthbhealach, cúnamh a thabhairt go díreach le haghaidh seirbhísí miondíola. Is cuimhin liom go rabhadar ag iarraidh cúnamh a thabhairt do ghruaigeadóirí agus mar sin de. De réir mar a thuigim, ní thugtar aon chúnamh dá leithéid a thuilleadh.
86 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he has satisfied himself that the national drugs strategy is sufficient to deal with the national drugs problem; his views on whether further resources are required; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30928/05]
The report of the steering group on the mid-term review of the national drugs strategy was published in June of this year. The report was the culmination of a comprehensive review, which was launched last year and which included extensive public consultations. The review was overseen by a steering group, chaired by my Department, and comprised representatives of the relevant Departments and agencies as well as the community and voluntary sectors. Assistance was provided by external consultants. The review sought to assess the impact and direction of the strategy at its mid-point and the steering group concentrated on identifying beneficial adjustments to the strategy and highlighting priorities for the second phase up to 2008.
I am pleased the steering group found that the current aims and objectives of the drugs strategy are fundamentally sound. It was confirmed there have been encouraging signs of progress since 2001, when the strategy was first launched, suggesting that our current approach to tackling the drug problem is effective. At the same time, however, the review highlights the need to re-focus priorities and accelerate the roll-out and implementation of various key actions in the remaining period of the strategy up to 2008. In this context, a number of new actions, and amendments to others, have been identified. These changes will strengthen the strategy and enable it to better deliver its aims. Overall, ten of the strategy's 100 actions are being replaced, a further seven are being amended and eight new actions are being taken to address issues such as family support and rehabilitation. With regard to progress, the review found that 49 of the original 100 actions outlined in the strategy are completed or are ongoing, progress was ongoing on a further 45 and considerable progress has still to be made on six actions.
Funding to tackle drug misuse is channelled through a number of relevant Departments and agencies. In this regard, I have responsibility for funding the work of the local and regional drugs task forces, the young people's facilities and services fund and the national advisory committee on drugs. In 2005, I secured an 18% increase on the 2004 allocation and the funds available this year for these activities amount to €31.5 million. Since 1997, the Government has allocated just under €200 million to fund this work. These amounts are in addition to the significant spending of other Departments and agencies, such as the Health Service Executive, the Garda and FÁS, in tackling the issue of drug misuse. All these bodies agreed to deliver a number of actions under the national drugs strategy. In this regard, I am confident that, as the strategy progresses, resources will be made available to implement the actions agreed.
Does the Minister of State agree the strategy needs to be much more proactive in addressing the increasing cocaine problem? Between 1995 and 2004 cocaine worth €537 million was seized. Based on international norms, ten times that amount probably reached the streets. The average weekly use of cocaine in Ireland is 3 grams and chronic addicts use between 5 and 10 grams. The price of cocaine has reduced significantly and it costs between €30 and €40 per 0.5 gram, which means that average users spend between €180 and €240 per week and chronic users spend between €300 and €600 per week.
Cocaine use among males increased from 1.8% in 2001 to 3% in 2003, which is a worrying statistic, while 5.1% of those in the 18 to 24 year group use cocaine. Cocaine use peaked in the US in the 1990s at 25 million users and 2 million addicts while it is peaking in the UK now. There are grave concerns in the UK that the number of strokes and heart attacks among young people as a result of severe addictions will increase. All the indications are that Ireland is experiencing an increasing problem on a horrendous scale and I remain to be convinced that the national drugs strategy is proactive enough to deal with this major problem, which is potentially worse than the heroin problem.
I accept that when the drugs problem emerged, the drugs strategy was developed and the task forces were set up, the focus was on heroin in disadvantaged areas of Dublin. Cocaine has always been used but the drug was inclined to be used by the more professional classes. However, as the Deputy said, the price of cocaine has reduced significantly and the use of the drug is the major problem now. It is used by all age groups from teenagers upwards. However, the strategy is flexible enough to adapt and address new problems.
Despite everything that is said about heroin, methadone is a substitute treatment and one of the major problems in addressing cocaine use is the lack of an equivalent substitute treatment. The best we can offer addicts who come forward, which is a problem in itself, is counselling and behavioural therapy. Heroin has a bad image, even among users, whereas cocaine is perceived as a clean, harmless drug because it is used by film stars and others, even though it is nothing of the sort. We face a major battle against that perception. Awareness campaigns are run but it is difficult to get through to people the damage they are doing to themselves because it is not obvious in the short term.
A number of cocaine initiatives were approved this time last year. Approximately 600 staff on various drugs projects are funded and many of them have received upskilling and retraining this year to enable them to help people with a cocaine addiction.
The Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs published a report on cocaine addiction recently. Addiction in the UK is increasing because there is greater acceptability of the use of cocaine and, similar to Ireland, the price has reduced. Our report found that younger people felt that cocaine helped sporting performance and the drug was acceptable. Should local and regional task forces focus on these issues? A focussed campaign is needed to disabuse people of the view that cocaine use is acceptable and it enhances sporting prowess.
Whereas a substitute therapy for cocaine use similar to that used to treat heroin addicts is not available, methods can be adopted through which cocaine addicts can be treated through the psychiatric services and so on. The task forces need to focus on this and they must realise how great a problem cocaine use is becoming. Almost €500 million per annum was spent between 1995 and 2004 on the drug in this State.
I agree with most of the Deputy's comments and I accept cocaine use is a major problem. The task forces and the national drugs strategy team are trying to make people aware of the dangers of cocaine use. The Department of Health and Children runs awareness campaigns, including a cocaine specific campaign. Cocaine is a dangerous substance with significant side effects, particularly heart failure and lung damage and mixed with alcohol, it can cause severe psychological problems and generate aggressive behaviour. We are trying to make people aware of that although it is not easy because one is fighting against an image perceived to be glamorous. There has been an example of this in the media recently. Much of the damage to individuals is not immediately or swiftly evident. Some users' problems may build up over time and they may not be aware of them.
87 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual report 2004 on the wrongful procedures followed in the introduction of the rural social scheme. [30779/05]
As the Deputy is aware, €10 million was paid from the dormant accounts fund into a suspense account operated by my Department to meet the expenses of the rural social scheme in line with the announcement by the Minister for Finance in his budget speech 2004. During 2004, almost €3.4 million was paid to participants in the rural social scheme from the suspense account.
The Comptroller and Auditor General drew attention in section 8.1 of his annual report to the suspense account mechanism which was used, as directed by the Department of Finance, for payments under the rural social scheme as being not, strictly speaking, the legally correct way of channelling the money to the beneficiaries of the rural social scheme.
The matter at issue relates specifically to the mechanism for channelling the funding and not to the probity of the payments. The Comptroller and Auditor General states that the Department of Finance has conceded that on reflection it would have been better to have channelled the funding through the Vote. Apart from this procedural issue, the Comptroller and Auditor General has certified that the 2004 appropriation account for Vote 27 of my Department properly presents the receipts and expenditure of the Vote.
In the circumstances, following the recent enactment of the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Act 2005, it is intended that the full amount of funding for the rural social scheme in 2005 will be channelled through my Department's Vote.
The Minister has reiterated a section of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and has posited the defence that this is a procedural matter. The matter is one of the smallest references in the report but the three paragraphs dealing with it raise other questions. Does the use of this mechanism indicate that the rural and social scheme was thought up quite quickly in advance of the budget? After the Budget Statement in December 2004 a mechanism had to be found to pay for the scheme. This much is glaringly obvious from the brief references in the report.
The sum of €10 million paid from the dormant accounts fund under the old mechanism before the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Act was introduced in 2005 indicates an inappropriate use of that money. Such money should be used for voluntary organisations in the whole yet the Minister chose to fund a scheme announced in the budget that should have been funded from general Exchequer funding. Has the original €10 million taken from the fund been reimbursed? Will the continuing funding mechanism for the rural social scheme come from the Department's Estimate? Will he continue using the dormant accounts fund to fund the rural social scheme?
The Deputy raised a number of questions I will attempt to answer within the time limits. The rural social scheme was included in the programme for Government and the Fianna Fáil manifesto for the last election. The scheme was announced in the budget and when one announces a scheme mechanisms must be found. The Department of Finance directed that the money be paid through a suspense account and that issue has been dealt with and the money will be included in the Vote.
The money from the dormant accounts funds must be used for different headings, including social and economic disadvantage. No reference is made to an obligation to grant it to voluntary bodies. The sum of €10 million allocated from the dormant accounts fund was properly authorised, consistent with the provisions of the Dormant Accounts Act 2001, which, in section 41(1)(a) details programmes or projects that are designed to assist the personal, educational and social development of persons who are economically, educationally or socially disadvantaged or persons with a disability within the meaning of the Equal Status Act 2000. Section 41(1)(b) provides that the Minister, in consultation with the board, may from time to time specify programmes that are consistent with the requirements of section 41(1)(a). I consulted the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursement Board in accordance with the relevant legislation and following that consultation the board released €10 million for the rural social scheme.
The entire sum of €10 million has been properly and solely spent in the rural and social scheme. The matter raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General, whether it should have been channelled through the Vote in a Supplementary Estimate or through a suspense account, is purely procedural. From now on this will be done through a Supplementary Estimate.
The Minister is aware the Comptroller and Auditor General is precluded by law from speaking on policy. The question I raise relates solely to policy. The use of the dormant accounts fund for initial funding of the rural social scheme was inappropriate. General funding from the Department's Estimate should have been used. I have asked if this money will be reimbursed and if the future funding mechanism will be channelled through the dormant accounts fund or through Department's general Estimate.
In debates on the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Act, many of us expressed fears the Minister would be the chief allocator of funds. This is reinforced by the decision that the Minister is the chief decision maker on how money is allocated. On the whim of the Minister, or any subsequent Minister, money could be allocated to a pet project in one area.
It never ceases to amaze me how one can have a translation of an Act imposed as a justification of a criticism of a subsequent Act. This was done under the 2001 Act and the powers already existed. What Deputy Boyle objects to in the 2003 Act was already present in the 2001 Act, which he does not criticise. This was done under the 2001 Act. It is within the power of the Minister under the 2001 Act as long as procedure is followed.
There is no question of repaying the disbursed money as we will not approach the people in the rural social scheme asking them to reimburse money so we can give it back to the dormant accounts fund. The money was spent on social and economic disadvantage. The power to do so was included in the 2001 Act. The Comptroller and Auditor General highlighted the procedure, which we have now corrected.
Will this happen for future funding?
Future funding will be the same mix, partly from the Exchequer and partly from the dormant accounts fund. That is the way in which the scheme has been set up. If Deputy Boyle thinks the rural social scheme is not a good idea and that it does not help social disadvantage, perhaps this reflects Green Party policy. This is an effective way of dealing with social disadvantage of people in rural communities, such as low income farmers and their families. It is an appropriate use of funds from the dormant accounts. Obviously, the Green Party has a different policy.
The effect of the Minister's policy is to dilute the fund for other purposes. I could argue the Minister's policy opposes giving further funding to voluntary groups because that is its effect.
The dormant accounts fund has no specific remit for voluntary groups.
It is a limited fund and the more it is used the less remains. That is the effect of the Minister's policy.
The more one disburses the fund, the less money there is in the fund, that is true irrespective of the beneficiaries of the money. In Government, one must make choices on priorities. We consider this one of the most effective ways of dealing with social and economic deprivation in rural areas, ahead of some of the other choices. It was a priority to distribute funding to this area and we stand by our choice. Deputy Boyle does not rate this as a priority.
It is the Minister's job to get more money from the Minister for Finance.
It is a pity we cannot continue this debate.
88 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he is satisfied with the functioning of a company (details supplied) in view of the recent allegations of bullying and the failure of the body to spend moneys allocated to it for project development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30959/05]
I am satisfied that the body concerned is making good progress on the work entrusted to it. As the Deputy is aware, there was an independent investigation into allegations of bullying and harassment and related matters in the body and actions to be taken arising from the report of the investigators were agreed with the CEO. Action on these is under way and progress is being monitored.
The failure to spend capital funds arose for reasons outside the control of the body itself and I am satisfied that the circumstances that led to delays in a number of key projects are now resolved. As the Deputy is aware, in the event of an underspend under any heading, the money is either reallocated to other projects within the Vote or surrendered to the Exchequer. In the case of deferral, a further provision is re-entered in the Vote the following year.
I should mention that I met recently with the CEO of the body to review progress in 2005 and discuss priorities for 2006. In this context, I am pleased to again acknowledge the work of the CEO and his staff in advancing the work of the body, often in challenging and complex circumstances.
The Deputy will appreciate that it is difficult to give a more comprehensive answer to his question on a ‘details supplied' basis, but I will be happy to address any further specific questions he may wish to raise.
I am sure the Minister will agree this is an important organisation, established as a result of the Good Friday Agreement, which has an important cross-Border dimension. I am sure he will agree also, as he more or less stated in his reply, that this organisation has had a turbulent existence since it was established a number of years ago. Recent difficulties within the organisation include auditing problems identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General in 2000, 2001 and 2002, and accusations of bullying, referred to by the Minister, which were upheld following an independent investigation, with the result that the staff are now undergoing anti-bullying training. There was also a recommendation that more transparent methods of recruitment would be employed by the body and that all vacancies should be filled in the normal way in such bodies, namely, by open competition. That practice was not always adhered to. The body knew since September that €12 million in unspent moneys was returned to the Government in 2003 and 2004. No one doubts this organisation is founded on worthwhile principles and aims but the question must be asked whether it is achieving these aims. The evidence suggests it is not operating at its most functional. The knock-on effect is a failure to achieve its objectives and the potential that up to €30 million of taxpayers' money could be wasted. Will the Minister agree that in view of these difficulties in recent years it may be timely to review the operations of this body and its efficiencies in achieving its objectives?
Because the body has not been named by the Deputy in the question, I am precluded from naming the body and, therefore, giving specific details.
If it helps the Minister, it is Waterways Ireland.
That is of assistance in giving the Deputy a full answer. I would like to deal with a number of issues. Actions are to be taken on foot of the findings of the investigators and as the Deputy said, further courses on bullying are being arranged for all members of staff, including the CEO, building on the considerable work that has been carried out in Waterways Ireland over the past two years to put in place appropriate mechanisms for dealing with bullying and harassment in the workplace, with practically all staff now having been trained.
A full independent review of practices and policies relating to bullying in the organisation will be carried out at an early date. The review will include an audit of the current processes and training programmes in Waterways Ireland in regard to bullying and the possible setting up of an independent mechanism to support staff making complaints. The report will be made available to the Department. Those issues, therefore, are being dealt with.
On the third aspect the Deputy raised, the CEO will personally ensure that a written policy on recruitment and promotions based on best practice principles, including fairness and transparency, will be prepared and circulated to all staff in Waterways Ireland and that best public sector practice will be followed in future appointments and promotions within Waterways Ireland.
I would like to deal with the money issue because for a number of reasons it is not as simple as it appears. The first issue that arises is that the organisation was to build a headquarters in Enniskillen as well as two regional offices. The one in Scariff is already under construction and it is hoped to start building the headquarters in Enniskillen next year.
In terms of what happened, a number of years ago a capital provision was made for Waterways Ireland for these buildings. I do not have the exact figure here but if, say, €3 million or whatever was put into the funding in one year and it was not spent, that funding would be put back in a second year and, if not spent, the same amount of money would be put in a third year. People were talking about money going back to the Department but it is the same money allocated three times for the same purpose. It would be like the Deputy putting aside €30,000 to build an addition to his house, not getting around to doing it, leaving it the following year but doing it the third year. He would not have €90,000; it would be €30,000 held back over three years. In a Government situation, as the Deputy is aware, the money is either returned to the Exchequer or reallocated and then put back into the Vote. The underspends, therefore, are not quite as they appear.
Part of the underspend was due to delays in recruitment. Those are being dealt with although there are still difficulties in getting technical staff, including engineers.
Will the Minister agree with a comment made by a former councillor, Chris Andrews, who said there is an urgent need for a root and branch reform of this organisation? Also, would he care to comment on disused properties owned by Waterways Ireland along canals, including gatekeepers' houses and so on, that are becoming derelict? Are there plans to sell off such properties or rent them out?
I cannot give the Deputy information on the second question but if he gives me details of the properties involved, I will certainly follow up the matter or ask Waterways Ireland to give me details of any disused properties and its policy in regard to them. The Deputy will be aware, because we had to introduce emergency legislation, that I am very concerned the State should protect its assets from dereliction and so on.
All of the North-South bodies faced a difficult time over the past few years because of the changing political situation in Northern Ireland. That said, I am happy considerable progress has been made, particularly this year, in resolving many issues and progressing various projects. Some of the delays in relation to capital projects were outside the remit of the body. Those within its remit they got on with. The Royal Canal, for example, is progressing satisfactorily.
What about the Ulster Canal as a cross-Border dimension?
The Deputy probably saw the joint statement issued by the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, David Hanson, and me in which we asked Waterways Ireland to urgently review the reports on the Ulster Canal as they relate to a section from the Erne upwards and from Lough Neagh downwards. We are not talking about the whole canal. I have always taken the view, and I believe it is a rational one, that if we could start the work and do it in sections, we would be making progress. We have asked Waterways Ireland to give us reports as quickly as possible, using the existing literature and previous reports. I am committed, and I am sure as an Ulsterman the Deputy would support me in this——
I would.
——to doing anything I can to progress that project. The Deputy will not find this Government anything other than 100% supportive of such a project.
Or the next one.
We will be here again.
We will.
89 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs when the findings of the report he has commissioned on the impact of regulation on charitable trusts will be published. [30780/05]
I recalled to the House last June that the Law Reform Commission had published a consultation paper setting out proposals for the reform of charitable trust law.
The public consultation which followed was the second of two undertaken in relation to the preparation of draft legislation to deliver on the Government's commitment to regulate the charities sector. My Department has since been fully apprised as to the outcome of the Law Reform Commission's deliberations in this regard.
I understand from the Law Reform Commission that its proposals were largely welcomed and that its report is due to be published next year.
Will the report be made public because much information has been made public regarding the need for a law but there has been no sign of the law itself? In October 2003, we were informed that the charities (regulation) Bill would come before the House in the final quarter of that year. In January 2002, it was promised for October 2003. In May 2003, it was promised for late 2004. The dates varied from September 2003 to January 2004. In April and September 2004 it was promised for 2005. In January, it was suddenly announced that the legislation would come before the House this year, but 2005 is almost over. In April 2005 it was promised for 2006. According to the latest legislative programme, which we were given at the start of this session in September, there was no indication as to when this Bill is likely to come before us.
The charities (regulation) Bill has been promised since 1980 but three previous Governments have failed to deliver on it. We now seem to be in a limbo because we do not even know when it will be published. The Minister has been quoted as saying that it is major legislation which cannot be dealt with overnight. It could have been done sometime between 1980 and 2002. What is causing the delays? Do we even have the heads of a Bill at this stage? Is June 2006 a feasible date for the introduction of this legislation? I fear that when we receive the next legislative programme at the end of January, we will see either an indeterminate date or possibly some date in 2007 for this Bill's publication.
We know what that means.
The Deputy's first question was whether it would be made public. All the previous consultation documents and independent reports have been made public. There is a special charities webpage where all those documents have been posted. I am sure the same will apply this time. The Law Reform Commission will publish the report.
As regards the dates, I hope that I did not predict the early ones.
The Minister of State should consult the Whips' Office.
Whoever did that was a bit premature. We are, however, working at full speed and there is no delay within the Department. We hope to have the legislation out by next summer, all being well. It is a major legislation that will have over 200 sections but problems and delays can arise at different stages. Various Departments are involved and sometimes it can be difficult to get time for the parliamentary draftsman to work on it. Despite the problems we hope to succeed in bringing the legislation before the House by the summer recess.
The Minister of State now says it will happen in early summer, whereas in a recent article he said it would be next spring. Does he mean by the end of the summer session or perhaps the start of the autumn session?
Late spring or early summer, whatever the Deputy likes. That is the target, but whether it will be on 30 April or 1 May, that is the general area. There is no point in giving specific dates.
Do we have heads?
We are working on the general scheme of the Bill which we hope will go to Government in January. All going well, I think the target I have mentioned is realisable.
