Written Answers Nos. 71 - 90
71. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he is satisfied with the current regulation of gift cards and with the charges of one particular brand of gift card (details supplied); the value of unclaimed funds on these gift cards in 2013, 2014 and to date in 2015; if these unclaimed funds could be utilised for positive social purposes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20981/15]
View answerI am not satisfied with the current regulation of gift cards. My Department’s Scheme of a proposed Consumer Rights Bill which I launched on Monday includes a number of proposals aimed at strengthening the rights of consumers who purchase gift cards. The Scheme provides that contracts for the supply of a gift card or voucher must not include a term that makes the card or voucher subject to an expiry date. Traders would also be required to inform consumers of any charges applying to a gift card, or any restrictions on the use of the card, before the consumer was bound by the contract. The charges applying to a gift card would also be assessable for fairness under the provisions of the Scheme on unfair contract terms. I am prepared to consider additional protections for consumers in this area if the consultation on the Scheme of the Bill shows a need for them.
The particular gift card referred to in the Deputy’s question comes within the scope of the European Communities (Electronic Money) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 183/2011) enacted by the Minister for Finance and enforced by the Central Bank. These Regulations deal with the taking up, pursuit, and prudential supervision of electronic money institutions and the issuance and redeemability of electronic money. Questions relating to the funds of gift card schemes within the scope of the Regulations are a matter accordingly for the Minister for Finance.
72. Deputy Colm Keaveney asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the reason copies of the two most recent health and safety reports into the psychiatric unit in University Hospital Galway have not been provided to the staff health and safety representative; if disciplinary action has been taken against those responsible for their failure to provide said copies, such failure being contrary to legislation and regulation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20985/15]
View answerThe Health and Safety Authority’s national programme of inspections is intended to advise on and support the use of, effective health and safety management, to reduce the risks of workplace injuries, ill health and fatalities in workplaces. The frequency of inspection visits is governed by a range of factors: the standards of health and safety in the workplace; management’s ability and attitudes; and the possibility of changes in standards or hazards between visits.
Inspectors are given a range of powers under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 which enable them to take a number of steps to put the relevant statutory provisions into effect in the context of such visits. There is no statutory obligation on an inspector to present a written report of every visit made to a workplace.
In the context of providing adequate information to employees and their safety representatives, as required under Section 76 of the 2005 Act, it is general practice that when an inspection report is prepared and provided to an employer, the report is also made available to safety representatives, either directly by the inspector or through the employer.
I am informed by the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) that following inspections at University Hospital Galway (UCHG), written inspection reports were issued on 31 January 2014 and 17 December 2014.
On both of these occasions, written directions were given to the employer requesting that a copy of the report be made available to the Safety Representative. The Safety Representative confirmed receipt of the report of the December 2014 inspection in a phone conversation with the HSA Inspector on 18 December 2014.
The HSA Inspector revisited the premises on 26 February – without issuing a further written report. On 17 April 2015, a meeting took place between the HSA (Regional Manager and the Inspector) and senior HSE management to discuss the HSA’s concerns about a number of ongoing issues. The Safety Representative was also in attendance. At this meeting, the HSA requested that a plan, including implementation dates, be put in place to deal with issues highlighted.
The HSA Inspector, accompanied by the Regional Manager, inspected the UCHG Psychiatric Unit again on 20 May 2015. No written report was issued on that occasion. Management were made aware that the action plan was still outstanding.
I should point out that throughout this process the HSA Inspector has maintained regular contact with the Safety Representative, whose role it is under the 2005 Act to represent staff in consultations with the employer on matters of safety health and welfare.
73. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he or his Department has received representations from employees of a factory (details supplied) in County Tipperary; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21005/15]
View answer74. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he is aware that employees have been made redundant from a factory (details supplied) in County Tipperary; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21006/15]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 73 and 74 together.
I understand that the factory in question is a Bord na Móna peat briquette factory which is operating in a competitive and challenging energy sector, for which my colleague the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has responsibility. I understand further that the company has accepted an invitation to appear before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications to discuss the temporary cessation of peat briquette production at two of its facilities including the factory in question.
I confirm that I received representations last month on behalf of the employees of the factory in question. As the issues raised in the representations were matters for the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister for Finance, I referred the representations to those Ministers for direct reply.
I am not aware that employees have been made redundant from this factory. The National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) is mandated to secure compliance with certain employment rights legislation. NERA operates the Workplace Relations Customer Service Unit which provides information on employees’ rights, including matters relating to redundancy, and how to obtain redress if an employee considers that their employment rights may have been infringed.
Under the Redundancy Payment Acts eligible employees (with at least two years continuous service in fully insurable employment) are entitled to a statutory lump sum payment on being made redundant. There may also be an entitlement to minimum notice based on the length of service of an employee.
Where an employer fails to comply with his or her redundancy payment/minimum notice or other employment rights obligations or where there is a dispute regarding entitlements, complaints may be referred by the employee to the Workplace Relations Customer Service Unit of NERA.
The form and further details on making complaints are available on the Workplace Relations Customer Services website www.workplacerelations.ie or through the Workplace Relations Customer and Case Support Service at 1890 80 80 90.
75. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Question No. 29 of 14 May 2015, if all fines handed down for breaches to date have been paid; if he will provide details of actions taken by Bord na gCon in cases where greyhounds have tested positive for banned substances, but their owners have refused to pay the fines; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20889/15]
View answerBord na gCon is the statutory body responsible for the regulation and development of greyhound racing under the Greyhound Act 1958. The Control Committee and the Control Appeals Committee of Bord na gCon are established under legislation (Greyhound Industry, Control Committee and Control Appeal Committee Regulations 2007, S.I. Number 301 of 2007). These committees have powers to determine appropriate fines for breaches of these Regulations.
The issue to which the Deputy refers is an operational matter for Bord na gCon.
Bord na gCon has informed me that to date they have uncollected fines to the sum of €27,767.50 and that prize money is not paid out to any individual who has outstanding unpaid fines.
I understand from Bord na gCon that in certain circumstances where delays in non–payment of fines persist, disciplinary action, as deemed appropriate, can be taken pursuant to the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 and SI 301/2007 – Greyhound Industry (Control Committee and Control Appeal Committee) Regulations 2007.
Bord na gCon has informed me that it has engaged Professor Tim Morris (School of Veterinary Medicine & Science, University of Nottingham) to review Anti-doping and Medication Control including procedural matters. The review, which is being finalised, will make recommendations which will facilitate Bord na gCon in identifying any amendments that require to be made to legislation, practices and policies in this area.
76. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on a matter (details supplied) regarding the new beef data and genomics programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20893/15]
View answer77. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on a matter (details supplied) regarding the six year contract requirement for the new beef data and genomics programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20894/15]
View answer78. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on a matter (details supplied) regarding the new beef data and genomics programme and the requirement for 60% genomics testing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20896/15]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 76 to 78, inclusive, together.
The Beef Data and Genomics Programme (BDGP) forms part of Ireland’s Rural Development Programme and will provide suckler farmers in Ireland with funding of some €300 million over the next 6 years. The BDGP builds on the investment in data recording and genomics in recent years, and will ultimately bring about long-term improvements to the sector by fundamentally improving the genetic quality of the beef herd. It is a unique opportunity for farm participants to improve the efficiency and profitability of their herds, with significant state support.
It can also make an important contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the national herd and has been approved as an agri-environment measure under the Rural Development Programme. The six year commitment arises from the requirements of the EU Rural Development Regulation under which this scheme is co-funded by the EU and Irish taxpayers. Article 28 of this Regulation stipulates that all agri-environmental schemes must be at least 5 years in duration and farmers will be familiar with multi-annual schemes such as GLAS and REPS where similar conditions apply.
The six year timeframe for the BDGP provides a guaranteed and stable payment for suckler farmers, allowing them to plan and budget on their farms for the duration of the programme. It is important to note that the penalty system includes appropriate tolerances where only minor non-compliances occur and no penalty will apply in these cases. In more serious cases there must of course be an applicable penalty. However, on balance, I am satisfied that the approach proposed reflects the most proportionate response consistent with the Regulations. The requirement to seek full refund of payment only applies in the event of permanent withdrawal from the scheme. As always in such cases, force majeure clauses have been included in the Terms and Conditions where withdrawal is due to circumstances beyond the applicant’s control such as illness or disease. There is also a provision included for transfers by gift or inheritance whereby the transferee can decide to take over the commitments or exit from the programme entirely.
Participants in the programme will receive a payment of €142.50 per hectare for the first 6.66 payable hectares under the scheme, and €120 per payable hectare after that. Payment to scheme participants is on the basis of costs incurred and income foregone for each of the actions undertaken. All of the costs to the farmer, including in terms of time and effort, have been factored into the payment for the farmer as agreed with the European Commission. The payment includes a cost associated with the tissue tag sample and subsequent processing, and this genotyping cost will be deducted at source from the farmer’s payment. The cost of the genotyping will be finalised following the conclusion of a public tendering process undertaken by the ICBF in relation to laboratory analysis, tissue tags and the DNA chip. It is expected that this will result in a reduced sampling/genotype cost compared to the 2014 scheme.
The number of animals to be genotyped each year will be equal to 60% of the number of calved suckler cows that the applicant had on his/her holding in 2014 – known as the applicant’s “reference animals”. The number of “reference animals” will be advised to applicants upon acceptance into the scheme. For example, an applicant with 15 reference animals in 2014 must have sufficient animals to genotype 9 cows/heifers/calves/stock bulls, in each year of the programme, without repetition. In specific circumstances, 2015 may be used as the base year.
While the level of testing required has increased compared to the 2014 pilot scheme, the payment to the farmer has also increased significantly so the percentage of the overall payment related to genotyping is broadly the same under both schemes. The 15% genotyping in 2014 was undertaken to develop the training population for genomic which provides the platform for the more widespread application of genomics and higher level of genotyping now made possible under the BDGP.
The 60% genotyping requirement reflects the need to genotype a high percentage of female calves at birth within scheme herds and to genotype female animals introduced from non-scheme herds so that sufficient 4 and 5 star animals can be identified. The 60% requirement will also include pedigree males and cows for ongoing research and knowledge development. This increased level of genotyping also adds value to the breeding indexes.
The BDGP is a substantial commitment to the beef sector over the next 6 years and I will continue to monitor its implementation to ensure that it is fit for purpose. The BDGP, like all RDP Schemes, will be subject to mid-term review. If aspects of the scheme can be improved in the future, I will seek to address these issues in consultation with the EU Commission. For now I am satisfied that the scheme provides the long term support that is required to ensure the future sustainability of our suckler herd, within the parameters laid down by the relevant regulations.
79. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine with reference to the renewal of an aquaculture licence (details supplied), the reason statutory consultation requests have not been issued to relevant parties; the reason this has not been completed to date, since the renewal was received in 2009; when these consultation requests are expected to be sent; the time frame for completion of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20962/15]
View answer80. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the position regarding an aquaculture licence (details supplied); if he will clarify the consultations held in respect of this matter; when a decision is expected; his plans to introduce a new credit facility for aquaculture companies struggling to access credit from banks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20963/15]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 79 and 80 together.
The application referred to by the Deputy is in respect of a site located within Lough Swilly which is designated as a Special Area of Conservation under the EU Habitats Directive and a Special Protection Area under the EU Birds Directive (Natura 2000 sites).
As previously advised my Department is constrained by law from issuing or renewing aquaculture licences for sites located within Natura 2000 areas until such time as an `Appropriate Assessment' has been conducted to assess the potential effects of the proposed aquaculture activities on the conservation objectives for that Natura site. The licensing process must take full account of the outcome of that assessment in reaching a determination on any particular licence application.
The Appropriate Assessment report has been completed by the Marine Institute in respect of Lough Swilly.
My Department is currently examining the outcomes of the Appropriate Assessment with a view to formulating policy recommendations in respect of individual licences held by operators in the Lough. Such policy recommendations will take account of all national and EU legislative requirements and will reflect engineering, scientific, environmental, legal and public policy aspects of each licence application. This process which is very detailed in nature is ongoing.
In accordance with protocols governing the Appropriate Assessment procedures my Department has not issued any new aquaculture licences or renewals of same in the designated Natura sites in Lough Swilly.
My Department is in ongoing communication with the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the EU Commission on all aspects of the Appropriate Assessment process.
I am aware that some Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the aquaculture sector have, similar to SMEs in other sectors, experienced difficulties in accessing credit in recent years. The Minister for Finance established the Credit Review Office (CRO) to assist SMEs in this situation. The CRO helps SMEs who have had an application for credit of up to €3 million declined or reduced by either Bank of Ireland or AIB, and who feel that they have a viable business proposition. They also look at cases where borrowers feel that the terms and conditions of their existing loan, or a new loan offer, are unfairly onerous or have been unreasonably changed to their detriment. This is a strictly confidential process between the business, the CRO and the relevant bank. Further details are available at www.creditreview.ie.
The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund Regulation (508/2014) and the Fisheries Block Exemption Regulation (1388/2014) are the State Aid instruments that specify what aid may be made available to the seafood sector. These Regulations do not provide any State Aid basis for providing compensation to aquaculture operators whose licence is not renewed or is revoked.
81. Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on conditions attached to the beef data and genomics programme (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20967/15]
View answerThe Beef Data and Genomics Programme (BDGP) forms part of Ireland’s Rural Development Programme and will provide suckler farmers in Ireland with funding of some €300 million over the next 6 years. The BDGP builds on the investment in data recording and genomics in recent years, and will ultimately bring about long-term improvements to the sector by fundamentally improving the genetic quality of the beef herd. It is a unique opportunity for farm participants to improve the efficiency and profitability of their herds, with significant state support.
It can also make an important contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the national herd and has been approved as an agri-environment measure under the Rural Development Programme. The six year commitment arises from the requirements of the EU Rural Development Regulation under which this scheme is co-funded by the EU and Irish taxpayers. Article 28 of this Regulation stipulates that all agri-environmental schemes must be at least 5 years in duration and farmers will be familiar with multi-annual schemes such as GLAS and REPS where similar conditions apply.
The six year timeframe for the BDGP provides a guaranteed and stable payment for suckler farmers allowing them to plan and budget on their farms for the duration of the programme. It is important to note that the penalty system includes appropriate tolerances where only minor non-compliances occur and no penalty will apply in these cases. In more serious cases there must of course be an applicable penalty however, on balance, I am satisfied that the approach reflects the most proportionate response consistent with the Regulations. The requirement to seek full refund of payment only applies in the event of permanent withdrawal from the scheme. As always in such cases, force majeure clauses have been included in the Terms and Conditions where withdrawal is due to circumstances beyond the applicant’s control such as illness or disease. There is also a provision included for transfers by gift or inheritance whereby the transferee can decide to take over the commitments or exit from the programme entirely.
While the BDGP is an area based payment, the area upon which payment is made is based on the number of suckler cows calving in the herd in 2014. Using a range of 2012-2014 stock numbers would disadvantage some applicants, and on the basis of AIM calf registration data, would appear to increase the burden of testing on average. It was not possible to select a future date because a scheme approved under the RDP could not provide an incentive for increasing stock numbers. Selecting 2014 also adds a measure of administrative simplicity for farmers that will facility early payments under the scheme. The provisions do, however, allow the use of 2015 as an alternative base on an exceptional basis for new entrants or applicants impacted by force majeure circumstances in 2014. Such farmers should apply for the scheme before the 29 May deadline and the decision regarding whether to use 2015 as basis, where appropriate, will be decided after the closing date for applications. I should also add that the above provisions relate only to the calculation of payment under the BDGP – there is no restriction on individual farmers increasing their output and cow numbers during the course of the scheme.
The 60% of the herd that will be genotyped each year represents an increase compared to the 15% under the 2014 Beef Genomic Scheme, however the percentage of the overall payment related to genotyping is broadly the same under both schemes. The 15% genotyping in 2014 was undertaken to develop the training population for genomic which provides the platform for the more widespread application of genomics and higher level of genotyping now made possible under the BDGP.
The 60% genotyping requirement reflects the need to genotype a high percentage of female calves at birth within scheme herds and to genotype female animals introduced from non-scheme herds so that sufficient 4 and 5 star animals can be identified. The 60% requirement will also include pedigree males and cows for ongoing research and knowledge development. This increased level of genotyping improves the reliability of the breeding indexes and, importantly, ensures the identification of sufficient numbers of 4 & 5 star females required by BDGP herds.
Finally, I should add that the BDGP is a substantial commitment to the beef sector over the next 6 years and I will continue to monitor its implementation to ensure that it is fit for purpose. The BDGP, like all RDP Schemes, will be subject to mid-term review over the next five years. If that finds that aspects of the scheme can be improved in the future, I will seek to address these issues in consultation with the EU Commission. For now I am satisfied that the scheme provides the long term support that is required to ensure the future sustainability of our suckler herd.
82. Deputy Derek Nolan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if his attention has been drawn to the works which took place at the Seanchéibh quay, in An Spidéal, Contae na Gaillimhe, early this year; if his attention has been further drawn to the fact that approximately 24 inches of sand was dredged from the quay; if a foreshore licence was required for such work; if one was sought and approved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20994/15]
View answer83. Deputy Derek Nolan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he is aware of the works which took place at the Seanchéibh quay, in An Spidéal, Contae na Gaillimhe, early this year; that the works involved the construction of a concrete block pier extension; if his Department or agencies within his remit have concerns as to the heritage, aesthetic or visual impact of the works; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20995/15]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 82 and 83 together.
My Department does not have responsibility for the quay at Seanchéibh, which is owned by Galway County Council. The responsibility for its development, repair and maintenance rests with that Local Authority.
My Department does, however provide funding for the small scale development and repair of Local Authority owned piers, harbours and slipways under the annual Fishery Harbour and Coastal Infrastructure Development Programme subject to available Exchequer funding and overall national priorities. When funding is made available it is done so on the basis of the project specifications set out by the local authority who are wholly responsible for the design of the works. The design and works, including ancillary works, are carried out by the local authority themselves. In addition the Local Authority itself is fully responsible for ensuring that permits relating to the project, including planning permission, foreshore licence etc. are in place, as appropriate.
No funding has been made to Galway County Council in 2015 for works at the Seanchéibh quay, in Spiddal.
I would therefore direct the deputy to contact the Local Authority in the first instance with regard to this matter. It can also be pursued further with the Local Authorities’ parent Department, the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government.
84. Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if there are spraying courses held for farmers in County Clare; the cost of same, if not funded; if it is a once-off; the type it covers, for example, tractor and spray beam, back-sack; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21023/15]
View answerThe Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive establishes a framework for European Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides by setting minimum rules to reduce the risks to human health and the environment that are associated with pesticide use. It also promotes the use of integrated pest management. The Directive is designed to further enhance the high level of protection achieved through the entire regulatory system for pesticides.
Implementation of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive relies heavily on the training of the various people involved at all levels of the industry, including Professional Users i.e. any individual who applies professional use Plant Protection Products.
DAFM recognises the following courses as meeting the standard of training required for Professional Users under the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive:
- FETAC 5N0731 - Handheld Sprayer.
- FETAC 5N1797 - Boom Sprayer.
- City & Guilds PA1 + PA2a – Boom Sprayer.
- City & Guilds PA1 + PA6 – Handheld Sprayer.
All Professional Users must be appropriately trained i.e. trained for the specific type of application equipment they will be using (e.g. boom sprayer, knapsack etc.).
Training is offered by Teagasc and a number of independent providers throughout the country. There is a list of providers of training courses available on the DAFM website (http://www.pcs.agriculture.gov.ie/SUD.htm). This list is updated regularly.
As each provider has its own pricing structure, potential participants can get details on the cost of courses by contacting them directly.
85. Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine when payment of a forestry premium will issue in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Clare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21046/15]
View answerThe application by the person named for payment under the Afforestation Scheme has recently been received in my Department. However, supporting documentation, including satisfactory proof of ownership, has yet to be submitted. A request for this information has issued to her registered forester and processing of the application will resume when this is received.
86. Deputy John O'Mahony asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine of the 4,000 farmers identified that are under 40 years of age and who commenced farming between 2002 to 2008, with entitlements below national average, the number of these who could have availed of installation aid available at that time; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21048/15]
View answerOn 1 April 2015 officials from my Department met with a group representing farmers under the age of 40, who established their holdings prior to 2008 and who hold low value entitlements. Following the meeting my Department carried out analysis to establish the total number of farmers in this group. It was established that this group comprises some 3,900 farmers.
While it is possible to identify the 3,900 farmers in this category, it is not possible to say how many of these could have qualified for Installation Aid. There were a number of conditions to be fulfilled for qualification under the Installation Aid Scheme, and the process required assessment on a case-by-case basis. Without knowing the specific conditions applying in each case, it is not possible to quantify how many could have qualified.
87. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Question No. 110 of 13 May 2015, if he will provide details of the laboratory used in the United Kingdom, including its name and the amount of samples that have been sent there to date; the decision-making process on the part of Bord na gCon as to which samples are sent to the United Kingdom for testing; the percentage of samples sent which returned positive findings for banned substances; the prohibited drugs that were identified in the samples sent; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21054/15]
View answerBord na gCon is the statutory body responsible for the regulation of greyhound racing under the Greyhound Industry Act 1958. It has specific powers conferred on it by the Greyhound Industry (Racing) Regulations 2007, S.I. 302 2007, which set out the detailed rules under which greyhound racing is conducted. Bord na gCon is a body corporate and a separate legal entity to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.
Bord na gCon has informed me that in addition to the Laboratory Services employed at the National Greyhound Laboratory in Limerick, they also engage with the drugs surveillance services of the Laboratory of Government Chemists (LGC) in the United Kingdom, which according to BNG, is one of the world’s premier independent drug surveillance laboratories, providing internationally trusted expertise in all aspects of doping control for sports. The LGC has extensive experience working with professionals in animal sports.
Bord na gCon has informed me that it operates an anti-doping control policy within an intelligence-led framework and that the strategy involved is confidential in the context of enhancing BNG’s ability to monitor and control this area effectively.
Bord na gCon has advised that a total of 128 samples have been sent to LGC since January 2015 and the findings are put before the Control Committee as part of due process and having regard to all of the circumstances in each case before a final determination is made.
As part of the ongoing regulatory reform, Bord na gCon has completed a public consultation process in relation to the possibility of publication of all adverse laboratory analytical findings at the time the report is received from the laboratory. Legislative proposals required to give effect to such publication are currently being considered by Bord na gCon.
Bord na gCon has assured me of its ongoing commitment to a robust regulatory framework based on an intelligence-led strategy. I understand that Bord na gCon is currently finalising a comprehensive review of all aspects relating to integrity, including its sampling and analysis procedures for prohibited substances and medication control.
Following the review, Bord na gCon will consider amendments to legislation, modify practices and policies as appropriate, and assess whether any improvements can be made to the current anti-doping and medication control structures that are in place. The objective is to ensure that Bord na gCon will conform with the best international practice in this area.
88. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence the number of females within the Defence Forces who were promoted in 2014 and to date in 2015, by rank; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20878/15]
View answerThe Government is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for men and women throughout the Defence Forces and to the full participation by women in all aspects of Defence Forces activities. Unlike many other national armed forces, the Defence Forces have no restrictions as regards the assignment of men or women to the full range of operational and administrative duties. All promotions and career courses are open on the basis of competence and capabilities and are not gender based.
The Defence Forces prides itself on providing a gender neutral working environment. Policies on equality are being constantly communicated to all ranks. The Military Authorities are alert and vigilant to this issue and are committed to addressing this matter in a continuing and proactive manner.
The number of females promoted across all ranks in the Permanent Defence Force from 1 January 2014 to date is 55 and in the Reserve Defence Force the number is 14.
89. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Defence if he will amend records regarding the family of a person (details supplied) who was executed in Arbour Hill 1916; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20888/15]
View answerMy Department has reviewed its records in relation to the matter raised by the Deputy and I can confirm that the information provided has been noted and recorded.
90. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence when the next meeting of the national emergency co-ordination committee will take place; the number of meetings that have taken place thus far in 2015; the number he has chaired; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20917/15]
View answerI chair the Government Task Force on Emergency Planning, which includes senior officials of Government Departments, senior officers of An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces and officials of other key public authorities, which have a lead or support role in Government emergency planning.
The Government Task Force on Emergency Planning meets on a regular basis. The next meeting will take place on Thursday, 23 July 2015. So far this year there have been two meetings of the Task Force. I chaired the first meeting on 26 February while the meeting on 30 April was chaired by Mr. Maurice Quinn, Secretary General of the Department of Defence. The Task Force held 7 meetings during 2014. While the details of matters discussed at meetings of the Government Task Force on Emergency Planning are confidential, I can confirm that the Task Force examines current risks and supports coordination arrangements for emergency planning across Government.
The Task Force is regularly briefed on such matters as the current security threat, which is provided by An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces, as well as receiving regular updates on topical matters from the relevant lead Government Departments such as Ebola.
This includes the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, which chairs the National Steering Group under the Framework for Major Emergency Management, along with having the lead Government Department role and responsibilities in eleven of the forty two emergency scenarios set out in Annex A of the “Strategic Emergency Planning Guidance” (SEPG).
The Task Force regularly addresses other emergency planning issues ranging from risk assessment to training and exercises as well as receiving regular briefings on current issues from the various lead Government Departments on their specific roles and responsibilities and their associated work programmes. The Task Force establishes Subgroups from time to time to specifically look at particular areas of emergency planning that may need to be addressed.
