Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Oct 2013

Vol. 226 No. 13

Adjournment Matters

Road Safety

I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to raise this issue on the Adjournment. I am calling for action to be taken to ensure roll-over protective structures, ROPS, also known as roll bars, are installed in all vintage tractors. The phenomenon of vintage tractor runs is increasing in popularity and is a pastime enjoyed by many people in this country. Many tens of thousands of euro are raised for charity on a weekly basis by the holding of runs such as the one that will take place in County Meath this coming weekend. I compliment those involved in this activity for their efforts in supporting charities throughout the country.

I was contacted recently by Mrs. Carmel Gilsenan from Kilmainhamwood in County Meath whose daughter Gráinne, aged 22 years, died in a tragic accident during a vintage tractor run in June last year. Gráinne was a respected member of her community, very active in charity fund-raising and took great pleasure in participating in vintage tractor runs. In the aftermath of her death, Gráinne's mother has, very generously, voiced her support for the continuation of vintage runs, while also calling for the enforcement of more effective safety precautions in respect of older vehicles. She asks specifically for legislation to be amended to ensure the installation of safety features such as roll bars are made mandatory for vintage tractors.

Mrs. Gilsenan recently told the Meath Chronicle and Cavan and Westmeath Herald:

I do think that Gráinne died doing what she always wanted to do and was happy in herself. But I would like to see her memory honoured, to have legislation amended so that roll bars and safety features are made mandatory on these vehicles. If it would save another person going through this loss it would be worth it.

Her words are extremely generous in light of the severe grief she has suffered. I met Mrs. Gilsenan this week, with members of a vintage club and others who regularly take part in vintage runs, raising significant sums for charity in the process. They fully support her call. In fact, many have already voluntarily taken it upon themselves to increase the safety features of their own vehicles. I understand this can be done at a relatively modest cost.

I expect the Minister will point to legislation from a long time ago in arguing that regulations in this regard are already in place. Even if that is the case, the issue must be given more prominence by the Road Safety Authority. I cannot find any reference to it on the authority's website, which suggests a lack of awareness of the potential dangers. We must ensure that growing numbers of people who participate in this excellent pastime are doing so safely. This is particularly pressing in the case of vintage tractors that are used on the road, as opposed to those that are simply for display purposes, such as vehicles show-cased in the Moynalty steam threshing festival.

We would all like to see the charity fund-raising facilitated by these events continue and develop. Many recipients of the organisers' efforts say that they depend on the funds raised by the vintage runs. At the same time, however, everybody would like to be confident that safety is a top priority. As Mrs. Gilsenan said, that would be a fitting tribute to her daughter who died so tragically last year.

I thank the Senator for drawing my attention to this issue. As a road safety matter relating to vehicle standards, I have accepted the transfer of the matter from my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.

It is generally accepted that tractors operated unsafely are potentially lethal, and accidents involving agricultural tractors account for a very high proportion of all farm accidents each year. In fact, statistics compiled by the Health and Safety Authority show that farm vehicles and machinery account for the highest proportion of farm deaths and accidents. In the period 2000 to 2010, 19% of fatalities involving vehicles were as a direct result of the vehicle overturning while being driven by the operator.

It is important to address any perception that there are no safety standards in place for vintage tractors. On the contrary, the Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1969 require all tractors used in a public place, irrespective of age, to have roll-over protective structures of an appropriate standard fitted. These generally take the form of a cab or frame that provides a safe environment for the tractor operator in the event of a roll-over. Also known as anti-roll bars or cabs, they are designed to prevent death, minimise injury and protect the driver from being crushed if the tractor overturns. The regulations, which have been in effect since 1 September 1977, mean that all vintage tractors - that is, tractors which are more than 30 years old - which are driven in a public place for whatever reason, whether taking part in a vintage run or otherwise, must, by law, have the safety structures referred to by the Senator. A public place is defined in road traffic legislation as "any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge".

Enforcement of road traffic law is a matter for An Garda Síochána. Regulations provide that the penalty for a breach is a direct summons to court and, on conviction, a class C fine, namely, up to €2,500, or a prison sentence or both. This relates to the person who commits the offence and the owner of the vehicle. I am advised that the protection structures must pass a series of static or dynamic crush tests. These tests examine the ability of the structures to withstand various loads in order to ascertain whether the protective zone around the operator station remains intact in an overturn. The tests are extensive and destroy the roll-over protective structure.

A homemade bar attached to the tractor axle cannot protect the operator if the tractor overturns. Vintage tractor owners should not, therefore, add their own roll-over protection devices to tractors which were manufactured without such protections. Without proper design and testing, homemade devices offer a false sense of security which can be more dangerous than operating a tractor without ROPS. The Organisation for Economic Co­operation and Development, OECD, has standards for the design of roll-over protective structures, and these are the appropriate standards referenced in the road traffic regulations.

There are several ways to reduce the possibility of tractor roll-overs, but it is important to remember that they are not a substitute for ROPS. Operators of tractors equipped with ROPS are advised to avoid sharp turns and reduce speed when turning because, unlike cars, tractors have a high centre of gravity and can tip or overturn more easily. Drivers are also advised to avoid driving on steep embankments, near ditches and around holes. These areas are more likely to lead to a roll-over because the ground can give way and the tractor lose support. When conditions require operation on steep slopes, operators should travel in the forward direction down the slope and in the reverse direction back up the slope. This will place the tractor in a more stable position and reduce roll-over risks. Older tractors can be retrofitted with roll-over protections systems, for which vehicle owners are advised to engage the services of a dealer for their particular brand of tractor. The services of an automotive engineer may also be required in instances where a particular brand or marque of tractor is no longer in production.

In short, in the interests of safety for both driver and other road users, owners and operators of vintage agricultural tractors are obliged to mount roll-over protection on their vehicles when in use in a public place. The age of the vehicle has no bearing on this requirement.

I thank the Minister for setting out the law in this area. A review of the regulations, which were introduced in 1969, might well be timely. Will the Minister ask the Road Safety Authority to give more priority to raising awareness of this issue? I again thank the vintage clubs for all the charitable work they do and the tens of thousands of euro they raise for worthy causes. I join them in calling for stricter enforcement of safety measures in order to prevent future tragedies.

The Senator's raising of this matter afforded me an opportunity to examine the regulations in question, which date back to the 1970s and 1980s. I will undertake to discuss the matter with the RDA, seek its view on whether they should be updated and ask that it issue an advisory on the issue and perhaps contact the vintage clubs. We all wish to support those clubs in their charitable activities while ensuring those activities are carried out in a safe manner.

Action Plan for Jobs

I am delighted to see the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, in the House to answer this Adjournment matter. Senator Averil Power could not believe my excitement at the prospect.

Last July the Minister said in the Dáil during Leaders' Questions that dealing with the issue of youth unemployment was what got him and his Government colleagues up in the morning.

However, after the call for submissions for the jobs action plan went out, I question whether he might be a bit of a late starter in the mornings. When the budget cuts affecting young people were introduced earlier this week, I had a lot of questions about them. Not only is youth unemployment not included in one of the seven priorities named in the call for submissions for the action plan, there has been no indication that there will be any specific jobs strategy for young people in the plan, as was called for by the USI, the ISSU or ICTU, or even the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. If we take that in tandem with the cuts to the jobseeker's allowance this week, I would be very fearful that we are not prioritising youth unemployment and that we might be brushing the problem under the carpet.

On today's edition of thejournal.ie, two former presidents of the students' union in, respectively, Trinity College Dublin and UCD, Andrew Byrne and Dan Hayden, sum up brilliantly the plight of young people and what the budget has done for them.

[T]he cuts to jobseeker’s allowance for those under 26 will have the effect of pushing a significant number of young people below the poverty line and out of the country ... The best that can be said about the impact of the policies towards young people pursued by this Government since it took power is that they are consistent. Consistent in imposing the costs of adjustment on those least able to resist them. And consistent in pushing them towards leaving this country.

In the same publication, Dan O'Neill and Fiona Dunkin state the following.

[T]he government are seizing the independence of an entire group, increasing their dependence on their already hard-pressed parents and forcing many into poverty.

The considerably widely-held notion of "getting on your bike" and finding a job is utterly ridiculous. With one report from the European Commission declaring there to be over 50 jobseekers in Ireland to every one vacant job it is quite clear that we cannot cycle along a route to nowhere.

These are just some of the contributions in the media from a number of observers.

Funding was made available this week for the youth guarantee which was supposed to be the cornerstone of a policy to help young people who were not in employment, education or training, but only €14 million was allocated. Only a number of months ago, the Committee on European Union Affairs put together a report on the youth guarantee. It was a cross-party report that was built on consensus, with a lot of input from youth organisations like the National Youth Council of Ireland, the European Youth Forum and previous board members of Youthreach. They called for the Swedish model of the youth guarantee to be implemented. That is supposed to be best practice and, under that model, €6,600 per participant would be allocated, but the allocations announced the other day come to €260.22 per young person who is recorded officially as unemployed under the quarterly national household survey.

When the Minister was questioned about youth unemployment, the Deputy involved said he should stay in bed if that was the best he could do. I would not say that myself, but I would agree that if youth unemployment was such a pressing concern, there would be a national jobs strategy for young people included in the action plan for jobs for next year and the Minister would take submissions from the relevant groups on this. If possible, he would also meet the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, to examine the cuts to the youth jobseeker's allowance, how that will affect young people in looking for employment and how it could restrict them from actively seeking work.

I thank the Senator for raising this issue, which is undoubtedly very important. Her comments may be based on a misunderstanding. What she describes as seven priorities referred to what we had in the 2013 action plan, which were described as disruptive reforms. They were catalysts in particular areas that had a cross-sectoral potential to impact jobs. They included things like big data, ICT skills, trading online and so on. They were not categories of need or sectors. They looked at opportunities that could drive change across a range of sectors.

The Action Plan for Jobs had a substantial section dealing with Pathways to Work, which is the scheme run primarily by the Minister for Social Protection. That is a very substantial programme which seeks to reduce unemployment across the board. Substantial investment in that programme has taken place. JobBridge has 6,000 participants, 3,000 of whom are under 25. Among those under 25, 12,000 are on FÁS courses, 6,500 are on back to education and vocational training opportunities scheme courses, 6,000 are on Youthreach courses, and 1,250 are on Momentum courses. A total of 28,000 special provisions have been made to deal with youth unemployment before yesterday's budget announcement. The Minister indicated that she plans to increase that in the context of the youth guarantee and I saw a figure of 4,500 additional places quoted in her comments.

The philosophy of this Government is to see young people under 25 years on the dole as a bridging period, where the thrust of what we are seeking to do is to develop opportunities for young people. That is why if people take up courses under Momentum or back to education, they will get additional payment but, more important, they will get a really valuable opportunity. We are in the fortunate position compared with the past five years in that our economy is creating employment. Last year, 39,000 jobs were created in the private sector. Our ambition is to ensure young people get access to more of them.

The Senator is absolutely right to say one of the big casualties of this recession has been young people. The traditional catch-22 of not having experience has often meant that where jobs have been created, they are not getting opportunities. That is why JobBridge and Springboard are such important programmes, because they provide practical on-the-job experience which breaks that catch-22. Their placement rates are very impressive, with over 60% from JobBridge.

We are open to submissions for the action plan for 2014. We have received a substantial number of submissions. It is correct to say we need to examine building a bridge between the activity around the youth guarantee and the enterprise sector. One of the issues we will be examining is how to ensure the schemes we have put in place - the most recent is the €72 per week subsidy for any employer who takes on a person who is a year out of work, be they young or old - get a strong take-up and are relevant to industries. It is a similar case with the Momentum and Springboard programmes. I work very closely with the Minister for Education and Skills and the Minister of State at that Department, Deputy Ciarán Cannon, to ensure there is a fit between the emerging sectors that are doing well in the economy and the training and work experience they are providing. I think we can look to build stronger bridges in that area. We are not as fortunate as countries like Germany, where there is a strong tradition of companies having traineeship places which they maintain in good times and in bad. That tradition is not as strong in Ireland, but we need to build those bridges between people who are out of work and enterprise. The other area we are really excited about is entrepreneurship and the potential for more enterprise. Mr. Sean O'Sullivan is working on an entrepreneurship strategy and, within that, we will be looking at the scope for initiatives specifically targeted at youth start-ups for 2014.

While I understand there will always be a certain amount of political overplay in the comments being made, the Senator raises a very important issue and there are bridges to be built. There is real potential and if the Senator wishes to make submissions for the 2014 plan, we will, through Forfás, look seriously at any comment made. There is a certain division of labour between what I do, which is essentially related to enterprise, and what the Minister for Social Protection does, which is essentially about Pathways to Work. We are trying to ensure the bridges between those two are forged in a strong fashion.

The Minister mentioned that the seven things to which I referred as priorities are catalysts in certain areas. I was looking at the submission process on the departmental website. If I was a member of a youth organisation or an advocacy group like ICTU or the USI and had put together a document on the youth sector and on youth unemployment, it does not make it easy for me to make that submission.

All I ask is that the Minister issue a press release in order that these groups know the submission process is open. It is a targeted need and I do not want to make a political point about it because it is important to me and it affects my peer group. Could the Minister meet these groups or ensure they are aware of the submission process because it is a big issue in the economy and society?

We have had submissions from very active groups within the youth area who are keenly looking for youth enterprise funds. It is not that people are unaware but if there is a particular group the Senator believes should make a submission and if she provides me with its name, I will ensure it is contacted and has the opportunity to submit.

Pyrite Remediation Programme Implementation

I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan.

I also welcome the Minister. It is very unusual for three senior Ministers to take Adjournment matters in the House. I hope it is an indication of things to come. It is very positive.

I do not think so. It has not happened on any day I have been here that a Minister has come in to take his or her own matter.

That did not happen when I was in the Seanad.

I welcome the announcement yesterday of an initial €10 million fund to kick-start the pyrite remediation scheme. It will come as a huge relief to people who have not been able to repair their homes and have waited a long time for a solution to be agreed at a national level. I am disappointed the Government has not been able yet to secure a levy on the industry. I hope the issue will be revisited after the various court cases conclude. It is only right that the industry would pay its fair share rather than the burden falling on the taxpayer.

I commend the Government for moving to put the remediation scheme in place and acknowledge the work the Minister and the former Minister of State, the late Shane McEntee, did on this issue in recent years to bring about a solution. I am very concerned, however, that the scheme will not provide any compensation for people who have had to repair their homes themselves before now. While some developers carried out pyrite remediation works on the properties they built, others have refused to do so. Many families have had to pay for the work themselves. Some have spent more than €30,000 or €40,000 on tests to identify the extent of the problem, on the physical repair works, on temporary accommodation and on storage while their homes were uninhabitable. That is a huge sum of money for any family to have to pay. As Sandra Lewis of the Pyrite Action Group pointed out yesterday, home owners in their 30s could do this only by remortgaging or borrowing to pay for that work. Older couples had to dip into their life savings to fix their homes. It was not that these people could afford to pay for that work. In many cases it was that they simply could not afford not to do it because their homes would have been uninhabitable otherwise. It has taken many years, as the Minister knows, to bring about a solution.

I know that when the Minister was asked yesterday why these homes were not covered by the scheme, he said people should take cases against developers to get the money back, but for many that is not realistic because many developers have gone out of business and been declared bankrupt, and it would be futile for those families to chase somebody from whom they have no realistic opportunity of recovering money.

While I welcome the scheme, it is unfair that those families have been excluded. The same families were denied an exemption from the local property tax. I communicated earlier this year with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, on behalf of several families who, because they had paid for the remediation work themselves before the property tax exemption came in, had to pay the full property tax. They pointed out to me that other families who had the work done a couple of months later would not have to pay the property tax and will now have the works paid for also.

Will the Minister extend the scheme to provide compensation for people who had no choice but to carry out the work themselves before now? Will there be enough money in the next few years to pay for this work? I understand the Minister indicated yesterday that the €10 million is initial funding and that more is expected over the next two or three years but I did not see a figure for what exactly the Minister intends to be put in place, or indeed if there is any agreement in the Department of Finance about funding for the following years. The Minister is aware that there are some indications that it could cost up to €50 million. The funding announced yesterday seems to be just for the 1,000 homes in the red category, those which are worst affected. It has been estimated that up to 12,500 homes could be affected by pyrite. Will there be enough money to cover everybody who has been affected? When will the necessary legislation to establish the pyrite resolution board be brought before the Oireachtas?

The Leader of the House indicated yesterday that he had spoken to the Minister and that the Minister had indicated that he might bring the Bill to the Seanad first. Can he indicate when that might occur because I understand that the board needs to be put on a statutory footing before it can start to make payments? Have plans to levy the industry been shelved or does the Government intend to revisit the issue after the relevant court cases have concluded?

If I had known that all those questions would be asked, I would have been better prepared to answer them. I will try my best.

The Government has approved initial funding of €10 million for a pyrite remediation scheme, with additional funding to be allocated in the next two years from the capital stimulus programme which will be announced in early 2014. The initial phase of the remediation programme will deal with approximately 1,000 houses which it is estimated are in need of immediate repair, and will be delivered under the auspices of the pyrite resolution board. The legislation to put this into effect will be enacted before the end of the year and will commence in the Seanad. The post-2015 funding position will be dealt with having regard to the position at that time and developments in the meantime.

This is not a compensation scheme; it is a scheme to remediate homes which have significant pyritic damage and where the home owner has no other viable means of redress and can establish this to the satisfaction of the pyrite resolution board. The terms of the scheme require prior approval and the scope of the scheme is limited to dwellings which have significant pyritic damage as defined in the Irish Standard 398-1:2013 reactive pyrite in sub-floor hard-core material. As it is a targeted scheme and requires prior approval, it follows that the terms of the scheme cannot be retrospectively applied and this is in line with how schemes generally operate. There is always a cut-off point for new schemes.

While I have stated on many occasions that the State is neither culpable nor liable for the pyrite problem, none the less the Government has, in the public interest, decided that solutions should be provided for that group of home owners whose homes have been significantly damaged by pyritic heave and who have been left with no viable means of redress. The terms of the pyrite remediation scheme, already published in outline by the PRB, will not be affected by the new funding arrangements which will have other advantages and enable the PRB to have the programme implemented in a more direct and efficient manner, now that the taxpayer is funding it directly.

I am acutely aware of the long delay that many affected home owners have had to endure waiting for solutions to the pyrite problems in their homes. The purchase of a home is likely to be the largest single investment most people will make in their lifetime and they have a justifiable expectation that their home will be a place of enjoyment for themselves and their families for many years. I am reforming the building control regime which has left a Celtic tiger scar on many people with problems in their homes, not least in Priory Hall but also with pyrite and in unfinished estates. For home owners affected by pyrite, living in their homes has not turned out to be the enjoyable experience they had hoped for.

I understand how these situations have developed and, once the court cases are finished, I will pursue opportunities and solutions to see how we can extract some financial assistance and redress from the builders and developers who caused this problem. Much remediation of homes has taken place because people had insurance or the developers and builders who were involved in the scheme and raised with them personally the possibility of assistance have dealt directly with certain home owners to reduce the impact. Hundreds of homes have been remediated in this fashion. The new pyrite remediation scheme will help 1,000 householders over the next two years. I am implementing a scheme where my predecessors looked on and did nothing.

The Minister is right that some of the homes that were fixed by the developers were covered by insurance, but as he knows well many were not. Some families who have been in touch with me told me how the insurance covered the building works but would not cover the testing, which costs €3,000, and they were left to pay that bill. Nobody suggests the State should reimburse people for work that has already been covered by a builder or an insurance policy.

The problem is that there are families who are in extra debt because they had to do the work, not because they could afford to do it or because it was easy for them. They had to remortgage their home or take out other loans to pay for it. It is unfair that such families will not be covered by the scheme. I urge the Minister to revisit the issue in advance of the legislation being drawn up. I will make the point, as will colleagues on all sides, when the legislation comes before the House.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to revisit the levy when court cases are concluded. That is important. If there is any way of recovering some of the money for the taxpayer it should be done. The other issues I raised are all questions that have been asked publicly in the past 24 hours since the scheme was announced. If the Minister is not in a position to answer them now he might correspond with me in writing.

I answered the questions about the legislation coming before the House and the possibility of levying the construction sector and developers after the court cases are finished. To what other questions does the Senator refer?

The Minister did not indicate when the legislation would be brought before the House.

This session.

Does the Minister mean this winter session or this year?

The legislation must be enacted between now and the end of the year.

Does the Bill have to be enacted between now and the end of 2013?

I appreciate that. The Leader indicated yesterday that the Bill would be brought before the House early next year, but it will be before the end of December. That is helpful. I thank the Minister.

It is worth indicating to the Senator that I am implementing a scheme which her party ignored for so long.

The Minister made the point previously.

I wish to make it again because it often falls on deaf ears. It is one of the scars of the Celtic tiger that I must address.

The Seanad adjourned at 2.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 October 2013.
Top
Share