Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Jan 2012

Vol. 752 No. 3

Topical Issue Debate

Local Authority Charges

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Hogan, to the House. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter which concerns the payment of the household services charge. The main question I am asked by people who approach me on it is how they can make the payment. I hear two points from constituents. First, there is still confusion among many people as to whether they need to pay the charge. Second, the overwhelming majority of people who want to pay the charge are unsure about how to make the payment, which makes it more difficult for them than should be the case.

I have three suggestions to put to the Minister on this matter. In the legislation passed to set up this process I understand it was designated that each local authority had to have one office at which people could make the payment. For Dublin City Council that means that if people who do not have access to the Internet want to make the payment in person they must go all the way to Civic Offices in Wood Quay passing many city council offices on the way at which they cannot make the payment. I ask the Minister to find a way in whereby any local authority office can receive and process the payment. Many local authorities have decentralised their offices and facilities into communities and people have to leave their communities to make the payments in the respective headquarters of the local authority.

If somebody wants to pay their ESB bill or waste charges, and a major difficulty has arisen regarding the rollout of a new waste charge system in the Dublin City Council area, they can make the payment in their local post office. If we can put such a system in place for the payment of a waste charge surely we should be able to put one in place for the payment of the household services charge. That would allow people make the payment in their local post office or equivalent.

The third point people have put to me is the possibility of having the payment deducted, with their consent, from a pension payment. I accept that would be possible only with consent but there is the possibility in the future of a fine being deducted from somebody's pension or income. If people make the decision to have the charge deducted from their income from the State, we should facilitate that.

I emphasise the importance of this issue. My experience is that this charge will be paid by the overwhelming majority of people but many of them, particularly those who do not have access to the Internet, are finding it more difficult than it should be to make the payment. Given the sensitivity around this charge we should change the system in place to make it simpler for people to make the payment.

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. To give him some background on it, the reason we are introducing this household charge is the requirement in the EU-IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland, which commits us to a property tax in 2012. It was not possible to do the more progressive fairer system on this occasion and therefore we had to bring in a modest charge initially in 2012 on a flat rate basis. It is the intention of the Government to agree shortly the terms of reference where we can draw up a more progressive and fairer system for the future.

There is a range of options available for persons to pay the household charge. As the Deputy mentioned, an on-line system is in place under the Local Government Management Agency to enable homeowners pay the household charge by credit or debit card or in four instalments by direct debit. In addition, homeowners can make payment by cheque, postal order, credit or debit card or in four instalments by direct debit by completing the mandate on the declaration form and posting it to Household Charge, PO Box 12168, Dublin 1.

A bureau is in place in the Local Government Management Agency to administer the charge on a shared service-agency basis for all local authorities. In addition, all county and city councils have been requested to have arrangements in place for persons to attend their principal offices to pay the household charge up to 31 March, 2012.

I take on board the suggestions made by Deputy Donohoe and I am prepared to examine how we can deal with major urban areas such as Dublin, to which he referred, and other cities such as Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford to allow us utilise area offices because of the devolution of administrative functions in the various local authority areas. We will contact the relevant local authorities and if they are in a position to process these payments in offices other than the principal offices I will ask them to make those arrangements.

We ran into some data protection difficulties, as the Deputy would be aware, regarding the ESB and An Post. We were anxious to have some transactions directly with An Post but it required a transaction charge in respect of each transaction which was not acceptable and, therefore, An Post, which was anxious for the business, did not engage commercially with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to ensure it would be in a position to do that business. Notwithstanding that, we are prepared to enter into discussions with utility companies and with the Data Protection Commissioner to ensure we overcome any issues that may cause a problem.

The deduction of the charge at source, whether by the Revenue Commissioners or any other source of collection by the Department of Social Protection or whatever, will be considered in the context of rolling out a fully fledged and progressive property tax in 2013, 2014 and beyond.

I thank the Minister for his response and urge him not to under-estimate the level of confusion there is about how to pay the charge, particularly among people who do not have Internet access. The issue of how to make the payment is one that has been regularly raised with me. Because the legislation specifies a principal office in which this matter be handled, local authorities believe they are doing their job well if they have one office within their jurisdiction that provides for managing this charge. It was extraordinary to hear that An Post sought to make a profit from handling a transaction on behalf of the State when many other household transactions can be made and handled in the post office.

At the very least, we must deal with the position whereby people have to travel past city council community facilities and offices to go to a central place where they can pay the charge. That position needs to be changed before 31 March and then that change will need to be advertised.

I will take on board the Deputy's suggestion. We will advertise proactively regarding the payment of the household charge in a few weeks time. A leaflet will be put through every door to remind people of their obligation to pay the charge as well as setting out where and how they can pay it.

Building Regulations

The predicament of the people who lived in the Priory Hall complex was big news a while back and then it was in the news again but, sadly for them, the nightmare has not gone away. I visited the complex last week and from a construction point of view, it is a disaster. There is a good deal of poor workmanship in it, poor building methods were used, the complex is not damp-proof or water-proof. It is not safe and what has happened is certainly not fair to the residents.

The council said that it will take €6 million to €7 million to fix it. As a builder, I think it might be a better idea to knock it down and start again. Someone has to take responsibility for it and someone has to help the residents.

In terms of responsibility, the builder is the biggest culprit. Did he have insurance? He was supposed to have it. The architect signed off on the development but he should not have done so. Did he have insurance? He should have had it. The engineer signed off on the development and, from an engineering point of view, it should not have been signed off on. Had the engineer insurance? The bank, which agreed to grant mortgages to the tenants, sent out a valuer and he passed units and said they were worth the money the bank parted with in terms of the mortgages. What will the bank do about this? It is pretty obvious the council did not inspect the complex properly because if it had, it would not have allowed it to be passed either.

At this stage the people are in a terrible predicament and nobody seems to care. While the problems in respect of this complex might not have started during the Government's term, given that the council had been negligent the Government has to intervene because it does not appear that anyone else will do anything for these people. Somebody has to sort it out. The Government should initiate a process to make things happen.

I echo the point that this is a modern disaster. It is an absolute tragedy for the families concerned. They have been evacuees from their homes for more than 100 days now. As we sit here not a single thing is being done to rectify those homes. Work is not being undertaken and they are no nearer to returning to another home. They do not want to return to the home they had because it could not be called a home.

I would like the Minister to address a few issues. Previously when the residents asked the Minister to meet them, he said he could not, that the issue is before the courts, it is not for him to intervene and that the matter is sub judice. That is not good enough.

I agree that Mr. McFeely, the developer, is responsible for this but he is a product of the lack of regulation that successive Governments allowed to prevail. Dublin City Council did not enforce the regulation, even though it was inadequate, but the little bit of protection that was in place was not enforced, therefore it has a responsibility, but more than that there was a system of self-certification in place and in that sense the Government and the Minister have a responsibility.

When the court adjudicates on this case, the scenario for these homeowners whereby their rent is being paid by Dublin City Council, will cease. They cannot afford to pay a mortgage for a worthless home and rent for somewhere else. It is impossible. Somebody must step in. We effectively own the banks. The Minister should step in and demand that these tenants be released from their mortgage commitments given that they cannot enjoy the benefit of their homes. There has been a breakdown in trust with the local authority and there is no dialogue with it. It is up to the Minister to step in and examine if some form of mediation can take place. Moving those families back to the complex and restoring those units is not a runner, despite what Dublin City Council says, but dialogue needs to take place and people need to discuss the matter.

I ask the Minister to comment on, and intervene to address a matter reported in the newspapers whereby the management company is being pursued over outstanding VAT payments as a result of the developer defaulting on his payments in that regard. It is disgraceful that the Revenue Commissioners would pursue effectively the residents through their management company because of debts which Mr. McFeely had. That is nonsense. Penalties and late payments have applied and the bill is on the shoulders of the residents. That is not good enough and the Minister has to intervene in that respect as well.

I can understand the deep frustration of the residents, which the Deputies have articulated, but we should not lose sight of the fact that Mr. McFeely is responsible for this as well as the professional people, as Deputy Wallace said, who signed off on this development. That is no comfort to the residents this evening as we speak in this House in terms of the difficulties they have experienced, through no fault of theirs, but due to the negligence on the part of the developer and the professional people who signed off on the development, as Deputy Wallace indicated.

The legal proceedings in regard to Priory Hall are continuing but I wish they were over in order that I could do much more than I can do now from a legal point of view. The Department is being kept informed by Dublin City Council of developments with regard to the issues at Priory Hall. The Department is also assisting the council, in consultation with NAMA, in securing alternative accommodation on a temporary basis for the residents. We are making financial contributions to the residents to ensure we deal with the temporary issues they have in the context of a judgment of the High Court, which showed that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government was not responsible. Dublin City Council is the designated authority in regard to these issues and it pursued the developer when it came to its attention in 2009 that there were difficulties. Unfortunately, it took two years to get the developer to court to deal with some of the issues about which we now all know.

I would like to be in a position to tell the Deputies that we can move quickly on this matter but the council, through court proceedings, has brought the developer, on behalf of the residents, to book. Legal complications in this respect have now gone as far as the highest court in the land. I had hoped that we could have dealt with these issues without going to that extreme. I cannot meet the residents because I am a party to the proceedings in so far as helping Dublin City Council to meet some of the financial obligations of the residents and in meeting their immediate demands on a temporary basis. I am not in a position to meet them but I will be glad to meet a representative group of the residents as soon as the court proceedings are completed.

The overriding priority for me arising from this case is that last June before the issue came to court, I immediately initiated a review of the building control standards and the building control legislation and I have put forward for public consultation a new mandatory certification in order that we can ensure that none of the problems in regard to this developer or the professional advisers involved will happen again.

I assure Deputy Wallace in particular that we are following up on all the insurance issues and professional indemnities in regard to the professions involved. I say to Deputy Clare Daly that I cannot mediate while the issue is before the courts.

I trust the Minister will actively get involved and sort out the problem when the law allows. He has said the local authority got involved in 2009. It should have been involved a long time before then. These properties should never have been sold, as they were not fit to be sold. The local authority must carry responsibility in that respect, as it should not have passed the building. The same is true of the bank valuer. The residents should not be paying their mortgages because the bank valuer was wrong to pass the apartments as fit to be bought. The builder is, no doubt, the biggest culprit. The builder, the architect and the engineer all need to be dealt with by the authorities. There has to be a law.

The Minister is correct; he is not responsible. However, the system did not make adequate provision. Somebody is responsible; the residents certainly are not and the Minister is in the unique position of being able to assist them. I do not accept that he cannot step in until the legal process is over. If Dublin City Council wins the legal proceedings, as is likely, and is released from paying the rents of the home owners concerned, who will pay their bills? Does the Government expect them to pay mortgages on valueless properties, as well as rents to keep a roof over their heads? They cannot meet one payment, not to mention two. Will the Department step in? Will the Minister pressure the banks? Who is going to meet the payment? If it is not met, there will be severe homelessness, even worse than at present, in the very near future.

I thank Deputy Clare Daly for her usual legal advice to me, to step in while court proceedings are going ahead. I cannot do this.

I say to Deputy Mick Wallace that trust has broken down between the State and the residents with regard to consumer protection. Professionals, developers and builders did not do the jobs they were trusted to do. I now have to intervene with new legislation to regulate developers and builders who should have done their jobs properly and followed the certification process we had in place. We can no longer trust professionals to sign off on things on a professional basis in the interests of consumers.

From his background, the Deputy will know that we did trust people and we can no longer do so. In the past when a clerk of works had to give a certificate of reasonable value for first-time buyers, people used to complain about the cumbersome nature of the approval and certification process. We now have to go back to look at these systems again.

Every apartment complex I ever built was checked by someone from a Department or local authority. I never built one that was not checked.

The Deputy is unique in that regard. What I announced last year will bring back into vogue the sentiments he expressed about how we needed to certify all these properties because professionals whom we had trusted to do the job on a devolved basis on behalf of the State had failed to do so. The residents of Priory Hall are the victims in this case. There are probably other cases which we do not know of and which will come to the fore in due course. I am trying to track these developments through the local authority system and put in place new legislative and regulatory requirements to stamp this out once and for all.

Mental Health Services

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity of raising this matter of national importance and great urgency. The news has broken that Ms Louise Bayliss has been reinstated to her position by The Irish Advocacy Network Limited. I welcome this news and congratulate Ms Bayliss as the hard-working and caring person of great integrity we now know her to be. However, I am still concerned about the circumstances that led to her removal from her position when she showed herself to be a caring person advocating for vulnerable persons. I ask the Minister of State, for whom I have tremendous regard because of her passion for the mental health sector, to consider the circumstances of the case. Will she or her Department speak to The Irish Advocacy Network Limited, the management of St. Brendan's Hospital and senior management in the HSE about the possibility that this is happening, without notice, time again? Is the Minister of State satisfied that this issue has been resolved? What steps can she take to ensure it does not happen again? I know the Government is committed to introducing important new legislation in this area.

I, too, welcome the reinstatement of Ms Louise Bayliss by The Irish Advocacy Network Limited. This is a good outcome. However, it does not remove the necessity for us to raise the issues surrounding her case.

The treatment of women patients in St. Brendan's Hospital is a very serious matter. After Ms Louise Bayliss blew the whistle, the matter was raised in the Dáil by a number of Deputies, including me, and the Minister of State subsequently visited St. Brendan's Hospital to see what had been described as temporary arrangements brought about by staff shortages. That happened on 15 December. I trust the Minister of State will take the opportunity to provide an update on the situation in St. Brendan's Hospital for the women concerned and generally, given the ongoing staff shortages.

The issue that must be addressed is why did it take a patient advocate to go to the national broadcast media to highlight the situation and seek a remedy. We would not have know about this were it not for the actions of Ms Louise Bayliss who deserves great credit for her courage. Where are the safeguards for patients falling short? Where are the reporting mechanisms in the system breaking down? These are the issues that must be addressed.

We have to see this issue in the context of the narrowly averted industrial action by members of the Psychiatric Nurses Association in St. Ita's Hospital, Portrane. All of this is related. Again, the issue is the pressure exerted on reduced staff numbers and the reduction in bed numbers. I trust the Minister of State will address these issues.

I was delighted to receive a message on my phone this morning from Ms Louise Bayliss telling me of her reinstatement, just as I was utterly shocked and dismayed to receive a call from her last week saying she had been sacked for doing her job and advocating on behalf of patients. Her reinstatement is a victory for her courage and commitment to the cause of mental health patients in ensuring they are properly treated. However, major questions still need to be answered. Why was she removed from the wards after blowing the whistle on behalf of patients? We need to find out who made that decision and they need to be held to account. We need to end the situation where retaliation is possible or punishment is meted out in any State agency or sector of society to people who are doing their job and acting in the interests of society and the persons they are supposed to be looking after. We must urgently bring forward the promised whistleblower legislation. We must address the lack of resources in mental health facilities and the health service generally which can lead to the mistreatment of patients and bodies trying to cover up that mistreatment by acting in the way Ms Louise Bayliss was treated.

We need to clarify one matter. No one was mistreated. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett needs to be careful about the language he uses.

I would like to outline some of the background to this issue. When the issue of the transfer of patients from Unit 3B to a low secure ward in St. Brendan's Hospital first arose back in December, I visited the hospital to satisfy myself that the temporary arrangements made for the five vulnerable patients in question were appropriate and would provide a good standard of care. During my visit I was satisfied that they were very well cared for and were comfortable in their new accommodation. I was not alone. Other Deputies accompanied me on that visit.

I spoke with the patients and staff and, while accepting that the move had been somewhat unsettling for them, believed every effort had genuinely been made to keep the disruption for the patients to a minimum. I do not want to overstate this. Clearly, people did not want to be in that position. They would have preferred to remain in their own unit to which they were more used. Because of staff holidays and the Christmas period the move had to be made from a safety point of view.

The decision to keep the patients in another ward in St. Brendan's Hospital was made after careful clinical assessments had been carried out when their individual needs were taken into account. It must be remembered that these women were familiar with the staff in the hospital, some of whom transferred with them. They were also comfortable with their general surroundings. I am delighted that the HSE, with the co-operation of management and staff, managed to reopen unit 3B in early January, a fortnight earlier than originally planned. A degree of organisation was needed for that to happen.

It is important to recognise that A Vision for Change places the service user at the centre of our mental health services, care and treatment. They have a role in how services are offered, including the design, delivery and evaluation of services. The HSE funds and supports a number of voluntary organisations that are working to develop the capacity of service users to fulfil this important role. The trainee advocate involved in this case is under contract with the Irish Advocacy Network, a voluntary organisation that is supported and funded by the HSE to provide peer advocacy services nationally. Peer advocates are people with personal experience of recovery from mental illness who have completed an accredited programme at FETAC level 4.

The HSE has made it clear to me that at no time did it seek to interfere with the internal workings of the Irish Advocacy Network, nor has it ever sought sanction of any kind against the staff member referred to by the Deputies. The HSE has categorically confirmed that at no point - locally, regionally or nationally - was the network advised that this trainee advocate was not welcome in HSE inpatient units. The decision to deal with the issues the network had with certain trainee advocates was taken solely by it.

I understand the Irish Advocacy Network issued a statement today indicating that, following indepth and intensive consultation within the organisation, it has offered to reinstate two trainee peer advocates who had their training posts terminated last week. One of the trainees has agreed to accept this offer. The network is meeting the other trainee tomorrow. The network has made it clear that the HSE had no role in its decision to let the two trainees go, or in its decision to offer to reinstate them to their six-month training posts. I understand a meeting between the HSE and the Irish Advocacy Network is scheduled for this Friday. I will seek a report from the HSE on the outcome of that meeting.

One of the key principles that should underpin our mental health services at all times is that of autonomy for the patient. The services are required to consult service users on service planning and delivery issues. Such autonomy and consultation are critical to our strategic direction in the way in which we intend to continue to develop mental health services in this country. Despite the consequences and the outcome of what happened in this case, it is important for us all to keep in mind that the Irish Advocacy Network is completely independent. I would have it no other way. I do not intend to interfere in any of the decisions it makes, regardless of how we might feel about them. Whistleblowers legislation is an entirely different aspect of all of this. The Irish Advocacy Network needs to be independent. If we start to interfere in its operations, it will not be able to do its job. We need to be very careful about that.

I thank the Minister of State for her detailed response. I have asked the Joint Committee on Health and Children, of which I am a member, to invite Ms Louise Bayliss to address the committee so we can hear her story. I have also proposed that representatives of the Irish Advocacy Network should be also invited to that forum. Some outstanding questions about the function, funding and supervision of the network need to be answered. The Chairman of the committee has indicated that my request will be considered on Thursday morning. I remind the House of the importance of the legislation I mentioned in my initial contribution. I ask Deputies to imagine the society we would have if Deputy Rabbitte had been successful when he sought to introduce whistleblowers legislation in 1999. They can reflect on how free and comfortable some staff in Anglo Irish Bank might have felt in recent years if the legislation had been passed, and on how that might have changed Irish society. The same thing applies to the staff of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda and some of our nursing homes. The introduction of such legislation is of crucial importance.

I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Does she know how many staff in the mental health services will take up the retirement option before the end of February? Are contingency plans in place to address the additional staff shortages that are expected across the mental health services? It is clear that such shortages contributed to the issues at St. Brendan's Hospital that we have already discussed this afternoon. Can the Minister of State give us any assurances in relation to a serious matter that will present within a short number of weeks?

I do not want to bandy around terms in a sensitive area like mental health. It seems to me that moving patients from an open unit where they are happy in a community to a closed secure unit - at Christmas, of all times - essentially because of staffing shortages is not the best treatment possible for patients. The question of who is responsible for that is a separate one. Ms Louise Bayliss was right to blow the whistle on it. Although I do not know the truth of the matter, I am absolutely convinced that Ms Bayliss is telling the truth in every single detail of her account. Therefore, questions have to be asked about why she was removed from the wards the day after she blew the whistle on what was happening at St. Brendan's Hospital. I absolutely accept what the Minister of State said about the independence of the advocacy network. I suggest it needs to have an independent source of funding. We can argue about the difference between direct pressure and indirect or implicit pressure, but I suggest that if one's funding comes from the HSE, one will feel compromised in one's ability to advocate on behalf of patients if one thinks it might annoy the HSE. That has to be addressed.

I will deal with Deputy Boyd Barrett's question first. From where would the independent funding to which he refers come? Is he suggesting that the current funding be withdrawn?

It could be shifted to another Department.

It is still Government money. It is still the taxpayers' money.

It would not be the same management.

It is imperative that the Irish Advocacy Network stays independent. There may be questions to be answered. We need to ensure we do not apply the pressure that Deputy Boyd Barrett says should not be applied in this instance. I am convinced that everyone is telling the truth. It probably could have been handled much better. I am convinced everyone is telling the truth. I do not think one person is telling the truth and another person is not telling the truth. That might be Deputy Boyd Barrett's view of the world, but it is not mine.

I would not be sure.

I know the people in the Irish Advocacy Network. They are service users. They are there for the good of the people they represent. They do not have another agenda.

I would like to respond to Deputy Ó Caoláin by saying we are not yet certain about what the exit rate will be. The serious difficulty we have is that we are not certain. We managed to secure 400 additional places in the health service plan. The moratorium or pause is a big issue. We need to start dealing with that. I am sure the Deputy, like me, was gratified to hear the Minister, Deputy Howlin, say in the media recently that certain front line services will have to be the subject of an indepth examination. We will have to look at who we employ, where we employ them and the gaps that exist in that regard. That work will have to be done as a matter of urgency. It is clear that more people have always left the psychiatric services than any other part of the health service. That has been the case not just this year but for a number of years.

Animal Stocking Levels

I thank the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, for coming to the House to respond to what I have to say on this issue. He will be aware that the correct sheep and cattle stocking levels on hill farms in the west of Ireland have been a matter of contention since the sheep premium was introduced in the 1970s. The introduction of the sheep premium caused two problems. The incentive to increase numbers at the expense of quality and sustainability meant that the price of sheep collapsed over time because of excess numbers and poor quality and that ecological damage took place. When a system incentivises bad practice, hard-pressed farmers will go with the flow. Recognising the damage caused by its policy, the EU reversed engines and for the past ten years pushed a policy of destocking. I accept some destocking was necessary but local farmers, who understand the hills better than anyone, now say that under-grazing is becoming a problem and that this could have even more serious consequences than over-grazing and it could be more difficult to resolve.

The Maamturks and Twelve Bens were very significantly destocked in recent years, on orders from the Minister's Department. If a hill becomes under-grazed, the issues arising relate to the growth of wooded material which sheep will not graze and this material then takes over the hill. This, in turn, leads to fires, especially in a dry spring season, which cause major ecological damage and present a significant hazard to human life and property. The only answer to under-grazing is to restock the hills, but this is not as simple as destocking on open hills such as in Connemara. The only way of restocking a hill is to breed the stock on the hill. Bought-in stock placed on a mountain, just like homing pigeons, will go back to the mountain on which they were reared. It is not a question of restocking by buying 50 more ewes and putting them out on the hill because it will be the case that the person who sold the ewes will end up with both the money and the ewes again.

The Minister will also be aware that on the hills in Connemara, for every 100 ewes put to the ram, one is lucky to get a survival rate into the first year of 79 lambs or 0.7% of a lamb per ewe. This is in the case of good hills while on the poorer hills it could be even lower. As half of these lambs will be ewe lambs and the others will be male lambs, the reality is there will be 0.35% of a ewe lamb to every ewe on the hill. One must then deduct from this statistic the fact that up to 10% of the sheep on a hill in a place like Connemara can die every year. I know this is a fact from my experience of running a hill farm. The older ewes must be sold. If one takes out the 15% sales, 10% mortality, one has 0.15% of an extra ewe per annum for every ewe. One hundred ewes will produce a very small gain and numbers will be very slow to increase.

It is imperative, therefore, before numbers become too small and before the under-grazing problems becomes too big an issue, that farmers would be allowed to restock their holdings. The National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, should not use excuses about resources but rather they should immediately review the number of stock each farmer is permitted to have.

It is also imperative that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht continue to pay compensation to farmers. There is no point in saying that a farmer can go from 70 ewes up to 120 ewes but that the money granted from destocking will be stopped. Restocking must be allowed to happen gradually because, as I have pointed out, it is not possible to go back to higher numbers of stock overnight. I ask that this not be allowed to become an even greater ecological disaster than the over-grazing situation, that this matter be tackled immediately and that farmers be allowed to have sustainable numbers of sheep to stop the hills being completely destroyed by overgrowth.

I thank Deputy Ó Cuív for raising this matter. I am very familiar with this issue. I have met the IFA and groups of farmers from Connemara, Nephin and other parts of that region on a number of occasions in the past year.

Many commonages in the west were subjected to serious sheep over-grazing in the 1980s and into the 1990s, to such an extent that Ireland was brought to the European Court of Justice in June 2002. The court found that Ireland was in breach of the EU birds directive by permitting the deterioration of habitats of the red grouse and the State was obliged to take measures to resolve the effects of over-grazing.

The then Department of Agriculture and Food and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which is now in my Department, co-ordinated a national survey of commonages to evaluate the condition of each commonage and to prescribe destocking where necessary. This survey was commenced in 1999 and the results and the required destocking were communicated to all shareholders in October 2002. The two Departments are currently carrying out a re-assessment of the commonages and it appears that substantial recovery has been delivered. However, there has been only limited recovery in the Twelve Bens-Garraun and Maamturk mountains special areas of conservation, SACs, in County Galway and the Owenduff-Nephin special protection area, SPA, in County Mayo. Therefore, some continuing restrictions are necessary in these areas until there is a significant recovery of the vegetation.

It is expected that all interventions in Mayo and Galway can end in November 2013 and cross-compliance norms will apply thereafter. In the Twelve Bens-Garraun and Maamturk mountains SACs, my Department is making top-up payments to REPS and AEOS farmers for these additional restrictions. These payments are designed to compensate farmers for losses arising from the necessary destocking and off-wintering of livestock. In the Owenduff-Nephin area, it was necessary to extend restrictions partially for a further two years to repair the vegetation where recovery had not been fully delivered.

In 2011, the National Parks and Wildlife Service made payments to farmers in these two areas of Galway and Mayo to the amount of €1.55 million. This was in addition to moneys paid by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine under existing REPS or AEOS contracts and single payment scheme. The payments made by my Department come exclusively from the national Exchequer and would not be necessary if the land was in good environmental condition. My Department is aware of the threat posed by under-grazing which can lead to increased growth and may pose a fire risk as well as reduced habitat quality. However, in the case of commonages in the Twelve Bens-Garraun and Maamturk mountains SACs, this risk is not deemed to be significant.

An essential component of the grazing package is that farmers must maintain sustainable stock numbers on the hill through their participation in a farm plan. There are no indications to date of any concerns in relation to compliance with this requirement. A review will be held in 2013 of the effect of the interventions and it is likely that stock numbers may then be allowed to increase.

Like many answers I get these days, it is beagánín débhríoch, ambiguous.

One would swear the Deputy had not been in power when this happened.

With no disrespect to the Minister, I was the first. The then Minister, Michael D. Higgins, brought in a directive and talked about destocking but I dealt with the issue. I do not mean any disrespect. The Minister might remember visits I paid to Kerry where I met farmers-----

We are going through with it now and it is working.

The Minister, in his reply, stated: "It is expected that all interventions in Mayo and Galway can end in November 2013 and cross-compliance norms will apply thereafter." Will this include the Twelve Bens-Garraun and Maamturk mountains SACs, since these are in County Galway? He also stated: "An essential component of the grazing package is that farmers must maintain sustainable stock numbers on the hill through their participation in a farm plan." My understanding is that under the farm plans there is a maximum stock number. Is there also a minimum stock number and is every farmer also required to keep the minimum stock as well as the maximum stock? Clarification is required from the Minister. Does he accept it is too late when over-grazing is discovered because it will take many years for the farmers to build up the stock because the sheep must be bred on the hill and because of the mortality levels? The hills in Connemara, in some cases, would be much poorer in terms of land quality than those in the Minister's county of Kerry and we have a less benign climate. Does the Minister accept that it is a case of ní hé lá na gaoithe lá na scolb, in other words, that it is too late when there is too much growth? The Minister might answer these three questions.

These interventions were very necessary and made by the previous regime. To some extent, they are succeeding in reviving vegetation on mountains and hills. I am a hill walker and have seen interventions which have been effective. In case in which where there is too much growth there must be a correction.

That is the issue.

As I outlined, the interventions in counties Mayo and Galway can come to an end in November 2013.

It is what I stated in my response. I have spoken to the people involved and have gone as far as Clifden to meet a number of farmers.

In the previous sentence the Minister spoke about restrictions.

I have given my reply.

What about the sentence mentioned?

We had an experienced official look at the area in November. He returned with a report indicating he was not happy with the position in some places, with which the Deputy is probably familiar. The report noted that whereas a recovery had been recorded in some townlands, there was still very poor cover of vegetation in vast areas of the Inagh Valley, specifically in Lehanagh north, Townamore, Lissoughter and Glencoh.

I know them well.

In all these areas, the official concerned, based on a deep knowledge of the area, was not happy with what he had seen.

I travelled to Maam Cross in 1995 and 1996 when I was in charge of the rural environmental protection scheme, REPS. At the time parts of Connemara had been totally destroyed by overgrazing. I introduced a measure through the REPS which was effective. I love going to Connemara which is a special part of the world and an area we must protect. I am delighted to see the recovery that has taken place, in which the Deputy has played a role.

With regard to the Twelve Bens, Garraun and the Maamturk Mountains, I hope the restrictions will be removed in November 2013.

Top
Share