Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Nov 2005

Vol. 610 No. 3

Adjournment Debate.

Avian Influenza.

I thank the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, for being present. All Health Service Executive areas were instructed on Monday, 31 October, by the assistant national director of population health, Dr. Kevin Kelleher, to actively offer all poultry workers the 'flu vaccine as an urgent public health measure. The vaccine is to be available from GPs, who will be reimbursed by the HSE for supplying it free. HSE regions with high concentrations of poultry workers, such as in Cavan and Monaghan, have been instructed to consider establishing local clinics in high density poultry areas.

I raise this issue because I have learnt from people working in the poultry sector in my constituency that this scheme has not been rolled out. A request to a GP to avail of the vaccine was met with a response that it was not free of charge and would have to be paid for in full. I would like the Minister to clarify the situation on behalf of the Minister for Health and Children. How is the scheme being rolled out? This initiative has been taken primarily to prevent people being infected with the seasonal influenza virus and the avian 'flu virus at the same time. Such double infections can lead to mutations and could precipitate a 'flu pandemic affecting the human population on a wide scale.

Having been briefed by the Department of Health and Children on the dangers of an avian 'flu pandemic, I am certain that the recent and current widespread concern and media coverage was no false alarm. There is a real risk that the human population could yet be severely affected. The decision of the HSE to offer the vaccine free of charge to all poultry workers is therefore a welcome and essential public health measure. As I have stated, the comprehensive immunisation of those working in the poultry sector is essential to help prevent the development of a mutant virus that could then trigger a human 'flu pandemic. This can happen if someone attacked by the human form of the virus contracts the avian variety at the same time.

I have publicly urged all poultry workers to take up the vaccine as soon as possible. The HSE needs to ensure maximum publicity for this scheme and full accessibility. I want the Minister, on behalf of the Minister for Health and Children, to assure the House that this scheme is going ahead. How is it being rolled out? Have the HSE areas acted on the instruction of the assistant national director of population health? Have they publicised the scheme and have all GPs been informed?

In my constituency, Cavan-Monaghan, where a significant section of the poultry industry in this State is located, I have seen no evidence of this measure being implemented so far. The experience I have described strongly suggests that the wheels have not yet been set in motion. The end of November is approaching, and clearly winter has already set in. Can the Minister clarify the matter and assure the House that this essential measure is being put into operation?

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter and I am happy to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney.

The Health Act 2004 provided for the Health Service Executive which was established on 1 January 2005. Under the Act, the HSE has the responsibility to manage and deliver, or arrange to be delivered on its behalf, health and personal social services. This includes responsibility for the administration of influenza vaccine.

The HSE has confirmed that it has directed that all poultry workers should be actively offered this year's seasonal 'flu vaccine. This instruction issued to the HSE areas from the population health directorate on 31 October 2005. This is a public health measure and its purpose is to prevent the possibility of an individual being infected by both avian influenza and human influenza at the same time.

Avian influenza is a highly infectious disease of birds that occasionally affects other animals and, while people can become infected, they rarely do. The view of the Department of Agriculture and Food is that the immediate risk of the disease being introduced into Ireland by migratory birds remains low. Although the avian H5Nl virus is highly pathogenic in human beings, all evidence to date indicates that it does not spread easily from birds to infect humans and human outbreaks have been short-lived. All the recorded human cases of H5Nl infections were associated with direct contact with infected poultry. There is currently no evidence of sustained person-to-person transmission of avian influenza.

The greatest concern for human health is that the avian H5Nl virus will remain endemic and that continued transmission of the virus to humans and other animals will provide opportunities for human and avian viruses to exchange genes to produce a new virus that can replicate in humans and become highly pathogenic and easily transmissible between humans. In a human population with no pre-existing immunity, such a virus could trigger a global influenza pandemic. That is why it has been decided that poultry workers should receive the normal flu vaccine. Vaccination is being provided free of charge to the relevant individuals.

Those defined as poultry workers include poultry flock owners and their families, poultry veterinary practitioners, poultry advisers, Department of Agriculture and Food veterinary inspectors and other personnel involved in outbreak control measures, laboratory personnel involved in poultry post mortems or poultry virology, catching teams, poultry transporters, carcass transport and rendering plant personnel, workers in the hang-on, stunning and plucking areas in slaughter plants, fieldsmen, vaccinators, selectors and so on, people involved in cleaning and disinfection of poultry houses or poultry transport, as well as personnel involved in litter removal and litter processing.

Relevant staff in the Department of Agriculture and Food will be vaccinated by the Civil Service occupational health service. The HSE has advised that arrangements are under way to provide the vaccination. I am satisfied that the vaccination programme will be implemented in full. Vaccine supplies are available and particular focus is being placed on those counties with a high concentration of poultry farms, Cavan, Monaghan, Cork, Limerick and Waterford.

Extradition Requests.

The issue I am raising today is unusual. The extradition of two wanted men in the Czech Republic is being sought from this country. They are apparently fugitives from justice. They are wanted for crimes such as murder, kidnapping and torture in the Czech Republic. They are allegedly part of the largest criminal gang in that country and the Czech Government has contacted the Irish Government to seek their return. So far, we have been unable to grant their extradition or the request under the European arrest warrant. The two fugitives are apparently moving around in our country without hindrance. The problem seems to arise from the fact that both countries implemented the European arrest warrant at different times and in different ways. We implemented it in 2003 and made it retrospective and prospective, while the Czech authorities implemented it in 2004 and did not make it retrospective.

It appears that there may be a difficulty in executing the arrest warrant because of the terms under which it was implemented, while the pre-European arrest warrant extradition legislation no longer applies. All member states of the European Union implemented the arrest warrant legislation in different fashions and at different times. We implemented it here before the Czech Republic became a member of the EU. The new EU member states from eastern Europe would take a different approach to the situation because extradition would not have been applied in the old Soviet bloc. The end result is that an anomaly exists.

Ireland has been the subject of requests for extradition or repatriation of these Czech nationals. We seem to have been unable to carry out those requests and I wonder what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform thinks about the situation. How does he intend to expedite the request? He should have a meeting with the Council of Ministers to see what other anomalies exist, because there is not much sense in introducing so-called standardised forms of legislation unless they function. We are wasting time in the Oireachtas going through the motions if the legislation cannot function between the different countries.

We have enough murder and mayhem on the streets of our country. If we have it on good authority from the Czech police that there are two dangerous fugitives from the law of the Czech Republic, the Minister needs to examine the legislation to figure out whether we can deport undesirable non-nationals from this country. How do we close the European arrest warrant loophole? How do we deal with specific requests that have come to us about individuals who are fugitives from justice and seem to be able to operate here without hindrance?

The Deputy raises two distinct issues, namely, the action which the Minister proposes to take on specific extradition requests by the Czech Republic and the action he will take to close what the Deputy describes as a loophole in the operation of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. With regard to the first issue, neither the Minister nor the Department comment on any matter which may eventually come before the courts. To do otherwise could give rise to a danger of prejudice in such a case. As for the second issue, it may be helpful if I outline the manner in which the Czech Republic implemented legislation to give effect to the framework decision on the European arrest warrant. That legislation applies only to offences committed after 1 November 2004. Therefore, the issue relates to the procedures that apply to offences committed before the 1 November 2004.

The terms of the framework decision on the European arrest warrant are important in understanding how the present position has arisen. Article 31 of the framework decision states that it replaces the existing extradition conventions, including the 1957 Council of Europe European Convention on Extradition. This means that the framework decision is now the basis for surrender between EU member states which have implemented it. Article 32 of the framework decision establishes the general principle that surrender requests received after 1 January 2004 would be governed by the rules adopted by member states on the European arrest warrant. It also allowed member states the opportunity of declaring at the time of the adoption of the framework decision by the Council, on 7 August 2002, that they would only apply the framework decision to offences committed after a date they had specified.

A total of three member states availed of this provision at the time of its adoption. The Czech Republic made a declaration at the time of its implementation of the framework decision, the effect of which purported to apply the European arrest warrant only to offences committed after 1 November 2004. That is not in compliance with the framework decision.

Section 3 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 allows the Minister for Foreign Affairs to designate a member state that has, under its national law, given effect to the framework decision. Thus, the Czech Republic was designated on 25 January 2005 since it had at that stage adopted its legislation implementing the European arrest warrant. The effect of the designation of the Czech Republic was to cease the application of previous extradition arrangements to the Czech Republic from that date. A recent High Court decision highlights the difficulty which has arisen surrounding extradition to the Czech Republic. It is clear from that decision that any remedial action required is not for the Minister nor, indeed, for this State.

The High Court decision in July, concerning a request from the Czech Republic for the extradition of a Czech national, decided that it was necessary for the Czech authorities to issue a European arrest warrant where an application for the arrest of a person, whose extradition is being sought, is made after the date that the Czech Republic became a designated state for the purpose of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The relevant date here is 25 January 2005.

Therefore, following this High Court decision Ireland is unable to act on a request for extradition received from a member state of the European Union which has been designated for the purposes of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The only exceptions arise in the case of three member states which had made appropriate declarations at the time the framework decision was adopted. In light of the decision, the Attorney General has advised the Minister that extradition arrangements between Ireland and the Czech Republic are now governed by the procedures contained in the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and Ireland can only proceed to consider surrender requests on the basis of a European arrest warrant.

I do not suggest that we can sit back and do nothing, particularly where the difficulty which has arisen could give rise to an inability on the part of either State to act against suspected offenders. To that end, the Minister, in response to a question from his Czech counterpart made prior to the High Court decision, had pointed out to him the effect of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and the subsequent designation of the Czech Republic. He informed his counterpart that requests had to be made in conformity with the European Arrest Warrant Act.

Following the High Court decision, the central authority for the European arrest warrant also wrote, through the Department of Foreign Affairs, to the Czech authorities setting out the implications of the decision. The Deputy will appreciate therefore, that the manner in which the Czech Republic has implemented the European arrest warrant means that if the offence occurred before a certain date, they will seek extradition under the Council of Europe convention, that is, effectively they will seek extradition under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 1965 and not by a European arrest warrant.

The Office of the Attorney General has advised that it appears that the European Arrest Warrant Act does not permit the processing of a request for extradition received from a state which has been designated for the purposes of the Act except in the case of the member states which availed of the provisions of Article 32 at the time of the adoption of the framework decision. Therefore, the European Arrest Warrant Act does not permit the execution here of a request for extradition under the 1965 Act from the Czech Republic following the designation of the Czech Republic for the purposes of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. This was the clear decision of the High Court in the case to which I referred previously. The only way to proceed in such cases is for the Czech Republic to issue a European arrest warrant. If that presents a difficulty for the Czech authorities, it is a matter for them to resolve in their domestic legislative provisions.

Therefore, it should be clear, that there is no loophole, as the Deputy suggests, in the European Arrest Warrant Act and accordingly it is not for the Minister or this State to take any action in this regard. I emphasise to the Deputy and the House that to do otherwise would be to breach our own obligations under the framework decision. No one would suggest that this would be the proper way to proceed. The central authority is in continuing contact with the appropriate Czech authorities about the matter.

Coroners Service.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me the opportunity to raise this important issue. I have had the privilege of being a Member for three and a half years and he has been kind enough to assist me a number of times. This matter is by far the saddest and most profound that I have introduced to the House. I welcome the attendance of my friend and colleague, the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue. I know he will be sympathetic towards this case.

This is the story of Pierce Nowlan, a young baby who was born in the Coombe Hospital prematurely on 14 October 2002. He had a medical condition which required a minor procedure and was taken to Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children where he died on his second birthday, 14 October 2004. As the Ceann Comhairle is probably aware, his parents Jean and Stephen, as well as his paternal grandmother Phyllis, are in the Visitors Gallery. I am sensitive about their attendance and I am sure he would want me to welcome them. I assure them of my thoughts and prayers as I know this is a difficult situation for them. They are members of my community, and I wish to highlight their concerns and sense of upset with regard to this matter as sensitively as possible. It is important to show solidarity with the family and to try to help them in their quest for what they perceive as the need for justice and the need to establish the truth as to what happened to their baby. I have had much contact with the family in the last year and am aware of the high level of upset within both the family and the general community in respect of this case.

Many people will have seen the recent publicity highlighting the case in the media generally and particularly on television. The family gave a good interview on "Ireland AM" last Monday morning. The family members need assistance and ask the political system to help. They wanted me to note that they have met the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and were satisfied with the meeting. However, they want action. At present they are going through the coroner process. They want to know why they cannot establish the full truth as to what happened to their baby, why the surgeon's report in its fullest form has not been made available to them or to the coroner, and why there is a restriction on the number of witnesses who can be called by the coroner. They have told me that the coroner has been sympathetic in that regard and have reminded me that 23 people were present in the operating theatre in Our Lady's Hospital, Crumlin, when their baby, Pierce, died. It is important that they gain access to the truth and to the information they seek.

On a political note, I tabled Questions Nos. 474 and 475 on 15 November 2005 on the need to reform the Coroners Act 1962 rather than on this specific case. Similar questions were also tabled by colleagues from the Green Party and Fine Gael. The Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism should convey a message to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, to the effect that there appears to be all-party support for a common approach to dealing with the business of the Coroners Act. I imagine the Minister, given his own experience, will understand that.

At present, the family is trying to highlight the need to expedite the process by which the new legislation will be brought before the Cabinet and to expedite its enactment. The coroner's court will then be able to act under the new legislation to provide the family with the answers it wants. This issue differs from the matters I normally raise in the House and it is important to support the Nowlan family. In his statement, I hope the Minister can assure the family that this case is seen in the serious light it deserves. The family members have not highlighted this issue simply for their own sake. While they are anxious to establish the facts pertaining to their case so that, without forgetting Pierce, they can get on with their lives, they have also made the point that other families may be similarly affected. This has been a brave act for the family members, particularly for Stephen and Jean. They wish to prevent this from happening to any other family and that, whatever about the trauma of losing a baby, this particular aspect will be cleared up. I appreciate the Ceann Comhairle's courtesy and thank him for providing me with this opportunity in the presence of the Nowlan family. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

I am standing in for my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who had a prior engagement this afternoon and on whose behalf I wish to apologise. I thank Deputy O'Connor for raising this matter and I join him in welcoming the Nowlan family to the House.

Deputy O'Connor will be aware that in response to Questions Nos. 474 and 475 of 15 November 2005, the Minister stated the following:

The report of the working group on the review of the coroner service published in December 2000 recommended a comprehensive overhaul and modernisation of the coroner service in Ireland, with regard to the legislation governing the work of coroners, the support services available to coroners and the structural organisation of the coroner service. In keeping with the commitment in the Government legislative programme, announced by the Chief Whip on 27 September 2005, detailed proposals providing for that comprehensive reform are currently being finalised in [the] Department [of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.]

The Minister expects to be in a position to submit them to the Government before the end of the year. He has personally outlined this position to the parents of Pierce Nowlan. An inquest by the Dublin City Coroner has been opened into Pierce's death. That inquest stands adjourned and Deputies will appreciate that it is not appropriate to discuss particular matters in this regard.

The current Irish legislation, namely, the Coroners Act 1962, is outdated and can no longer be said to equip coroners with the appropriate measures to conduct the best possible death investigation. A commitment to reform has been indicated by the inclusion of a proposed coroners Bill in the Government's current legislative programme. A considerable amount of work has been done in recent years with regard to reviewing the coroner service and in bringing forward proposals for reform. This found its primary expression in the report of the coroners review group in 2000 and in the report of the rules committee published in 2003.

The review group recommended a comprehensive overhaul and modernisation of the coroner service in Ireland. The coroners' rules committee produced a report which proposed the first detailed set of coroners' rules for Ireland. These have been widely disseminated since publication and consideration will be given to whether and in what form they might be put on a statutory basis.

There have been significant developments since the publication of these two domestic reports. Ireland is not alone among common law jurisdictions in engaging in reform of the coroners service at this time. In the United Kingdom, the coroner service review has recommended significant structural changes to the coroner services in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Another outside influence in our legislative process will be those judgments of the European Court of Human Rights which have a bearing on the work of coroners. The European Court of Justice in recent years has made a number of important decisions in such cases. These cases, involving particular sets of circumstances, have added to the jurisprudence concerning the European convention. Our statutory law needs to be updated to take into account that jurisprudence.

Reform efforts elsewhere, in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, have been directed towards comprehensive rather than partial reform. We are in a position now to learn from this experience in other countries. The aim of the Minister, as part of the legislative reform, will be to put a more logical and coherent shape to the coroners service. Three broad issues — legislative, structural and support services — were considered of equal importance by the review group. Foremost among the issues which the Minister will address in the forthcoming Bill is that of the scope of the coroner's inquiry. The coroners review group considered the issue of the scope of the inquest and, in one of its major recommendations, proposed an extension of the remit of the coroner to "establish the surrounding circumstances of death including the medical cause of death".

The Minister believes we need to make a positive statement of the role of the coroner in inquiring into certain deaths. There is a requirement for greater clarity on the nature of the death investigation by the coroner, up to and including the inquest. Not all death investigations by a coroner necessarily lead to inquests. The new legislation will also set out clearly the procedures for the conduct of inquests by the coroner. With regard to mandatory inquests, there is a requirement for more explicit provisions to deal with those circumstances concerning deaths in custody or of children in care where the State or its institutions have an involvement.

An issue which has been well highlighted, and no less so in this instance involving the Nowlan family, is that of the summoning and the conduct of witnesses and the taking of evidence at inquests. The Minister has stated on a number of occasions that he intends to abolish the current restriction on the number of medical witnesses the coroner may call to give evidence at an inquest. He also intends to significantly increase the penalty for failure to respond to a summons to appear as a witness or to co-operate at an inquest. The contempt provision available to coroners under the 1962 Act is not satisfactory and is likely to be replaced by providing new powers for the coroner to compel attendance, co-operation and the production of documents.

The coroners review group was very much concerned about the need to ensure a high quality coroners service with optimal resources and supports. In that regard, it envisaged an evolution to a regionalised structure in which there would be fewer than the current 48 coronial districts. With such a change in structure, it may well be necessary to provide for arrangements for mostly full-time coroners in any new regionalised structure. The Minister is determining the optimum management structure for a reformed coroners service as recommended by the review group. He expects that the proposed new comprehensive coroners Bill will address all current concerns about the law and practice of coroners and will provide a system which will be seen to be effective, humane and accessible.

Again, on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I confirm the commitment to bring proposals for a new coroners Bill to Government before the end of the year.

Local Authority Funding.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this important matter.

The way in which local authorities are funded has a bearing on their ability to deliver services. I will focus on developing counties such as Kildare. The needs and resources model of funding is a historical one. When it was put in place guarantees were given that no council would lose funding. This guarantee automatically placed growing counties at a disadvantage. While the fund has increased over the years, it is not fairly distributed.

I will outline several practical examples of this unfairness. Kildare County Council does not produce water but buys it from Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council. Given the county's rapid increase in population, the cost of buying water continues to increase. The 2002 census bears no relation to the current population of County Kildare, which has increased by at least 30,000 in recent years. This has resulted in the county's funds being stretched even further.

While the people of County Kildare are delighted that several new, albeit long overdue, playgrounds have been built, these facilities are expensive to supervise and maintain and receive no funding for maintenance until they are in place and costs can be calculated. The problem with this approach, however, is that there is no guarantee that these costs will ever be included in maintenance funding. In other words, councils take a gamble when they introduce new services.

Yesterday, during the debate on housing Deputy Fleming criticised some councils for not including sufficient funds for disabled person's grants, for which one third of the cost must be covered by local authorities. The reality is that Kildare County Council has little discretionary spending. Counties Laois and Offaly, on the other hand, do very well from the local government fund and have lower than average commercial rates, which indicates the discrepancy between councils and the improvements that could be made.

I have analysed a series of figures. Allocations under the local government fund in 2004 indicates that south Dublin receives the lowest per capita transfer at €97, while County Kildare is third worst off. The highest per capita amount is paid to County Leitrim which receives more than €500. The figures demonstrate the considerable variations between local government fund allocations.

A second set of figures relates to the disabled person's grant. County Kildare receives a per capita allocation of €5.70, the lowest in the State, while Leitrim, at €103 per head of population, again receives the highest allocation. The key issue in this regard is discretionary spending and the failure to understand the dynamics of a growing area. When calculating budgets, certain items, for example, salaries, pensions, insurance, loans, materials, heat and lighting, must be included. However, it is only when one examines areas over which one has discretion that the budget becomes interesting. In a wealthy economy the public has a right to expect services in discretionary expenditure areas, such as community and leisure facilities, libraries, traffic calming and management, but it is in these areas that counties with growing populations are paying the price in terms of a lack of funding.

I have also analysed levels of commercial rates. The business sector is critical of increases in rates above the rate of inflation but frequently the choice facing local authorities is whether to reduce services or increase commercial rates. The Minister will no doubt provide figures to show how much the local government fund has increased over the years. It is sobering to note, however, that when I examined the allocation for County Kildare under the fund last year, it was only sufficient to buy additional water for new residents and pay increased costs arising from upgraded wastewater facilities and benchmarking and did not allow an increase in discretionary funding. This is indicative of the problem I have highlighted.

I ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to bring the issue of discretionary spending before the Government. Areas such as Kildare, west Dublin, Meath, Wicklow, Louth and north Wexford are entitled to equity in services. It will not be possible to ensure such equity until the disparities in the funding model used is addressed. I ask the Minister to do so.

I thank Deputy Catherine Murphy for raising this matter. I make this reply on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, who apologises for being unable to attend the debate.

The Minister acknowledges that the level of general purpose grants from the local government fund is of great concern to all local authorities, and the Government's record in this regard is worth noting. The total allocated to local authorities in 2005 through general purpose grants amounts to €817 million. This is an impressive figure in itself and represents an increase of 8.6% over the corresponding figure for 2004, which was 14% above the amount provided in the previous year. Since the Government came to office in 1997, general purpose funding has increased by about 140%, which is many times the rate of inflation over the period. That means central Government has contributed in a real and substantial way to local authorities.

General purpose allocations over recent years have been made up primarily of two elements, an across-the-board percentage increase on the previous year's allocation and an amount allocated through the needs and resources model. For 2005, across-the-board increases of 7% were allocated to each authority, amounting in total to more than €56.6 million for all authorities. A sum of €12 million was allocated using the model.

Across-the-board increases provide all local authorities with a basic level of increase over the previous year. Such increases are given in recognition of inflation and the fact that all authorities face many challenges of a similar nature, such as pay increases, each year. For many years following the introduction of the rate support grant in 1998, local authorities complained that the funding distribution system did not have regard to the differing circumstances of each authority. To address this issue the needs and resources model was developed in 2000. It calculates allocations on the basis of the expenditure needs of each authority and the income available from local sources, such as commercial rates, charges for services and miscellaneous fees. At the same time, the model is designed to ensure each authority receives a baseline allocation and does not receive less than in the previous year.

The calculation of the expenditure needs and local income for each local authority is based on a comprehensive annual return that each local authority provides. This return gives details of actual expenditure and income for each service provided in the latest year for which such data are available. It also provides statistics on each authority's operation such as the number of planning applications, housing applications, housing loans administered, laboratory tests carried out and so on. In addition, details are provided on the extent of the infrastructure local authorities must maintain, including local roads, local authority dwellings and water treatment plants. On the basis of that comprehensive data and appropriate unit target costs and income, the model identifies a funding gap for each authority, which is, in effect, the difference between appropriate expenditure and income. The overall amount available for allocation through the model is distributed primarily in proportion to each authority's funding gap while ensuring that each authority receives its baseline allocation.

The rules used in assessing appropriate expenditure and income are reviewed regularly to ensure that the model reflects genuine conditions at local authority level. Local authorities are involved in that review process as much as possible. They can also make proposals on changes to the model at any stage. Every year, after the allocations have been made, each local authority is sent a detailed return from the Department indicating how the expenditure and income information supplied by the authority compares with the target costs in the model.

It is safer to use actual financial data provided by local authorities in assessing funding requirements rather than relying on general projections of growth that may prove unreliable. To use Estimates as opposed to outturns would inevitably lead to a need to reduce retrospectively or claw back funding from local authorities. That could result in deficits and would not be conducive to effective management. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, has no proposals to change that process. It was endorsed in 2002 by an independent consultancy review commissioned to evaluate the model, which concluded that the use of outturns rather than Estimates is more likely to identity the true spending needs of each authority and provides for a more equitable distribution of the local government fund.

Today's abridged Estimates volume provides welcome news for the local government fund, and the Minister, Deputy Roche, hopes to inform local authorities of their general purposes grants for 2006 in the near future.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 November 2005.
Top
Share