Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Sep 2014

Vol. 850 No. 1

Topical Issue Debate

Rural Environment Protection Scheme Eligibility

Deputy Dara Calleary

With no ill respect to the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, I think it unfortunate that the senior Minister would not take this matter. It is a very serious issue for hill farmers and has a very serious effect on the rural development programme. His lack of engagement with it to date and his lack of presence here is typical of his lack of engagement on so many other issues in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It seems to be a Department that is driving itself, a bit like the new Google cars. The Minister needs to get the finger out and take more control of his Department. It is unfair that he puts the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, out for all of these issues.

This issue is extremely complex and it is causing extreme anger and dissension among hill farmers the length and breadth of this country. The notion that entry into the new environmental protection scheme, GLAS, will require a 50% agreement on commonage is absolutely bizarre, completely unworkable and shows that, within the Department, there is a lack of understanding among senior officials of what a commonage is. It is discriminatory against hill farmers because other farmers have far fewer pre-qualifying conditions. With a little cop-on and a little sense, it can be resolved but, instead, the Department has been digging in its heels and is refusing to negotiate around the 50% collective agreement, which, as the Minister of State knows, given he knows what farming is, is practically impossible to achieve.

There is an irony in that hill farmers, who have for many generations been the custodians and carers of our mountains and hills - those mountains and hills we are using to bring in tourists - will be prevented from participating in a new environmental scheme because of this extreme requirement.

What we are looking for is a modicum of cop-on, a modicum of interest from the senior Minister in the Department to resolve this issue without further delay and for him to say to the hill farmers of Ireland that they are part of his vision for agriculture and where he sees the farming industry going because they play a major part, but they are being excluded from every negotiation and the talk about this. There is no hill farmer representative on the commonage agreement committee established under the chairmanship of Mr. Joe Healy and no voice from the hills representing those being discussed by the committee. Again, this is an indication of a Minister who is running his Department with a remote control.

The Minister of State is practical and, unlike the Minister, gets his hands dirty on a farm every so often. I ask him to bring a degree of understanding of the seriousness of this problem to the Department. I ask him to say it to the Taoiseach who has a rolling protest outside his office to try to get him to understand the problems such that the Department will listen and be aware of the concerns of farmers. I am not someone who engages in hyperbole, but we are on the verge of going back to where we were 20 years ago when there were disputes about issues such as rod licences. The Government will see neighbour pitched against neighbour and family against family if it continues to pursue this path. What is needed is intervention. Given that the senior Minister will not take on the issue, perhaps the Minister of State might do so, get heads around the table and knock them together. If the Department and the Minister of State show an interest, hill farmers will come to the table. Otherwise, he will not succeed in implementing the rural development programme which will have far broader and more far-reaching consequences and not just for hill farmers. The Minister of State will not succeed in protecting the hills that are so important and will ensure serious dissension across rural Ireland, something we do not want. I ask him to push up his sleeves and respect the rights of the men and women concerned who for generations have looked after this land. If they are faced with this proposal, they will be driven off it.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Tom Hayes)

I thank the Deputy for raising this Topical Issue and giving me time to clarify some of the issues involved in what is a very complex matter for many. The Minister is away at a jobs announcement in Tullamore in the drinks industry. That is the way we do business. I want to be helpful, if at all possible.

GLAS is designed around a tiered approach and the tiers are based on a consideration of priority environmental assets and actions. The tiered approach will give priority access to farmers with important environmental assets. In the case of commonage owners, priority access under tier 1 is guaranteed if at least 50% of the active shareholders sign up to a commonage plan for their commonage. This figure of 50% must be explained better. The next level of prioritisation is tier 2 which largely covers farms with watercourses classified as "vulnerable". Under tier 3, farms which do not fulfil any of the criteria for tiers 1 and 2 but who commit to a series of general environmental actions will qualify.

The proposed maximum payment is €5,000 per annum, with the scheme building up to the inclusion of some 50,000 farmers, with envisaged total expenditure of €1,450 million over the programming period. It is also proposed that, within budget limits, a GLAS+ payment would be put in place for a limited number of farmers who take on particularly challenging actions which deliver an exceptional level of environmental benefit. It is proposed that this payment will be up to €2,000 per annum in addition to the €5,000 paid under GLAS. That gives a total of €7,000.

My priority and that of the Government is to get the rural development programme as a whole approved by the European Commission in order that I can open GLAS as quickly as possible and include up to 30,000 farmers whom I want to attract in year one. Operational details can and will be looked at, but the over-riding imperative is to get GLAS up and running as soon as possible.

There was significant consultation. The Minister travelled the country to see what people wanted prior to the introduction of Pillar 2. When I entered the Department last June, it was at the end of the period of negotiations. If we take ourselves back to that time, the reality is that in Brussels during the Irish Presidency, the Minister handled the negotiations to bring them to a conclusion. I stress that consultation with the farming organisations took place at all times and that they were certainly happy with them.

Turning to look specifically at commonages, the position is as follows. Payments under GLAS can only be made in respect of actions going beyond the baseline requirements under the basic payment scheme under Pillar 1 of the CAP. In simple terms, this means that a farmer cannot be paid twice for the same commitment under both schemes. I doubt if anyone will disagree with this. Since the introduction of agri-environment schemes in the 1990s, the Pillar 1 baseline has been progressively raised for each programming period and this challenges us all in developing schemes that gain approval at EU level. There is so much that needs to be explained. That is what has given rise to all the hysteria.

Farmers are required under the basic payment scheme to maintain land in good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC, and commonage land is no exception to this requirement. Therefore, in order to secure funding for hill farmers under GLAS, we have to design a scheme which manifestly goes beyond the baseline. We also have to ensure the commitments outlined are measurable and controllable as this is critical to securing approval. The key characteristic of commonage land is that it is farmed in common and the actions undertaken under GLAS will have to reflect this. We cannot have multiple and varying plans submitted for the commonage - we need a single plan lodged by a single adviser that sets out clearly what the objectives are over a five year period and what those participating in this plan will do individually and together to achieve these objectives.

On this point, we clearly need to have sufficient people working together to achieve the best results for the commonages in the interests of both the farming community and the environment. I believe 50% participation is the minimum required to make this work and, in recognition of the additional effort involved, I have increased the rate of payment from €75 per hectare under the last programme to €120 per hectare for GLAS. I have listened very carefully to the concerns of hill farmers and recognise that they are real. That is why over the course of the consultation process on the RDP which have extended to a year and half we have adapted and rebalanced our proposals for commonages. It is particularly important to point out that the 50% requirement is based on active farmers only, that is, those actually grazing the commonage. To give an example, if there are 20 shareholders on a commonage but only ten of them are actively grazing the land, the 50% requirement to trigger priority access to GLAS is just five farmers. I do not believe a minimum participation requirement based on this model is insurmountable, but where real difficulties are being encountered, I have already said the farmers concerned can approach the commonage implementation committee to make their case.

Other issues that I know have been of concern to hill farmers include clarity on the Pillar 1 baseline, having adequate time to adapt, the imposition of minimum and maximum stocking levels and the imposition of penalties. We have brought a good deal of clarity to all of these issues in public statements in recent weeks and my sense is that farmers are much more comfortable with what is being proposed. The baseline has been set at 0.1 of a livestock unit per hectare, with farmers having until December 2015 to achieve this. I have made it very clear that my Department will not be imposing minimum-maximum stocking levels for each commonage, but it will provide such figures to help guide the planning process. It is open to the shareholders themselves to propose a different regime if they believe it is better suited to the needs of the commonage. The objectives of the GLAS plan are to be achieved over time and penalties will be applied individually where it is clear that an individual is at fault - there is no question of the group being penalised for something that was clearly the responsibility of an individual.

I hope and believe we have addressed many of the concerns of hill farmers in the clarification provided to date. I have also arranged for a series of public meetings at key locations nationwide in order that farmers will have an opportunity to talk to officials from my Department, ask their questions and consider the replies. We are reaching a stage where all sides can see that we have much more in common on this important matter than might have been realised to date.

Deputy Dara Calleary

I am delighted that the Minister is making an announcement. That has been his trait as Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. He is the Minister for the industry, but he forgets that to have a food industry, we need farmers and a Minister for farming in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

What the Minister of State did not get to points to most of the difficulties with this issue. Even getting the agreement of 50% of active farmers on a commonage will be absolutely impossible, as one is talking about hundreds of people. The Department has not even defined what the commonage plan will look like and what the minimum requirements will be. Second, it is forcing the people concerned to use one single adviser to get agreement. The practicalities would surely instruct and guide the Minister of State that this will be impossible. He knows this because he has been operating in rural Ireland for a long time. No matter how great GLAS is - it might be the best thing since sliced bread - if they do not get agreement, they cannot join GLAS. The irony of those who have cared for the environment, the mountains and the hills for generations being excluded from a scheme that aims to care for the environment is rich.

That is the difficulty and why many decent people are out protesting and attending protest meetings. It is not hysteria. It is a genuine concern and worry that people will be excluded from incomes that will keep them on the land and in rural areas. Otherwise, they will leave and we will be left with all of the problems identified. Why is the Welsh proposal so different from the Irish one? It is a country with a similar topography, yet the Welsh proposals are completely different. Is it a case of us once again gold-plating European legislation to be the good boys while not reflecting on the consequences for Irish citizens?

We have a very small window in order to engage with this issue. I acknowledge that some changes have been made to stocking rates in the past few weeks. The figure of 50% simply will not work and because it will not, the rural development programme about which the Minister of State speaks will not attain its achievements, will not secure the buy-in the Government needs for it to attain its achievements and will not get support on the ground. This will affect the programme and our standing in Europe. No matter how good the new Commissioner will be, this will not help. I, therefore, ask the Minister of State for a small dose of sense and reason. I ask him to explain to his civil servants who are driving this issue that it will not work and that they must go back to the drawing board to stop what will happen.

The Minister will pit neighbour against neighbour, brother against brother, and we do not want to go down that road again.

Deputy Tom Hayes

I acknowledge that there is a great deal of concern among many people living in rural Ireland. The Minister and I and our departmental officials are committed to the rural development programme, which was fought for long and hard. It was difficult to get the matching funding, but it was achieved, and the last thing we want is for the scheme to fail.

There is a great deal of hysteria about particular issues, and people are being frightened at public meetings. Public pronouncements by some individuals have been unhelpful. I refer to an example of 20 shareholders on a commonage of whom only ten are grazing the land. The 50% requirement to trigger priority access to GLAS amounts to just five farmers. That is the reality. If agreement cannot be secured between the individuals on the commonage, the commonage implementation group can sit and examine the issue.

Deputy Dara Calleary

There are no hill farmers on the group.

Deputy Tom Hayes

This can be worked through. It is unfair for people to say this is unworkable and that rural Ireland will collapse. We have committed significant money to this scheme and we want it to work fairly. There is an opportunity to make it work fairly. At departmental level we want it work, and we will talk to people and help them to get over the line if other aspects of this need to change. However, the lack of understanding is a problem. I stress that the commonage implementation group is available to resolve problems where people cannot get a plan together with their planners.

Beef Industry

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I join Deputy Calleary in expressing disappointment that the Minister is not present. I received notification of the selection of this matter at 11.02 a.m. There was ample time to ensure the Minister was present when important matters were being addressed to him.

I support the case being made by beef producers that the current return per kilo is below the break-even position and that there is a compelling case for the Minister to exert appropriate pressure on processors and on large supermarket chains to have this unsustainable situation satisfactorily addressed. Protecting the domestic and international reputation of our high-quality beef is an absolute requirement and it is the duty not only of the Minister but of all elected voices and those who can influence public opinion at home and overseas. Irish beef is high-quality beef raised on the richest grasslands in the world. We must effectively market this key Irish product globally.

It is because I care passionately for the reputation of this important sector of our economy that I ask the Minister of State to explain his and his Department's failure to discipline those departmental employees - veterinary inspectors - who have failed to carry out their duties responsibly, who have put innocent farmers under severe personal stress and strain and who have admitted under oath that they allowed an animal to enter the food chain that they believed had been injected with an unknown substance, which they acknowledged could have been toxic. They also stated that they did not believe it relevant that the animal had entered the food chain. Are these people serious? Relevant to what? Is their primary role not to help ensure the best practices of husbandry are employed by beef farmers at all times, that consumers at home and abroad have the assurances of our Government that the Irish beef we purchase and consume is of the highest quality and that our systems are above reproach?

The Minister will know that I am referring specifically to the case of the Cavan farmer Mr. Douglas Fannin, whose good name and good reputation were affirmed in the Cavan Circuit Court last year following years of unjustified and disgraceful pursuit by his Department's special investigations unit. It is long past time that the Minister of State and his senior colleague put the interest of the beef sector above that of their Department's employees of whatever rank. Will he ensure the Minister is fully briefed on this exchange? Will he ensure there can be no recurrence of these actions by departmental inspectors? Will he assure the House and all whom we collectively represent that there can be no recurrence of what I view to be irresponsible behaviour that puts at risk the reputation of this key sector and that could put at risk the health of innocent consumers at home or abroad?

Deputy Tom Hayes

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. The beef sector is hugely important to the economy. We have acknowledged that, and most of our time over the past number of months has been spent trying to solve problems and deal with the issues in the sector.

Last year, beef exports accounted for just under €2.1 billion, reflecting a 5% increase in output and a 4% increase in average prices. This growth resulted from concerted action by the Government, industry and producers to develop our product offering. Primary producers are under significant pressure this year as a result of reductions in price, but a significant infrastructure has been put in place to help improve on-farm profitability. The medium-term prospects for the beef market are reasonably positive, with increasing global population and demand for animal proteins.

In collaboration with Bord Bia and Irish embassy personnel, my Department engages with a wide range of countries on market access issues. In this context, the Minister has led trade missions to Japan, China, the US, Algeria and the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, GCC, in the Middle East to promote Irish food, including beef. This work has led to a number of notable successes in securing market access in Japan, Singapore, Egypt and Iran. This year we have agreed access terms with the Lebanon, the Philippines and Namibia. Furthermore, my Department is working with the meat industry to finalise the various technical requirements for trade in Irish beef with the US. We are optimistic about the opportunities this market will bring. China is another market where there is considerable potential for Irish beef. The Minister intends to lead a trade mission to China towards the end of the year and beef will be firmly on the agenda.

Irish beef is listed with more than 75 high-end retail chains across EU markets. This wide portfolio of customers reflects the success of Bord Bia's differentiation and premiumisation strategy. This strategy focuses on the key attributes of Irish beef: environmentally sustainable, grass-based production systems; full traceability; quality assurance at all stages; and superior eating quality. Among Bord Bia's key initiatives this year is the continued development, promotion and marketing of its Origin Green initiative. This is designed to establish Ireland as a world leader in sustainably produced food and drink.

The Government is also investing heavily in the future at production level. Earlier this year, we announced details of an investment package worth up to €40 million aimed at sustaining a critical mass in the suckler cow herd, which is at the heart of our beef industry.

The package includes the beef genomic scheme, the beef data programme, the beef technology adoption programme and the suckler cow welfare scheme. The suckler cow herd is also a key component of our longer term strategic plans as set out in the €4 billion draft rural development programme. This is in addition to the €1.2 billion in annual single farm payments to Irish farmers which was negotiated as part of the revised Common Agricultural Policy. The integrity of the beef industry is of the utmost importance to the economy and Ireland's worldwide reputation as a food producing country. Every step is taken to promote the industry which is achieved by ensuring the highest standards are applied and maintained in the production of Irish food.

Because the Deputy has made a very strong case it is essential that I give him a response. When animals are presented for slaughter at meat plants, an ante-mortem examination is carried out prior to slaughter and a post-mortem examination after slaughter to determine the suitability of the meat for entry into the food chain. This level of examination fulfils the obligation of the hygiene package as laid down by the European Union. While I do not wish to discuss the specifics of the individual case to which the Deputy referred, I categorically assure the House that the required checks were carried out before the release of any carcass into the food chain. The question of disciplinary action in this matter does not arise.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

It is incredible that the Minister of State refuses to address the specific case to which I referred. I remind him of some of what was said on 8 November 2013 in Cavan Circuit Court. A question was posed by a barrister representing the defendant, addressing one of the Department veterinary inspectors, as follows, "Were you aware that there was a possibility that what was introduced into this animal actually could have been toxic?" The reply was:

Yes, certainly. Anything introduced into an animal that is not sterile could be toxic.

Continuing, the same respondent stated:

Our focus would have been to find out if there had been interference. I think it is very difficult to identify from first basics a completely unknown substance. It could have been any one of a thousand substances. The samples were taken to see if there had been interference, to see if something had been introduced ... I don't accept whether the animal was entered into the food chain as being relevant. I refuse to accept the identification of the irritant as being relevant.

There is much more; that is only one section. As a consumer and speaking on behalf of consumers and those involved in the sector, I find it highly relevant. What is the role of Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine inspectors if it is not, as I said in my opening remarks, to assure us as domestic consumers and the global market that our beef produce is of the highest standard and fit, without question, for public consumption and that our processing is beyond reproach? There are questions which the Minister of State may not be able to answer and I want the Minister to address them subsequent to this exchange. Where was the meat from this animal destined? Has the Minister sought to establish whether it was for domestic consumption or export? Apart from the Department's internal review which addressed what it saw as deficiencies in the conduct of the prosecution case rather than accept and address the judgment in the Circuit Court of Judge Reynolds and establish how its special investigation unit, SIU, personnel had conducted themselves when acting in the name of the Minister and the Government, has the Minister taken any other step to address the very worrying facts that the case exposes?

Deputy Tom Hayes

Again, I categorically assure the House that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine continuously monitors all meat and animals that enter the food chain, on a post-mortem and ante-mortem basis. In meat factories animals are examined, checked and watched, as happened in this case. The Deputy received a very detailed briefing on the issue from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and it is very disingenuous of him to try to blacken-----

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

There is nothing disingenuous in my address of this issue and I will not accept this from the Minister of State.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian Walsh)

The Minister of State to continue, without interruption, please.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

The report was a whitewash effort on the part of the Minister of State and his Department. He failed to address the judge's ruling and examine the reasons for it.

Deputy Tom Hayes

The Deputy received a detailed briefing on it from the Department's officials.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I acknowledge that.

Deputy Tom Hayes

I thank the Deputy. It is very important. We do not need hysteria about the beef industry. People's livelihoods depend on it. Families up and down the country are at their wits' end to survive in this business. The last thing we want is somebody blackening the name of the industry, as the Deputy tried to do.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

How dare the Minister of State make such an accusation? I ask the Acting Chairman to ask the Minister of State to withdraw the scurrilous accusation he has levelled at me. I have indicated very clearly and acted at all times to ensure the Department would act to assure the provenance of all of the components of the beef industry. In this instance, it has failed to do so. The review to which the Minister referred did not address the issues at the core of the problem but sought only to excuse its own behaviour.

Deputy Tom Hayes

I assure everybody that at all times the Department carries out inspections to ensure only the best, properly checked beef enters the food chain. The Department inspects it continuously, on an hourly, daily and weekly basis. The Deputy knows this and we should all acknowledge it. We demand the best quality beef and that is what we sell. We have made a name for ourselves all over the world with the top quality beef we produce. As Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I will not resile from saying this.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

The Minister of State should examine what his Department's representatives have said under oath.

Student Grant Scheme Eligibility

Deputy Derek Nolan

I thank the Ceann Comhairle's office for selecting this Topical Issue. Some tens of thousands of students are returning to college after the summer break and re-entering the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, system to access supports for education such as having their fees paid and receiving maintenance grants. While SUSI has improved since its first year in operation, there are still difficulties with the rules by which it must operate, in particular, the eligibility criteria by which students are identified as independent, meaning they are judged on their means, rather than on those of their parents, the alternative being dependent status. This is an issue particularly for students entering postgraduate courses who must fulfil one of two requirements, namely, that the applicant must be over 23 years of age when he or she enters third level education, or must have a gap of three years in his or her education path between finishing his or her undergraduate degree and proceeding to postgraduate study. This has led to some very unusual, peculiar and undesirable outcomes. For example, a student who visited me in my constituency office in Galway last week is in her second year of PhD studies.

She had entered the third level education system at 19 years of age, which means that she fails the first criterion for independent status. She is now 27 years old and in the second year of a PhD programme, but because there was only a two-year gap between her masters programme and the PhD programme, she is now being deemed as dependent on her parents, notwithstanding that she has not lived at home with them for years. She is financing her way through college as much as she can through part-time work, but the requirements we have in place say this grown woman must be judged on her parents' income. It is an unfortunate aspect of the system. It tells people not to go back to college but rather to keep the gap as great as possible in order to get maintenance. It encourages people not to continue in education but to stay out of it for longer. It is an unfortunate element of the policy. We need people to upskill, and these postgraduate courses are what we mean when we refer to the knowledge economy and our ability to compete internationally in terms of education, skills and being at the forefront of research. Rather than encouraging that, the policy disincentivises it. I ask the Minister of State, who has an interest in this, to give a commitment today to discuss the matter with the Minister, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, to see if we really want a system that is a disincentive for people to stay in education.

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Damien English)

I apologise on behalf of my line Minister, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, who cannot be here as she is out of the country on a trade mission.

For student grant purposes, students are categorised according to their circumstances as either students dependent on parents or legal guardians or independent mature students. A student may be assessed as an independent mature student if he or she has attained the age of 23 on 1 January of the year of first entry to an approved course, or re-entry following a break in study of at least three years, and was not ordinarily resident with his or her parents in the previous October. Otherwise, he or she will continue to be assessed on the basis of parental income. To be assessed as an independent mature student, an applicant must provide sufficient evidence to show he or she was living independently of his or her parents on 1 October of the year before the first point of entry to higher education. I gather that the first point of entry requirement is Deputy Nolan's main concern. I see the point he makes that where someone is 27 or 28 years old, it is a major difficulty. I have also come across cases in which a person is under 23 and lives in his or her own house with his or her own children. I accept that. There are other criteria with regard to providing proof of independence to SUSI through bills, etc. While there are difficulties in that regard as well, the Deputy will understand that the criteria are there for certain reasons. There are ways of sorting that out.

While there are no plans to review the matter, the Deputy raises a very important issue. I have come across other cases myself. I will sit down with the Minister, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, to discuss the matter and see if we can address these cases. The Deputy is right to say we want to improve people's skills and encourage them back into education. There are many people who need to be reskilled, including those with an existing college qualification. I will raise the matter with the Minister and we will get back to the Deputy in due course. While there are no set plans to do this, the Deputy raises a good example and we will see what can be done.

Deputy Derek Nolan

I thank the Minister of State for his reply and his commitment to review the issue, talk to the Minister and see if we can put a better set of rules in place. While we are discussing third level students, I note that there is talk of greater flexibility in future budgets and of starting to see the end of absolute pressure on budgets. If there is any opportunity in the third level budget in the forthcoming Estimates, we should freeze the student contribution charge. It is planned to increase it in the next budget, but it is getting to a prohibitive level and this is having a significant impact. If there were some flexibility to row back, we could at least freeze it. It is heading quickly towards €3,000, which is a great deal of money, especially if one has more than one child in college. If there is flexibility, it would send a great signal and provide families with the relief they need in the current circumstances.

Deputy Damien English

That is a separate issue altogether, but it is no harm for Deputy Nolan to take the opportunity to raise it. It is something we would all like to avoid if we could. When the contribution came in and the plan was made to increase it every year, the context was one of very tight budgetary constraints. Those have not yet gone away, and we must be very careful. Although things have improved and the recovery is on track, which means that some of the €2 billion that must be found in the budget in five or six weeks' time has been dealt with already through increases in tax receipts, every Department continues to have commitments to reduce costs over the next couple of years. If every Department comes back with an increased list, we will be right back where we started.

The Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform have pointed out that they do not want to go back to a boom-and-bust scenario. It is not the case that the Departments are free to start spending endless amounts of money again. The money is still not in the system. While I accept the Deputy's point, previous Ministers explained clearly why it had to be done, and Deputy O'Sullivan has explained that she does not see how it can be reversed. I will bring the Deputy's points to her and make the case, but I do not want to give the impression that there is a pot of money in education whereby we can start changing things back. We cannot. We have to make our own case and there is a great deal of pressure on the Department, mainly as a result of demographic change. The numbers attending primary, secondary and third level education are increasing every year. We cannot predict in the third level sector where that will end. The numbers are rising at such a high rate in primary and secondary that it will keep going up. I do not think there will be space to do what the Deputy asks, and I do not think the Minister will be in a position to do it, but I will raise it with her and get back to the Deputy. There is an impression going around now that every Department can stop making the changes, but while I wish we could, that is not the case. Spending is still very tight. I will raise the matter with the Minister, who could not be here in person.

Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission

Deputy Alan Shatter

Last week, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, or GSOC, stated that its investigation into an alleged leak from its offices, which gave rise to substantial controversy earlier this year, was unsuccessful and that its report on the investigation will not be published. From the start of this affair, GSOC has sought to cover up and keep secret a disturbing level of incompetence and failure to comply with its statutory obligations. This is unacceptable. It is contrary to the public interest that the current GSOC commissioners remain in place and that these matters are left unresolved, particularly in light of new and additional GSOC powers proposed in forthcoming legislation.

In October 2013, GSOC commenced what the Cooke report clearly regarded as a premature public interest investigation into alleged surveillance of its offices. Under section 103 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, GSOC commissioners had a statutory obligation to inform me, as the then Minister for Justice and Equality, and the then Garda Commissioner of the investigation. They did neither. On 25 November 2013, the chairman of GSOC, Simon O'Brien, and the commissioner Kieran FitzGerald were briefed by their investigators that there had been no "positive result" to the investigation. The chairman is recorded in the Cooke report at page 26 as making a note in his personal log:

This investigation is now closed. I need to think about reporting. This will be difficult, we have found nothing.

In December, GSOC formally closed the investigation and, again, did not inform me as Minister or the then Garda Commissioner. Since the publication of the Cooke report there can be no dispute that it was under a statutory obligation to do so.

On 9 February 2014, as a result of a leak of confidential GSOC information, The Sunday Times published an article relating to the investigation. The following day, I met with Simon O'Brien, who verbally briefed me on the matter. Later that day, he furnished me with a written version of the briefing, which formed the basis of my statement to the Dáil on 11 February last. Commissioner Kieran FitzGerald confirmed that night on "Prime Time" the accuracy of what I told the Dáil. However, when appearing before the relevant joint Oireachtas committee, the commissioners proved incapable of detailing what occurred in a coherent manner and their confused narrative and vague innuendo laid the foundations for accusations subsequently made that I had misled the Dáil and weeks of unnecessary controversy. Inexplicably, GSOC commissioners took no steps to clearly set out the facts and facilitated the continuation of the controversy. Even more seriously, at the time of Mr. Simon O'Brien's meeting with me, in the written report I received from GSOC and in the presentation to the joint Oireachtas committee, the representatives of GSOC covered up the fact that they knew that a device about which they expressed concern was known by November 2013 to be randomly attempting to connect to a Bitbuzz Wi-Fi system in an Insomnia coffee shop located in the ground floor of GSOC's building, and posed no risk of surveillance.

On a radio broadcast subsequent to publication of the Cooke report, Mr. Simon O'Brien was asked why GSOC had failed to comply with its statutory obligation to inform me as Minister of its public interest investigation. He stated that "events overtook" them. This reference to the publication of The Sunday Times article in February as the reason for GSOC's failure is disingenuous and not credible. It is clear from Mr. Simon O'Brien's log, as detailed in the Cooke report, that he was well aware of his reporting obligations on 25 November and, I believe, from the commencement of the public interest investigation he knew of GSOC's statutory obligations.

Most recently, GSOC has failed to successfully investigate the alleged leak which led to The Sunday Times report and, in refusing to publish the report of the investigation into the leak, clearly intends to conceal its content. I repeat what Judge Cooke stated in page 51 of his report, that the information revealed in The Sunday Times article is "evidence of a serious breach of security". The Cooke report has essentially confirmed that what I informed this House about these matters was true by finding that "it is clear that the evidence does not support the proposition that actual surveillance of the kind asserted in The Sunday Times article took place and much less that it was carried out by members of the Garda Síochána". It is also important to note that Judge Cooke found The Sunday Times article to be "seriously inaccurate".

When it is alleged that members of An Garda Síochána fail to comply with their statutory obligations and rules and regulations, it falls to GSOC to investigate. To do so with credibility, GSOC must be above reproach. It clearly is not and I believe it is no longer acceptable that the failings of GSOC and, in particular, the GSOC commissioners be ignored.

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald)

I thank Deputy Shatter for raising on Topical Issues the completion last week by GSOC of its investigation into an alleged leak of confidential information concerning the public interest investigation into the alleged surveillance of its offices and its decision not to publish its report into the matter. The House is familiar with the background to this matter, which the Deputy has outlined, and, in particular, the article published by The Sunday Times, which claimed that GSOC was under hi-tech surveillance. While it was clear, following the inquiry by Judge Cooke, that the article contained serious inaccuracies, and while Judge Cooke found that the evidence did not support the proposition that actual surveillance of the kind asserted took place, it was nevertheless clear that The Sunday Times journalist, Mr. John Mooney, had received some confidential information relating to these issues, as GSOC had indeed engaged a UK firm, Verrimus, to investigate whether it was under surveillance, and had conducted its own investigation into these concerns.

GSOC engaged a senior counsel to conduct a fact-finding investigation to determine, so far as possible and on the balance of probabilities, the facts relating to this suspected disclosure of information. It is made clear in the report that the senior counsel was given access to all the information and records in the possession of GSOC and it states that he received co-operation from everyone concerned, except for the journalist, Mr. John Mooney, who declined to be interviewed. The senior counsel concluded that he is satisfied the journalist received confidential information from some person or persons associated with the Verrimus or GSOC investigations. He was not able, however, to establish when the journalist received such information, from whom he received it, or the exact nature of the information disclosed.

GSOC considered, in light of the public controversy that surrounded the entire matter, that it was appropriate that I be supplied with a copy of the report. I must stress, however, that it was not supplied to me under the relevant section, section 80, of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, which provides for GSOC reports submitted to me to be laid before both Houses. It was submitted to me by GSOC for information. In fact, GSOC stressed in the covering letter to me that it did not intend to publish the report as it contained personal data, which it said was impossible to redact effectively.

It was absolutely right, and indeed essential, for GSOC to inquire into a concern that confidential information relating to either the Verrimus investigation or GSOC's related investigation was leaked to a journalist. I have also made clear from the outset that I believe that as much information as possible on the outcome of the inquiry should be put in the public domain in the interests of transparency. That is why, while fully respecting GSOC's statutory independence, I have asked GSOC, in consultation with the senior counsel concerned, and with whatever level of redaction might be legally necessary, to consider now publishing the report in the public interest. I have taken legal advice on it and some legal redaction is necessary if there is personal data that it is inappropriate to release.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I thank the Minister for her response. I do not believe it tenable that the current GSOC commissioners remain in office, nor is it acceptable that the matter of the leak now be abandoned on the basis of the failed investigation. The possibility of further such leaks could seriously undermine current or future investigations into alleged Garda misconduct. The leaking of information of a confidential nature from GSOC is a criminal offence under the Garda Síochána Acts. Just as it is not acceptable that the Garda Síochána investigates itself, it is not adequate that GSOC now simply washes its hands of this matter. Action is required to restore GSOC's public credibility.

It is also not acceptable that the report furnished by GSOC to the Minister remain unpublished or that it be edited into incoherence before publication. I appreciate the Minister's wish that matters be as transparent as possible but that may not prove possible if it is left under the remit of GSOC and I, personally, would not have confidence in the manner in which it is approaching this matter. There should be full transparency and accountability and the report should be published in full. That is in the public interest, although I recognise that there are some who would prefer that this affair simply die a death and the controversy be not revisited.

Having regard to the damage done to GSOC's credibility, the extent to which that may taint any future investigations and reports, the risk of further leaks, the inordinate amount of Cabinet, Dáil and Oireachtas committee time spent on these matters and the media frenzy spawned by them, leaving matters as they are should not be acceptable to any Member of this House. It is also not acceptable to do so in the context of the additional powers being conferred on GSOC by new legislation. What Members of the House should require is that there is full transparency with regard to the investigation conducted, that the report in as detailed a fashion as possible be published and that whatever steps are required or necessary be taken to restore public confidence in GSOC and the credibility of those in a leadership position within GSOC.

Deputy Frances Fitzgerald

I have made it clear that I have a copy of the report, which was prepared by a senior counsel for GSOC. GSOC has made it clear that it was not intended originally for publication. The Deputy will appreciate the legal point that full publication may give rise to personal data issues.

Deputy Mick Wallace

Deputy Shatter would not be into that.

Deputy Frances Fitzgerald

There may be implications for third parties, such as defamation and there will be some issues relating to operational matters. I understand the point made by the Deputy that redaction can be problematic from a practical perspective in respect of the coherence of the overall report if and when redactions are made. From a legal perspective, redactions must be made if there was an infringement on personal data or if there were defamation issues in the report. The Deputy will accept that.

I appreciate the concerns raised in respect of transparency and accountability with regard to the report. There is a major public interest in ensuring that as much information as possible is made available, consistent with the legal rights of those involved. I have asked GSOC, in consultation with the senior counsel who prepared the report, who knows the full facts and how legal rights must be protected, with whatever level of redaction might be necessary, to consider publishing the report in the public interest.