Adjournment Debate.

Hospital Services.

Mr. Deenihan

On 21 June 2005, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, approved a new community nursing unit for Tralee for inclusion in the capital investment framework 2005. The proposed development is a 50-bed community nursing unit to be built on a greenfield site located off the Killerisk Road, Tralee. The facility will comprise two modules of 25 beds each, plus ancillary facilities providing continuing care, respite and convalescence care to dependent older people.

The senior citizens of Tralee have been campaigning for a new community nursing unit for the past seven and a half years. It is a facility that is much needed in Tralee. The current beds available for the elderly in Tralee are located on the top floor of Kerry General Hospital. As a result of this, patients are cut off from all activity and access is difficult. Many of the senior citizens of Tralee must take a bed in St. Columbanus's long-stay hospital in Killarney. It results in considerable inconvenience for their families, especially in the case of elderly relatives who in many instances must use public transport to get to Killarney from Tralee. The round trip from Tralee to Killarney may take an entire day.

Tralee and its immediate hinterland has a population of more than 30,000 people. It is the only town in the country with this level of population that does not have a community nursing unit or similar facilities to enable patients to access care as close to their local community as is reasonably possible. The seven and a half years of campaigning and the age profile of the people involved has now taken its toll and many of the members are now in care themselves. Sadly, 16 members of the original group that got together to campaign for the community nursing unit are now dead. Many more are worried that they will not live to see this facility made available for the elderly in Tralee.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of people like Ellen Rowan, Christy Tobin and Mairéad Fernane who championed this project from the outset. The community nursing unit is at pre-tender stage. I appeal to the Minister and the Health Service Executive to allow this project to proceed to tender immediately so that Tralee can at last have its own community nursing unit.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O’Malley)

I am taking the Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney. I thank Deputy Deenihan for raising the question as it provides me with an opportunity to outline to the House the current situation on this matter.

On 21 June 2005, the Tánaiste approved the new community nursing unit for Tralee for inclusion in the capital investment framework 2005. The proposed development is a 50-bed community nursing unit to be built on a greenfield site located off the Killerisk Road, Tralee. The facility will comprise two modules of 25 beds each, plus ancillary facilities providing continuing care, respite and convalescence care to dependent older people.

The community nursing unit is at pre-tender stage. Over recent months, the HSE has been working on finalising the tender documentation and this exercise has now been completed. The executive has advised that it is now in the process of finalising a detailed costing and identifying the additional revenue requirement. It hopes to be in a position to conclude discussions with the Department of Health and Children on this matter over the coming weeks. The HSE has advised that it will then be in a position to seek tenders.

Air Services.

Ms O’Sullivan

I tabled this question last Wednesday and Thursday and I have finally succeeded in having it taken. I tabled it following the failure of the Minister for Transport to listen to the reasoned voices coming from the mid-west and the west urging the need for an economic impact study and an adequate lead-in period before altering the 50-50 share of transatlantic air services guaranteed for Shannon and Dublin since 1993. I understand the Minister for Transport has already gone to the US. He met some of the workers in Shannon this morning and I do not know at this stage what he told them. I am pleased a Minister of State from the mid-west region is present tonight and I hope he will be able to answer some of my questions.

It is staggering that the Minister for Transport has refused to carry out an impact study, despite a request from a group representing the chambers of commerce of Ennis, Shannon and Limerick, IBEC west and mid-west, SIPTU, IMPACT, the Irish Hotels Federation and tourism and leisure businesses in the region. The mid-west regional authority has also been ignored. I do not know whether this is pure arrogance or a complete lack of concern for the western half of the country, but all these requests have fallen on deaf ears. The Government has seen fit to pay for studies and consultancies on a myriad of subjects — the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, has graced the newspapers for which the money was found — yet this vital strategic element that has been a core factor in the economic success of the region is to go with no evaluation of the possible effect of this.

The Minister appears set on making this momentous change in the regulation of air traffic without any real idea of what will happen. I acknowledge that if things go well, the opportunities could outweigh the losses. However, if things do not go well for Shannon and if all the airlines decide to concentrate their flights in the capital city, which has been a pattern in other European countries where it was allowed, the result could set back drastically the economic development of the mid-west and the west and skew the balance of population and economic activity even more to the eastern seaboard than is the case already. We simply do not know what will happen because the Government has not bothered to find out. This is highly amateur and dangerous.

The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland took the matter seriously. The report carried out by Frederick Sorensen and Alan Dukes stated that Shannon would run into difficulties unless active and forceful supporting activities are undertaken. The US Congress is taking the matter seriously. It has authorised the Secretary of State to prepare a report within 180 days on the effects of ending the dual gateway policy on US businesses operating in western Ireland, Irish businesses operating in and around Shannon Airport and United States carriers serving Ireland. There is genuine fear that a healthy economic framework with hundreds of companies and thousands of jobs could collapse if the vital regular freight and passenger services are withdrawn by airline companies whose only brief is to make money, not to maintain regional economic development. That is the Government's responsibility.

The Minister's course of action is not being forced on him either by the US or the EU. The US is prepared to assess the effects of change. The EU has indicated that it would be willing to facilitate a lead-in time. However, I understand from my sources that the Government has not yet requested such a lead-in time. Will the Minister of State's response answer that question?

A lead-in period of five years would allow for the effects of change to be monitored. It would allow for infrastructural improvements and marketing supports to be put in place. Surely in the week when the same Minister for Transport announced a plethora of transport improvements for Dublin costing billions of euro, including a metro to Dublin Airport, he can do this much for Shannon. He might also do more than a study into the rail link to Shannon.

I want to ask about our local Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats representatives, one of whom is in the House. Deputy Peter Power has already done a U-turn. The Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, and the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy de Valera, have buried their heads in the sand and cast aside the passion they adopted when it threatened Shannon in the past. The ideology of the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley, and his party seems to have won. The ideology of the PDs has obviously carried the day in this regard. The survival of the fittest philosophy is not concerned with regional balance; it is just concerned with allowing the market to make money where it can.

The Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, has not yet commenced his talks and it is not too late to ensure that decisions are made with the benefit of knowledge and care. I urge the Government to listen and respond to the broad voice of concern on both sides of the Atlantic. Very little information is being made available. I do not know what was said this morning in Shannon Airport. Very little information is coming to vital interests in the mid-west on the intentions of the Minister, Deputy Cullen, in regard to his trip to the US this week. I hope there will be some enlightenment this evening.

Minister of State at the Department of Transport (Mr. Callely)

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. However, this matter has been dealt with by my colleague, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, in several parliamentary questions, most recently on 19 October. The Minister has consistently said he does not believe an economic impact study is required.

The restructuring of the State airports, including Shannon, is intended to enhance their regional focus and the close co-operation between the new Shannon Airport Authority and the other regional development bodies in the area is extremely encouraging. The forecasts for Shannon are good. I object to what Deputy O'Sullivan said about my colleagues, the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, Deputy Peter Power, the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy de Valera, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley, and Senator Dooley, all of whom have a great interest in the development of Shannon and have knocked on the door of the Minister, Deputy Cullen, on many occasions. Perhaps because of their input, commitment and dedication some of what is happening in Shannon arises from the work of the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, Deputy Peter Power, the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy de Valera, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley, and Senator Dooley and, hopefully, that will continue.

There are opportunities for Shannon Airport to contribute to the development of the mid-west. The liberalisation of the aviation market between the EU and the US will mean more, not fewer, opportunities for Shannon to develop new routes into North America. We should look at the positive side and encourage new opportunities to maximise whatever potential may exist. Currently, Irish airlines are restricted to only five cities in the US for normal scheduled services. However, the advent of open skies will mean Irish or European airlines can fly into any airport in the US. The opening of US airports to services from Ireland, for example, provides an opportunity for the development of Shannon as a hub for passengers or cargo coming from eastern Europe going onwards to the US. It is clearly a matter for the Shannon Airport Authority to pursue these kinds of opportunities. However, without open skies, these opportunities simply will not exist.

There is clearly demand for service between Ireland and the US. Aer Lingus has been approached by several airports in the US with a view to beginning services. It will be a matter for Shannon Airport to compete and to lobby Irish, European and US airlines to take advantage of this potentially huge increase in new services. This is the central thrust behind the Government's policy of making the State airports independent of each other, so that they can compete with each other and, therefore, collectively provide the best and optimal level of services for Ireland.

The report prepared by the former head of air transport policy and external aviation relations for the EU Commission and Alan Dukes, director general of the Institute of European Affairs concluded, contrary to what the Deputy may have said, that the EU-US open skies agreement will be beneficial for Ireland, and that Irish business, tourism and aviation will get a boost. The report is clear that Shannon will maintain links to the US but that it must improve its links to Dublin and Europe as a way of underpinning its US services. In that context I am encouraged by the recent new services that are starting from Shannon into Europe and the UK. I understand that has been with much support and encouragement from my Fianna Fáil and PD colleagues in the area and, hopefully, all other political people who can assist will sign up also.

The report mentions improving transport links around the west and this is addressed in Transport 21, launched last week. Transport 21 identifies the investment that is required to further develop all elements of national transport infrastructure, addressing existing bottlenecks and capacity constraints, enhancing quality, optimising the use of the network and making prudent advance provision for future economic growth. In particular, Transport 21 is all about connectivity. It is regrettable that the Deputy indicated it was only a Dublin plan. It is not. There is a huge amount in it for Limerick and, hopefully, the Deputy will see the benefits of not alone this Government policy but of Transport 21 for her region.

Farm Livelihoods.

Dr. Cowley

I am grateful to the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise this important matter. The EU Trade Commissioner, Mr. Peter Mandelson, has said the EU cannot avoid action on agriculture to a loss of potential development gain. He also said that if we want the US to reform its domestic subsidy regime and the Brazilians to cut industrial tariffs and to open services we have to move on agricultural tariffs. What he is proposing has created horror in Irish agricultural circles. It is estimated by the IFA that Mr. Peter Mandelson's cuts would cost Irish farmers €800 million annually and would have the potential to wreak havoc on the two big farming enterprises. Low price imports could force beef prices down to €2.07 per kg or 74 cent per pound and milk prices down to 95 cent per gallon.

The latest proposals include cuts of up to 60% in the tariffs on some farm products. In the case of beef steaks, the proposed 50% cut in tariffs will mean they can be imported into the EU 52% cheaper than the current market price. That has major implications for food security and safety within the EU. This is in the context that the Common Agricultural Policy was reformed in 1992 and subsidies were decoupled in 2003. The successive reductions in customs duties showed that the equivalents of our reductions are being absorbed not by the poorest countries but by the major exporting countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil and so on. This is the double dealing of the large countries that hide behind other poorer countries in order to advance their own positions. In other words, this is being done in the name of the poorest countries but it is far from that. This is unacceptable.

There was anger today when more than 10,000 farmers marched right up to the door of the Dáil. People were very angry outside the EU office in Molesworth Street at what is happening. They were determined it would not happen and demanded that the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, and the Taoiseach should intervene to sort out the problem.

The Irish farmer is the most compliant in the world. He has gone to great lengths to ensure maximum traceability. Recently there have been two foot and mouth scares, yet we are considering importing beef from an area where foot and mouth is endemic, without any proper monitoring. Quality does not come cheap but it is there. Food safety is there but what we are talking about is the other side of the coin — disease. Irish farmers have first world costs but get Third World prices. The position will get worse. How can a farmer be viable given all the regulations concerning traceability and food safety, which he has gone to great lengths to ensure, will be undermined? How can he turn a penny when his costs are so high? The Irish consumer is getting a good deal. Food costs represent only 8% of the total with the farmer hardly getting one third even though he is the producer. The big rancher in South America will gain in this. The beef barons who own the vast majority of the land will benefit. The small family farmer in Ireland will suffer. This is the antithesis of everything we hope for in farming.

Irish farmers are abhorred by Peter Mandelson. He is a failure who was sacked twice and some say it is time he was sacked again. He has exceeded his authority and is selling out the Irish farmer. Irish agriculture will be sacrificed on the altar of getting a better deal for industry. However, the farmers will not lie down in this matter. They are prepared to fight back and do whatever is necessary, otherwise they face total annihilation. The concession Mr. Mandelson is offering to the US, which would amount to cuts of up to 60% in EU tariffs on food imports, is unacceptable. It will make farming here unviable.

Undermining European food security is ill conceived and unworkable. Mr. Mandelson appears determined to go all the way and exceed his authority. He is a dangerous man, wandering around Europe doing very dangerous things that are totally undermining our economy.

The Minister must have heard how angry the farmers were during their protest today. I hope she can give them the news that she and the Taoiseach will get involved and make a difference to stop this madman Mandelson.

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan)

The negotiations on the next WTO agreement have entered an intensive phase in recent weeks in the run-up to the WTO ministerial conference next month in Hong Kong. Agriculture is one item on a broad trade liberalisation agenda which also includes services, industrial goods and other matters. From our point of view, given the economic and social importance of agriculture, it is obviously a vitally important aspect of the negotiations. The outcome of the agreement will determine the levels of protection and support which will apply to the agriculture sector in the future and the new round could, therefore, have serious implications for the Common Agricultural Policy.

The negotiations were launched at the WTO Doha Ministerial Conference in November 2001. In so far as agriculture is concerned, the Doha mandate provides for substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support, reductions with a view to phasing out all forms of export subsidy and substantial improvements in market access. Substantial progress towards conducting a new agreement was made in August 2004 when agreement was reached on a framework document which sets out the broad outline and content of the new round. The negotiations on the details have been under way in the meantime.

The Commission negotiates on behalf of the member states on the basis of a mandate which was agreed in the Council of Ministers. The mandate is designed to defend the CAP as it has evolved under successive reforms, including Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review, both of which were agreed with a view to positioning the EU in the WTO negotiations. Essentially, the mandate aims to protect the European model of agriculture as an economic sector and a basis for sustainable development based on the multifunctional nature of agriculture and the part it plays in the economy, the environment and society generally.

I have been concerned that in recent months the Commission has adopted an unnecessarily concessionary approach to the negotiations. These concerns are shared by a number of ministerial colleagues in the Council, and on 14 October I supported a memorandum which was prepared by the French Minister for Agriculture and submitted to the Commissioner, outlining the growing unease at the Commission's approach. The memorandum urged the Commissioner to defend vigorously the EU position on agriculture in accordance with the mandate as agreed by the Council. The French initiative was endorsed by 14 EU Ministers for Agriculture.

I also strongly supported France's call for an extraordinary meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council which was held on 18 October. With several ministerial colleagues I again expressed concern at the negotiating strategy and tactics being adopted by the Commission. I am pleased to say that the conclusions of the Council again endorsed the negotiating mandate and confirmed the CAP reforms are the EU's important contribution to the current negotiations and constitute the limit of the Commission's negotiating mandate. The situation was also discussed again at the Council of Ministers on 24 and 25 October at which I, with many colleagues, sought to have the WTO round discussed in Council of Agriculture and Fisheries meetings in the run-up to the Hong Kong negotiations.

Let me be clear about the current position. The EU offer has been made by the Commission on the basis that it is within the terms of the negotiating mandate. I have some reservations in this regard and I will continue to press the Commission on this point. Technical meetings for experts will be held later this week at which the Commission will explain its handling of the negotiations. I will, of course, study the outcome of the technical briefing very carefully.

My position on the negotiations has not changed from the outset and remains firm. My overall objective remains to ensure that the terms of any new agreement be accommodated within the terms of recent CAP reforms and that further reform will not be required. There should be balance in the negotiations as between the various elements and the pillars of the agriculture negotiations. I will be insisting that agriculture must not, under any circumstances, be sacrificed for the sake of an overall agreement. I do not accept that concessions in agriculture should be a precondition for movement for progress in other aspects of the negotiations.

I also have a number of priorities. On domestic support, I want to ensure that the system of decoupled direct payments continues to qualify as non-trade-distorting payments under the so-called "green box" and remain exempt from reductions under the new round. The EU system of direct payments makes a major contribution to farm incomes in Ireland.

On export subsidies, I want to achieve full parallel treatment of all forms of export subsidy and to ensure that the phasing out, which has been agreed, is carried out over the longest possible period and in a manner least damaging to our interests. Ireland has substantial exports of milk products and beef to third countries which would not be competitive without export refunds.

On market access, I want to retain the maximum possible level of protection through a combination of tariff cuts and other mechanisms, including the designation of products of particular interest as sensitive products in order to protect our major EU markets from increased competition from imports from third countries.

I assure the House that I am keeping in very close contact with these negotiations. I am liaising with my Cabinet colleagues and EU ministerial colleagues. I will continue to avail of every opportunity to defend the benefits of the CAP to Irish and EU farmers and to achieve the best possible outcome to the negotiations next month in Hong Kong.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 9 November 2005.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 8 Nov 2005