Adjournment Debate.

Community Care.

Mr. F. McGrath

I am grateful to the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this very sad case dealing with Mr. Peter McKenna and the Hynes report. There are no winners in this report and I offer my deepest sympathy to Mr. McKenna's family. As a parent of a daughter with Down's syndrome I have a special understanding of the pain, trauma, loss and hurt. I also believe that St. Michael's House should have the opportunity of putting its side of the story on the record and recent events have clearly shown that a grave injustice was done to the caring staff of that institution and their image with the public. I intend to set the record clear tonight.

Founded in 1955, St. Michael's House is a voluntary community based facility providing services to 1,400 children and adults with a learning disability and their families. It is one of Ireland's largest providers of services for people with learning disabilities.

I must also declare an interest as my family are users of the St. Michael's House service and as far as I am concerned it is top class, professional and caring. It was always in favour of a full investigation into Mr. McKenna's case but strongly believes that the second Hynes report is flawed as it leaves out several outstanding issues. I am inclined to agree with St. Michael's House on some core and fundamental points, as follows.

The factual evidence provided to Mr. Hynes by St. Michael's House is dealt with by way of an addendum to the final report. The final report contains criticisms of St. Michael's House that are withdrawn in the addendum. The presentation of a final report with an addendum is confusing, contradictory and unfair.

Mr. Hynes did not interview the staff involved in the care of Mr. McKenna. He did not seek expert medical opinion in considering the course of Alzheimer's disease in people with Down's syndrome. In its conclusion, the report ignores the fact that the proposal to transfer Mr. McKenna to Leas Cross was endorsed by an independent medical expert appointed by the High Court who visited that nursing home and deemed it suitable for Mr. McKenna's needs. Neither does the report highlight the fact that, due to his wardship, the decision to transfer Mr. McKenna was a matter for the President of the High Court who ordered the transfer "immediately and as a matter of urgency".

Mr. Hynes suggests that the main criterion used by St. Michael's House in recommending Leas Cross was simply its registration with the NAHB. This is not the case and St. Michael's House fully agrees with the HSE it would be flawed thinking to expect that because a nursing home is registered it is suitable for all patients.

St. Michael's House used several criteria in recommending Leas Cross, including two years experience with the facility for respite and long-term care, one year's experience of another client with Down's syndrome and Alzheimer's disease, the nursing home matron's 11 years experience in working with people with learning disabilities, the regular monitoring programme St. Michael's House has in place and the fact the Mater and Beaumont hospitals regularly referred clients to Leas Cross.

Mr. Hynes ignores the fact that Leas Cross nursing home in 2000, with 35 residents, was very different from the Leas Cross he visited in 2005, which had 110 beds. He failed to investigate the circumstances of a cancelled medical appointment with Beaumont Hospital or seek any information from that institution. St. Michael's House believes the second Hynes report does no service to the McKenna family or to St. Michael's House.

St. Michael's House will co-operate fully with the HSE in any fair and transparent process to assist the McKenna family in resolving any outstanding concerns. I welcome the fact that St. Michael's House welcomes the HSE's executive summary which acknowledges the shortcomings of the Hynes report — page 3, item 5, page 4, item 9 and page 5, item 9. St. Michael's House continues to be willing to work constructively with the McKenna family and the HSE to address and respond to the family's concerns.

The public should be told the facts about people with Down's syndrome infections and Alzheimer's dementia and the real world situation involved in dealing with the advanced stages. I am dissatisfied overall with the Hynes report as I believe a major part of the story was left out and hence a caring organisation like St. Michael's House has suffered in the public mind. It deserves justice and fair play, just like Mr. McKenna. It also deserves that the truth should be told and hence my attempt to set the record straight in the House. I hope my contribution will assist St. Michael's House and bring the service providers and families closer together.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power)

I am taking the matter on behalf of my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney. I thank Deputy Finian McGrath for raising this sensitive matter and giving me the opportunity to outline the position regarding it. I know all Members of the House would like to extend their sympathy to the McKenna family on the death of their brother, Peter. It has been a very difficult time for the family.

Following representations from the Department of Health and Children in October 2001, the Eastern Regional Health Authority launched an independent investigation into matters relating to the care and subsequent death of Mr. Peter McKenna in October 2000 in Leas Cross nursing home. Mr. McKenna had been a client of St. Michael's House, a service for people with intellectual disabilities, and had been transferred to Leas Cross nursing home shortly before he died.

In August 2003 following High Court approval for the release of the deceased's medical records, as he was a ward of court, the Eastern Regional Health Authority initiated an independent review by Mr. Martin Hynes of the events leading to his death at Leas Cross. An initial draft report of Mr. Hynes's findings was presented in October 2003. It was then felt the terms of reference required extension, in particular to allow the views and experiences of the family to be taken into account.

On 23 September this year a copy of the final report was forwarded to the relevant parties. Each party was invited to make comments on the final version of the report within 21 days. The report by the independent consultant engaged by the Health Service Executive was made available to the family by the HSE on Wednesday last, 9 November 2005. The report is now available on request from the HSE.

The report contains an executive summary with overall recommendations in the following areas: advocacy on behalf of the family in respect of any remaining unanswered questions, an integrated complaints procedure, referrals to alternative care, terms of reference for service reviews, written handover procedures, nursing home inspection procedure, internal complaints and concerns for staff and a code of governance for both State and agency provided services.

Progress has already been made by the HSE in implementing some of the actions indicated by the report's recommendations. The HSE will now be proceeding to implement the recommendations in full as soon as possible. The HSE acknowledges in the report that some unanswered questions may remain for Mr. McKenna's family. It has offered to continue to engage with the McKenna family in this regard and to facilitate a meeting with St. Michael's House if the family so wishes.

I would like to express my confidence that the lessons learned from this investigation will be used positively in the future by all parties to protect the interests and quality of services for persons in receipt of care.

Airport Development Projects.

Mr. Sargent

Tá mé fíor bhuíoch don Cheann Comhairle as ucht cead a thabhairt dom an cheist an-tábachtach seo i saol na tíre agus i saol mo dháilcheantar a ardú. Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta de Paor, agus cé go bhfuil ard-mheas agam air, tá mé go láidir den tuairim gur cheart go mbeadh an tAire Iompair nó an tAire Airgeadais i láthair chun an cheist seo a phlé. Ní mar sin atá sé faraor.

I ask that the Ministers for Transport and Finance clarify how they propose to assess the cost benefit analysis which ought to be applied before any further plans are made to construct a second parallel runway at Dublin Airport. The 1,000 acres of public land, at a value of €1 million to €2 million per acre have an asset base value of up to €2 billion, meaning that the project as envisaged would result in an economic loss of around €3 billion. This suggests an urgent need to address the imbalance in regional development and less concentration of air traffic around Dublin. Road traffic that would be generated by the construction of a further runway would bring Dublin to a virtual standstill.

The Dublin Airport Authority is outside the legislative remit of the Ombudsman, is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, while airport noise is not subject to Environmental Protection Agency regulations. The airport is only partially subject to planning law. We are dealing with an institution that does not have to play by the rules which apply to others. Even though the Department of Finance has issued clear guidelines requiring a cost benefit analysis for any project costing more than €30 million, there has been no such analysis for this project. The cost benefit analysis would be expected to set out a number of options, such as the current option of the parallel runway or an extension to the current runway. It would also set out another airport location to be considered or it would detail the knock-on effects of not doing anything.

At a meeting of the Joint Committee on Transport, Mr. Gary McGann of the Dublin Airport Authority told us, perhaps understandably, that it was not its role to examine other locations but simply to maximise the land at its disposal. I do not expect the authority to set out the country's aviation policy, but I would expect the Government to do so. That has not been the case. I ask the Government to face up to its responsibilities in that respect and to ensure that the Dublin Airport Authority not only reflects the guidelines of the Department of Finance but implements them transparently. That is not happening. If the runway were to be built, it would copperfasten the quasi-monopoly of Dublin Airport during the remaining years of the era of cheap oil. Building that runway would become Government aviation policy and lock us into that scenario.

Even though the construction costs are €140 million, the cost of this publicly owned land pushes this project above any of the considerations that have been given to it at the moment. Once the lost land is included, we are talking about a cost of €3 billion, along with the congestion that arises from the construction of the runway. Dublin Chamber of Commerce has pointed to a €1 billion congestion costs per year due to current traffic problems. The Minister for Finance spoke to the chamber of commerce on 20 October about new value for money measures. We do not see that from the Dublin Airport Authority and until we do, the Government is not doing its job. It must scrutinise this project because it does not stand up to a cost benefit analysis.

Mr. S. Power

Proposals on the development of Dublin Airport, including the planning and provision of runway capacity, are in the first instance a matter for the Dublin Airport Authority which has statutory responsibility to manage, operate and develop the airport and to provide such facilities and services as it considers necessary for aircraft and passengers. Dublin Airport is the country's main airport serving the needs not just of the travelling public in our capital city and the surrounding counties but also of the country's tourism, business and freight sectors. Notwithstanding the welcome increase over recent years in traffic at Shannon and Cork airports and at the regional airports, Dublin Airport will remain crucial to the national economy.

Passenger traffic through Dublin Airport is expected to grow to more than 18 million in the current year and is forecast to increase to 30 million by around 2015. The company is engaged in an ongoing programme of capital works to ensure adequate capacity at the airport in future. This programme includes the provision of a second parallel runway early in the next decade.

The national spatial strategy has acknowledged that the expansion of the level of air services from Dublin Airport to a wider range of destinations is essential in the interests of underpinning Ireland's future international competitiveness. The DAA submitted its application for planning permission for the proposed new runway to Fingal County Council in December 2004. The company responded in August this year to a request from the planning authority for further information. More recently, Fingal County Council sought clarification from the DAA regarding elements of that further information. The current planning process provides the appropriate forum for interested parties, including local communities and residents, to have their views and any concerns heard and taken into account by the planning authorities.

Dublin Airport has the scope and potential to expand to cater for future growth in air traffic for the foreseeable future. Much of the land necessary for the new runway was acquired in the late 1960s and in 1972, the then Dublin County Council included the proposed new runway in the county development plan. As a result of good long-term planning stretching back over four decades, the capacity now exists to provide the proposed second parallel runway and facilitate the continued growth and development of Dublin Airport. Unlike a number of other major European cities, we are particularly fortunate that the long-term planning for the development of Dublin Airport means that the existing facility can be developed to its maximum potential although it is located little more than six miles from the city centre.

The airport is also a major contributor to the local economy in Fingal and nationally. More than 100 companies are located at the airport site providing thousands of valuable jobs directly and indirectly. The continued growth and development of the airport will provide for further employment growth in and around the airport campus.

The Minister for Transport does not propose to conduct a cost benefit analysis of the runway project nor does he propose to commission any study of alternative options for the provision of airport capacity to serve the greater Dublin area. Subject to planning permission, it is envisaged that the Dublin Airport Authority will provide such capacity through the expansion of existing facilities and infrastructure at Dublin Airport. The continued growth of our business, tourism and manufacturing sectors, which are vital for the country's future economic development, relies on adequate transport infrastructure being available to accommodate that growth. This is as true for airport infrastructure as it is for other modes of transport. It is important for the continuing development of our economy that not only must existing infrastructure deficiencies in our transport system be addressed, we must also ensure that no new bottlenecks are encountered in future.

Mr. Sargent

A cost benefit analysis is required.

Special Educational Needs.

Ms O’Sullivan

I welcome the opportunity to raise this issue with my colleague, Deputy Costello. Last week, we met some teachers from north inner-city Dublin who told us that 14 schools there will lose resource hours this year. I spoke to a principal in my constituency today who told me that her school will lose four resource teachers this year in the context of the introduction of the weighted system.

It seems completely wrong that the most disadvantaged schools are losing resource teachers for children with special needs at a time when the Government is talking about addressing educational disadvantage. The Minister must re-examine the weighting system in the context of these specific schools. I do not mean in the general context, because it is working well for most schools. However, a number of severely disadvantaged schools are losing out because they have many more children with special needs than the national average. This is the nub of this issue.

The Minister is aware of this because she herself recently launched a document called, "Reading Literacy in Disadvantaged Primary Schools", which showed that on average, the level of literacy problems in disadvantaged schools is more than three times that of schools in general and that up to half the children in some schools have severe literacy problems. Hence, the Minister has the evidence to show that the weighted model does not work in schools where there is a high level of disadvantage in which one has a large number of children who require one-to-one help and are considerably below average in terms of literacy and numeracy. This must be addressed in a specific way for these schools.

I suggest the Minister either halves the existing 80:1 ratio or else, which would be preferable, provides the resources to these schools on the basis of need. This can be done by ensuring that there are enough NEPS psychologists to carry out the assessment of need for these children. They will have problems later on in their school careers if they do not receive the requisite attention in the earlier stages of primary school.

I will give an example of something we were told by a teacher last week. In the current context, children in an inner city school, who would have received resources up to now, will no longer do so. This is because although they are below average, they are not at the lowest level. Such children will no longer receive the resources because they are in a disadvantaged school. However, were they to move to one of the more affluent suburbs, where there were fewer children with special needs, they would then receive resource support. While the same child with the same problem would not receive help in a disadvantaged school, he or she would do so in a more advantaged school. There must be something wrong with such a system and I urge the Minister for Education and Science as well as the Minister of State who represents her this evening to ensure that this is addressed so that such children will receive the support they need.

Mr. Costello

I also welcome the opportunity of raising this issue, because it is a serious problem in my constituency. The problem occurs in small urban and small rural schools and in particular, those in disadvantaged areas lose out. As Deputy O'Sullivan has noted, it is ironic that if the same people attended school in a more affluent area, the lower level of disadvantage and special needs would enable them to receive one-to-one educational attention. However, given the intensity of disadvantage and the intensity of special needs education requirements in inner city schools and in small schools in particular, the situation remains lopsided because of the weighting system.

I wish to ensure that people are not discriminated against in this manner. At a minimum, no school should lose out as a result of the new weighted system. Most parts of the country have benefitted because of their low proportion of special needs requirements. However, schools have not benefitted where there is a high proportion of special needs requirements, but have lost out. As Deputy O'Sullivan has noted, 14 schools in my constituency have already lost at least one teacher and other teaching posts are under threat and may well be lost next year.

I understand that a review will take place next month to mark the end of the year. It must take these matters into consideration so that either the ratio is reduced or it ensures that all the teachers who were there to begin with remain. While a proper assessment of needs should also be carried out, at present this is impossible, as there are insufficient psychologists available to do it. However, we know that a child loses out if he or she is not assessed at the proper time, and his or her needs identified, if he or she has special needs.

Hence, a serious problem exists. I hope the Minister recognises it and that it will be included in the review mechanism that is to be implemented next month. I also hope the Minister can ensure that all the affected schools will retain the teachers they have and can ensure that they benefit further from the new weighted system.

Mr. S. Power

I am pleased to have been given the opportunity by Deputies O'Sullivan and Costello to clarify the position of the Department of Education and Science in respect of the new general allocation system. The general allocation of learning support or resource teachers is intended to cater for children with learning support and high incidence special educational needs. The system was constructed so that learning support or resource teacher allocations would be based on pupil numbers, taking into account the differing needs of the most disadvantaged schools and the evidence that boys have greater difficulties than girls in this regard.

The new system has a number of benefits associated with it: it puts resources in place on a more systematic basis, thereby giving schools more certainty about their resource levels; it facilitates early intervention as the resource is in place when the child enrols; it reduces the need for individual applications and supporting psychological assessments; and it allows flexibility to school management in the deployment of resources, leading to a more effective and efficient delivery of services.

In introducing the general allocation system, transitional arrangements were also introduced whereby transitional hours were allocated to schools to cater for children for whom individual teaching resources had previously been allocated, but which it would not have been possible for the school to continue to provide from its general allocation. In the circumstances, no child should have experienced a loss of resource teaching support.

It has always been the case that schools in receipt of resource teacher support in respect of pupils with special educational needs would lose teacher support, either full posts or part-time hours, when the pupils that triggered the extra support left the school.

In the circumstances, the Department of Education and Science has no plans to change the current mechanism of allocating teaching resources to schools to support pupils with special educational needs. It is intended that a review of the general allocation model will be undertaken within three years of operation. The Department is satisfied that at this stage, the general allocation system is working well and has been favourably received by schools. The Department will continue to work with schools and the education partners with a view to ensuring that this remains the case in the future.

There are now more than 5,000 teachers in our primary schools working directly with children with special needs, including those requiring learning support. This compares with fewer than 1,500 in 1998. One out of every five primary school teachers is now working specifically with children with special needs.

The Department of Education and Science has recently issued a comprehensive circular to all primary schools regarding the organisation of teaching resources for pupils who need additional support in mainstream primary schools. The main purpose of this circular is to provide guidance for schools on the deployment and organisation of the teaching resources allocated under the general allocation model. This circular also refers to the deployment of additional teaching resources that are allocated to schools for the support of individual pupils with low incidence disabilities.

The Deputies may be aware that the Department has introduced a new action plan for educational inclusion, DEIS, that is, delivering equality of opportunity in schools, which aims to ensure that the educational needs of children and young people, from pre-school to completion of upper second level education, that is, from three to 18 years, from disadvantaged communities are prioritised and effectively addressed. The new plan is the outcome of the first full review of all programmes for tackling educational disadvantage that have been put in place over the past 20 years and it will involve an additional annual investment of some €40 million on full implementation. It will also involve the creation of approximately 300 additional posts across the education system generally. A key element of this new action plan is the implementation of a standardised system for identifying levels of disadvantage in our primary and second level schools, which will result in improved targeting of resources at those most in need. The identification and analysis processes are being managed by the Educational Research Centre on behalf of the Department of Education and Science. As a result of the identification process, approximately 600 primary schools, comprising 300 urban-town, 300 rural and 150 second level schools, will be included in a new school support programme. The programme will bring together and build upon a number of existing interventions for schools and school clusters-communities with a concentrated level of educational disadvantage. Officials in the Department anticipate that they will be in a position to notify participating schools in time for the next school year regarding the outcome of the ongoing identification process. I thank the Deputies once again for affording me the opportunity to clarify the position regarding the general allocation system.

Higher Education Grants.

Mr. P. McGrath

I thank the Ceann Comhairle most sincerely for allowing me to raise this matter. It is with great reluctance and a sense of total frustration that I do so. Having tried to get this issue resolved for the past month, I lay the case before the House out of pure desperation arising from the Department's failure to resolve it. I ask anyone who reads the report of this Adjournment debate to treat this difficult matter sensitively.

While I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Seán Power, to the House to respond to the debate, I am extremely disappointed that a Minister from the Department of Education and Science is not before us. The Minister of State is here to do his duty, but the matter I raise is of such importance that it requires the presence of a Minister from the relevant Department, specifically the senior Minister given that the case was brought to the attention of her office and she failed to do anything about it.

The case relates to the approval of an application for a higher education grant. Deputies have been around for long enough to know that all sorts of circumstances arise in the area of applications for higher education grants, people are turned down for various reasons and so forth. However, we always hear that discretion may be exercised by the Department in deciding whether to approve a grant application. What discretion is available in the Department and who exercises it? Does anyone in the Department have sufficient compassion to make a decision on this case, which I propose to outline?

The application was made by a young woman of 19 years who was born with cystic fibrosis and has been confined to a wheelchair since birth. At the age of three years her father walked out on the family leaving her mother to raise her alone. Two or three years ago, her mother remarried but died of a brain haemorrhage this year. The young woman in question won a place in Athlone Institute of Technology through the competitive process and is in a position to do a degree, but having started college she was informed she will not receive a grant from the Department.

Despite having discretion, the Department refuses to award the young woman a grant. For the past month, I have pestered officials who have requested further information or variously stated that a decision would be taken on the following Monday, the person responsible for making the decision was on holiday and a decision would be made on his return, or a decision would be made at a meeting due on the following Wednesday and the matter would have to be examined by the supervisor. While this prevarication has been taking place, the poor woman at the other end of the telephone line has been uncertain about whether she will be able to continue at college because without a grant she will be forced to discontinue her course. The issue has been repeatedly pushed around the Department without a decision being made.

The Department's appalling behaviour amounts to ill treatment of a young person and abuse of the taxpayer. If taxpayers were made aware of this case, they would instantly agree that it was a worthy one. The Department must exercise compassion and come to the rescue when circumstances of this nature arise.

The Minister of State is in a difficult position because his script has been prepared. I do not know what are its contents but I hope it will express compassion and common sense and give some relief and comfort to the young woman in question. Will it enable her to continue her education or will we leave the Chamber and make a telephone call to tell her to leave college because she has no future?

Mr. S. Power

I thank Deputy Paul McGrath for affording me this opportunity to outline to the House the position of the Department of Education and Science regarding an application by the student in question for funding under the vocational education committees scholarship scheme. I apologise on behalf of the Minister who, unfortunately, has another engagement this evening.

The Department funds three means tested maintenance grant schemes for third level education students in respect of attendance on approved courses in approved third level institutions and one maintenance grant scheme in respect of students attending approved post-leaving certificate courses in approved PLC centres. These are the higher education grants scheme, the vocational education committees scholarship scheme, the third level maintenance grants scheme for trainees and the maintenance grant scheme for students attending post-leaving certificate courses.

The higher education grants scheme is administered by local authorities, while the other three schemes are administered by vocational education committees on behalf of the Department of Education and Science. The process of assessing eligibility for third level or further education grants is a matter for the relevant local authority or VEC in the first instance. The decision on eligibility for third level grants is a matter for Westmeath VEC, the awarding body in this case. These bodies do not refer individual applications to the Department except in exceptional cases when, for example, advice or instruction regarding a particular clause in the relevant scheme is desired. It appears no such advice or instruction has to date been sought by the awarding authority in the case of the student in question.

Mr. P. McGrath

A Cheann Comhairle, may I read part of a letter from the local authority in question?

An Ceann Comhairle

I suggest the Deputy pass the letter on to the Minister.

Mr. S. Power

If the Deputy indicates an instruction was given, I will accept his word.

Mr. P. McGrath

The letter states that the official concerned has reminded the student of her right to make an appeal to the Department of Education and Science for a final decision and understands this was recently done with the assistance of the access officer in Athlone Institute of Technology.

Mr. S. Power

I accept the Deputy's point. If an individual applicant considers that he or she has been unjustly refused a maintenance grant or that the rate of grant awarded is not the correct one, he or she may appeal to the relevant VEC. Where an individual applicant has had an appeal turned down, in writing, by the relevant VEC and remains of the view that the body has not interpreted the schemes correctly in his or her case, a letter outlining the position may be sent to the Department of Education and Science. Alternatively, as already indicated, the VEC may, in exceptional circumstances, refer the case to the Department for advice.

The Deputy will appreciate that it is not open to the Department to depart from the terms and conditions of the maintenance grants schemes in individual cases. I am aware, however, that the Deputy has been in contact with officials in the Department regarding the individual concerned. In addition, the access officer attached to Athlone Institute of Technology has been in correspondence with the Department.

The position is that, in general, students entering approved courses for the first time are eligible for grants — maintenance and tuition fees — where they satisfy the relevant conditions as to age, residence, means, nationality and previous academic attainment. Under the terms and conditions of the vocational education committees scholarship scheme 2005, a mature candidate means a candidate who is at least 23 years of age on 1 January of the year of entry or re-entry to an approved course. Mature students are categorised as either independent mature students or mature students dependent on parents. An independent mature student is defined as a mature candidate who is not ordinarily resident at home with his or her parents from the October preceding his or her entry to an approved course. Independent mature students are assessed without reference to their parents' income or address. When assessing the means of students other than independent mature students, the scheme specifies that the students' means and those of their parents or guardians must be below a prescribed limit. That provision requires that parental income be taken into account, irrespective of the individual circumstances, in any case where the student is not an independent mature student.

In accordance with clause 4.4.3 of the VEC scheme 2005, in the case of a candidate other than an independent mature candidate, the candidate's reckonable income shall be that of the candidate and of the candidate's parents or guardians, except where the candidate's parents are divorced or legally separated or it is established to the satisfaction of the vocational education committee that they are separated, in which case the candidate's reckonable income shall be that of the candidate and of the parent with whom the candidate resides.

It is understood that the student in question is seeking to be assessed as an independent student. To be assessed as such in this case, satisfactory evidence must be supplied to establish independent status. The Deputy will be aware that aspects of the case must be clarified to assess eligibility.

Mr. P. McGrath

I have submitted such evidence.

Mr. S. Power

Officials of the Department of Education and Science will be in direct contact with the awarding authority to make progress in the examination of this case.

I thank Deputy McGrath for raising the matter and for presenting the case so well. It appears there is some conflict in the reply I have given. I will inquire tomorrow on the Deputy's behalf and contact him again. I wish him every success with his representation on behalf of what, judging by the evidence he has given, appears to be a very worthy and deserving case.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 17 November 2005.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 16 Nov 2005