I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris.
Commencement Matters
National Monuments
King John's Castle in Carlingford is a very strategic edifice which is visited by thousands of tourists each year. The Minister of State's predecessor, Mr. Brian Hayes, now an MEP, visited the castle and acknowledged the fact that the local heritage trust in Carlingford was prepared to include visits to it on its heritage trail. As the Minister of State is aware, Carlingford is a medieval town and, thankfully, many monuments from the past remain in existence there. Including the castle on the heritage trail would be a major asset to the tourism infrastructure of the town. I am anxious that work at the castle to facilitate Carlingford Heritage Trust in order that it might include visits to the castle on its heritage trail should recommence as soon as possible.
I thank the Senator for again raising this matter, about which he is extremely passionate and on which he has very sincere views. He has convinced me to be passionate about it as well in the context of wanting the project to be brought to a conclusion.
As the Senator is well aware, Carlingford is an historic town with a number of fine structures, including two national monuments in State care - namely, the historic Mint building and Carlingford Castle, known popularly as King John's Castle and named after Richard the Lionheart's brother. Even though the castle is named for King John, it was actually built by Hugh de Lacy, a Norman knight who founded the town of Carlingford. Construction on the castle started prior to 1186, but there were various additions to the building over the years and many eras of architecture and history are represented. It is, therefore, an important monument and a significant priority for the Office of Public Works.
The castle is, as I have said, a national monument which has been in State care since 1919 and has been managed and maintained by my office since that time. In the initial period it had limited access and many of the interiors were not safe; therefore, large parts of it were inaccessible. A programme of stabilisation work was carried out in the 1950s, which addressed the worst of the problems apparent, but nothing further of a really substantial nature, apart from holding maintenance, has been carried out since then. More recently, the OPW's national monuments service embarked on a programme of safety works. The first phase of this, which included the putting in place of a pedestrian walkway around the outside of the castle, was completed in the past few years. The intention is to carry on with further work to extend the accessible areas and allow visitors to more easily enter the castle site. A key aspect of the work will involve the careful dismantling of a crucial 19th-century wall and its reconstruction on a new firmer foundation but with the addition of an access door through which members of the public will be able to pass. This will dramatically improve the position for visitors wanting to get into the Castle in the future.
This next phase of the works is a major conservation project and will, as I have said, improve safety, access and presentation of this important historic monument to a significant degree. A large amount of preparation work, design and careful archaeological investigation and assessment has been carried out. In 2014 the Minister for Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht signed the necessary archaeological consent required under national monuments legislation to allow the work to proceed. All of the work that has been carried out to date at the castle, though substantial, has essentially been preparatory in nature and has really just set the scene for the major element that is yet to come.
I know the Senator is eager to see that happen.
As the Senator will appreciate, the National Monuments Service of my office is, like many organisations in recent times, under a significant amount of pressure, with demands on scare resources a particular problem. However, King John's Castle is a significant priority for my office, and for me personally, and my officials have informed me that works will recommence there in the summer of this year. The amount of effort involved in bringing this to completion should not be underestimated; this is a large conservation undertaking and works will, therefore, take some time to finish.
I can appreciate fully that the Carlingford Heritage Trust is anxious to exploit the potential that a more easily accessible castle will bring to the area and I am sure that this project, when completed, will bring much visitor and tourism benefit to the town. I look forward to accepting the Senator's invitation to visit Carlingford Castle with him, I hope some time in March.
That is great news and I am very pleased to hear it. I should have acknowledged at the outset the significant works done by the Office of Public Works from the 1950s to date and I compliment it on the condition of the castle. It is great news that the Minister believes works will commence in the summer. I know the difficulty involved, and restoring the original entrance to the castle will be a phenomenal achievement. I look forward to that and welcoming the Minister of State to Carlingford. We might have a cup of coffee in one of the hostelries when he comes.
I very much look forward to it. I thank the Senator and the Carlingford Heritage Trust, as well as the local community of Carlingford that I know holds this castle in such high regard because, like me, it sees its potential benefit for Carlingford from a tourism, heritage and economic point of view. I very much look forward to visiting with the Senator, looking around the historic town of Carlingford and the great benefit the works recommencing in the summer will ultimately bring to the town of Carlingford.
Student Grant Scheme Eligibility
I welcome the Minister of State. I am delighted to have him respond and I am hoping for a positive outcome, as he gave to Senator Terry Brennan.
I refer to the need for the Minister for Social Protection to re-evaluate the eligibility rules related to the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, maintenance grant for parents in full-time education who are no longer eligible to receive the one-parent family payment and transferring to the back to education allowance, are not currently eligible to keep their maintenance grant, which assists them towards the cost of child care and commuting.
As of 2 July this year, any parent on the one-parent family payment with a child aged seven years or above will no longer be eligible for the payment. That means that lone parents who are currently in full-time education will now need to apply for the back to education allowance, which is granted on a discretionary basis. Hence, it will be up to individual social welfare officers to decide if these students will be granted this allowance, which will ultimately determine whether they will be able to continue in their studies. Obviously, being denied this grant would be devastating for anyone who has been working hard towards a degree for years in that they will be forced to drop out of their course. This is something that we cannot accept and must work towards changing. Even if they are granted the back to education allowance, they are not currently eligible to receive the SUSI maintenance grant and will only receive the fee portion of the grant.
As the Minister is aware, the SUSI grant consists of a student contribution towards the fees and the maintenance grant. This has been indispensable for the lone parents, of whom 97% are women, to pursue their higher education goals while on the one-parent family payment. There are many women in education full-time on the one-parent family payment and when their child moves beyond the age of seven they will be in the midst of the education, and this is impacting on them. The rate of the maintenance grant ranges from €300 to €5,915 a year and it is based on household income, living distance from the college and the number of children. It is a grant that has assisted lone parents towards the cost of child care and commuting while they are in full-time education and without that financial support most of these women will be forced out of education.
The Minister of State is here on behalf of the Minister for Social Protection and I ask that reason and common sense take hold. Good parenting tells us that children under ten years of age still need minding and cannot be left on their own while their parents are at work or in education. Their school days are short, and access to affordable after-school places is limited. That is one of the reasons I have, since the introduction of these changes, opposed the lowering of the age threshold to seven under the one-parent family payment. The Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection has promised that a child care system similar to what is found in Scandinavian countries would be in place before these changes take effect but that has not been acted on. I know that there are movements towards it. I am very familiar with what is going on in that arena but this is where we are now, and we would all agree that we do not have anywhere near such a Nordic model of child care as a public service in this country. This is where we are now, and it will impact a number of women.
The Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, are sincere when they advocate their support for lone parents to participate in education and training. I am aware of the reform the Tánaiste has introduced in that regard, but the women I am speaking about have been hit disproportionately harder than any other segment of Irish society. They are dynamic and they are driven. They do not want to have to drop out of the education course they are in the midst of because they will no longer get a maintenance grant. I ask the Minister for a guarantee that the lone parents in full-time education would be granted the back to education allowance, without discretion, and that the rules of the SUSI grant would be adjusted to better facilitate their care duties when they move to the back to education allowance.
I thank the Senator for raising this matter and apologise on behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection who is not in a position to attend and who has asked me to deliver a response on her behalf.
As the Senator will know, the eligibility rules governing the payment of a student maintenance grant are a matter for the Department of Education and Skills and are set down in its legislation. In budget 2010, the Department of Education and Skills amended the eligibility criteria for the receipt of the student maintenance grants in respect of persons in receipt of the back to education allowance and the voluntary training opportunities scheme, VTOS allowance. As a result of this amendment people in receipt of the back to education allowance for all schemes, and the VTOS allowance for those pursuing a PLC course, are no longer eligible for a student maintenance grant. However, the cost of the student service charge and any fees payable to third level colleges may continue to be met by the Exchequer on their behalf. This applied to all new grant holders from the 2010-11 academic year onwards.
With effect from the academic year 2010-11, students entering or progressing to a new course are no longer eligible to hold the back to education allowance together with a student maintenance grant. These students may continue to apply to be assessed to have the student contribution and any tuition fees paid on their behalf. The Department of Education and Skills decided to discontinue the practice of allowing students to hold both the back to education allowance or VTOS allowance and a student maintenance grant simultaneously as this represented a duplication of income support payments.
In budget 2012, the Department of Social Protection introduced reforms to the one-parent family payment, OFP, in particular the reduction of the age of the youngest child for receipt of such payment to seven years of age. These changes have been implemented on a phased basis with the final phase due to take place on 2 July 2015 when the age of the youngest child will reduce to seven years for all existing and new one-family payment recipients. The purpose of the phased OFP scheme age change reforms is to reduce long-term social welfare dependency by ending the expectation that lone parents will remain outside the workforce indefinitely and to assist these customers to make their way into employment and financial independence. All customers who are affected by this reform will be supported by the Department of Social Protection to transition onto an alternative income support payment as appropriate.
In regard to the education element, given that there is no work conditionality attached to the one-family payment, recipients of the payment can participate in training and education programmes and are not obliged to inform the Department of Social Protection. In some cases, such recipients do inform the Department and, where relevant, move to the back to education allowance scheme at the start of the course. Where entitlement to the payment ceases for these recipients, they can continue - this is important - to participate in the back to education allowance scheme until their course is completed. In cases where the customer has not informed the Department of Social Protection, and they are mid-way through their studies, as the Senator outlined, the back to education allowance scheme has been amended to allow them avail of this scheme at mid-course point, assuming that all other relevant qualifying criteria are met. This allows these customers to complete their course of study while also receiving an income support payment from the Department of Social Protection. If the customer has received a student grant, they are informed that they are no longer entitled to the maintenance portion of the grant. They may, however, retain eligibility for the student contribution or tuition fee portion of the grant, if applicable. The rules that determine payment of the student maintenance grant are a matter for the Department of Education and Skills.
That is a very helpful response, of which I am most appreciative. I take it from it, first, that if they are mid-way through their education they can move automatically, as distinct from going through another assessment process.
The second point that the Minister of State is saying loud and clear is that it is a matter for the Department of Education and Science and that it has amended its legislation so as not to include the maintenance grant. That may have been done before these other changes were made by the Department of Social Protection where women are going to be left midway, by 2 July, without maintenance. We need to take a look at the Department of Education and Science being aware of what has happened in the Department of Social Protection to ensure that these women are able to stay in education which I am sure that is what the Ministers in both Departments would hope for.
I thank the Senator for her comments. The Tánaiste has been very consistent in her view that she wants to help people access education, training and the workplace. The changes that have been made to the back to education allowance scheme allows a customer of the Department of Social Protection who may not have informed, nor were they obliged to inform, someone they were in study, to access the back to education allowance scheme at the mid-point in a course, which is an important change. It will mean that people who are not in receipt of the back to education allowance, but would qualify for it, can now take it up at mid-point to allow them to complete their course. I hope that is helpful to the Senator.
I thank the Minister of State. He has been very helpful.
Bus Éireann Services
I welcome the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport.
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to deal with this matter. I appreciate it very much.
It has come to my attention through local people and some workers in Bus Éireann that Bus Éireann intends to terminate the bus route 7 from Carrick-on-Suir to Dublin. The route commences in Clonmel, travels south east for 13 miles, then north east to Callan and on to Kilkenny and then to Dublin. Bus Éireann proposes to terminate this service from early March. No public representatives, to the best of my knowledge, have been contacted by Bus Éireann. I have had several contacts with Bus Éireann through telephone calls and e-mails. I got one standard reply from a representative of Bus Éireann which was basically an announcement. There was no interaction and a refusal to engage with me to discuss the matter.
Bus Éireann has a public service obligation and is subsidised annually by €34.5 million of taxpayers' money. The current service is used by many people from the Carrick-on-Suir area. The town of Carrick-on-Suir has a population of approximately 6,000 and the number of people who live in its hinterland brings that number up to 10,000. To the best of my knowledge, Carrick-on-Suir is the only town of its size in the country from which Bus Éireann does not provide a service directly to the capital city. There is also no direct rail link from the town to Dublin. Instead, one must travel to Limerick Junction, and wait to change trains, which means it takes three and half hours to get from the town to Dublin.
Many people rely on the bus service such as individuals who work in Kilkenny and those who avail of facilities run by the Camphill community and rehabilitation centres in Grangemockler and Callan that are located along the route. They have no other way of travelling every day to their work. Many use the route to attend hospital appointments in Dublin, to visit sick people in Dublin, to get to the airport, to attend clinics and to attend social events. People from my region use the service fairly regularly. On the Sundays of the All-Ireland championship the bus is packed in Carrick-on-Suir even before it leaves the town and makes its way to what is usually the enemy territory of Kilkenny. The bus service is very important to the town. For it to be withdrawn without any discussions or negotiations is completely unacceptable. How will the people who rely on this bus get to their places of work or the capital city from now on? Bus Éireann has made no provision to replace the service. In other places Bus Éireann has made provision and supplied feeder services.
The change to the route is the big query that I have. The travel time from Clonmel to Carrick-on-Suir, rather than leaving out Carrick-on-Suir, is only 20 minutes. I do not know how Bus Éireann can justify completely cutting off the town. It is a town of high social deprivation with high unemployment. We rely on people to come into the town with their income at the weekend. People use the bus service to go to their places of work in Dublin and spend their income in the town at weekends. Such expenditure will be affected if the bus service is cut off.
I ask the Minister to intervene in this issue, even though I know he is not directly responsible for same. In other parts of the country, when similar cases were brought to the attention of the Minister of the day, common sense prevailed. In some cases pilot schemes were put in place and some link-up services were put in place. I have outlined my case to the Minister and await his response. I thank him for coming to the House.
I thank the Senator for raising this matter. He has raised it with me on a number of occasions and I am aware of his deep concern about the issue. I welcome the opportunity to respond to him formally on the floor of the Seanad and I will outline the position.
I am very much aware of the importance of this matter. I am also aware of the concern that this change is causing among the communities to which the Senator has referred. Last week, I and the Minister of State, Deputy Ann Phelan, met some residents who live along another part of the route that the Senator referred to in order to discuss this issue with them.
As the Senator is aware, the National Transport Authority has responsibility at national level for securing the provision of public passenger land transport services. This includes the provision of subvented bus and rail services by Bus Éireann, Dublin Bus and Irish Rail. The National Transport Authority also licenses commercial bus passenger services. Under the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009, the National Transport Authority assumed responsibility for the regulation of commercial bus passenger services. These services were previously regulated by my Department under the Road Transport Act 1932. The Act obliges all operators to be licensed if they are providing public bus passenger services, and it is applied equally to both private and public bus companies.
Public service obligation, PSO, services covered by public service contracts do not fall within the licensing system. Commercial bus services are licensed in accordance with the provisions of the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009 and in line with the NTA's published guidelines for the licensing of public bus passenger services. The guidelines are published on the NTA website. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the detailed provisions set out in section 23 of the 2009 Act.
Where operators apply to withdraw or curtail commercial bus services - this goes to the heart of one of the questions posed by the Senator - the NTA will grant such amendments as it has no legislative powers to refuse them. In such circumstances the NTA may examine whether, in the absence of any commercial services, there is a PSO to provide socially necessary but commercially unviable public transport services. Such examination will include an assessment of the demand for public transport services and options either to reconfigure existing PSO services or to tender competitively for the provision of services. In either event, the NTA's ability to provide such services is subject to the availability of funding.
As to the specific issue of the funding of substitute services, I am acutely aware of the concerns of many people regarding recent decisions to withdraw licensed commercial services to a number of intermediate locations on major routes into Dublin, including route 7 from Carrick-on- Suir. Major improvements to the national roads network on the M9 motorway have provided the opportunity for commercial bus operators to offer improved journey times between Dublin and regional cities in particular. What has happened is Bus Éireann and other commercial bus operators have sought to amend their licences accordingly with the consequent effect of reducing the level of service provided to a number of intermediate locations on the network.
The NTA has indicated that it will examine options either to reconfigure existing PSO services or to tender competitively for the provision of services to those areas affected by the changes. I should add that I gave a commitment to avoid further reductions in PSO funding, and for the first time since 2008, the level of funding for bus and rail services is being maintained in 2015 at the same level as in 2014. I will continue to liaise with the NTA on the issues involved. I also recently secured €110 million for public transport as part of the 2014 Supplementary Estimate for my Department, which included €45 million for Irish Rail's network renewal investment and €50 million for bus renewal for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. I assure the Senator that I will be examining this issue further in the coming weeks.
I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive reply and his personal interest in the matter. I acknowledge that I have been in contact with him on a number of occasions. There is a bit of ducks and drakes going on here. I have a letter that is the only correspondence I got from Bus Éireann even though I wrote to it at least five times and probably tried to ring it ten times. It states it can confirm that it has accepted an offer of a revised schedule of services for route 7 from the NTA and is in discussions with its drivers. It seems that Bus Éireann is putting the onus on the NTA when the Minister's reply shows that it is Bus Éireann that should be going to the NTA to change its routes and to see whether this is acceptable. I am delighted the Minister will take a personal interest in this and will examine it further. Will he facilitate a meeting for me with the NTA - regardless of whether it involves the Minister as well - to flesh this out and get clarity on it? We will pursue it. It is saying it will change by the beginning of March; therefore, we do not have too much time but I will be in further contact with the Minister about it.
The Senator has raised this matter with me on many occasions. It is appropriate that we have this debate here because it is a really important issue. The Senator already knows that it is a complicated and challenging issue. A big contributory factor to this is the fact that as our national motorway network has been upgraded - the M9 is the particular motorway that has contributed to this - the bus operators want to make use of that improved network to service more people. A consequence of this is that people who are not located immediately adjacent to that motorway or who are in places with lower population densities than larger towns or cities are now facing the consequence of that decision. That is a core cause of what is happening.
I understand very clearly that the availability of public transport or, more broadly, communal transport, be it operated by a private bus operator or public company, provides essential connectivity. A challenge that must be responded to is how that kind of connectivity can be delivered given that national routes have been upgraded and bus companies are understandably looking to make use of them. I cannot tell the Senator that I have an immediate answer to this but I can assure him that the NTA, which is the regulatory body in this area and does excellent work managing competing demands from what are often scarce resources, is examining the matter to see if a response is possible. As Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, I have an interest in this matter and will be contacting and working with the NTA to see if a response can be put in place to respond to the needs articulated by the Senator. I assure him that I will certainly keep him abreast of this because I know it is a charged matter. I met a resident recently who explained to me that if the changes were to go ahead, she did not know how she was going to get into work. That is a legitimate concern for somebody to have. I have only have a fixed amount of money and while we are in a better position than we were a year ago and an even better position than we were the year before that, it is still a fixed amount of money. I have growing demand and am trying to figure out how we can bridge that gap. The NTA is looking at this matter. I will keep in contact with the NTA about it and assure the Senator that I will keep him fully aware of and updated regarding any developments in this area.
Environmental Policy
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy. This matter concerns the need for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to establish an environmental ombudsman office to deal with complaints made against the EPA. This stems from a number of sources. It goes back to the report commissioned by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the previous Government, Mr. John Gormley. In fairness, it was a very comprehensive review undertaken by Mr. John McCarthy. It said that serious legislative change was needed to make the EPA more accountable and effective. It said that under the legislation covering it, the EPA had blanket statutory immunity when carrying out its functions. The report said that this was very difficult to justify in a modern context because there should be no need for that kind of statutory immunity if the EPA is carrying out its job and functions correctly. What is it afraid of? I do not see why it should be afraid of litigation if it has done everything in the right order. Perhaps that is the crux of the problem. That report also said that it would be appropriate for the agency to be brought under the remit of the Ombudsman in respect of any alleged maladministration.
I raised the matter of an environmental ombudsman with the director of the EPA, Ms Laura Burke, when she attended a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht last November. That stemmed from an interview with Ms Burke when she took over, which I read. It alarmed me because when she took over, she said she wanted to reposition the agency to support economic growth and move away from the perception that it was purely an environmental watchdog or policeman. She did say Irish businesses were broadly compliant. I do not know what kind of statement that was. Was she referring to investors who are not Irish and who might not be compliant? That investigation also noted concern among stakeholders at the apparently low level of prosecutions being taken. At the time, the director general said:
What you don't want to do is go racing to prosecute. What you look at is guidance for the sector, you put in a proper licensing regime, you then do audits, inspections, etc, and you give businesses a chance to put in rectifying measures. And in the context of companies not delivering on their side of licensing, then you go to prosecutions, but enforcement is much more than prosecution.
That to me gave carte blanche to any investor and told them that the EPA is open for business, that they could do what they wanted and that the EPA would not be heavy-handed with regard to any regulation. It seemed a little lax and light touch. We have seen where light-touch regulation got this country in the past. When it comes to investment and investment in jobs, the Government's mantra has been that it is all about jobs.
Where I come from, there is a plant called Aughinish Alumina, which employs approximately 250 people. While it is great that we have those jobs in the county, the EPA should not be facilitating jobs for the sake of jobs or economic growth if human health comes second. This may be what is happening. When I questioned the director general of the EPA about whether the agency would have an argument against falling under the Ombudsman legislation, she said "Absolutely not." She stated:
In drafting the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government engaged extensively with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Office of the Attorney General on this issue to achieve an acceptable legislative wording to enable administrative procedures to fall within the legislation, but excluding the quasi-judicial function of the EPA. A satisfactory form of wording was not finalised so the EPA remains exempt for the purpose of the Act. However, we have no objection to falling within that Act.
Is it that there has not been enough capital investment to create such an office? There certainly is a need for an office of the ombudsman for the EPA when decisions have to be questioned. This is in order that people will not have to go to the High Court, Supreme Court and elsewhere. There should be an ombudsman's office to protect people.
The Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 2012 was signed into law by the President on 31 October 2012. The effect of the Act is that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform can, by regulation, provide that entities be included under the remit of the Ombudsman.
I am advised that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, under whose remit the Environmental Protection Agency rests, had communicated to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that it wished to see the administrative functions of the EPA included in the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill 2012, but that the substance of licensing, regulation and enforcement be excluded, on the grounds that such decisions are quasi-judicial and highly technical. There are separate review and appeals structures governing these functions. As an acceptable form of wording could not be devised, the EPA was placed on the list of exempted agencies, as outlined in the Second Schedule to the Act.
The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government fully endorses the recommendation of the independent review of the EPA, which was completed in 2011 by a panel of experts from across the main areas connected to the work of the agency. It stated the "EPA should be subject to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction in respect of alleged maladministration".
In considering oversight by the Ombudsman, the review was positive about the possible impact of the EPA coming within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, as follows:
The Group concluded that the EPA should be subject to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. This development would provide a free, independent complaint mechanism in the case of alleged maladministration by the EPA. The availability of such an avenue of redress would serve to increase accountability and transparency and underpin public confidence in the EPA.
However, the executive summary of the review stated clearly, "Given its quasi-judicial role in respect of licensing and the technical environmental expertise required, it would not be appropriate for the substance of decisions taken by the EPA to be subject to such review." It should also be borne in mind that EPA decisions may also be challenged in the courts by way of judicial review.
It remains the Department's position that the administrative functions of the EPA should be subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, once a satisfactory mechanism for this outcome has been developed. However, for the reasons outlined by the independent review group, the substance of the EPA's decisions in areas of licensing, regulation and enforcement should be excluded from the Ombudsman's remit.
It is not proposed to establish a new agency in the form of an environment ombudsman's office, as suggested by the Senator. The Government has put considerable time and effort into reducing the number of State bodies as part of the public sector reform process. For example, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has reduced the number of agencies under its remit from 22 to 11, including the successfully completed merger of the former Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland with the EPA in 2014.
The Department will continue to work with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to agree an appropriate mechanism for bringing the administrative functions of the EPA under the remit of the existing Office of the Ombudsman.
With the greatest of respect, that is just pure waffle. It is what I heard previously from the director general of the EPA, namely, that an acceptable form of wording could not be found. How many experts are working in the Department who could not formulate acceptable wording? It is no good telling this to people whose children are getting cancer.
Does the Senator have a question for the Minister of State?
I do. I will show the Minister of State exactly why there is a need for an ombudsman inquiry or a different form of inquiry into the EPA. Let me refer to the preliminary documentation produced by the EPA in 2007 regarding the granting of a licence to Aughinish Alumina, the plant about which I am talking. The documents states, "Notwithstanding this clause the licensee is prohibited from commencing deposition of process residues in [...] in advance of an agreed security being in place". That means that one cannot go dumping one's rubbish until a bond is in place such that if there is a disaster there will be enough money to clear it up.
Does the Senator have a question for the Minister of State?
I have.
Ask the question, please.
The meeting to which I referred resulted in the advocating of the deletion of the whole final sentence. True enough, when a licence was granted to the people who are continuing to pollute in my area, there is no sign of it at all.
Does the Senator have a question?
We still have no bond in place. We still have no protection for the taxpayer or the people in Limerick and elsewhere around the country. If something goes wrong, we will be left picking up the tab again. This was a decision made by the EPA.
I have given the Senator a fair opportunity to ask a question.
That stinks to the highest heaven and has to be investigated by someone somewhere. If an acceptable form of wording cannot be formulated to bring the EPA within the remit of the Office of the Ombudsman, I despair over the quality of the staff being employed by the Government.
I reiterate that a satisfactory mechanism will be found. Decisions may be challenged in the courts or by way of judicial review.
At a cost of thousands or millions of euro to ordinary people.
Sitting suspended at 11.20 a.m. and resumed at noon.