Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Jul 2013

Vol. 225 No. 3

Adjournment Matters

Environmental Policy

Senator Kathryn Reilly

The issue I raise arises from proceedings in the European Parliament last week when the environment committee voted on and updated the environmental impact assessment directive. One of the key amendments sought to introduce the inclusion of the extraction of unconventional fossil fuels under the directive. Until now only projects that produce at least 500,000 cubic metres of gas daily had to undergo environmental impact assessments. Given that unconventional gas project emissions tend be highly variable and such projects produce less gas but their environmental impact may be as serious as that of conventional gas extraction, it is important that we ensure any impact on the environment is fully considered and fully compliant with environmental impact assessments before any extraction project is approved. I understand the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is waiting until the EPA report on fracking is published before he makes a decision on whether to grant an exploratory licence for the use of the process here. In the light of the amendment made to the environmental impact assessment directive in the European Parliament, what will this mean for the process under way?

Fracking has been an issue of grave concern, especially in the communities near the Lough Allen Basin and straddling Fermanagh, Leitrim, Cavan and a number of other counties surrounding that area. International experience has warned us of the potential dangers of this method of gas extraction, not just on the environment but also on human health, and of wider issues, too. The health and environmental risks relating to the extraction of shale gas include contamination of groundwater, high water use, high use of toxic chemicals, air and noise pollution, the emission of pollutants and it has even been suggested earthquakes can occur. It is important that we close regulatory gaps that may be there for fracking operations within the European Union.

Many people point to America to show the potential dangers of not closely regulating shale gas operations. The Minister should listen to the voices of the communities which live near these potential drilling sites and are, therefore, more at risk from the negative consequences of fracking. Sinn Féin has highlighted the fact that the EPA report will take a very narrow view of the fracking process. We have said fracking does not begin or end with the injection of high pressure fluids into the ground. That is why the issues that need to be addressed include the construction of mining sites, the disposal of wastewater, chemicals and the impact on agricultural land. While geologists, engineers and scientists are sufficient in that area of expertise, they would not necessarily be aptly qualified to determine the impact fracking could have, for example, on human and animal health. In other countries there have been several reports on the serious impact of fracking on human health which range from skin and eye sores to respiratory problems. The risk to the people concerned and their families has raised a lot of questions about fracking. Before fracking is allowed in Ireland, there should be a full and thorough study of its potential impacts and the precautionary principle must be applied at all stages. I am referring specifically to the amendment to the environmental impact assessment directive and how that will relate to the process used here in respect of the EPA report and related issues.

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

I thank the Senator for raising this issue which I am taking on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan.

In October 2012 the European Commission published proposals to amend the environmental impact assessment directive. According to the Commission, the proposed new directive is aimed at strengthening existing provisions concerning the quality of environmental impact assessment, with the aim of achieving a high level of environmental protection. It is also intended to enhance policy coherence and synergies with other EU law instruments and "simplify" procedures, with a view to reducing unnecessary administrative burdens. Some of the main features of the draft proposals include a requirement that projects which require assessment of environmental impacts under both the EIA directive and the IPPC directive, among other directives, would have to be assessed in an integrated or co-ordinated manner, including the appointment of one competent or facilitating authority; mandatory provision of a large amount of screening information, by the applicant, for all Annex II type projects; mandatory and reasonably elaborate screening decisions to be made by consent authorities for all Annex II projects; mandatory scoping of the environmental impact statement, now called the environmental report, by the consent authority in all cases where an EIA is required; accreditation of persons deemed competent to do environmental reports; and all environmental impact assessments to be completed by the competent authority within six months of receipt of all relevant information.

The proposals have been the subject of detailed discussions at the European Council working party on the environment and the Irish Presidency held an orientation debate on some of their key features at the Council of Environment Ministers in March. On foot of this debate, the Irish Presidency prepared and circulated to delegations a revised text of the proposed directive, taking account of the views expressed by Ministers. In parallel with these discussions at the Council, the European Parliament has been considering the draft directive. The European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety voted on the rapporteur's report on the draft directive last week, adopting a number of amendments to the text. The rapporteur did not propose to cast a vote on the opening of inter-institutional negotiations. This issue will, therefore, be submitted to plenary and the Parliament's First Reading position will then be communicated to the Council.

It is anticipated that further consideration of the draft directive at the working party on the environment under the Lithuanian Presidency will be informed by the final position of the European Parliament once the First Reading position has been adopted by plenary vote and formally communicated to the European Council. The two European institutions, the Council and the Parliament, are engaging in the process. The Senator has also referred to the fact that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, has a specific role with regard to fracking, but he is not about to make any decision on it in the near future.

Child Protection

Senator Deirdre Clune

I thank the Cathaoirleach for selecting this issue for debate. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills, Deputy Ciarán Cannon.

Last year the people adopted a new Article 42A in the Constitution recognising that children have rights of their own and inserting these rights into the Constitution. Last week Dr. Geoffrey Shannon, the Government's special rapporteur on child protection, published and presented his sixth report to the Oireachtas. I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss it in its entirety.

There is one recommendation relating to cyberbullying and homophobic bulling on which I wish to concentrate, as it was highlighted as being particularly important by Dr. Geoffrey Shannon. Cyberbullying has been linked to a number of high-profile deaths and difficult situations. The growth of the Internet, online chat rooms and blogging has caught us all by surprise. It has become a forum for bullying where children are targeted and the area has little or no regulation. I am speaking about schools, and although I recognise that not all responsibility can be laid at the door of schools, they none the less play a role. However, that role is not clear. Where is the demarcation line between the school gate and other environments such as the home? We are aware of high-profile cases from the Association of Community and Comprehensive Schools in which principals have had to deal with, for example, pictures taken in the school and posted online with the school name and school uniform, not necessarily on school grounds but outside the school. There is also bullying of students by other students and there can be interaction between staff and students.

Schools boards of management have a responsibility in the area of bullying and they must set up a code of conduct following guidelines on counteracting bullying behaviour in schools. They have been provided with a template by the Department on how to do so with particular reference to cyberbullying and homophobic bullying. The purpose of these is to protect the student. The school itself can have a liability, as a victim of cyberbullying may seek reparation for damage, as pointed out in Dr. Geoffrey Shannon's report. School management bodies are engaged in updating existing policies and launching new initiatives.

In his report Dr. Shannon reviewed what is happening in other jurisdictions, particularly in New South Wales in Australia and in the State of Massachusetts, where legislation was introduced recently to ensure effective implementation of guidelines across the board and no deviation from them. The report states that the most effective means of preventing bullying may be to adopt a whole-school approach. This would encompass school policies on, for example, anti-bullying initiatives, codes of behaviour and the use of social media as an educational tool, as well as the involvement of parents. Legislation should be introduced compelling schools to have a strong disciplinary code. Moreover, learning from the observations made regarding the laws in Massachusetts, disciplinary measures should be uniform nationwide, as schools currently have too much latitude in determining how to discipline students who are engaging in bullying.

Those are strong recommendations. Recently the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs sought to put the Children First guidelines on a statutory basis for the reason that there was no uniformity of implementation across different jurisdictions. As we are reviewing the whole area of bullying and homophobic bullying in schools, it is an opportunity to address the suggestion that legislation should be introduced in this area.

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon)

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue and welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter.

I welcome the sixth report of the special rapporteur on child protection and particularly the focus on bullying. It is important that this issue be kept high on everyone's agenda. As the Senator is aware, the report focuses on cyberbullying and homophobic bullying in particular. The rapporteur also has comments on Internet safety in general. A number of the recommendations relate to existing legislation and these are a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter. A number of the recommendations made by the rapporteur relate to school-based bullying, and I would like to highlight relevant developments on which the Government has made progress since 2012. The Senator will be aware of a specific commitment in the programme for Government to help schools tackle bullying, and particularly homophobic bullying. With this in mind, the Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, convened an anti-bullying forum last year. As part of that forum the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, decided to issue a call for submissions and establish a working group to further explore what could be done through the school system to address this very complex issue.

The Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, was also very concerned that the Department of Education and Skills guidelines on bullying had not been updated since they were first issued in 1993 and wanted to ensure this was addressed. A wide range of expertise and experiences were shared through the forum and the submissions to the working group. He launched the report of the group - An Action Plan on Bullying - in January 2013. The action plan consists of 12 actions and recommendations in 13 areas and addresses much of what has been raised by the rapporteur in his report. In regard to the rapporteur's recommendation that "bullying should be addressed as a public health issue rather than one confined to the sphere of education", the action plan recognises that bullying needs to be considered in the wider societal context. This is particularly relevant to cyberbullying, which, as we all unfortunately know, can take place anywhere and at any time.

The action plan recommends the development of a national anti-bullying framework to communicate and promote a common vision and policy aims regarding bullying, including respect for diversity and inclusiveness. It recommends that this matter be considered in the development of the new children and young people's policy framework, which is intended to be the overarching national framework for the development of policies and services to improve outcomes for children and young people and promote all aspects of their development. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs has already indicated her willingness to do this. In regard to the rapporteur's recommendation that legislation should be introduced compelling schools to have a strong disciplinary code, to which the Senator specifically referred, there is already a legal obligation on all schools to have that disciplinary code.

Under the Education (Welfare) Act 2000, all schools are required to have in place a code of behaviour. This code must be drawn up in accordance with the guidelines of the National Educational Welfare Board, NEWB, issued to schools in 2008. These guidelines make it clear that each school must have policies to prevent or address bullying and harassment and schools must make clear in their code of behaviour that bullying is unacceptable.

I am pleased to say the Department is developing new procedures on bullying for primary and post-primary schools to replace the guidelines issued in 1993. The new procedures will issue to schools at the start of the new school year and will include specific references to homophobic bullying and cyberbullying. They will focus on a whole-school approach to addressing all types of bullying behaviour and provide the basis for a consistent approach to tackling bullying across all schools, as mentioned by the Senator. The working group that produced the anti-bullying action plan concluded that, at this time, the focus should be on implementing existing legislative requirements across the system rather than seeking to introduce new legislation.

In relation to the rapporteur's recommendation that homophobic and trans-phobic bullying should be considered a child protection issue, it should be noted that the Children First national guidelines provide that serious incidents of all types of bullying behaviour should be referred to the HSE children and family services. The action plan recommends that further consideration be given by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs to providing more detailed guidance for schools and others on what constitutes "serious bullying" under Children First and when referrals to the HSE should be made.

As part of the action plan the Department of Education and Skills is providing for the first time support for the Stand Up! awareness week against homophobic bullying, organised by BeLonGTo youth services. Other actions are also being progressed that are relevant to the rapporteur's report. These include the establishment of a new national anti-bullying website; a media campaign targeted at young people that specifically deals with the issue of cyberbullying, which was run earlier in the year; awareness raising and training for school boards of management and parents; and a review of teacher education support services provision to identify teacher training needs; a research project, led by the National Disability Authority, focused on appropriate intervention and prevention strategies for children with special educational needs and disabilities, as these children can be more at risk of being bullied. In addition, the National Office for Suicide Prevention is working with my Department to carry out research on the prevalence and impact of bullying linked to social media on mental health and suicidal behaviour among young people.

In addition to these actions, my officials met representatives of Facebook recently and agreement was reached on a way forward that will involve Facebook, the Department, second-level school management and leadership bodies, including the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals, working together to tackle bullying in Irish schools. This includes provision for an effective channel for school leaders to escalate concerns when required. A briefing was held for second level management and leadership bodies at Facebook headquarters on 21 June. The Senator quoted directly from the rapporteur's report outlining the positive influences that social media can have on communication among schools, pupils and their families. We should not lose sight of this. The issue of tackling bullying covers much more than social media; it is about addressing serious underlying societal issues whereby bullying can be an accepted part of school and societal culture.

The challenge for us all is to eliminate that culture and prove to children that it simply is not, and can never be, acceptable.

I again thank the Senator for raising this issue and providing me with the opportunity to update the House on the important work being done in this area.

Senator Deirdre Clune

I am grateful for the Minister of State's report. Much is being done. We have an up-to-date report as of 21 June and the teachers are meeting Facebook, which is important and for which I thank the Minister of State.

Garda Vetting Applications

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy John Perry.

Senator Denis Landy

I also welcome the Minister of State.

I would be the first to say Garda vetting of staff to ensure the safety of children is imperative and most important. However, the time lapse in seeking approval is completely unacceptable. It is now 14 weeks on average for staff across a wide spectrum to be vetted and accepted or otherwise onto various schemes. This is affecting a wide spectrum of persons and schemes across the country, from trainee nurses to Tús schemes, community employment schemes, staffing in child care facilities, etc.

According to the reply given in a Topical Issue debate in the Lower House on 27 June, 34 new staff were to be allocated to the Garda vetting unit. These staff were to be available from Monday last, 15 July, to work on the backlog for the past few months. Will the Minister of State tell me how this will reduce the waiting time and assure me that it will be brought back to what the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, stated on 27 June would be an acceptable waiting time for vetting of four weeks?

This is an important issue for many who are awaiting clearance, as I have outlined, to take up positions in many schemes across the country and also for their employers to ensure they can fill current vacancies. The timescale of 14 weeks is unacceptable and has been recognised as such by the Government. The question is whether the 34 extra staff, on top of existing staff, will be able to make a dent in the waiting list and what the new timescale will be for Garda vetting.

Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy John Perry)

On behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, who is unavoidably detained elsewhere, I thank the Senator for raising this important matter.

The Garda central vetting unit, GCVU, provides employment vetting for approximately 20,000 organisations in Ireland registered with the unit for this purpose. These organisations employ personnel to work in a full-time, part-time, voluntary or student capacity with children and-or vulnerable adults. Garda vetting is conducted only on behalf of registered organisations and not for individual persons on a personal basis. When an organisation is registered with the Garda central vetting unit, it is entitled to receive Garda vetting services in respect of its employees.

A vetting disclosure is made in response to a written request and with the permission of the person who is the subject of that request. Garda vetting disclosures are only issued to specified organisations registered with the GCVU for that purpose in respect of a particular post or employment. The unit processed approximately 328,000 vetting applications on behalf of these organisations in 2012. This workload is likely to increase significantly in the future.

The current average processing time for applications is approximately 12 to 14 weeks from date of receipt. However, seasonal fluctuations and the necessity to seek additional information on particular applications can result in this processing time being exceeded on occasion. All organisations registered for Garda vetting are aware of the processing timeframes for the receipt of Garda vetting applications and have been advised to factor this into their recruitment and selection process.

In order to observe equity and fairness in respect of all applicants for Garda vetting, standard processing procedures are such that applications are processed in chronological order, from the date of receipt in the central vetting unit. Each time a new vetting application is received, a full vetting check is conducted to ensure the most recent data available are taken into account. The non-transferability and contemporaneous nature of the certificate protects against the risk of fraud or forgery and is a guarantee of the integrity of the vetting service. It also affords the registered organisation the facility to assess suitability based on the most up-to-date information available on the applicant. The primary objective of the Garda central vetting unit is the protection of children and vulnerable adults and this must remain the case. The House will be aware that the Garda Commissioner is responsible for the vetting service and the detailed allocation of resources, including personnel, throughout the organisation. The Minister remains in ongoing contact with the Commissioner on how best the service can continue to be delivered and improved upon, while at all times protecting the integrity of the process.

As the Senator has highlighted, the Minister has received sanction from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform for the redeployment of additional staff to the vetting offices in Ennis, Tipperary and Thurles. The Garda Commissioner has informed the Minister that there are now one superintendent, three sergeants and approximately 127 whole-time equivalent civilian personnel assigned to the Garda central vetting unit. It is important to note that while the number of people employed in the vetting service is in excess of this, the standard metric for counting staff is in terms of whole-time equivalents.

The staff in Ennis have been fully operational since the end of last year. The other additional staff members have been undergoing training, with the first due to have completed training on 15 July and the last by mid-September. When these staff members have been fully trained in the vetting process, the Minister expects there will be a positive effect on vetting times.

The Department is also examining the scope for the further redeployment of additional personnel from within the public service to the unit and is engaged in ongoing discussions with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in this regard. This is a good example of the value of redeployment within the public service and the contribution it can make to the more effective use of resources. The Minister has been further informed by the Garda Commissioner that sufficient accommodation and equipment have been provided to accommodate all of these additional personnel and facilitate their work when they complete their Garda vetting training.

On behalf of the Minister, I again thank the Senator for raising this matter. I can assure him and the House that it is a matter of utmost importance to the Minister. I will pass on to the Minister the issues and points raised and he has confirmed that he will convey them directly to the Garda Commissioner.

Senator Denis Landy

I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Unfortunately, the question I asked, that is, when and by how much the waiting time will be reduced, has not been answered. Respecting the reply he has given, I ask the Minister, when he has had an opportunity to assess the benefit of the extra staff within the vetting unit, to pass on that information to me as soon as possible. This is an issue of considerable concern. While acknowledging that employers taking on staff must factor it in, nonetheless, it is important that we reduce the waiting time involved. The response does not include that information and I respectfully ask the Minister to pass it on, not only to me but also to all Members of both Houses when it is available and forthcoming and available, obviously after the staff have settled in.

Deputy John Perry

I will convey the Senator's concerns to the Minister. In 2012 there were 328,000 applications processed, a significant number. It is a positive sign that the Minister has received approval for the redeployment of personnel.

I have no doubt, with retraining and additional staff, unless there is a massive increase in the volume in work, that there should be a reduction in timescale. As the Minister has clearly stated, he will convey the Senator's concerns to the Commissioner and will ask him to reply directly to the Senator.

Disability Allowance Appeals

Senator Mary Moran

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, for coming here to answer my Adjournment matter. Can he explain the long delay in dealing with appeals for the disability allowance? I made inquiries and have been told that over 300 people have had to wait over a year for a decision on their appeal. Also, 4,169 appeals were heard last year but 2,513 of those people had waited over four months. That is an unnecessarily long wait. Why the delay? Why were so many applications disallowed on initial submission yet the Department claims over 50% are granted on appeal? Is there a discrepancy in the initial application? What is the cause of the confusion? Has anyone investigated why so many first round applications are refused? I would be grateful to hear answers.

I rang the Department the other day and was told that the appeals submitted last November are only now being processed. That is an extraordinarily long wait and I look forward to hearing the answer.

Deputy John Perry

I shall respond to this Adjournment on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton. She welcomes the opportunity to outline to the Seanad the steps being taken to improve the processing of disability allowance applications and the significant improvements made in the past 12 months in the processing of applications for other departmental schemes such as family income supplement, invalidity pension and carer's allowance.

The processing time for individual social welfare claims may vary in accordance with their relative complexity in terms of the relevant qualifying criteria, people's circumstances and the information they provide in support of their claim. In addition, a request for a review or an appeal by a person adds to the length of time taken to deal with the claim.

A major service delivery modernisation project was undertaken to improve the efficiency of administration of a number of social welfare schemes, including disability allowance, and to help deal with substantial backlogs in Longford schemes. This involved the deployment of information technology solutions and associated business process improvement.

The current average time to decide a new disability allowance application is seven weeks. Following completion of the IT phase of the modernisation project in the area, the disability allowance section commenced its business process improvement project in December 2012, at which stage there were 7,800 claims awaiting decision. The backlog elimination plan was implemented at the end of April 2013. All of the backlogged new claims awaiting a decision prior to 29 April 2013 were ring-fenced and additional staff, operating a new streamlined process, were assigned to decide these claims. The backlog of unactioned claims is presently reduced to just over 2,900 and the target is to have all these actioned within the next few weeks. New disability allowance applications received from 1 May 2013 onwards are actioned without undue delay.

Previously, following the roll-out of the IT phase of service delivery modernisation projects, similar business process improvement projects were completed in invalidity pensions, carer's allowance and also in family income supplement. The Minister is delighted to say that these projects have resulted in the elimination of backlogs of new claims in invalidity pensions and carer's allowance. They have also eliminated backlogs of both new and renewal claims in family income supplement. For instance, the current average time taken to decide a new invalidity pension claim is six weeks; carer's allowance is now eight weeks; family income supplement is less than two weeks for new claims and in advance for renewals so that a customer with an ongoing entitlement to family income supplement is not left without payment.

As a consequence of the very high number of decisions made in the past year in all the relevant schemes, and as backlogs were being eliminated, there has been a corresponding substantial increase in the number of appeals being received. Invalidity pensions, carer's allowance and family income supplement sections are now focused on reducing the appeals on hand. The prompt processing of claims is the priority for all scheme managers. Each scheme area is continuously monitoring its processes, procedures and the organisation of work to ensure that processing capability is maximised.

The Minister wishes to assure Senators that service delivery remains a key priority in her Department and that processes are kept under continuous review to ensure that services are delivered promptly to customers.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Moran can ask a brief question.

Senator Mary Moran

I thank the Minister of State for his comments. I noted that the present waiting time for disability allowance is seven weeks but I asked about appeals. The other day a member of the Department informed me, on the telephone, that staff are now examining the backlog of appeals that date back to November. However, I have taken the positive message from the Minister of State's statement that applications have been cleared; therefore, appeals will be examined soon. I hope so, but I shall wait and see.

Deputy John Perry

I compliment the Minister on the transformation business model in the Department.

Senator Mary Moran

I agree.

Deputy John Perry

The Minister has clearly stated that the residual claims have been reduced to over 2,000 and are being processed, and will be processed, within the next number of weeks. That is a great transformation when one considers the level of claims that are being processed. Procedures have also been put in place to deal with the backlog. She has also clearly stated that ongoing claims will be dealt with speedily and efficiently. I compliment the staff who have put a great amount of time and effort into the transformation process. They have done a massive amount of work and should be complimented.

Senator Mary Moran

I agree with the Minister of State. I welcome the improvements and hope it continues.

The Seanad adjourned at 10.40 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 18 July 2013.