Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Jun 2005

Vol. 604 No. 5

Adjournment Debate.

Community Support Services.

I welcome the Minister of State. My matter concerns the need for the Minister for Community, Gaeltacht and Rural Affairs to implement the findings of a review report on the Carmichael Centre, North Brunswick Street, Dublin 7, and in particular to ensure that interim funding is provided to avoid a financial crisis at the centre in autumn 2005.

The Carmichael centre for voluntary groups does fantastic work throughout the city. Some 43 organisations, generally small to medium organisations that would not have had a roof over their heads otherwise, are facilitated in the building. It works with another 350 groups to whom it provides services. That is particularly desirable as there is a network of organisations that lack such a facility. It is an essential service that is being provided.

From the very beginning there has been a crisis of funding and the centre has never had a steady stream of funding on which it could rely on a multi-annual basis. After a few years of hand-to-mouth existence the situation came to a head. After a number of meetings it was agreed that a review would take place and this was agreed with Minister of State at the Department of Community, Gaeltacht and Rural Affairs, Deputy Noel Ahern, in June 2004. The review was commissioned by the Health Service Executive northern area on behalf of the Department of Health and Children. It was done with the agreement of the Carmichael centre for voluntary groups.

The review report has been released and it is very positive. It states that the Carmichael centre for voluntary groups provides value for money for organisations in the community and voluntary sector in the State, that the services of the Carmichael centre for voluntary groups are vital for the survival of member groups, with serious cost implications, respondents to the survey see the centre as a vital support to their continued needs and 80% of those using the training services are totally or reasonably satisfied, the development support service the centre offers to external groups is highly appreciated, the Carmichael centre for voluntary groups is an essential and necessary service in the support and development of organisations involved in community and voluntary activity in Ireland, the board operates good practice with regard to its corporate governance, the centre has high human resource management standards, the centre has extremely advanced information management systems, the centre is commended for developing its policy documents and for good practice in this regard, and the centre needs a total of €320,000 per annum from the State to be financially viable.

The issue of obtaining that funding is the crux of the matter. The centre was assured that once the review was complete, the money and the structures would be put in place. There has been no interim funding since February of this year and a crisis is now looming which will become pressing in September. There was a commitment from the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley, regarding the review that "in the interim the northern area health board will continue to fund the operation of the Carmichael centre".

The Carmichael centre has been informed that there is no further money for the centre in the existing budget. Will we be engaged in more crisis management over the summer where people will find their jobs insecure? Will there be another financial crisis and another round of contacting and lobbying politicians or can we get a response on the funding? The core funding is needed. The decision was taken that it would be provided once the review was conducted and found to be positive. The review was extremely positive but there is no adequate interim funding at present and there is no commitment to core funding. I hope the Minister of State can resolve this crisis.

I am speaking on this Adjournment debate on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney. I thank Deputy Costello for raising this matter and giving me the opportunity to outline the position of the Department.

The Carmichael centre for voluntary groups is a centre for small national voluntary organisations working in the areas of health, education, the arts, the environment and social care. Over recent years the operation of the centre has been funded by the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and the Department of the Taoiseach through the allocation of once-off funding.

In 2004, following a request from the Carmichael centre for ongoing revenue funding, a consultant was engaged by the former Eastern Regional Health Authority to conduct a review of the operation of the centre. The consultant's report was received in the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in May 2005.

A detailed examination of the recommendations in the consultant's report, including the issue of core funding of the centre, is ongoing in the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and the Health Service Executive. However, as an interim measure, the Health Service Executive is providing further once-off funding of €200,000 in 2005 to the Carmichael centre to enable both Departments and the Health Service Executive to complete their examination of the recommendations in the consultant's report.

Road Safety.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important matter on the Adjournment. Sinéad McDaid was a young woman of 22 years of age. She was driving on the Culdaff Road, Donegal, on 12 June 2001 bringing a present to her mother-in-law on the occasion of her birthday. On a straight stretch of road, on the approach to Culdaff where resurfacing work had commenced earlier in the day, the car left the road. It went off chippings, down an embankment, struck a culvert and landed on its roof. Sinéad, due to move into her new house the following Friday, was fatally injured.

It subsequently transpired that the hazardous situation was inadequately signposted with only one sign on the approach hidden in the long grass. There was no health and safety plan for the job and the engineer did not sign off stating that the road was safe for the public to use, as he is required to do. There are regulations to ensure people are warned of an upcoming hazard. Those regulations stipulate that warning signs be erected, highlighting the temporary or unsafe surface, and they must be erected by the local authority.

Donegal County Council did not use a mechanical road sweeper to sweep up the surplus chippings, which by its own guidelines it should have done. It did this after the accident. The accident scene was not preserved and photos were taken by Garda Mick Murray of Morris tribunal fame after a mechanical sweeper had done its work sweeping up chippings, including chippings from other potholes. The garda did not conduct a proper investigation of the scene. In fact, the Garda report stated that Sinéad had hit a bridge which is one and a half miles from the scene. This was subsequently changed. I understand it is the duty of the Garda Síochána to inform the Health and Safety Authority of such an accident and it is the duty of the HSA to visit the scene. I understand neither happened.

I brought the case of Aisling Gallagher of Murrevaugh, Mulranny, County Mayo, killed on 22 January on an unfinished road to the attention of the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Callely, in the Dáil on 24 February 2005. He responded that road conditions were responsible for 2.5% of road deaths in 2002 — nine people out of 377 killed. I stated that this was a conservative figure and represented only the tip of the iceberg. Since then, five girls have been killed in County Meath. I asked the Minister in February if he would conduct an audit of all serious and fatal road accidents. I pleaded that this should be done so that more people would not die on the roads. A very high number of road accidents are due to road conditions so I am seeking action on this matter.

The people who died in Meath, Donegal and Mayo were doing nothing wrong. Their vehicles were roadworthy and they were not speeding. People have a right to use road surfaces upon which they can safely brake. Regulations are not being enforced, however, and people are dying as a result. The tragic aspect of all this is that we can do something about improving road conditions if people would only act to enforce the regulations.

The Minister and the National Roads Authority say they are not responsible. The local authority is responsible but it is required to police itself. If it does not do so adequately, does that not amount to a licence to kill? These were ongoing road works that had not been signed off on. I am asking the HSA to re-examine this situation. The figure of 2.5% should be 22.5%. We need to know exactly what number of road accidents is due to road conditions. I requested that audit on 24 February this year, but where is it? Road conditions comprised the major, if not the only, factor in the three accidents to which I have referred. It escapes me how the same authority could treat so differently one incident which occurred on an unfinished road surface under construction by a county council, and another where there was a perilous lack of appropriate warning signage. I am glad the County Meath case is being investigated because that needs to be done. If the Minister had taken my advice on investigating the accidents in Donegal and Mayo, would the investigation in Meath have been necessary at all?

I express my sincere sympathies to Sinéad McDaid's family on their tragic loss.

The statutory remit of the Health and Safety Authority is confined to the investigation of accidents in places of work. In this case, where an accident took place on the Culdaff Road in Donegal, I understand the Garda Síochána has fully investigated it on the basis that it was a traffic accident on a public road. As such, the Health and Safety Authority has no function in the matter. Any further action is, therefore, a matter for the Garda Síochána to consider as appropriate, in the circumstances.

In general, where accidents occur on public roads, primary responsibility for investigation lies with the Garda Síochána. If, as in some cases, there are road works in operation at or in the vicinity of an accident, the Health and Safety Authority will investigate the operation of the road works to ensure that such works were being carried out in accordance with statutory requirements and in such a way as not to endanger the health and safety of either the workers or the public who are directly affected by such work activities.

The authority's remit on roadworks depends on ongoing work activity and not in relation to the quality of the work per se. Issues such as whether road surfaces laid down in roadworks are left in a safe state, fall outside occupational safety and health legislation and the authority’s functions. The Health and Safety Authority and the Garda Síochána have an agreed memorandum of understanding which clarifies their respective roles where serious accidents occur, whether at a workplace or on a public road. The commitment of both parties is to liaise on the ground at the earliest opportunity, share information as appropriate, and co-operate with each other to ensure an effective investigation.

Driver Testing Service.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to raise this serious issue. Recent legislation that allows for the establishment of a separate public sector body to deliver and improve on the driver testing service is an important development. It will enable us to provide a superior and safe driver testing service, which is significant.

However, while I congratulate the Minister on this development, I have serious concerns about proposals to concentrate the testing of truck drivers in one particular test centre — the Finglas test centre on Jamestown Road. I understand the new EU testing requirements mean that officials at the Minister's Department believe this will be the only test centre able to provide the necessary off-road facilities in Dublin, and that there is no alternative in the capital.

The centre is located in my constituency, which is one of the reasons I am raising this matter. I am certain the location is unsuitable for the proposed purpose. If ever there was a case for decentralisation, this is surely it.

The Jamestown Road test centre is situated in an old-style industrial estate surrounded on all sides by housing. Traffic in the vicinity is already reaching maximum capacity and we are looking at increased traffic levels once the Dublin Port tunnel opens. The roads in the immediate area were not designed for heavy goods vehicles and, as such, there has been significant damage to these roads. In fact, a complete reconstruction has long been fought for and is finally planned for this summer. By concentrating testing in this area, traffic will further increase and any work on the road will have been done for nothing.

The Jamestown Road area is a large residential area encompassing a number of older housing estates as well as new developments with young families and children. In this way, pedestrians in the area represent some of our most vulnerable road users — older people who use the road and paths to get to Finglas village, and young children who will often play along the roadside. Many of the older houses are country style properties and the existing level and type of traffic has already damaged the foundations of these properties.

By increasing the use of trucks on the road we are putting these people and their homes at further risk. Not only is the traffic along the Jamestown Road very heavy, but Finglas village is often congested throughout the day. The traffic management plan of Dublin City Council for the area has been working towards reducing the amount of HGVs in the village and so a decision to test even more truck drivers would fly in the face of these plans. I am not sure if the Minister's Department is even aware that there is a ban on HGVs in many roads in that area.

Aside from problems with the specific location, I have a number of further reservations about the idea. The decision to concentrate testing in one specific area would represent a backward step in the truck driving test. Rather than testing the level of competence a driver has with a heavy goods vehicle, we would in fact test his or her ability to memorise that route, to be aware of the junctions in that area and be familiar only with the traffic restrictions in that one area. To pass that test would only involve committing this route to memory, but would not necessarily illustrate competence in driving larger and more dangerous vehicles. I am sure I am not alone in having reservations about this idea and many residents have been in touch with me about their reservations in this respect.

The role of driver testing — to ensure that drivers reach an acceptable level of competence — is important in the overall context of road safety. In this way, there is an onus on us as legislators to encourage better driving in general rather than simply testing driver competence, and in encouraging greater road safety rather than simply reducing the testing backlog.

I recognise that the Minister is trying to find a balance between reducing the backlog while improving driving standards. However, I appeal to him to take on board what I have said. I strongly urge him to reconsider the decision, if one has been made. I understand the OPW will have to invest significant funds into the centre for it to meet EU requirements. Before this is done I appeal to the Minister to halt the upgrading of the Finglas centre on Jamestown Road and to redirect funding to another more suitable location in a greenfield site beside our new road network.

I acknowledge the Deputy's concerns about the driver test centre at Jamestown Road, Finglas, Dublin 11. The process of upgrading the centre and providing off-road facilities for the testing of certain driving manoeuvres in respect of higher category vehicles, in accordance with the requirements of EU directives, has been ongoing for sometime. Plans for the refurbishment of the centre have been agreed between the OPW and the Department. The planned refurbishment is part of the Department's overall refurbishment plan for driving test centres.

As the Finglas test centre already tests the full range of vehicles, it is not entirely accurate to state that the test centre operation is being expanded. The test facility is being expanded as the redevelopment of the site includes the provision of an off-road compound to facilitate the carrying out of the reversing manoeuvre and some other elements of the heavy goods vehicle and bus driving test.

I am sure Deputies will agree that conducting these elements of the test off road in a compound will have a positive impact on safety and reduce the amount of time vehicles have to spend on the road to the benefit of residents.

Planning permission was sought and granted for the upgraded centre and no objections were received. Dublin City Council issued the final grant of planning permission on 10 September 2004. One of the conditions attaching to the permission is that, in order to protect existing residential amenities and in the interest of the proper planning and development of the area, the HGV testing service be restricted in its hours of operation between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday to Friday and that no tests be carried out on Saturdays.

I understand the concerns of residents about safety. However, in light of what I have outlined I understand there are no proposals to review the decision to upgrade the centre.

Sugar Industry.

With the agreement of the House, I will share time with Deputy Stanton. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to raise this extremely important issue.

There is no doubt that the European Commission's proposals on the so-called reform of Europe's sugar regime will decimate the Irish sugar industry and must be vehemently opposed by the Irish Government. The proposed 39% price cut over two years, which in real terms is closer to 50%, will directly impact on the viability of farming for the 3,700 farmers who grow 80,000 acres of beet. These proposals will bring the price of beet below production cost and will not only wipe out the industry, including 288 direct jobs in sugar processing in Mallow, but will also destroy the livelihoods of 240 hauliers, seasonal workers and many others along the supply and service chain.

It is imperative that the Minister for Agriculture and Food forms alliances with other member states, especially those where sugar production as a whole is threatened by these proposals, including Italy, Portugal, and Greece. With those countries, it is important that Ireland ties up with Spain, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland and Hungary, where the future of the sugar industry is also under a cloud. If these ten countries work together, their 121 votes can provide a blocking minority in the Council of Ministers. At a minimum, the Minister must ensure that farmers are fully compensated for any and all losses in income associated with the reform of the sugar regime.

It is also imperative that there is a longer lead-in time than the two years currently proposed before the cuts become operational. Any phased reduction in price support for sugar must happen in tandem with the establishment of alternative, financially viable enterprises for the Irish tillage sector, for example, biofuels. Sugar beet is one of the best raw materials for the production of bio-ethanol, but as things stand it is uneconomical. The Government could be more proactive and secure the future viability of the sugar beet sector by widening the value of excise relief for biofuels. International studies have shown that there is a significant return to the Exchequer, both from an economic activity point of view and through the reduction of environmental damage.

Today's proposals by the Commission highlight the fact that the Greencore decision and the Minister's failure to use her golden share to defer the closure of the Carlow sugar factory were fatally flawed. It seems that had this decision been delayed, there would be additional compensation available to Greencore and the farmers who supplied the plant. In light of the Minister's failure to act on the closure of the Carlow plant, she must put forward an irrefutable case for compensation which may be made available on a retrospective basis with regard to the Carlow sugar factory.

It is important to point out that the suggestion that these proposals will benefit poor countries is misleading, to say the least. For example, a cut in EU sugar prices would have a negative impact on less developed African countries, which currently gain from the high prices guaranteed for sending their sugar cane to Europe.

Currently, Ireland does not over-produce sugar. We meet our own demands. Our sugar industry is commercially sensitive and should be defined as such. Will the Minister clarify who controls our sugar quota? This debate has gone on for ages. We want legal clarity on the issue and we want it now.

This matter is extremely serious and these proposals are unacceptable. The Minister must reject them out of hand and she will have the support of everybody in the House to do that. There are 3,700 beet growers and as many people again depending on the industry. There are 350 of my constituents working in the Mallow sugar plant and those jobs are at risk.

The situation is serious and the Minister must do her utmost to ensure these proposals do not go forward. If the price is cut, the price to the producer will not necessarily fall — we saw what happened with coffee. The middleman will benefit from this. Sugar is worth €70 million to farmers annually and €140 million to the nation. If these proposals are allowed go ahead, they will be a fatal blow to agriculture here. The Minister must do everything in her power to stop this and reject it totally. Otherwise, agriculture as we know it here is finished.

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Commission's proposals for reform of the common market organisation for sugar, which were finally published today, having been well signalled over the past few weeks. The key elements of the proposals are a 39% price cut in the institutional price for sugar, a corresponding reduction in the minimum price for sugar beet and 60% compensation to farmers for the price cut. A voluntary restructuring scheme is proposed to encourage factory closures and the renunciation of quota. From Ireland's perspective, the bottom line is that the proposals are simply not acceptable in their current form.

While the need for reform of the EU sugar regime is acknowledged, following the basic principles of the CAP reforms of 2003 and 2004, I consider that the Commission's proposals are unbalanced and could lead to drastic consequences for the sugar beet industry in a number of member states, including Ireland. This is unprecedented in terms of CAP reform proposals presented by the Commission for any sector.

My colleague, the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, had voiced her opposition to the Commission's original ideas for reform, outlined last July, and this opposition was shared not only by several other member states but also by the developing countries which have preferential access to the EU sugar market. We had advocated a different approach to reform based on the following principles: the import system from third countries should ensure predictable and regular import quantities. In this context, it is important to remember that the poorest sugar-producing countries want such an arrangement, rather than the race to the bottom in price terms that totally free access would bring, the price reduction should be significantly less than that currently proposed and should be implemented more gradually, the impact of the quota reductions should fall mainly on production of ‘C' sugar and transfers of quotas among member states should not be allowed.

While the idea of quota transfers has been dropped with the proposed compulsory quota cuts, nevertheless the latest proposals are even more radical than what the Commission originally had in mind. Consequently the Minister will oppose them strongly when they come before the Council of Ministers.

Everybody accepts that reform of the EU sugar regime is unavoidable and the ruling by the WTO appellate body in April against elements of the regime increased the pressure for reform. Taking account of this, the Irish sugar processing industry had already begun a process of adjustment and had embarked on a major rationalisation involving the closure of one of its two processing facilities. This rationalisation will enable the industry to survive at a lower price level, but not the one proposed by the Commission.

The Commission's proposals will be considered in the coming weeks and months in the Council and we intend to work with like-minded colleagues to have the proposals modified to ensure a more orderly and balanced adjustment to the EU sugar regime which would take account of all the stakeholders involved. The negotiations are now beginning in earnest and our overall objective will be to ensure that Irish interests are fully taken into account in whatever final agreement might emerge. In this context, I know that the Minister will reiterate our serious concerns about the direction the Commission proposes for the sugar regime when she meets Commissioner Fischer Boel who will visit Ireland tomorrow. The Minister will also use the opportunity to raise other issues in the beef and dairy sectors during those talks.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 23 June 2005.
Barr
Roinn