I thank the Chair for allowing me an opportunity to raise this matter.
Adjournment Debate
Arts Funding
Could the Members having discussions in the outer areas of the Chamber please leave the House and afford Deputy Donohoe the opportunity to deliver his contribution?
I thank the Acting Chairman. This matter refers to the status and future of the Light House Cinema in Smithfield, Dublin 7. My constituency colleague, Deputy Costello, raised the matter in the House a number of weeks ago. In that time, the legal process surrounding the cinema and its future has wound on. During the past week, the court decided to put in place a process whereby the cinema could be closed and the site could be handed over to the developer.
In evaluating the issue, three points are pertinent. First, the taxpayer has delivered nearly €2 million in funding to the project to date. This significant amount was justified, as it came through the Irish Film Board and the Arts Council. The money was used successfully in supporting film making and the enjoyment of film in Ireland. That €2 million was invested in an enterprise that now looks like it will be wound up.
Second, the only use for the site allowed by its zoning status is as a cinema. Anything else that assumes the Light House Cinema's place must use the site for the same purpose.
Third, this business was doing well. Like many other businesses of its time, it took on a lease that turned out to be unsustainable, in that the cinema could not meet the needs as required under the lease. However, the business had been doing better in recent months. Given the amount of money the taxpayer has invested and the large cultural benefit it was delivering to our city and to an industry we are trying to support, will the Minister find a way to intervene to ensure the use of the money and the restoration of an important cultural benefit to the city?
I thank Deputy Donohoe for raising this matter. The background of the State's involvement with the Light House Cinema goes back to February 2006 when the then Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Mr. John O'Donoghue, approved an offer of a capital grant of €1 million towards the development of the cinema in Smithfield, Dublin. Construction began on the project in March 2007 and it was officially opened in May 2008. The grant was provided for the fit-out costs of the project rather than the construction costs. Further State funding of €750,000 was provided from the Cultural Cinema Consortium, which comprises the Irish Film Board and the Arts Council.
The capital funding for the Light House Cinema was provided from the Department's capital development subhead for arts infrastructure. The purpose of the subhead is to support the development of arts and culture in Ireland. Integrated arts centres, theatres, museums, cinemas and galleries, as well as arts studios and other creative and performance spaces, have been provided with funding. The programme has been widely acknowledged as a significant intervention in the provision of quality cultural spaces throughout the regions.
The State's investment in the Light House Cinema is protected through a legally registered charge on the property. This charge allows that in the event of the Light House Cinema ceasing to operate from the premises in Smithfield in the first five years of its operation, I as Minister can choose either the repayment of the State grants or agree to allow another art house or cultural cinema to occupy the building for the remainder of the lease so that the premises remains in use as an art house or cultural cinema centre. As the cinema was opened in 2008, this five-year agreement has a further two years to run.
On 15 April 2011, the High Court placed the Light House Cinema into involuntary liquidation and appointed a liquidator. As this House is aware, the Chief State Solicitor represents the Government in cases such as this and my Department was represented at the various court cases by officials from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. Officials from my Department are continuing to work with the Chief State Solicitor's office which, in appropriate legal consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, will advise me and my Department on the next steps necessary to protect the State's interest.
It is a tragedy that such a fine facility has closed and I am deeply disappointed that an amicable solution was not found to resolve the difficulties involved. I hope that a new tenant can be found to continue to operate the premises as an art house and cultural cinema centre. Film and film making is of great value to Ireland, both financially and as a cultural asset for the country. Now more than ever there is greater global competition in securing film and television productions. Despite our recent economic difficulties, Ireland continues to hold its own in the audiovisual and film sectors. This is thanks to the work of the Irish Film Board and our impressive talent pool of directors, writers, actors, technical crews and various State supports on offer. The most important of these is the section 481 tax incentive for film and television production in Ireland, which runs until the end of 2015.
The Irish audiovisual sector plays an important part in Irish society, both in economic and cultural terms. Film, as part of the audiovisual medium, is an area in which Ireland continues to excel, as evidenced by the success of Irish productions which have secured numerous awards at international level in the last few years. Deputy Costello has raised this matter as well and requested that I meet a delegation of people interested in this project. I would suggest that the Deputies accompany that delegation next week.
Deputy Donohoe has already mentioned that.
There are some guests in the Gallery from America who have a deep understanding of and interest in the film industry. They are very welcome to Ireland.
Tax Code
Deputies Mac Lochlainn and Doherty have two minutes and 30 seconds each in which to speak.
These changes to the commercial vehicle tax rules kicked in late last year having been introduced by a former Minister, John Gormley. The Fine Gael Party and our party came out against this at the time, as well as Mr. Conor Faughnan. It was made clear that the system would create a mess and have an impact on Garda resources, as gardaí would have to chase workers in their vans to see if the people had left their mothers to mass or children to school. It is a nonsensical regulation which reflected the lack of understanding of rural Ireland from the former Minister, John Gormley, backed by the Fianna Fáil Government of the time. In rural Ireland a vehicle is needed for everything and public transport is unavailable. A vehicle is a core part of living and getting by in rural areas.
Deputy Doherty and I have been inundated with complaints from across Donegal and we have checked with other rural Deputies, who also report an impact. Essentially, this is another device to take money from people to pay the EU, the IMF and banks; the money is not even going into schools, hospitals or roads. It is another tax affecting this area.
My colleague and I call on the Government to review this immediately so that a bit of common sense can be introduced. We must realise that it is outrageous to place this tax on small businesses, with most of the affected people from rural areas. The rule is that a commercial vehicle can only be used for work purposes. I ask for common sense to come through in an immediate review of the issue.
This is an appeal to the Government for common sense. We note the Fine Gael Party initially opposed this measure and up to now, colleagues in the party in Donegal and elsewhere in rural Ireland have called for a review. Sinn Féin has had the opportunity to raise the matter for the first time in this new Dáil.
Boiling the matter down, it is a tax on rural Ireland and small businesses. It is a silly measure that was just another way to find money. There is more to the issue as the penalties involved are quite severe. This new rule will apply an average tax of approximately €1,200 instead of a reduced rate for a commercial motor vehicle of €288. It is an average increase of €900 for people moving from the commercial to the private tax. As Deputy Mac Lochlainn mentioned, this involves people dropping kids off to school or collecting them from a childminder. It will take in people going to the shop on the way home from work. They will not be allowed to do any of this as they are bound under this rule to sign a declaration in a Garda station indicating that the vehicle will not be used at any time for social, domestic or pleasurable purposes. If these people break the rule, they can fined or imprisoned. I spoke earlier about bankers walking away scot-free but under these rules, ordinary people will suffer severe penalties.
The Minister of State may not have a direct response to this tonight but I ask for the issue to be considered in the context of the upcoming jobs initiative or budget, where the Government, like all of us, is seeking to create jobs. We can do that here. It does not make sense for us to ask the self-employed man or woman, who needs a van for work and who may want to collect their children or go to the shop, to buy a separate car. That will place an unnecessary burden on people. These people must have tax clearance certificates and other red tape, which we all want to reduce.
If the Minister does not have a direct reply tonight, I ask for this measure to be eliminated in the jobs initiative. As my colleague has mentioned, much of this is taking up Garda resources, with gardaí checking the back of cars to ensure there is no shopping from Aldi, Dunnes Stores or the local grocer. It does not make sense.
I thank the Deputies for raising the matter and I will bring the points made to the attention of the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan. The position regarding the taxation of goods vehicles has not changed. In August 2010, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government issued a circular to motor tax offices reminding authorised officers of existing provisions with regard to the taxation of vehicles on a goods basis. This circular reiterated the terms of an earlier 2005 circular.
To be taxed as a goods vehicle, a vehicle must be constructed or adapted for that purpose and used solely in the course of trade or business. The Deputies are raising issues where such a vehicle is used in the course of ordinary family life, such as in going to mass or picking up the newspaper on the way to work. These are normal social interactions as people drive their vehicles. The points made at that time have validity: why should a farmer not stop off at a shop to get a newspaper, just as anybody else does?
If a vehicle is adapted, it must have the same characteristics as a goods vehicle with regard to space and accommodation for carrying goods. The vehicle must also be used in the course of trade or business. Under section 2 of the Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act 1952, if a vehicle is used in a condition or manner which would attract motor tax at a higher rate, tax then becomes payable at that rate. In other words, if a goods vehicle is used at any time in a private capacity, it must be taxed at the private rate of motor tax. The key point is that common sense must apply.
Under Article 3 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, a licensing authority must be satisfied that it is authorised to issue the licence applied for and, accordingly, that it is the appropriate licence for the vehicle. It is thus open to a motor tax office to seek documentation to support an application. Such documentation could include, but is not limited to, a certificate of commercial insurance, evidence of registration for VAT or a tax clearance certificate, or any other document that would assist in satisfying the licensing authority as to the basis for the application. I do not think that, as the Deputy said, having to present a tax clearance certificate constitutes red tape. That is an important point. If a vehicle is used for commercial purposes, the user should have a tax clearance certificate, just as you and I need tax clearance certificates to sit in this Dáil. It would not be expected that any person genuinely using a vehicle in the course of trade or business would have difficulty in providing such documentary evidence if requested to do so.
The goods declaration form RF 111A, which has been in existence for a number of years and is not a new requirement, constitutes a statement by the applicant that the vehicle is being used in the course of trade or business. This declaration should not need to be sought at every renewal if the particulars of the vehicle have not changed, but it is normally sought at the time of first taxing as a goods vehicle and on change of ownership. The only minor amendment to this form is that the income tax registration number of the applicant is now requested, which is also perfectly reasonable.
I reiterate that the legal provisions governing the taxation of goods vehicles have not changed. However, evidence was brought to the Department's attention that high-powered, high-specification vehicles that would not normally fall into the goods vehicle category are increasingly being claimed as goods vehicles. In that regard, it is important that motor tax offices follow the requirements to ensure a vehicle is taxed properly. If a concessionary rate of tax is being claimed in circumstances in which it is not warranted, the concomitant loss of income would in the normal course of events have to be recouped elsewhere. All road users should pay their fair share of motor tax in line with the relevant legal provisions. The Minister, Deputy Hogan, intends to review the taxation classes currently in place for motor vehicles. As I said at the beginning, I will bring the Deputies' views to the attention of the Department for direct response.
Asylum Applications
I welcome the Minister for Justice and Equality and congratulate him on his appointment, as it is the first opportunity I have had of doing so in the House. I also welcome the fact that his first Bill was the Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill. I trust and expect that he will be a reforming Minister in the Department of Justice and Equality; God knows there is plenty of reform required in that Department.
The matter to which I refer tonight is a legacy of the system under previous Ministers, which has become somewhat out of control. I deal with many cases that are a decade or 12 years old, but this is the oldest case — that of a person who has been within the asylum system for 14 years. It highlights the inadequacy of the immigration system as it operates at present. It seems the system is something of a labyrinth; once entered, it is almost impossible to exit. One goes around in circles indefinitely, never knowing whether one will come out at the end at all.
In this case, a man arrived in this country and sought refugee status in April 1997, and 14 years later, now virtually middle-aged, he is still enveloped in the system and has not been able to escape. There is a litany of applications, refusals and appeals. The man became the parent of an Irish-born child prior to 2003. There were deportation orders and appeals, a ministerial affirmation of a deportation order, and now the non-implementation of that order. For the last three years the applicant has been attending the Garda National Immigration Bureau monthly, waiting for travel arrangements to be made for his deportation, none of which has ever transpired. In the meantime, his Irish child has grown and is now nine years old and attending an Irish school. The man himself has been unable to obtain gainful employment for the past 14 years, even though he is desperately anxious to work and has skills. He is almost worn out by the stress and the threat of deportation every day for the past three years, along with the requirement to attend the GNIB regularly.
It is in this context that I mention the document Government for National Recovery 2011-2016, which states: "We will introduce comprehensive reforms of the immigration, residency and asylum systems, which will include a statutory appeals system and set out rights and obligations in a transparent way." It is now time for the new Government to review all the asylum and immigration applications that are in the pipeline at various stages of processing by the Department of Justice and Equality, particularly those that have been there for a considerable period. As a new Government, we owe it to people who have spent excessive periods awaiting decisions by the immigration system to deal with their outstanding applications as quickly as possible. It is contrary to natural justice to keep any human being in limbo for 14 years.
The Minister should now examine this case, along with the other cases, and demonstrate sympathy for those people whose applications for residency or refugee status in this country have not been processed in an equitable and timely manner. We should carefully consider the situation that has arisen. We need to deal with the backlog, rather than investigating the reasons for it, establish mechanisms to ensure it does not continue in this manner, and ensure that the cases that are waiting to be dealt with, in one form or another, are dealt with urgently.
I thank the Deputy for his kind remarks. He correctly quoted from the programme for Government. There is a substantial problem with the number of people in the system, as referred to by the Deputy, who are awaiting decisions on their future. This is an issue I hope to address in the coming months, and we hope to deal with the asylum legislation that had reached Committee Stage but had not completed its passage through the House during the last Dáil. That Bill will come before the House on Committee Stage once the Oireachtas committee on justice has been formed, and I intend to introduce amendments to the Bill as originally published by the previous Minister.
I heard what the Deputy had to say about the person in question. I am advised that this person arrived in the State on 14 April 1997 and claimed asylum. On 4 March 1999, he was informed by the Refugee Applications Commissioner that he had not been declared a refugee. This decision was affirmed by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal on 8 October 1999. On 13 January 2000, a recommendation was made that the applicant be repatriated, and on 11 May 2000, a deportation order was made in respect of him. This deportation order required the individual to remove himself from the State; however, he failed to do so and remained in the State illegally. He has been in the State illegally since that date. Therefore, the Deputy's suggestion that the individual should be granted residency is unfounded, as the length of time he has remained in the State is a result of his own actions in failing to remove himself from the State pursuant to a deportation order properly made.
In May 2004, the person's solicitors submitted representations stating that he had a right to residency as he was the father of an Irish citizen child born on 24 July 2002. This submission was considered in the context of the so-called IBC/05 scheme which allowed the non-EU national parents of Irish citizen children to remain in the State, subject to certain conditions.
The individual's application was rejected for two reasons. First, it was rejected on the basis that he had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and was bound to the peace on 2 July 2003 for the production of an article in the course of a dispute or fight, contrary to Section 9 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1991 and also for a breach of Section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994.
In addition, the individual's solicitors indicated in 2005 that he was separated from his wife and no longer resided with his child. I was informed he provided no evidence of child maintenance payments but I understand that if he was not employed and had no source of income clearly it was unrealistic to expect him to make such payments. However, there was no evidence of him having a relationship of any kind with the child. As he had not submitted evidence that he played any sort of a role in his child's upbringing, this was a further ground for refusing his application for permission to remain in the State under the IBC/05 scheme
Following the refusal of his application under that scheme, the applicant was required to leave the State as a result of the deportation order made in 2000. However, he was afforded a further opportunity in August 2007 to provide any court-issued documents or otherwise with regard to custody or maintenance for his Irish citizen child. I reiterate he could not be expected to pay maintenance if he was unemployed and had no income available to him but he could reasonably be expected to have a relationship with his child and be able to establish same to some extent to the satisfaction of the Department. Again, his reply did not include any indication that he had any role, financial or otherwise, in the upbringing of his child.
An up to date Garda report received on 30 January 2008 indicated that on 18 October 2006 the individual concerned was fined €200 and disqualified from driving for one year in Kilmainham District Court for having no insurance. The further information in regard to the applicant was considered and a decision was made by the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to affirm the deportation order. This decision was conveyed to him by a letter issued on 7 March 2008. The applicant was given a new date to present to the Garda National Immigration Bureau to facilitate his removal because it was clear at this stage he was not willing to comply with the requirement in his deportation order that he should remove himself from the State.
It appears the individual concerned has no access to his child in the State and has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his parental role to his child. The individual concerned should either remove himself from the State or else continue to present to the Garda National Immigration Bureau to allow them to put the necessary arrangements in place to facilitate his deportation. He should also provide the Garda National Immigration Bureau with any documentation in his possession which would verify his identity to facilitate his removal from the State.
I am advised by the bureau that the removal of the individual concerned from the State will be effected as soon as the practical arrangements can be made. If the Deputy has available to him any information that can be supplied and verified to the Department stating this gentleman has a full relationship with his child and engages in the child's upbringing I am prepared to have the matter re-examined. However, in circumstances in which it appears he has no involvement in his child's upbringing, is separated from his spouse and is subject to a deportation order that has been in place for a long period at this stage I cannot deal with the matter in the manner the Deputy seeks.
Hospital Procedures
There is a series of scandals involving the health service which have a particular resonance in County Louth. They include the allegations of abuse surrounding consultant surgeon Michael Shine in Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda which previous Ministers failed to deal with properly or humanely. Tá go leor Airí Sláinte a theip eolas a thabhairt do na h-íospartaigh agus tá gá acu le clabhsúr. Tá cearta na mná seo scriosta. However, I am hopeful the newly elected Minister for Health and Children will see his way to holding an inquiry into these allegations. It is a matter of extreme urgency that he restores full funding to the Dignity for Patients Group
The issue I refer to tonight is symphysiotomy, also a scandal which demands redress. At least 1,500 symphysiotomies were carried out on women in this State between 1944 and 1984 at a time when the rest of the medical profession outside of Ireland were using Caesarean sections. Symphysiotomy is an 18th-century operation that unhinges the pelvis, splitting the pubic joint and its ligaments with a scalpel knife. Another version of this operation severs the bone rather than the joint which results in a compound fracture of the pelvis. Women were rarely asked for their consent and most were never told of the nature of the surgery or its risks or offered the safer alternative of a Caesarean section. The consequence for the victim of this procedure was often chronic pain, incontinence and a lifetime of medical intervention. One child in ten died.
Survivors of Symphysiotomy is a group that has brought together almost 200 women, now mainly in their 60s and older, who have been the victims of this brutal and barbaric surgery. Their accounts of how they were treated in hospital and what was done to them are horrific. Ta an fhírinne de dhíth óna mna seo. These women want truth. They have asked a series of Ministers for Health to provide truth through the establishment of a full public inquiry. The former Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin, promised one but it was never established. As Minister, Ms Mary Harney refused to establish an inquiry. Last month in a written reply to my colleague, Deputy Caomhghín Ó Caoláin, the new Minister, Deputy Reilly, avoided answering the question about establishing a public inquiry. He stated he understood efforts are progression to put in place alternative arrangements with the assistance of a university department of public health. Can the Minister specify what is meant by "alternative arrangements"?
In Opposition, the Minister, Deputy Reilly, gave his full support to the demand for a public inquiry at an Oireachtas committee hearing in 2009. Now, as Minister, he has the opportunity to accomplish what he asked the then Minister, Mary Harney, to do. I understand the Survivors of Symphysiotomy group has asked to meet with the Minister. I ask him to agree to meet with the group as quickly as possible and to tell the members he will establish a full public inquiry into the practice of symphysiotomies in Irish hospitals under the care of the State. If, for some reason, the Minister is not able to meet these women, I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, whom I am very pleased to see in the Chamber, if she will meet them. It is a horrific story and it happened in this country, in recent times. These women are growing older and cannot find any closure. I appeal to the Minister of State to use her good offices to bring about a public inquiry and meet these women.
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I am very conscious of the story and know it very well. I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Reilly, who unfortunately could not be here because he had a prior engagement. I take on board what the Deputy said and will convey his sentiments to the Minister.
The procedure of symphysiotomy was used to effect an immediate dramatic increase in the size of the pelvic outlet to allow delivery of a baby. It was gradually replaced by Caesarean section as the preferred method of delivery where required and symphysiotomy is effectively no longer used in Ireland. The Minister is very conscious of the distress this procedure has caused to a number of women in the past. We all recognise the pain that this issue has caused to those affected by it. Recent legislation requires doctors to maintain and update their competence, and we are in a very different world from when symphysiotomies were carried out in this country. These new statutory requirements for doctors to maintain their professional competence are a significant step. They offer concrete assurance that medical practitioners are appropriately qualified and competent to practise safely.
The new professional competence structures will bring the medical regulatory system in Ireland in line with international developments. The Government sees symphysiotomy as one of the legacy issues from the previous Administration. We are committed to dealing with it sensitively so that if at all possible we can help bring some closure to those affected by it. The Minister will consider very carefully the question of a review. In the first instance, it is important to ensure the health needs of those who have had a symphysiotomy are met quickly and effectively. With this in mind the Minister is committed to ensuring the greatest possible supports and services are made available to women who continue to suffer the effects of having undergone this procedure. The women concerned continue to receive attention and care through several services which have been put in place, including the provision of medical cards to all who requested them, the nomination of a liaison officer for a patients group comprised of women who have undergone a symphysiotomy procedure, the availability of independent clinical advice for former patients by liaison officers who assist in co-ordinating the provision of services to those patients, the organisation of individual pathways of care and the arrangement of appropriate follow-up, including medical assessment, gynaecological assessment, orthopaedic assessment, counselling, reflexology, home help, acupuncture and fast-tracked medical appointments, the refund of medical expenses related to symphysiotomy in respect of medication and private treatments, and the establishment of a triple assessment service for patients at Cappagh Hospital, Dublin in January 2005.
The HSE has assured the Department of Health and Children that it will continue to monitor and oversee the provision of necessary support services for women. In doing so the HSE is committed to being proactive in seeking out and offering help to women who have had symphysiotomies and who may wish to avail of the services offered by the HSE. The Minister is committed to concluding this matter satisfactorily as soon as possible. He believes that the women who have had this procedure deserve no less. As I stated at the outset, I will convey the Deputy's sentiments to the Minister as soon as I see him.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 21 April 2011.