Priority Questions.
55 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the status of the Government’s plans for electronic voting; when he will make a decision on the findings of the Commission on Electronic Voting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4201/05]
View answerThe Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004 confirms the policy objective of electronic voting and counting at Irish elections and that maintains the mandate to my Department from the Oireachtas to work towards implementation of this objective.
In this context, my Department is developing, in parallel with the continuing work of the Commission on Electronic Voting, a programme for further assessment, testing and validation which is intended to address the concerns raised in the commission's interim report published last April and in its more detailed first report published in December on the secrecy and accuracy of the electronic voting and counting system.
The objective of this programme will be to demonstrate to the commission and the public that the electronic voting system, which was selected following detailed assessment of the requirements to be met in Irish electoral conditions and the holding of an open international tender competition, is suitable to be used in Irish elections. I am giving full consideration to the views of the commission and will ensure its analysis will inform and guide the programme of further assessment, testing and validation of the system.
I intend, therefore, that all the commission's recommendations for action should be appropriately addressed in the work ahead. The timing of the further use of the system is dependent on the progress made with this programme of work and the dates on which future polls may be held.
Is it not a fact that this whole saga has been an appalling waste of €52 million of public funds? Is it not a fact that there is no confidence in the system? People are extremely concerned about that, about the waste of money and that the Minister who wasted that money, Deputy Cullen, did not listen to Members of this House who urged him to reflect before he went ahead — bull-headed in his desire to waste this money.
Given that there is no confidence in this system and that the machines cannot be adapted, it is time to say this system cannot work. The fact the Minister cannot give us a date in respect of the Meath and North Kildare by-elections, the referendum on the EU constitution or the next general election shows he does not have confidence in the system and is not prepared to test it. The one thing needed and which is missing is a voter verifiable audit trail. Without that, this system is a non-starter.
The Deputy is correct to suggest that until confidence is established in the system, I will not advocate testing it. The initial comments, however, are a tiny bit rich because one must remember that most of the political parties, if not all, had some positive things to say about this system.
Very little.
Deputy O'Dowd's party published a good leaflet on the issue in Meath. It is easy with hindsight to ask certain questions.
The issue of a voter verifiable audit trail, VVAT, is not the only one. It is worth pointing out that there is no national system where VVAT is in operation. I concede this is an area where it is necessary to make haste slowly because it concerns the level of confidence people have in the system. The Deputy is quite right that a degree of damage has been done to confidence in the system. However, I do not believe the system has been so undermined that it could not work in the future.
It is clear the Minister cannot make haste slowly in respect of a voter verifiable audit trail. That cannot be done. Page 363 of the commission's report makes it clear that these machines cannot be used for this purpose. Based on what he has said, does the Minister not believe he must abandon these machines because they cannot produce the results people want to prove they voted in a particular way? He must scrap these machines, buys new ones or go back to the old electoral system. Will the Minister provide clarity?
The Deputy is quite right in that I will not forecast a date by which we can move to the next stage of trial. I do not agree with the hypothesis underlying the Deputy's question that a VVAT is an absolute sine qua non. It is not used elsewhere and, initially, it was not a key policy issue of concern arising in the context of electronic voting. As the Deputy and anybody who goes to the trouble of reading the literature will be aware — there is significant literature which one can access through the web — not everybody is necessarily sold on the concept of VVAT and there are certainly very practical difficulties.
Page 363 of the commission's report states that this system is not physically capable of modification to provide a full audit trail without unrealistic costs. If one goes down the road of a voter verifiable audit trail, it means these machines are useless.
The Deputy should remember there are many contentions on both sides. In fact, in submissions attached to the report, many extreme statements are made on issues. There are different views among the specialists in this area. A VVAT is not universally regarded as a sine qua non of any voting system.
It is a critical one for confidence. People must have confidence in the system, and the Minister knows that.
56 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on the conclusions of the recent NESC report on housing, that an additional 73,000 social housing units must be built by 2011; the plans he has to increase social housing output to this level; the way in which it is intended to meet increased social housing targets in the larger urban areas, in which building land is scarce; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4089/05]
View answer
I welcome the publication of the NESC report. The report provides an important analysis of the Irish housing system and an agenda for the future development of policy. Importantly, the report recognises that the general thrust of existing policy is well directed. The Government is already examining the issues raised in the report and will consider whatever changes are required to better focus its efforts.
The Government has successfully promoted a range of measures to provide additional social housing in recent years and it is committed to maintaining strong programmes of social and affordable housing provision into the future. Five year action plans for social and affordable housing have been developed by local authorities which will ensure that the resources available are used to best effect to make a real impact in response to the particular needs of the area. This will allow for the planning of activity for local authority own build, Part V arrangements and output by the voluntary and co-operative housing sector.
Additional resources are being made available this year to further increase the output of social housing. As a result, we expect that approximately 5,500 new houses will be started under the main local authority programme and that the output of the voluntary and co-operative housing sector will also increase. In total, my Department will spend a record €1.3 billion in Exchequer funding on supports for social and affordable housing in 2005. This will enable the needs of more than 13,000 households to be met this year through existing schemes and the new rent accommodation scheme will address the long-term housing needs of about 5,000 current recipients of rent supplement.
I am afraid the Minister of State did not answer the question I asked. Will he address the recommendation in the NESC report that this country will need an additional 73,000 local authority social houses between now and 2011 and that an additional €500 million to €600 million will be required each year for the social housing programme? Does he accept the target of an additional 73,000 is what is required? If he accepts the target, what plans does he have to see it is implemented?
The NESC report was published before Christmas and the Government is considering it.
They are very slow readers.
They are very careful readers.
The Government has yet to accept that report. The Department is working on the matter. One can expect Government action on, and consideration of, the matter in the coming months. Already this year, the number of starts is up by 500 on last year. The capital envelope is €6 billion for the period 2005-09. Whether this will be increased is a matter for decision by Government over the coming months.
This is the third report on housing that the Minister of State has received during the past year. Before the NESC report there was the report from the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution regarding building land and the Goodbody report on land hoarding. Every time I asked the Minister of State a question about housing during the past year, he replied that he was awaiting the NESC report. He has now received that report and has been reading it since before Christmas.
The requirement for an estimated 73,000 additional social housing units is the recommendation that stands out on any reading. The Minister of State's Department has considered many housing strategies and housing assessments over recent years. Surely it is possible for him to answer the simple question as to whether he accepts this estimate of 73,000 units. It is not a difficult question. That recommendation is contained in the early chapters of the report. Even at his pace of reading, therefore, the Minister of State should have reached that point by now.
I am aware of the points and recommendations made in the NESC report. Those who compiled the report studied the situation and came up with a consensus view. However, it is a major decision for Government whether the level of social housing output can be increased to that degree over the next seven or eight years. The Government will consider the issue.
Deputy Gilmore is correct to the extent that there have been three reports and that I have said on previous occasions that decisions would be made when those reports were received. That has not happened over the past four weeks. It will be done, however, although it will take a while. The NESC report contained a number of key recommendations, including an endorsement of the overall strategy and thrust of Government housing policy.
I do not agree.
This endorsement was also contained in the earlier part of the report.
There is a significant difference between the estimated figure of 73,000 and the rate of output achieved by the Government.
There are key decisions to be made. There will be an increase of 500 in the number of units this year. To achieve the figure recommended in the NESC report, we will need to maintain that increase over a number of years into the future.
I have one final question. The Minister of State has said this is a matter for the Government. When does he expect to bring his proposals arising from the NESC report to Government?
Work is ongoing in this regard and I hope to do so within the next two months. Much of what is contained in the report is specific and it contains key recommendations. However, the report also observed that many issues require further consideration.
Does this mean the Minister of State has read the report?
As the Deputy said, I am a slow reader.
It sounds like the Minister of State has read it and not agreed with its recommendations. Now he seems to be trying to find a way to avoid implementing them.
The report does not offer definitive recommendations on all the issues. It observes that agreement was not reached on many of the points with which it dealt and that these would require further consideration. This will take place in the Department and in co-operation with the social partners through the housing forum. There are many issues to tease out.
That is an energetic plan.
I accept that the fundamental issue relates to increasing the output of social housing. This will be a matter for the Government and I expect a decision to be made within the next two months.
We will return to this issue.
Question No. 57 cannot be taken because the Member is not present.
58 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on the recent report by Mr. Dermot Quigley; his further views on the action his Department must take in light of the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4202/05]
View answerThis is a fine report which was produced in exemplary fashion. It is a good example of the expediency that should attach to these types of issues.
On 27 January 2005, the Taoiseach directed that arrangements be made to implement, as appropriate, the recommendations of the Quigley report. I understand that advice to all Departments in regard to the main recommendations of the report will be issued by the Department of the Taoiseach shortly. The specific recommendation addressed to my Department is that it should review and consolidate its internal advice on all aspects of procurement. This recommendation is accepted and will be implemented fully over the coming weeks.
My Department is a large and complex organisation dealing with 3,700 suppliers of a wide range of goods and services. A relatively large number of officers are involved in procurement. Revised procedures are being put in place to strengthen the monitoring and control of procurement and intensive briefing and refresher training is being arranged for all staff involved in this activity. Furthermore, additional resources are being allocated to the Department's internal audit unit and organisation unit. The latter co-ordinates advice and monitoring in regard to procurement activities.
I am confident these arrangements, which will be implemented urgently, will enable my Department to achieve the improvement and consolidation of its procurement arrangements recommended by the excellent Quigley report.
I am pleased the Minister believes it is a fine report. It is surely time that he apologises to the House and the public on behalf of the Government for subjecting us to this sorry business. The Quigley report states that things must change and that a perception of impropriety has been given.
What conclusions are we to draw from the discovery that the contract with Monica Leech Communications, which we were told was a vital part of the Department's communications strategy, was not renewed yesterday and that the position held by Ms Leech has been scrapped? Perhaps it is easier to sack a communications executive than a Minister. Will the Minister comment on this?
It is an excellent report and the conclusions which it reaches have not been portrayed accurately in the somewhat brusque and politically apposite summary that Deputy McCormack has produced. Regarding the reappointment of the consultant in question, I have made it clear form the outset that my preference is to rely on the Department's press office and other departmental resources. Circumstances change over time. It must be pointed out that the communications strategy at that time, which has concluded, was successful.
I am sure the Minister is aware that this contract has cost the Department and the Office of Public Works up to €400,000. I understand that Ms Leech has still to tender her final bills in this matter. There is also the possibility of a second investigation into this sorry affair. Would the Minister have acted as his predecessor did? If the Minister believes that the previous Minister, Deputy Cullen, did nothing wrong, would he like to put on the record of the House that he would do just as his predecessor did?
It is a hypothetical consideration as to what I would do in those circumstances.
I am only asking the question.
Deputy McCormack is entitled to ask and I am entitled to answer in the manner I consider appropriate. This is a hypothetical scenario about which I am not willing to speculate. I do not know what the situation was at the time. However, I know that Mr. Quigley's report puts a somewhat different snas on the issues than that suggested by Deputy McCormack. I draw the Deputy's attention to what is said in the report in regard to the previous Minister and his intervention.
The Deputy mentioned that a second investigation may take place. I am not in a position to comment on the decision that will be taken in this regard by an independent body.
I am not getting a straight answer so I will ask one simple question. Does the Minister agree or disagree with what the previous Minister, Deputy Cullen, did?
I have indicated neither because I did not know the state of play in the Department at that time.
The Minister should give an answer.
It is an entirely fatuous question——
It demands a simple answer.
No, it is an entirely fatuous question. I have indicated my position on several occasions.
There is our answer.
Would the Minister resign if he were in his position——
I am not he.
——and if not, why not?
Because he has only been there a short time.
I will only resign if I do something that deserves resignation.
59 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will confirm the statement he made on a recent television programme (details supplied) that it is intended to proceed with the construction of a municipal waste incinerator at Poolbeg, Dublin; the planning or approval process which is envisaged for this process; the approximate date by which the incinerator is intended to be operational; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4090/05]
View answerThe requirement for a thermal treatment facility was formally identified in Dublin's regional waste management plan which was adopted by the four Dublin local authorities in the late 1990s. In the context of the southern and eastern regional operational programme of the national development plan, my Department has provided Cohesion Fund assistance towards the planning of the Dublin region thermal treatment project. Planning and procurement of the project has been advanced under the co-ordination of Dublin City Council and is now well advanced.
Given the intention to use a public private partnership to deliver the project, my Department will wish to be satisfied that the procurement process has been properly conducted in accordance with the national and EU requirements and that the selected tender provides good value. Beyond this, my Department will have no further involvement in sponsoring or financing the project.
A thermal treatment facility requires environmental impact assessment and processing through the appropriate planning control requirements set out in the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the licensing requirements set out in the Environmental Protection Agency Acts 1992 and 2003. Since the outcome of these independent statutory processes cannot be known in advance, I am not in a position to say when a Dublin region thermal treatment facility will become operational.
I thank the Minister for his reply which sets out the procedures that will need to be followed to allow an incinerator to be built in Poolbeg. From his answer, can I take it that the Minister is confirming what he recently told Ursula Halligan on her television programme that the incinerator in Poolbeg will proceed?
As I said to the Deputy, the incinerator project needs to go through a planning process.
We know all that.
Obviously if it gets the green light in the planning process, it can proceed, but if it does not, then we will be back to the drawing board. I made this point in my reply to the Deputy. I cannot predict the decisions of various independent boards on this project and I am sure the Deputy is not asking me to put myself in a position where I could be seen to influence those views. However, those decisions will be made independently and they will determine the future of the project in that particular location.
From the Minister's reply, can I take it that no political decision has been made by the Minister or the Government not to build the incinerator in Poolbeg?
The Deputy can indeed take it. The planning process needs to be followed. I do not intend to intervene in or interfere with what is an independent planning process. I am sure the Deputy is not asking me to interfere with a decision which will be made by the local authorities in this city and county.
Will it be included within the remit of the legislation to fast-track infrastructure projects?
That is a very fair question. With regard to whether this project will be covered by the strategic infrastructure Bill, I understand that it is the intention of Dublin City Council, as the co-ordinator in the project, to submit it for processing under existing legislation. To save the Deputy asking a further supplementary question, it would be my wish that it should proceed under existing legislation.
The Minister has announced that he will shortly introduce legislation to fast-track infrastructural projects. Has a decision been made, as reported, to exclude the Poolbeg incinerator from the remit of that legislation?
That does not arise. The strategic infrastructure Bill is complex legislation which will take some time to enact. I understand it is intended to proceed with this project under existing legislation. I have made it clear that would be my wish.
Based on what the Minister has said, am I to understand that the long planning process and the licensing process which will inevitably surround the proposed incinerator in Poolbeg would be completed before we see the legislation on critical infrastructure?
That would not be a fair assumption to make from the response I have given. I have been quite precise as to my wishes. With the help of the House I anticipate that the critical infrastructure Bill will get a relatively speedy passage. We accept that it will take time to process this particular project under existing legislation. However, if the project is in process, it is under the existing process and not under some future process.
I will allow one further very brief question.
Does it then follow that every project, incinerator, road or whatever that is already in a planning process will not be covered by the infrastructure legislation? The newspapers have reported that at the insistence of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Government has decided to take the proposed Poolbeg incinerator out of the scope of proposed infrastructure Bill. I will ask the Minister the straight question. Has that decision been taken? Is it true that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has persuaded the Government to exempt the Poolbeg incinerator from the critical infrastructure legislation?
The Deputy has been around for a long time and he must know that he should not believe everything he reads, regardless of how good the newspapers in this country are.
That is why I am asking.
There has been no insistence. I have given a number of interviews on this issue and made my view clear. It will take some time for the strategic infrastructure Bill to be passed. This project is in process at the moment. My view is——
From what the Minister is saying, it looks like or seems it will be built before the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform leaves office.
I am sure the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, will hold office for a long time.
Not if we have anything to do with it.
He certainly is deserving of such.
He might not be in office by the end of this term the way the Government is going.
As the House is still within the 30 minutes allowed for Priority Questions and Deputy Gregory is now present, I call Question No. 57.
57 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the status of the deer hunted by the Ward Union Hunt; if these deer are wild or domesticated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4095/05]
View answerSection 26(1) of the Wildlife Act 1976, as amended, provides that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government may grant to the master or other person in charge of a pack of stag hounds, a licence authorising the hunting of deer by that pack during such period or periods as is or are specified in the licence. Under this provision, licences have been issued annually to the Ward Union Hunt on a long-standing basis, subject to appropriate conditions.
Legal advice was obtained through the Office of Attorney General in 1999 which confirmed the long-standing interpretation of section 26 that it provides for the licensing of carted deer hunting irrespective of the status of the deer, wild or captive. In view of this, it is not relevant to the exercise of this licensing function to determine whether the deer are wild or captive and it would be inappropriate to seek to administer licensing on the basis of this distinction.
Will the Minister of State answer the question tabled? What is the status of the deer hunted by the Ward Union Hunt? Do the Minister of State, his advisers and officials, believe they are domesticated farmed tame deer, as we all know them to be, or are they wild? As the Minister of State has referred to section 26(1) of the Wildlife Act, does he not agree that the Long Title of and the Preamble to that Act specifically state that the legislation deals exclusively with wild animals? If the Minister grants licences to the Ward Union Hunt to hunt farmed tame domesticated deer, does the Minister of State not accept he is in breach of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which expressly forbids terrorising or causing unnecessary suffering to any domesticated animal?
In its 1998 report, the Heritage Council recommended that the legal status of the deer be determined in accordance with section 26(1) of the Wildlife Act 1976. The Department sought the advice of the Attorney General on foot of that recommendation. The effect of the advice was that the Act applies to the hunting of deer by the Ward Union Hunt and that the Minister should interpret the legislation to mean that he has the right to issue licences. Section 26(1) of the 1976 Act, which refers to the hunting of deer, does not mention wild deer. If one examines the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000, one will see that far from weakening the force of the advice given to the Department in 1999, it seems to corroborate it. Section 6 of the 2000 Act amends section 2 of the 1976 Act by providing for a new definition of "wild animal" as follows:
"‘wild animal' includes an individual of a population which primarily lives independent of human husbandry but does not include—
(a) wild birds, or
(b) species of fish or aquatic invertebrate animals.”
Although the part of section 26 of the 1976 Act that deals with the hunting of otters was amended by the 2000 Act, no change was made to confirm that point. The Department considers that its interpretation is the correct one.
I will not repeat the three specific questions I asked which the Minister of State did not answer, but I will ask a further specific question, which I hope he will answer. Does the Minister of State accept that his officials, who have direct responsibility for operating and enforcing the Wildlife Act 1976, advised in a memorandum that was made available under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 that licences should not be granted to the Ward Union Hunt to hunt deer from Greenpark, County Meath, because they are domesticated and tame animals? Does the Minister not realise that he is in breach of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 because he has licensed a group to hunt tame deer? This matter will come before the courts sooner or later. Is it true that the Ward Union Hunt is being granted such licences in clear breach of the 1911 Act, as well as the 1976 Act, which deals exclusively with wild animals, because it is controlled by some of the richest, most powerful and most influential developers and businessmen in this country? I hope that is not the case.
The Minister and the officials in the Department do not know who is involved in the Ward Union Hunt.
They must not read the newspapers.
There is certainly no suggestion that they are interested in who is involved in the hunt. The Deputy raised a valid question about the series of questions asked by officials within the Department. I accept that the officials from the Department's wildlife section were carrying out their responsibilities in a conscientious manner by asking such questions and expressing their views.
Unlike the Minister.
The questions they raised were carefully examined within the Department. The conclusion that was reached was that because the term "wild animal" was not found in section 26 of the Wildlife Act 1976, the operation of that provision could not be considered to be affected by the definition. When considering the issuing of licences, the Minister has no choice but to grant licences when it is considered that an application is within the terms of the Act, as long as those involved operate within the terms of their licence.
A section within the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government monitors such operations, in effect. That monitoring is done by rangers employed by the Department and veterinary officials employed by the Department of Agriculture and Food. Both groups are satisfied with the operation of the hunt in question. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is satisfied that it is operating within the terms of the 1976 Act. If there is a challenge, the courts can make a decision. The Department, armed with the considered opinion of the Attorney General and its interpretation of the Act, is satisfied that it is acting within the remit of the 1976 Act.
May I ask a final supplementary question? If the Minister of State believes everything he has said, why has he consistently refused to answer Question No. 57 on the Order Paper? The question asks him to outline "the status of the deer hunted by the Ward Union Hunt" and to state whether they "are wild or domesticated". Why has he refused to answer that question? The implication of his statement that there is no mention of wild deer in the Wildlife Act 1976 is that the deer are tame and domesticated farmed animals. His comments imply that the deer in question are tame and domesticated. The Minister of State is shaking his head now. Will he answer the original Question No. 57 on the Order Paper? Are the animals wild or tame?
The first thing I will say is that the Deputy will not interpret for me. The question he has asked, whether the animals are wild or tame, does not arise——
It is on the Order Paper.
——within the 1976 Act. If the Deputy had listened to my initial response, he would have——
I know the Act back to front.
So do I.
Why does the Minister of State not answer my question?
It does not arise within the terms of the 1976 Act. The Attorney General has expressed the clear opinion that the Ward Union Hunt is entitled to apply for a licence and the Department is entitled to issue a licence. There is no problem if the hunt stays within the remit of the licence under the Act, as it has done. It is important to note that the hunt has been monitored and it has been verified that it has stayed within the remit of its licence. The licence has been granted and renewed on the basis of a series of conditions. The Ward Union Hunt has complied with all such conditions on all instances to date.
I would like to make a brief final point.
That concludes Priority Questions.
If the Minister of State had answered the question——
If the Deputy had listened to the earlier statement, he would have heard his question answered.
I did not ask any of the questions the Minister of State seemed to be answering.
If the Deputy wants to be deaf to the actual answer, that is fine.
He did not respond to any of the points I made.
What about the Ward Union Hunt's prisoner connections?
