As the first two items are being taken together each Deputy has five minutes.
Stardust Fire.
I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for the opportunity to raise the Stardust tragedy on the Adjournment. This issue is about people, the death of loved ones and families. The Stardust fire was a nightmare for all the families and they all need and deserve our sympathy and support. However, they need more than that and tonight I set out my clear position on the Stardust tragedy. I support the families of the Stardust fire tragedy in their quest for truth and justice. In this regard I call on the Government to honour the terms of Article 40.3.2° of the Constitution which states: "The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen".
I call on people to support the families in their call for a new Stardust inquiry which will include the new vital information. I also call on all Members of the Oireachtas to support the families of the Stardust victims and survivors' group. I am here to add another voice to their campaign.
The families of the victims have major concerns about the forensic investigation in the previous tribunal and the competence and integrity of the forensic team. There is a mixed agenda and people want to know if those who were criticised by Mr. Justice Keane were in a position to undertake an investigation.
Various questions arise. Why was the roof ignored? Antoinette Keegan and the families want to know the details of the wall types that would have been the perimeter of the storeroom at mezzanine level, detailing their density and height. Can they see the photographs of where the walls go right up to the roof ridge, because all pictures viewed show an 18-inch gap? The tribunal report states no gap existed. Can they have an explanation from Mr. Michael Norton as to why he said there was insufficient fuel in the storeroom to burn a black pipe? The outside witnesses do not concur with this having viewed the inferno they saw.
A resident took a photograph showing an inferno fire in the roof space some 26 feet above ground level. The photograph was taken at 1.40 a.m., yet the fire on the seat seen at 1.41 a.m. was only 18 inches high, a point previously stated by Mr. Norton, forensic evidence officer. He noted that the fuel in the storeroom would not be enough to burn the black pipe. Could he now realise that he under-estimated the fuel or knew nothing about its existence, and that this inhibited him explaining correctly the rapid fire spread as viewed by people outside the building and heard by many while the roof shattered? Antoinette Keegan and the families are disgusted by this and have made their views known to the Taoiseach.
There are serious questions for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Department is wheeling out the same old mantra that there is no new evidence but does not want to disturb the status quo. Where does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stand on this issue? Has the Taoiseach read the material? The material is new. Three independent experts have said it is new. Senior counsel believe it is new. It does answer the criteria for a full public inquiry.
Concerning the case for a new inquiry, in a letter from the office of the Taoiseach received the day before yesterday, the Government seeks a further three weeks because it advises its examination of the technical and legal questions arising is not yet satisfactorily concluded. In response to that, the Stardust families believe that the original tribunal of inquiry reached conclusions in ignorance of crucial evidence. The tribunal of inquiry was deprived of vital information essential to the proper discharge of its terms of reference. Its efforts to determine the cause and rapid development of the fire were rendered fundamentally ineffective. It is no longer safe to accept that the findings of the tribunal on the cause and rapid spread of the Stardust fire have any validity. That too is the families' view and I strongly support their position.
A vitally important way in which the State vindicates the life of its citizens is to ensure that all unnatural deaths are fully and properly investigated. The European Court of Human Rights has held that it is an obligation of a state to ensure that all inquiries into causes of the deaths of its citizens are independent, effective, reasonably prompt, have a sufficient element of public scrutiny and that the next of kin must be involved. The strength of the new evidence is such that the families have been advised and believe that if available to the original tribunal it would have materially altered the outcome of the inquiry. While the original tribunal of inquiry has concluded, it is open to the Government to establish a new tribunal of inquiry with discreet and focused terms of reference.
Yesterday the families and their excellent legal team pointed to section 40 of the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) Act 2000 and section 66 of the Railway Safety Act 2005 which provide that the relevant Minister may direct that a completed inquiry be reopened. I urge the Minister and the Government to listen to the families of the Stardust fire tragedy and to do something now to end this sad situation once and for all.
I wish to share time with Deputy Bruton.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Taoiseach for acknowledging in the House earlier today my interest and that of the Labour Party in pursuing justice and closure for the Stardust relatives and victims' committee, the families of the 48 young people who tragically lost their lives in February 1981 and the people of Coolock, Raheny, Donaghmede, Kilbarrack and Artane in Dublin North East constituency. I renew my call tonight to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, to establish a commission of inquiry into the Stardust tragedy and to review the findings of the original tribunal which reported in 1982.
In a very real way the people I represent have been waiting for nearly 26 years for such a judicial review and it is inexcusable that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform have continually stonewalled in their response to the review of the evidence presented by the Stardust relatives and victims' committee and to the new evidence which has also been presented. This morning the Taoiseach stated that he had been available to meet the Stardust committee since February this year but the meeting only finally took place in September last, more than six months later. Why has a decision on this issue dragged on interminably and why are the relatives and survivors of the Stardust victims now being told that they must wait another three weeks? Why do they have to parade up and down, as they did 20 years ago outside the Taoiseach's Department? These, including the Taoiseach's response this morning, do not seem like the actions of a Government that is anxious to help achieve some level of justice and closure for a group of people who have been treated so appallingly over the past 26 years.
Exactly two years ago this month I accompanied a delegation of Stardust survivors and relatives to meet Mr. Seán Aylward, Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and his principal officer, Mr. Noel Sinnott. This meeting was held in the light of a new report prepared by Ms Geraldine Foy that re-assessed and rejected some of the critical conclusions of the original Stardust tribunal report and presented new evidence. The report also raised disturbing issues regarding the cause of the fire. In particular it showed strong evidence that the fire began in the roof space where cleaning oils were located and greatly contributed to the rapid conflagration of the inferno. It also showed that maps used during the original tribunal were misleading.
In a special Dáil debate earlier in the year I outlined a number of key issues which clearly point to the need for an urgent re-assessment of the unsound original conclusions of the Keane report. They include a litany of breaches of the building by-laws and public resort laws, the serious shortcomings in the forensic examination carried out by the Garda and the Department of Justice and also compelling evidence relating to the electrical system of the Stardust night club which was disregarded in the tribunal report.
We have had a series of new reports. Two outstanding young northside journalists, Neil Fetherstonhaugh and Tony McCullagh, published their comprehensive book, They Never Came Home, in 2001. We have had the “Prime Time Investigates” programme on RTE on St. Valentine’s night last. These clearly show the urgent need for a new tribunal.
Earlier today the Stardust relatives and victims' committee asked me to ask the Taoiseach and the Minister to release all records held by the forensic department and Garda detailing their search of the waterlogged basement, as clearly marked on the Garda map. They also asked for the publication of the full report on the storeroom contents at mezzanine level. They asked for the publication of Garda photographs of the storeroom at mezzanine level and laboratory test results from Mr. Michael Norton's analysis. They also asked why 32 of the victims' bodies had portions of limbs missing, which the original tribunal report notes but does not investigate.
The substantive issue remains. We welcome the report on the tragic graves and bodies in St. Fintan's cemetery. In light of the new evidence and the unsafe conclusions of the original tribunal report, a mechanism to facilitate a new commission of inquiry is urgently necessary and I urge the Taoiseach to set it up.
I thank Deputy Broughan for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I support the proposal put forward today by the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Rabbitte, to have an independent legal person look at the new evidence, the flawed assumptions that underpin the previous inquiry, the testimony of records and so on. There is no doubt that new experts have cast doubt on the sequence of events as set out in the original tribunal. I do not question the bona fides of the Taoiseach in this matter. As he said, he is not a forensic expert and he is trying to facilitate a detailed review of this evidence. However, I believe he is taking on himself a judgment that should not be taken by a politician. We need an independent legal expert to make the final judgment on the need for further investigation in identifying the causes that need to be studied and the questions that need to be answered before relatives can be satisfied. I congratulate the Taoiseach on the interest he has taken in this matter. However, it is not he who should be carrying out the investigation and making the judgment on these issues.
On behalf of the Tánaiste, I thank the Deputies for their contributions to this debate, which provides an opportunity to update the House on the very latest developments with respect to this important matter.
As the Tánaiste has previously set out, discussions between his Department and representatives of the families led in 2004 to the presentation to the Department of a submission prepared on behalf of the Stardust Victims Committee which examined a range of issues relating to the fire and its investigation. That submission was examined by the Garda Commissioner and the forensic science laboratory but was found not to contain new evidence. More specifically, the forensic science laboratory concluded that the report in question amounted to a different interpretation of matters already brought to the attention of the tribunal. Similarly, the Garda response concluded that no new evidence was forthcoming that would warrant the Garda Síochána revisiting the investigation and that all the matters raised in the report had been adequately addressed by the tribunal of inquiry.
At a subsequent meeting between the Stardust Victims Committee and departmental officials, the committee was informed of this position and advised that in the absence of compelling new evidence, the establishment of a further tribunal of inquiry could not be recommended. It was made clear, however, that any further submission they or their representatives wished to make would be carefully examined. In the immediate aftermath of that meeting no such submission was received.
The Tánaiste has pointed out previously, but believes it bears repeating, that the original inquiry carried out by the former Chief Justice was a substantial and extensive examination with comprehensive terms of reference. It sat for 122 days and heard evidence from 363 witnesses, 161 of whom were present in the building on the night of the fire. The tribunal had available to it a range of national and international expertise in matters relating to fire safety and building construction, and detailed forensic and pathology evidence was also heard. By any standards it was an impressive undertaking and in no sense should it be seen as an inquiry with anything less than the gravity and thoroughness that would rightly be expected in these circumstances.
As the 25th anniversary of the tragedy approached, the question of a new inquiry began to be raised again by representatives of the victims. In response to queries from the representatives and when raised by Deputies, the Tánaiste made it clear that any submission would receive serious attention. In July a comprehensive submission was received and referred to the forensic science laboratory for analysis. This was followed up by a meeting on 18 September at which the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, together with senior officials and the director of the forensic science laboratory, met representatives of the victims committee. The purpose of the meeting was to hear from the committee in person on their detailed submission so as to properly inform the analysis of its contents.
At the meeting the committee also outlined its concerns regarding the identification of five of the victims whose remains have never been properly identified and proposals as to how this might be achieved were discussed. The meeting concluded with an indication by the committee that it would follow up with some final observations, which could be added to the material already under examination. The extent of the detail and the complexity of the issues, however, are such that the examination of the technical and legal questions arising is not yet satisfactorily concluded. For this reason, the committee has recently been advised that it could be another three weeks before a final and properly considered response can issue.
At the same time as advising it of this, it was however possible to provide a more definitive response on the question of unidentified victims. The Tánaiste is pleased to be able to confirm that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will initiate and oversee a process intended to lead to their identification. The Garda authorities will give their full support in the logistics of this process and will be assisted by the forensic science laboratory with specialist analytical input from the UK. The cost of the process will be borne by the Department, including all analytical expenses, as well as exhumation and reburial expenses, to include the reasonable costs of private funerals following identification. This last item will be agreed with the next of kin of each of the five victims in due course.
The Tánaiste full appreciates the concerns of the families regarding a response to their call for a new inquiry. There is no question that the response is being postponed indefinitely. Their submission on identification has been dealt with in good faith and so will this. Rather than rush that response, however, the issues are getting the careful attention they deserve. Every effort will be made to respond under the timeline indicated and the families can take it that the timeline will not be exceeded.
Health Service Staff.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment. I refer specifically to the professions of occupational therapy and speech therapy. Over a period of time I have encountered difficulty in having work carried out under the housing aid for the elderly scheme, operated by the HSE. As we were not able to get an occupational therapist examination, report and recommendation, individual work and undertakings could not proceed because approval for the work was not forthcoming. On inquiry, I discovered that while we have a range of occupational therapists with a considerable volume of responsibility within the HSE organisation, many occupational therapists for various reasons are not at work and are not in a position to come to work to examine these cases.
Related disciplines may have expertise allowing them to examine, report and recommend solutions to specific problems. Where a ramp needs to be installed for somebody who is wheelchair-bound to give access to a front or back door, I fail to understand why the professional work could not be undertaken by an engineer who would be engaged by an agency or for a specific period by the HSE to fill the void during the period when the occupational therapists are not available and would examine, report and recommend so that the work could proceed.
It is not a question of resources not being available under the particular heading for the HSE. It has significant resources and is doing excellent work in this area. The Minister of State should ask the HSE to examine that possibility urgently. I do not accept that a qualified engineer could not carry out this work in a similar fashion to the occupational therapist. I accept that there are other responsibilities in the HSE on which engineers would not be to suitable to report and make recommendations.
In some two-storey houses a downstairs toilet needs to be installed. There is no reason an engineer could not recommend that the toilet facilities be provided downstairs because the occupant may use a Zimmer frame or wheelchair or be partially disabled in such a way that they are not able to negotiate the stairs.
Given the number of young females in both professions, occupational therapy and speech therapy, it is inevitable that they will occasionally be absent through pregnancy or illness. We need to have formulas to deal with these circumstances. I have already outlined the issues regarding occupational therapists. There are also delays in dealing with young children with special needs who require speech therapy. Insufficient numbers of speech therapists are available. It must be possible to organise, in conjunction with their parents, qualified speech therapists to co-ordinate and supervise services to provide the tuition these children require. This would be better than there being no speech therapy services available because there are not enough personnel to provide them. It may be that, at any given time, the HSE is not in a position to recruit a sufficient number of speech therapists. There must be a fall-back position.
I would be happy to discuss this matter with the Minister of State and the officials in the personnel unit of the HSE responsible for dealing with it. We must be practical and innovative and find solutions where they are required.
I am taking this matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney. I thank the Deputy for raising it because it provides me with an opportunity to outline to this House the issues in respect of the staffing levels relating to the grades to which he referred.
The latest available figures show that in the period since the establishment of the Health Service Executive to 30 September 2006, the number of health and social care professionals employed in the area covered by the former North Eastern Health Board increased by 37 whole-time equivalents from 788 to 826, an increase of 4.7%. In the specific grades of health and social care professionals to which the Deputy referred, there have been increases of 7.9%, 0.8% and 19.4%, respectively, in the numbers of occupational, speech and language therapists and social workers in the same period. In addition, there was a significant increase, between October 2001 and June 2006, in the salary scale relating to speech and language therapists. This resulted in an increase of 32% at the minimum point of the scale and an increase of 31.8% at the maximum.
As the Deputy may be aware, the health service personnel census collects employment information in respect of the Health Service Executive, voluntary hospitals and certain disability services on the basis of administrative areas and not on a county basis. He may also be aware that many services are provided on a national, regional and cross-county basis. Total staffing in the former North Eastern Health Board area increased by 4.8% to 7,635, the number of medical and dental personnel increased by 7.3% to 530 and the number of nursing personnel increased by 4.0% to 2,622.
In response to concerns regarding labour shortages, the Department of Health and Children commissioned a report from Dr. Peter Bacon and Associates on current and future supply and demand conditions to 2015 in the labour market for speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and physiotherapists. The report was published in 2001. Arising from its recommendations, three additional speech and language therapy courses commenced in the 2003-04 academic year at University College Cork, the National University of Ireland Galway, and the University of Limerick, providing an additional 75 training places for speech and language therapy. This expansion in training numbers was identified in the Bacon report as sufficient to meet the long-term demand-supply balance for speech and language therapists in Ireland. The first graduates from the two-year masters course at UL completed their studies in June 2005. The first graduates from the BSc courses in UCC and NUIG will graduate in 2007.
The Deputy will also be aware that it is a matter for the Health Service Executive, as part of its management of its employment ceiling, to determine the appropriate staffing mix required to deliver its service plan priorities. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, has been advised that the HSE is undertaking a national and international recruitment campaign to fill current vacancies and development posts and that the situation will be reviewed in 2007.
I am aware that the Health Service Executive has also advised the Department of Health and Children that it is currently carrying out an in-depth appraisal of staffing levels in all services in County Louth. It is expected that this will be completed shortly. I will bring to the attention of the Minister for Health and Children and her officials the valid points made by the Deputy.
Grant Payments.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this matter. I also thank the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, for coming before the House to reply to it.
I raise this important issue on foot of a number of cases that have come to my notice in recent months. The first of these involved a father who was retiring and handing over the farm to his son. They went to their solicitor and signed the transfer documents relating to the land and then went to the district veterinary office and had the herd number transferred. Everything was fine until it was time to claim the single farm payment. They were advised at that point that because the father had applied for area aid and the single farm payment, he could not obtain the money because he no longer had a herd number. The son could not be paid because the land had not been in his name for the necessary ten months. It is obvious that these people will be paid this money when sufficient time passes and when they have completed the necessary forms. However, they were not made aware of the problem by their solicitor or by the Department when the herd number was transferred. This led to a serious delay in the issuing of the single farm payment at a time when the young man was building his own home. The second case with which I am familiar involved a young graduate who had already built his new home and also a new cattle unit and who is still owed two years' worth of payments.
Is this the way to encourage young people to become involved in farming? I urge that all personnel, such as solicitors and officials of the Department, be fully briefed in order that area aid and single farm payments can be dealt with in an organised and structured way. The single farm payment and area aid often comprise the major part of farm incomes and are vital when young farmers are building new homes and, in some cases, starting families.
The problem relating to late payments was a feature of what happened in respect of herds infected with BSE. In such cases, the Department withdrew herd numbers and provided new ones but failed to transfer the payments. This led to long delays for farm families that had already suffered major trauma.
When the single farm payment was announced, it was welcomed by farm organisation personnel as an end to form-filling etc., and by the then Minister, Deputy Walsh, as giving farmers total freedom to farm and to return to production. However, on foot of the nitrates directive and traceability requirements, paperwork remains the order of the day for farmers, regardless of their age or level of education. That is why it is so important that those who serve farmers should have the best advice available to them and ensure that their clients are treated well.
I became aware earlier this evening of one of the worst cases to date when I was contacted by an aged farmer who read to me over the phone a letter he received from the Department. The letter demanded that he provide an official of the Department of Agriculture and Food with proof of his place of residence for the past 20 years, even though he has only been involved in the various schemes since he returned home from working abroad 14 or 15 years ago. Would any other group be subjected to such scrutiny or harassment?
From working with farmers for the past 35 to 40 years, I am aware that the vast majority want to do what is right. Many older farmers have little education and deserve help and encouragement. Most departmental officials do a great job. Unfortunately, however, certain individuals seem to have chips on their shoulders and focus on the negative, regardless of the damage this can do to farmers who live in isolated areas and who require, and should receive, support. Young and elderly farmers need justice and support. Big and small farmers are fleeing from the land and only fair play will ensure the maximum number of them are retained. I urge the Minister of State to ensure the relevant information is provided so that solicitors and departmental personnel give farmers complete advice at the time of transfer to make this difficult time as easy as possible and to make sure the moneys to which they are entitled are paid on time.
I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. The introduction of the single payment scheme in 2005 brought the new concept of payment entitlements into the direct payments system. Payment entitlements are not attached to land but they are the property of the farmer who was farming during the reference period and was in receipt of direct payments under one or more of the livestock premium and-or arable aid schemes. Entitlements may be sold with or without land but can only be sold without land once 80% have been used in one calendar year. On the other hand, entitlements may only be leased to another farmer if accompanied by an equivalent number of hectares of eligible land but they may also be transferred, with or without land, by gift or through inheritance. The arrangements for the transfer of entitlements by way of sale, lease, gift or inheritance in respect of the 2006 and 2007 scheme years were clearly set out in press releases issued by my Department, which are available on its website. The application forms to be completed by farmers engaged in transferring entitlements are also available on my Department's website for people who may wish to access that information through this medium.
In this context, where an entire holding is being transferred within the ten-month period for compliance with the single payment scheme requirements, the transferee must complete a separate declaration of undertaking under which he or she undertakes to succeed to the responsibilities of the original applicant and, thereby, becomes entitled to payment. In all such cases, my Department, on receipt of the application to transfer entitlements, decides, on the basis of the date of transfer, whether the declaration of undertaking is required. Individual farmers need not, therefore, concern themselves with this aspect provided they have forwarded the application to transfer entitlements in the first instance. I am satisfied my Department has taken every opportunity for informing farmers and others about the introduction of the single payment scheme and the various requirements pertaining to the transfer of payment entitlements.
The arrangements governing the introduction of the scheme were the subject of two separate series of countrywide information seminars for farmers and others interested in the agricultural sector. In addition, separate information seminars were held for agricultural consultants and others involved in giving advice to farmers. A large volume of information was conveyed through the various media channels including radio and the farming press, while a number of information booklets were prepared and issued to individual farmers. I assure the Deputy that the Department is in the process of writing to the Incorporated Law Society pointing out the need for members of the legal profession, who are dealing with the succession of estates where single payment entitlements are involved, to familiarise themselves fully with the rules pertaining to these entitlements. This additional initiative will make a worthwhile contribution to the efficient operation of the scheme's arrangements to the benefit of all involved.
I assure the House that all of us want every applicant to receive his or her entitlements. The first year of the scheme went well, as it involved a major transformation from multiple schemes to a single payment scheme. A number of queries were outstanding but I assure the Deputy that the Department is anxious that every applicant receives his or her full entitlements and full information is available to them to assist them with queries that may arise regarding applications that are not straightforward. It behoves those giving advice to farmers, whether they are consultants, Teagasc officials or members of the legal profession, to ensure they are fully apprised of the rules on entitlements, transfer, etc. The additional initiative we are taking will be of benefit in ensuring each applicant draws down his or her full entitlements.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 23 November 2006.