Topical Issue Debate

Electricity Transmission Network

Deputy Martin Heydon

I thank the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources for attending the Chamber to debate this important issue.

The Grid Link project runs through my constituency, Kildare South. EirGrid has shown five overground options in stage one of the project’s development and a consultation roadmap, but it has not shown any underground option. When questioned on why this was the case, it claimed undergrounding is the more expensive option. If it is more expensive and technically much more difficult, why not have a full open analysis to prove this to the public? The lack of confidence in EirGrid is due to the fact it has not explained how and why the underground option will not work, expecting the public just to accept it.

The review by the international expert commission, established by the Minister in 2011, remarked on the ever-changing underground technology. While the report is already aged, the Grid Link project will not go to planning until 2016. We need a similar independent report for the Grid Link project to set out a full cost-benefit analysis of the underground option. People have genuine concerns about overhead lines and pylons which they believe have not been given due consideration. They have concerns about the impact on the local environment, the potential impact on their health, while farmers are concerned about the impact on their livestock. In County Kildare this concern extends to the crucial equine industry. It is intrinsic to the area, being the county’s second largest employer, hence the name the Thoroughbred County. The tourism industry is also vital to the rural economy of south Kildare.

When EirGrid claims undergrounding costs more, does it take full account of the financial impact of pylons on the tourism industry and the devaluation of individual properties? I want a full cost-benefit analysis of the underground option. We need to have a proper and open debate on the matter instead of the current statement from EirGrid on undergrounding being more expensive.

I also express my frustration with the appointment of a former chairman of An Bord Pleanála as the new chairman of EirGrid. Perception is important when one is looking for public confidence in a process. The perception that there may be a link between EirGrid and An Bord Pleanála is not helpful. We all know An Bord Pleanála will decide on this issue. Not only does this process need to be beyond reproach but it must also be seen to be beyond reproach.

Deputy Pat Deering

I thank the Ceann Comhairle’s office for accepting this important matter and the Minister for attending the Chamber to take it. As he is aware, we were waiting for this issue to be taken for several weeks.

Like my colleagues, I have attended numerous meetings in my constituency in the past few weeks to discuss this serious matter and listen to my constituents’ concerns about it. It is hard to understand how Carlow, the second smallest county, can have four designated Grid Link routes running through it. While this project was first announced 18 months, it is only in the past six weeks that the routes have been identified. People are concerned because of the lack of consultation. The Department’s strategic plan in 2012 set down a roadmap which stated:

The Government underlines the imperative for the State companies, and all developers of energy projects, of early, transparent engagement and consultation with local communities and stakeholders and the appropriateness of building community gain consideration into project planning and budgeting and as an intrinsic part of the ongoing consultation with local communities and local authorities.

Having local communities on side and knowing how they will gain from such a project are key to the whole Grid Link project. At the meetings I attended in my constituency people accepted that we needed to upgrade our electricity transmission infrastructure. Their issues are with how it will be done and the lack of information on the whole project.

There is no cost-benefit analysis of the implications of an overground versus underground option, the impact on the environment, tourism and land devaluation. The only way to sort out this problem is to have an independent expert group analyse these costs and issues to produce a definite analysis of the whole matter.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for taking this important topic. We need to have a wider debate on energy security and demand as there is much public concern about this matter. We, as public representatives, have a responsibility to advocate the people’s views and concerns on the floor of the House to have them addressed. Communities in my constituency have expressed deep concerns to me about the lack of engagement by EirGrid on this project and public confidence is suffering as a result. Reasonable people from communities affected told the Oireachtas committee that EirGrid just seemed to be ticking the boxes as regards consultation. It is speaking in broad generalisations without any transparency in the process involved. There has been no specific engagement on the costing proposed.

Up to €500 million is proposed to be invested in EirGrid in the south east but no transparent, accountable cost-benefit analysis has been provided for the public which it should have. It is proposed to place a transmission line across the centre of County Waterford, over the Comeragh Mountains and through the Blackwater Valley, scenic areas, some of which are protected. However, EirGrid has decided not to provide an office for public engagement in the county. It also chose not to advertise in local newspapers in west Waterford regarding these proposals. If we want real consultation, the public must be informed fully and openly.

The Oireachtas energy committee heard these concerns from the public. A cross-party consensus was reached by the committee to write to EirGrid to seek an extension of the deadline for submissions on the project which is to close on 26 November 2013. At the very least, submissions should be allowed until the end of the year to allow the public to have its say.

Deputy John Paul Phelan

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing us to raise this issue. It has taken about three weeks to get this raised under Topical Issues. One of the frustrations a Deputy encounters is the difficulty in even getting a parliamentary question answered about EirGrid. I have had a number of such questions ruled out of order.

Rather than repeat everything that has been said by previous speakers, I would like to raise the utter inadequacy of what has been passed off as consultation thus far in this process. About 18 months ago, EirGrid published a consultation area, including all of the nine southern and eastern most counties in the country. Most of the area could never have been a potential route for the construction of any of these power lines. In spite of this consultation in area encompassing a population of over 1 million people, there were only 500 responses, which gives the impression that the consultation was far from effective in alerting the general public on what was proposed.

I join with my colleagues in stating that the very bare minimum the public deserves is that EirGrid examine all the available options. In 2012, the Government produced a new set of guidelines for EirGrid to examine new technologies. It is just not satisfactory that EirGrid would now state that it is considering four or five routes across the country, including in my own county of Kilkenny, where it is considering putting up pylons and power lines and not provide to the general public a detailed cost-benefit analysis on the potential of putting these wires underground. Nobody to whom I have spoken believes that this infrastructure should not be built, but the general public at least deserves a detailed cost-benefit analysis. It is proving almost impossible for that to be delivered.

Deputy Brian Stanley

This issue is causing major concerns in County Laois, which is my own constituency. We in Sinn Féin handed a submission today to EirGrid on this issue. We are very concerned about it. We see the need to upgrade infrastructure and we do not have an objection in principle, but there has been very little consultation about it. We are very concerned about the huge pylons planned, which are over 45 m in height, or almost 150 ft. We cannot ignore the communities along the route. The Minister said that he does not have any great problems with these pylons, but we cannot ignore the communities who live along these routes. There is a fantastic landscape in County Laois along the proposed route through Rossmore, Crettyard Killeshin and Ballylinan, with houses and farmland dispersed right across it. We must try to protect that. People in Laois are concerned about the impact on farming, landscape, hedgerows, the visual impact and particularly the impact on tourism, which the county council and local community groups are trying to promote in the south east of the county, the impact on architecture and the potential health impacts, along with the devaluation.

Putting these wires underground for much of the route has to be a real option. We all agree that it will cost more initially, but we must look at the long-term benefits of this. It lasts longer, it has longer life span, it reduces the loss of power through transmission, there is less disturbance of the cable, it is not affected by severe weather, there is lower maintenance and less environmental and visual damage. Let us look at the long-term factors and if we have learned anything recently, it is that we should not always go for short term solutions. Let us look at this over a 30 or 40 year period and the long-term benefits of putting this underground where possible. I accept that it may not be possible everywhere, but there are areas where it is possible.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

The Cathaoirleach may be right. The Government's plans here are leading to total gridlock. The North-South interconnector goes through County Meath and has been pushed for the last six years, but it looks like the Government has opened too many fronts. This is not just a regional issue any more; it is now a national issue and it will get bogged down as a result. There is no doubt that there is a need for an improvement in infrastructure in allowing sustainable energy onto the grid, as well as plugging into the European grid. However, the most important issue for me is health. The European Commission body SANCO opinion states the following.

The conclusion that extremely low frequency magnetic fields are a possible carcinogen, chiefly based on childhood leukaemia results, is still valid...For neuro-degenerative diseases and brain tumours, the link to ELF fields remained uncertain...New epidemiological studies indicate a possible increase in Alzheimer's disease arising from exposure to ELF. Recent animal studies provided an indication for effects on the nervous system at flux densities...which warrant further investigations.

Any family with children growing up in these areas will be really concerned about this.

These pylons eradicate the value of people's homes. There have been many studies carried out which show that houses within 2.5 km of these lines suffer price reductions, while anything within 50 meters of these lines will be valueless. We have carried out studies in the north east which have shown that the fallen value of housing and land will cost €303 million. By EirGrid's own figures of €30 million cost per year delay, we are now at a €108 million delay in the north east. If these lines were put underground, there would be no problem in this respect. In respect of the issue of areas needing energy, Meath will get nothing from the North-South interconnector.

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte)

I would like to thank the Deputies who have given me an opportunity to make these remarks about this issue. I do not know why it took three weeks for Deputy John Paul Phelan to get it on the agenda. I was out of the country on energy business over the last couple of days, but other than that, I am available to deal with the queries any time they are raised.

EirGrid's Grid25 national programme, and specifically the Grid Link infrastructure project, is vital for future socioeconomic progress in Ireland. The Grid Link project is a key initiative under Grid25. The project consists of a new 400 kV power line linking Leinster and Munster. Without this project, the grid in the south and east of Ireland would not be sufficient to meet the region's future electricity needs. The Grid Link project will help enable a secure supply of electricity for the region well into the future. It will empower growth in the south and east of Ireland and involve an estimated €500 million investment. It will also enable Ireland to meet its 40% renewable target and reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels.

In the Government policy statement, to which Deputy Phelan referred and which I published in July 2012, the imperative for the State companies and all developers of energy projects of early, transparent engagement and consultation with local communities and stakeholders was emphasised. Currently the EirGrid project team is undertaking detailed analysis of the study area in order to identify the best possible corridors for development. As part of this process, on 3 September EirGrid published the first state report on the Grid Link project, identifying a number of overhead route corridor options for the new 400 kV power line. The publication of that report coincided with the beginning of a 12 public consultation period.

I am aware that EirGrid is fully committed to extensive public consultation and that the company has been engaging in a comprehensive process in regard to the Grid Link project which has involved opening regional information centres, a lo-call project information telephone line and local radio advertising, backed up by national and local print advertising. EirGrid opened five project information centres at Midleton, Carlow, New Ross, Carrick-on-Suir, and Kilcullen. I understand that 33 open days were held within the project area over the last 16 months and that since autumn 2012, the grid link project team has visited marts, shopping centres and agricultural shows, attending over 120 events where thousands of stakeholders have engaged with the team and had an opportunity to inform themselves about the programme in more detail. I am also aware that the project team briefs and updates county councils, town councils, chambers of commerce and other local organisations and national and local politicians regularly, and have done so since the launch of the project in April 2012.

The current consultation process is a key opportunity for public input, as no decisions have been made regarding the final route of this electricity line. EirGrid has stated that it will fully take on board information and views about the grid link project, which is still at an early stage. Ultimately, it will fall to An Bord Pleanála to determine whether the views expressed have been adequately taken into account in the final project design.

EirGrid, under its licence as the transmission system operator, is obliged to plan the electricity transmission network in the most safe, secure, economic and reliable way possible. It has set out in its information brochure for the current consultation process the rationale for preferring overgrounding to undergrounding generally for this project. In the same document it states it is recognised that underground cabling may have to be considered to mitigate identified environmental constraints for the project and that this will be thoroughly investigated during the project development process.

I understand the concerns raised about the various aspects of grid development and there should be a full opportunity to explain all aspects of the Grid Link and other projects under Grid25. I am aware that the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications met yesterday with a number of anti-pylon community groups from the south east, north and north east regions which raised their concerns about grid development. The committee intends to write to EirGrid on foot of the discussions and meet representatives of the company and my Department at a meeting scheduled for 4 December.

Deputy Martin Heydon

The eastern uplands area of County Kildare is singled out in the Kildare county development plan. In recent months two of my constituents had planning permission refused by Kildare County Council for a two-storey house and a dormer bungalow owing to the Kildare county development plan LU 1 which states it is the policy of the council "to ensure the development will not have a disproportionate visual impact (due to excessive bulk, scale or inappropriate siting) and will not significantly interfere or detract from scenic upland vistas when viewed from areas nearby, scenic routes, viewpoints and settlements". Planning permission was denied to both individuals because the structures, both of which would be less than 9 m high, would be contrary to proper planning, yet the same individuals could see a 45 m high pylon receive planning permission at the same location. One can plant hedging and trees around a dwelling to screen it, but it is very difficult to screen a 45 m pylon. People do not understand how this could happen.

Deputy Pat Deering

I thank the Minister for his response, but I do not think he got our point. The consultation process is flawed. A number of offices have been opened in the past 18 months and a number of meetings have taken place at marts and shopping centres, but nobody took any notice of this until the lines were put on a map. Human nature being what it is, that is when people sit up and take notice, which is why the consultation process is flawed and an independent expert group is required to come in and undertake an analysis. EirGrid has no credibility in the matter because of the way it has carried on and its arrogance in the way it has dealt with the people so far. I spent a day last week listening to Mr. John Lowry, project manager of EirGrid, being very determined that it would go underground because of the cost. There were no other issues involved. Two days later I heard EirGrid's outgoing chairman, Mr. John Fitzgerald, express a different opinion. This is where the issues arise and I ask the Minister to consider establishing an expert group to undertake an independent analysis which would have more credibility.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

Public confidence has already been seriously undermined. There is concern that EirGid will drive on, irrespective of the concerns being expressed. This will meet huge resistance and add to the cost of the project. At the very least, the public deserves a full cost-benefit analysis of the underground option to be put on the table, with all the facts and figures, in an open and transparent way in order that it can be debated. That would show whether it was technically possible. Let us decide that issue first. Then let us decide if it would be feasible. What is being presented consists of broad generalities and it is not convincing the public. That is unacceptable. There is already a public highway running east to west in County Waterford, the N25, which also runs north to Kildare. This is an option as a route for underground cabling. I need to know whether that would be a viable option but no figures have been presented, except a €500 billion cost for overhead lines, with no specific details. We need more.

Deputy John Paul Phelan

The report produced by the independent consultants on behalf of the Government on the North-South interconnector was based largely on information and data from 2007 and 2008. EirGid has already admitted in its public documentation that this Grid Link project will go to planning in 2016. In the eight year intervening period it is reasonable to suspect technology will change substantially. I am struck by one point on the last page of the Minister's comments where he spoke about the responsibility of EirGrid for the transmission network in the most safe, secure, economic and reliable way possible. The cost-benefit analysis it conducts will be flawed if it does not include a judgment on the economic impact on individuals in terms of their households, the potential health impacts and, in particular, the potential impact on tourism, remembering that the south-east region already has the highest unemployment rate in the country. The analysis must encompass all aspects of cost.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I thank the Minister for his reply. The concern is that the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act will be used to ram this project through. That Act was brought through the House in 2006 and the Minister abstained in the vote. We opposed it because we saw the powers it would give to large corporations to drive through such large projects. The process has been flawed, as many speakers said. We must amend the Act to give communities a real say in how it happens. The N9 runs from the south east through the middle of Leinster. My colleagues who were in the Chamber at the time highlighted the need to lay these cables beside motorways. The ducting should have been put in alongside the N9. Had it been, we would not be having this discussion. The consultation process closes on 26 November. Everybody who has spoken agrees that the process has been flawed. I ask the Minister to extend the consultation process to 1 January 2014.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

In the past few months we have seen an old Fianna Fáil trick, where Fine Gael and Labour Party Deputies have played Government Deputies in Dublin but Opposition Deputies in their constituencies. They correctly complain that EirGrid's consultation is a merry dance, but that is all it is. EirGrid is not an independent fiefdom. It must operate within the boundaries of Government legislation. None of these pylons and power cables will be built in the Deputies' areas if they ensure the legislation to place them underground goes ahead. They have the power and must not outsource it to EirGrid. On the question of whether it is technically feasible, of course it is. There are 70 km of undergrounded cable in the State. The Danes, the French and the Spanish are already placing such cables underground with high voltage direct currents. I ask the Minister to create the legislation to provide for this option. None of this infrastructure should be forced on communities that are against it.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I get the point. Deputy Pat Deering said there was a formal consultation process but that there was no real engagement. I am concerned about this because after the North-South project I had a number of direct discussions, apart from the republication of the 2012 policy statement, in which I made it plain that I wanted those involved to engage with citizens along the route in their own language and explain to them why we needed a safe, secure energy supply in this country. Much money has been spent and it is very disturbing to hear a wide cross-section of opinion saying the quality of engagement is defective. I gave figures for the numbers of open days held and outlined the extent of interaction at community level in marts, shopping centres and so on. It is disappointing that that is the view of colleagues in the House.

Why criticise the consultation process because there are four, five or six corridors? EirGrid's position is that if it went down to Waterford, for example, and said the line there was the one selected, there would be an outcry. It would be asked how dare it come down and inform them that was the line and would be told there ought to be public consultation to decide on the best route. There is no line selected yet, but I understand the point being made.

Deputy Coffey raised the issue of a cost benefit analysis, CBA. As I said to my colleague Deputy Jack Wall who approached me today on this issue, I am satisfied to examine whether there is merit in that suggestion. We did that kind of assessment on the North-South project. The Government promised that it would have an independent international assessment of the North-South project and three experts were brought in from Scandinavia and Belgium. They did the report and concluded it would cost about three times the cost of an overhead line. I do not draw from that the cost for the line from Knockraha to Great Island and back up to Kildare should be similar, but that is what the assessment found in that case. I take the point made by Deputy Coffey on that.

Deputy Stanley asked why the line was not put along the motorway when it was being built and I do not know. That was not done and we are where we are. We need to ensure the regions of Ireland have adequate power and energy for the purposes of employment and economic development. Time does not allow this evening for us to go into the kind of detail needed on this. Somebody asked for a debate on this issue and I am happy to have a debate at any time.

Deputy Tóibín said that countries across Europe are putting the lines underground, but that is not true, as can be seen. Denmark is going underground with the 120 kV cable, but has decided not to do so with the 400 kV line. It has taken that decision and it has a wealthier economy than we do. I do not want to put it stronger than that. Many of the claims made do not stand up. What stands up is that in politics, perception is everything and there are many concerns among the people. I accept and understand that. However, I repeat that no line has yet been selected. The public consultation process is under way and when concluded, we will see whether EirGrid is as dismissive as is being widely alleged. So far, there is no line selected.

Some of the proposals put to me, not just here but outside of the House, seem far fetched. For example, why if the line was going from Knockraha in Cork to Great Island, it would go via this way as distinct from via that way and so on. By a decision of this House, we established an expert agency whose task it is to deliver a safe secure energy supply to the country. It is supposed to have the technical, professional and other expertise to do the job. The days of Ministers drawing lines on the map and saying something shall go there are gone. Perhaps they should not be gone. Perhaps Ministers, who are accountable, should have more of a say in the system, but it is the way it is. Nobody challenges the technical and professional competence of EirGrid, internationally or locally. However, how well EirGrid interacts with local citizens and so on is clearly an issue on which Members have strong views. I hope we can provide reassurance on that.

I hear what colleagues are saying and there is much food for thought in what they have said. I am doing considerable thinking at the moment.

Acting Chairman (Deputy John Lyons)

I purposely allowed the Minister go over time to allow him answer the comprehensive list of questions put forward.

Northern Ireland Issues

Deputy Brendan Smith

I am glad the Minister of State is present to take this debate.

More than 3,600 people died in the troubled era that scarred this island for more than three decades. The wave of violence that consumed so many lives in the North has left a dark legacy for an entire generation, in particular on the shoulders of the families of those who lost their lives in the Troubles. Out of that bleak period, the Good Friday Agreement emerges as a shining light. For the first time since 1920, the entire island voted as one, overwhelmingly in favour of moving beyond the bloody battles of the past towards a shared future. It was a privilege for all of us to vote in the May 1998 referendum, which received massive endorsement both North and South. That was the first time since 1918 the one question was put to the people on this island. That Agreement was not a free pass to the individuals who chose the route of violence that terrorised the North over 30 years, nor was it a general moment of collective amnesia. My constituency, a Border county, was of course affected badly by the Troubles, as was all of the island.

Yesterday's announcement by the Attorney General of Northern Ireland, John Larkin, that all prosecutions of crimes related to the Troubles committed prior to 1998 should cease was a shocking sign of indifference towards bereaved families and their inherent right to truth and justice. Beyond criticisms of the constitutionality of such an action or its viability in the face of international law, it is a basic fundamental tenet of common decency - the very bedrock of society - that victims deserve the truth. Yesterday's policy kite flown by the Northern Attorney General denies that basic claim to justice. It comes at a deeply unfortunate time when the Haass talks are tasked with setting out a coherent framework to confront the myriad of issues surrounding the past. The announcement would also appear to be co-ordinated with a PSNI report lamenting the costs of investigating cold cases and the burden of resources employed by the historical investigations team. I sincerely hope that it is not softening the ground up for a move away from the State's obligation to uphold the rule of law, which exists regardless of timing.

The Attorney General in the North has called for amnesty legislation to be enacted in Westminster to encompass the UK and advocated that mirror legislation should be put through the Houses of the Oireachtas. In effect, this would mean that grievous crimes perpetrated here, such as the Disappeared who continue to languish in a limbo of terror or roving unaccountable British army death squads, as uncovered by BBC Panorama investigators, would go unmarked by the State. Anne Cadwallader's recent publication details the bloody activities of some of those who were employed in the State forces.

The past on this island is touched with sadness and tragedy. It represents a grave challenge to all of us who are working towards building a future free from the sectarian passions and violence that tainted the lives of previous generations. However, this does not mean running way from difficult questions. It does not mean that all victims were the same and that all who lived through those decades share the blame. In reality there were those who took up the gun and resorted to ruthless violence for their own ends, while the majority sought peaceful means to achieve legitimate aims.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Joe Costello)

I know all Members of the House will agree these statements offer a timely opportunity to recall the suffering which so many victims and their families endured as a result of violence in Northern Ireland. In recent weeks we have marked painful anniversaries of horrific events, including the Shankill bombing and the murders at Greysteel. A recent publication, Lethal Allies, recalls allegations of collusion in 120 murder cases while the recent BBC and RTE documentary, "The Disappeared", reminded us vividly of how deep is the suffering of bereaved relatives.

I understand a BBC "Panorama" programme to be broadcast tonight will include allegations of killings and shooting of unarmed civilians by members of the British Army. For many of these people, the past is their present, lived and recalled every day. Some may talk of drawing a line under the past but many of these relatives cannot do so and we cannot say that we are truly reconciled until their needs have been recognised. This serves to underline the importance of addressing the past in a manner that addresses the needs of victims and also allows to society to move forward. However painful, we must find ways to acknowledge and to deal with what has happened.

Substantial efforts have been made since the Good Friday Agreement to address the legacy of the past and the Government has been steadfast in its support for the existing institutions such as the historical inquiries team and the Police Ombudsman. While there is undoubted pressure on the courts system and on the policing service in the North arising from legacy issues, the needs of the victims and their families must be accommodated in any future process.

Richard Haass, at the request of the Northern Ireland Executive, is chairing the panel of parties talks which is looking at how best to deal with the past, as well as with other contentious issues such as parades, flags and emblems. He has undertaken to make proposals to the Northern Ireland Executive before the end of the year. As part of this consultation work, he has met many victims groups and is continuing to do so this week. The panel of parties talks chaired by Richard Haass provide an opportunity to make progress on how we deal with the past. This is an opportunity for the parties of the Northern Ireland Executive and also for victims groups and wider society.

The Government is fully committed to supporting this process and to finding a way forward on all the issues within the remit of the panel of parties talks. We will continue our work as co-guarantors of the Agreement to progress reconciliation in Northern Ireland and across this island. Dealing with the legacy of the past must be part of the transition to long-term stability and peace. We remain convinced that efforts to address the legacy of the past should be motivated above all by a commitment to making progress towards reconciliation and a cohesive society.

Deputy Brendan Smith

I thank the Minister of Stage for his reply. It is very clear to all of us that dealing with the past must be victim centred. Abandoning justice for victims would be an abdication of our moral and civic responsibility to those who endured during the grim days. It would be a betrayal of our duty to the men and women who were always committed to peaceful means. The history of the Troubles cannot be left to those who bloodied their hands on either side of the conflict, be they perpetrators of state violence or paramilitaries on either side. I trust the Minister of State and the Government will take this opportunity to rule out any such mirror legislation being enacted in this jurisdiction and will endeavour to, within his remit, ensure it is not promulgated in Northern Ireland.

The comments of the Northern Ireland Attorney General suggest he wants an end to prosecutions, inquiries, inquests and civil proceedings into killings related to the Troubles, whether carried out by paramilitaries, police or the army, with a line drawn under the past at the signing of the Good Friday Agreement.

Recently in Armagh I listened to Denise Mullen, the daughter of Dinny Mullen who was shot dead. I listened to Seamus Mallon outline the terror inflicted on so many people in Armagh and Tyrone with collusion from so-called state forces including the British Army, the UDR and the police in the North. The people who suffered so much must have justice if at all possible. I am realistic enough to know in many instances it will be very difficult to bring some of the inquiries to a conclusion. I listened to members of the Finucane family, sons of the man who was so brutally murdered, and they were understandably angry about the suggestions of the attorney general. As far as I recall, some of the phrases used by the Finucane family were "ill-judged", "ill-advised" and "very irresponsible". How can we deal with the past if there is no process of examining it? The proposals put forward by the attorney general would cause untold distress to bereaved families and those who were victims of collusion by state forces, which was so well laid out in the work of Anne Cadwallader in Lethal Allies.

Deputy Joe Costello

The timing of the announcement by the attorney general is indeed very curious in the circumstances Deputy Smith described. I agree with him entirely the needs of the victims and the bereaved are paramount. This has been a difficult year for Northern Ireland. It is clear the past is exercising a corrosive effect on political life and community relations. The ongoing issue of finding mechanisms to deal with the past require the ongoing commitment of the two governments along with the Northern Ireland Executive and wider society. The Government remains committed to playing an active and constructive role in dealing with the past, including through the management of commemorative, cultural and community events in a sensitive manner. In this context the decade of commemorations is under way.

As part of this process the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste attended remembrance events in Enniskillen and Belfast on 9 and 10 November. The Government's view is that the overriding objective is to make further progress towards a more reconciled society in Northern Ireland. The nub of the issue is the fact the two sovereign governments are the guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement and the process as a whole and as such make the commitments. They must ensure there is no weakening of the commitments. We will continue our work as co-guarantors of the Agreement to progress reconciliation in Northern Ireland and throughout the island.

Dealing with the legacy of the past must be part of the transition to long-term stability and peace. The suffering of all victims of violence in Northern Ireland must be acknowledged and addressed as an essential part of the reconciliation process. Richard Haass and his team are chairing discussions on a range of contentious issues, including dealing with the past, with a view to making progress before the end of the year. We have faith in this process and will be supportive any outcome which can command sufficient support of the talks participants and helps progress reconciliation in Northern Ireland and throughout the island.

Services for People with Disabilities

Deputy Gerald Nash

I appreciate the opportunity to raise this issue and I am grateful the Minister of State is here to listen to my concerns and those of my constituents and I hope she will be in a position to respond.

We are all very familiar with the generally excellent work carried out by our local authorities and contractors in terms of housing adaptations for older people and people with disabilities. Most of this work is carried out to allow elderly people to continue to live independently and overcome any difficulties associated with their advancing years. One of the most common problems encountered is people no longer being able to get up and down stairs. Usually, as Members of the House are only too well aware, the solution is the provision of a downstairs bedroom and bathroom, or the installation of a chair lift or a through-floor lift. There was always an emphasis on trying to provide accommodation on ground floors.

It is the option of a through floor lift which has caused me some concern in recent times. There are a number of issues at stake. I know of one case where a constituent only wanted a chair lift, which is a much easier and cheaper solution, but the local authority insisted on installing a through-floor lift based on the recommendation of an occupational therapist who simply refused to take into account the expressed wishes of the older person affected. In this case the elderly person was told to take it or leave it.

The second and really important issue of which we must be aware is that these lifts are sometimes installed in houses for which they are totally unsuitable. This means they could represent a danger to the lives of the people who use them. I have been in a number of small - often terraced - houses in which these lifts have become the sole method of access to the upstairs bedroom. Effectively, their installation has led to windows being blocked off. One does not need to be an architect, a civil engineer or a fire officer to be aware that there is an inherent danger in this regard. I have examined the guidelines which obtain in the UK. Those implemented by Isle of Wight Council clearly state, "Accommodating the occupant wholly at ground floor level should be a first consideration whenever possible." I can understand how, in these straitened times, more must be done with less. However, when less means a through-floor lift - in respect of the installation of which there are no official guidelines in place at local authority level - we should all be very concerned. Where through-floor lifts must be used, stringent requirements must be put in place. Such requirements include fire barriers, smoke seals, alarms and sprinklers. Critically, there must be an insistence that bedrooms have windows capable of being opened and large enough to facilitate a rescue or escape in the event of a fire or other emergency. At present, local authorities here are operating in the absence of guidelines such as those to which I refer. I would appreciate if the Minister of State could establish whether such guidelines are made available to local authorities by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. A much more transparent system must be put in place in order that all of those involved can be clear on what are the obligations. This matter must be dealt with before any kind of unnecessary or avoidable tragedy occurs.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Jan O'Sullivan)

I thank Deputy Nash for raising this important and serious issue. As housing authorities, local authorities have an overall role in respect of ensuring that the dwellings they provide meet the needs of tenants and, through the housing adaptation grant schemes, to support people with disabilities and the elderly. Clearly, technological solutions play an important role in this regard and all reasonable and feasible solutions merit consideration. In the context of the specific points raised by the Deputy, I will seek to discover whether - if it does not already do so - the Department can supply guidelines similar to those already available in the United Kingdom in respect of this matter.

I feel very strongly about the need to make real and meaningful provision for vulnerable groups and, in particular, those with disabilities or older persons. In this regard, my Department published the design guidelines Quality Housing for Sustainable Communities for local authorities in furtherance of the need to deliver high-quality homes and sustainable communities in a manner that aims to ensure all households can access good-quality housing appropriate to household circumstances and in their particular communities of choice. These guidelines promote the essential requirement that dwellings should be capable of adaptation to meet the changing needs of residents during the course of their lifetimes. Section 5.2 of this guidance deals specifically with the flexibility and accessibility aspect of the design of homes and recognises that older people or persons with moderate disabilities who wish to remain independent in their own homes should be able to do so without the need for costly redesign and disruptive remodelling of the dwellings The aim of the guidance is to inform by setting out key design principles rather than prescriptive solutions. That said, appendix (ii) draws on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's lifetime homes standard, which states: "The Design should incorporate provision for a stairlift and a suitably identified space for potential installation of a through the floor lift from the ground to the first floor."

A key aim in the National Housing Strategy for People with a Disability 2011-2016 is to support people with disabilities in living independently in their own homes and communities, where appropriate. The promotion of independent living requires the implementation of a range of targeted actions and supports to assist people with disabilities in remaining at home, including the provision of equitable access to specific design options and mechanisms to support people with disabilities who wish to live independently. In this regard, priority will continue to be given to ensuring the most effective operation of the adaptation grant schemes for people with disabilities and older people. While these grant schemes do not specifically reference through-floor lifts, they do, however, place an emphasis on ensuring that the most appropriate works are carried out to meet the needs of the applicant and that the potential long term needs of the applicant are addressed having regard to his or her disability. This is the correct approach where individual needs and solutions may vary widely. We are way past the point at which a one-size-fits-all solution is tenable.

As a longer-term policy objective, and in line with the commitment in the programme for Government to promote and support universal design, an examination of lifetime housing policy will be undertaken. This will also consider the accessibility needs of wheelchair users and the increasing role of technology in supporting people with disabilities in living independently. In this regard I will certainly consider the points made by Deputy Nash. I am aware that his concerns are very specific to through-floor lifts, and if there is a lack of guidelines in respect of the latter, I will seek to rectify the position.

Deputy Gerald Nash

From my experience of dealing with local authorities and others in respect of this issue, I am in a position to state that there definitely appears to be an absence of such guidelines. I am very concerned that there seems to be no guidance available from the Department to local authorities. I am also concerned about the fact that local authorities do not have access to any other form of guidelines and that they have not taken it upon themselves to introduce such guidelines.

There has been a move away from extending the ground floor accommodation of older persons and those with disabilities on the basis that such extensions are costly. I understand that we live in difficult times and I am aware of the demands being placed on the resources of the Department and local authorities. By and large, local authorities do an extremely good job in terms of working within the limited resources available to them. I am of the view that the decision to focus on the provision of through-floor lifts as opposed to extending ground-floor accommodation is motivated by a lack or finance rather than any other consideration. I do not believe that fire officers are consulted with regard to the appropriateness of introducing this type of equipment into people's homes. I am currently dealing with the case of an individual who is obliged to take a substantial amount of medication and whose GP and consultant are, as a result of the type of condition with which their patient is dealing, absolutely opposed to the installation of a through-floor lift in his home. They are of the view that his health will suffer and that using the lift would - for a range of different reasons I prefer not to discuss - prove extremely problematic for him.

The approach being used at present is not working. Notwithstanding the financial constraints that apply, the Department must work with local authorities, chief fire officers, occupational therapists and others with an interest in this area to introduce some kind of guidance and ensure that the kinds of solution that will work for older persons and those with disabilities will be forthcoming.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

I share the Deputy's concern regarding the need for proper and appropriate solutions that meet people's individual needs. I accept that local authorities probably use different approaches and that some of them still carry out extensions to tenants' dwellings. We are reviewing the scheme at present because we want to ensure that maximum value will be obtained. In that context, I will pursue the issue of the guidelines on the Deputy's behalf. Deputy Nash raised a number of serious issues in respect of safety. I assure him that I will deal with this matter as quickly as possible and communicate with him further in respect of the specific points he raised.

The Dáil adjourned at 7.30 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Friday, 22 November 2013.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 21 Nov 2013