Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 1 Apr 2010

Vol. 706 No. 2

Adjournment Debate.

Drug Treatment Programme.

A number of years ago, Wexford County Council, in conjunction with County Wexford VEC, agreed a transfer of land which was the former premises of Gorey technical school. I had the pleasure of being the vice chairman of Wexford County Council at the time and chairman of County Wexford VEC. The site contained an adult education facility, a library — for which a significant grant was received from An Chomhairle Leabharlann — the county council offices, Gorey Town Council offices, a courthouse and an office building. A construction project costing €21million was agreed between these bodies and the local authorities. The project is near completion and will be open in a few weeks. A civic square is located in the centre of the development.

A number of months ago, it came to my attention that the HSE intended establishing a methadone prescribing clinic in the HSE facility. The arrangement between the HSE and Wexford County Council was for a day care mental hospital and everybody was satisfied with that arrangment. However, the HSE proceeded to attempt to establish a methadone prescribing clinic within that facility.

I met with the HSE and informed it that this was a very inappropriate location for the establishment of such a facility. Unfortunately, the HSE chose to press ahead with the project, as it normally does, and tried to ignore the views of the entire body politic of north County Wexford, including the local area committee of Wexford County Council and practically all of Gorey Town Council. I informed the HSE that I would object strenuously to the clinic. I was involved in the Part 8 planning application and it is clear to me that permission was not granted for the establishment of a mental day care hospital. The only planning permission granted is for office space. I did not want to enter into a conflict but I had no option given the complete absence of a meeting of minds. It is not listening to the opinion of the body politic, the VEC and everybody else concerned that a greater disservice could not be done to the town of Gorey than the establishment of a methadone prescribing clinic in that location. If the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government consulted local authority officials, he would find that I am factually correct.

It is unfortunate that the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Pat Carey, has left the Chamber because I also raised the matter with him. I hope common sense prevails and that the HSE does not attempt to establish a methadone prescribing clinic at Civic Square. It is taking an outrageously belligerent attitude towards the entire body politic and for too long quangos of this type have ignored individual politicians and this House. I hope the Minister ensures this project does not proceed. I will be fighting in every forum available to me to demonstrate this is the wrong place to establish a clinic.

I am replying to this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney. As Deputy D'Arcy will be aware, the management and delivery of health and personal social services, including methadone services, are the responsibility of the Health Service Executive under the Health Act 2004. I thank the Deputy for raising this matter as it provides me with an opportunity to outline the actions being taken by the HSE to expand the availability and access to drug treatment services.

Under the interim national drugs strategy for 2009 to 2016, the HSE is implementing part of action 34 by providing methadone clinics in targeted areas where waiting lists have emerged. One of these clinics is being provided in Gorey, County Wexford. This clinic will be a methadone scripting clinic which will open only twice per week for three hour sessions. Methadone will not be provided in the clinic. It will be staffed by a methadone level two trained GP and support nursing and general assistance staff. This is a key action in the 2010 HSE national service plan and part of the comprehensive harm reduction programme being implemented by the HSE across the country.

There are an estimated 14,500 opiate users in Ireland. At the end of December 2009, some 9,047 clients received methadone maintenance treatment services, 5,382 of whom were dispensed methadone by pharmacists in the community rather than in specialist addiction clinics. The number of GPs providing methadone maintenance treatment at the end of December 2009 was 277 while the number of pharmacies involved was 480. The HSE is planning to expand these services in 2010.

Overseas Missions.

It is extremely regrettable that Ireland is being criticised for the first time by the United Nations in regard to a peacekeeping mission but, as Mary Fitzgerald highlighted in The Irish Times, this is the result of the Government’s unilateral decision to end our participation in MINURCAT. Over the decades, Ireland has earned a positive reputation for its work in peacekeeping activities, from Congo to Lebanon and elsewhere. This week, in one ill-thought out move, the Government has undermined that reputation, the entire MINURCAT mission, the security of the refugee camps and the negotiations between the UN and the President of Chad, Idriss Déby.

I accept the practical issues that arise if MINURCAT ends in May, including in particular the need to withdraw the Defence Forces before the onset of the rainy season. The issue is not whether MINURCAT is needed in Chad. The UN humanitarian chief, John Holmes, has stated that he fears the consequences if the force is withdrawn. Human Rights Watch has also expressed fears of what might happen in the event of a withdrawal. The issue is whether the mission can remain. The President of Chad president wants the mission to end but human rights and refugee organisations want it to continue.

It was an ill-timed move on the part of the Government to announce during the negotiations that we were withdrawing. As the second largest component in the mission, we are a key force within MlNURCAT. Announcing our intention to withdraw risked leaving Déby with the impression that the outcome of the negotiations was already decided. In her article, Mary Fitzgerald pointed out that the move could have a negative impact on continuing talks with Chadian authorities over the future of the force. We should not be creating this impression. I cannot stress enough my admiration for the work of our forces in MINURCAT. They have been crucial to the success of the mission, which was one of the most dangerous ever undertaken. For the Government to end the mission in such a way is unacceptable and unforgivable.

I urge the Government to make immediate contact with the under-secretary general of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Alain Le Roy, to assess how we can help the UN in its negotiations and undo the damage done by the Government's decision. The feedback I am getting clearly indicates that work remains to be done in Chad. The Government must be mindful of the fate of the refugees left behind after a mass withdrawal of troops. Multinational missions are all about teamwork. It is wrong to undermine unilaterally a team in the way this Government has undermined MINURCAT. I regret deeply the untold damage that has been done to that mission. We owe it to our soldiers, to MINURCAT and, most of all, to the people our soldiers protect in Chad, to undo the mistake and work with the UN rather than undermine it while negotiations continue on whether to extend the mission.

I ask for clarification on the Government's current position on the matter. Yesterday, the Minister for Defence relayed what was obviously a Cabinet decision but I would have been more critical of his announcement had I known then that UN officials were in negotiations with the Chadian Government on continuing the mandate. I urge the Minister and the Taoiseach to review this decision in light of the possible extension of MINURCAT's mandate. If the Irish camp is dismantled and the equipment withdrawn, the mission may be unable to continue. This matter needs to be taken seriously and the Government must act immediately.

The decision of the Government to withdraw the Defence Forces contingent from Chad was only made following detailed consideration, a strong recommendation from the Defence Forces acting Chief of Staff and following full and frank engagement with the UN at the highest levels over several months. In the past week, the Minister for Defence also spoke twice and at length with Under-Secretary General Le Roy in the UN Department of Peacekeeping. At no stage did the Under-Secretary suggest that the timing was sensitive in terms of ongoing discussions or ask the Minister to withhold publicly announcing the decision. If anything, he indicated that he understood Ireland's predicament and the difficult position we faced.

MINURCAT, the United Nations mission in the Central African Republic and Chad, was established under the authority of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1861(2009) of 14 January 2009, to replace the EU-led EUFOR TCHAD-RCA mission in Chad and the Central African Republic with which in excess of 400 Irish Defence Forces personnel had been serving since May 2008. Ireland has participated in MINURCAT since the transfer of the EU-led force to the authority of the UN on 15 March 2009. On 9 March 2010, the Government approved continued participation by the Defence Forces in MINURCAT for a further period beyond 14 March 2010 subject to renewal of UN authority for the mission beyond 15 March 2010 and subject to any further decisions which the Government may take in respect of continued participation in the force.

It had been the Government's intention to maintain the Defence Forces commitment to the mission until March 2012 subject to ongoing renewal of the UN mandate. However, on 12 March 2010 the Security Council extended the mandate of MINURCAT only until 15 May 2010 to allow for ongoing discussions on the mission's future with the Chadian Government. The Chadian Government has publicly sought the withdrawal of the UN military element of MINURCAT since January. The UN continues to meet with Chadian officials to discuss the future of the mission. However, unfortunately it is not yet in a position to clarify the situation. Therefore, significant uncertainty remains as to the extension of the UN mandate post 15 May, the number of troops that might be retained, the sectors to which they may be deployed and the nature of the mandate. Under national and international law Ireland cannot remain in Chad without a UN mandate. As a result of the uncertainty of the situation, the imminent onset of the rainy season and on advice from the military authorities, the Minister had no choice but to bring a memorandum to Government seeking approval to initiate a managed draw-down of our forces.

The Minister has stated on several occasions in the past week that our absolute preference is to remain in Chad and to continue to contribute to the creation of a safe and secure environment there. Since January, when President Déby announced that he wished to see the UN military element of the mission withdraw from Chad, staff in Ireland's mission to the UN have met UN officials and have outlined in clear and unambiguous terms the impact the rainy season will have regarding the withdrawal of Irish troops if there is no substantive renewal of the mandate before the end of March. Unfortunately, the MINURCAT mandate was extended until only 15 May 2010. Since we do not have the assurance regarding the renewal of the mandate post 15 May, nor does it seem an immediate prospect, the Government had to make the decision. I assure the Deputy this was not a decision we took lightly. Unless there is an immediate start to the drawing down of our forces, the onset of the rainy season could leave the Defence Forces personnel and equipment stranded in Chad without the benefit of a legal mandate contrary to national and international law.

In the past week, the Minister has personally spoken twice to Under-Secretary General Le Roy regarding the situation and the future of the mission. The Minister informed Under-Secretary General Le Roy that Ireland's clear preference would be to stay in the mission but he required assurances in respect of the future of the mission. Under-Secretary General Le Roy fully understood Ireland's position as set out. Nevertheless, when the Minister spoke to him on Monday he was unable to give any clear assurances on the future of the mission. In addition, in the Minister's discussions with Under-Secretary General Le Roy the issue of the sensitivity of the timing of Ireland's withdrawal from the mission was never raised. Also, in a subsequent meeting with our UN ambassador the Under Secretary General stated there would likely be no final decision by the UN until May, in the knowledge that this would be too late for us to get out.

The Minister is aware that Human Rights Watch has written to the United Nations Security Council seeking an extension of the mandate for the MINURCAT mission and has outlined its concern that withdrawing the peacekeepers from this mission would expose civilians to increased violence and human rights abuses. The reality is that the Chadian government publicly stated it has no wish for the military component of the mission to be extended. Also, the Chadian Government is of the view that the Chadian police could provide security for internally displaced persons and refugees in eastern Chad.

The MINURCAT mission is crucial to the overall effort to bring stability to the region. To date, the mission has had a positive effect in creating a safe and secure environment for refugees, displaced persons and the wider population. In this regard, Irish Defence Forces personnel have played a major role. However, the decision to withdraw our troops from Chad was not of our making. The safety and security of Defence Forces personnel serving in Chad is paramount. In the absence of an extension of the mandate to the end of December 2010, the Defence Forces could be left in a situation where they would be unable to extract themselves from the mission when the current mandate expires in May 2010. The Minister cannot risk having our troops and equipment stranded in Chad with no mandate until the end of the rainy season. The Minister and his officials will continue to monitor developments at the UN Security Council on the mission's future. The Minister has asked Under-Secretary General Le Roy to revert to him urgently if there is any significant change regarding the future of the mission.

Turbary Rights.

I call on the Minister to clarify the situation and to present the findings of the interdepartmental working group set up to examine the issue of the cessation of turf cutting on 32 raised bogs in the special area of conservation, SAC. The restrictions affect 6,000 farmers and rural dwellers and has impacted seriously on the livelihood of families during the worst economic downturn for decades. Those affected live in an area which is impoverished in some respects. The country is almost in a state of emergency and the climate has changed dramatically in every respect. It is far too late for contractors preparing for the season ahead and too late for bog owners to convert to alternative sources of fuel. The country is so dependent on imported fuels and, considering the economic position, surely there exists a major opportunity to alleviate the dependency in the short term by lifting the ban. This is a European, economic, national and a local issue in Roscommon, Leitrim and throughout the west of Ireland and the midlands.

This is a challenge for new and beneficial thinking on a issue that affects mostly rural families who have an opportunity to continue to provide for their own fuel needs without recourse to imports. Effectively, this is our oil well but we are stopping people from using it in this country. I call on the Minister to approach the crisis in an enthusiastic manner and to have the derogation extended given the times in which we live. I call for support from everyone with a voice to influence and support our people on this issue.

Last year, the Minister gave an interpretation in the Dáil to the effect that the ban referred only to sausage machine cutting. Alarmingly, this view was later rescinded. Turf cutting on designated bogs must be continued for domestic purposes. There is no scientific evidence that turf cutting on domestic bogs is damaging to the bogs.

I refer to an area in which I believe the Minister can work with the people. The National Parks and Wildlife Service could offer a relocation to bog owners within one kilometre if there is a plan to designate a certain area. The Minister should put in place mechanisms to protect turf cutting for domestic purposes on the bogs.

Bord Na Móna has stated one acre of bog is worth between €280,000 and €285,000. The only compensation the Minister pays to farmers amounts to €3,000 per acre. Some of these farmers must wait up to five or six years because the Minister simply does not have the money to pay them. Effectively, the Minister is trying to force them to hand over the bogs to the State but he has no money to pay them. The bottom line is people do not seek compensation, they wish to continue cutting turf.

There are a few issues which I must raise. The Department used maps in drawing up these areas of conservation. For the past year and a half, we have tabled questions in the Dáil looking for the maps it used and so far we have got nothing but stony silence. How can the people trust the Department when it will not provide evidence of the maps it used? There is something fundamentally wrong and the people want to know the answers. They will not accept a ban on turf-cutting until the Department can come up with the maps it used to stop these people from cutting turf.

I ask the Minister, Deputy Gormley, to work with the people. These are elderly people who were using turf to heat their homes. They want to continue but they want to work with the Minister, and I ask his Department to work with the people. These people are angry. If this plan stops the people of the country from availing of their right to cut turf, that anger will boil over. I ask the Minister to work with the people but, most importantly, to back-up what he and his Department has stated by producing the maps because the people concerned believe they are being undermined and are being told untruths by this Department.

I appreciate the Deputy's concern and I share his wish to provide clarity to those turf cutters who are affected by the ending of cutting on raised bogs designated for conservation. It is important to point out at the outset that we are talking about only 32 bogs. There are thousands of blanket bogs and other raised bogs out there but, specifically, we are talking about 32 bogs.

The interdepartmental group on cessation of turf cutting in designated areas was established by me to examine and make recommendations on all the implications of achieving a cessation of cutting in these sensitive conservation areas. It had been hoped the group would be in a position to report back by the end of October. In the event, this did not prove possible because of the need for widespread and sometimes extended consultations with interested parties, and the need to consider fully the complex legal and administrative issues involved. The group has been very active and has consulted widely. It invited submissions from all interested parties. It met with the organisations representing turf cutting interests as well as conservation organizations. It sought expert advice from within the various Departments, agencies and offices represented on the group. It was not possible to finalise the report of the group while certain important issues remained to be clarified, including legal questions. For the most part, this clarification has now been provided.

I expect to receive the report and recommendations of the group in the coming days. I will then conclude my consideration of the matter under examination as quickly as possible with a view to making proposals to Government without delay. The preparation of the report has taken the group longer than originally expected for the reasons I outlined above. I should point out that, notwithstanding that the report is still awaited by me, it has been known for more than ten years that turf cutting on 32 raised bog special areas of conservation designated before 1999 would no longer be permitted after the expiry of the ten-year derogation given by the then Minister in 1999.

As regards the availability of maps of the bogs concerned, my Department has a complete set and has recently provided copies to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It is intended to send copies to all affected landowners and turbary rights owners who can be located. They are available also from the Department to anyone else who wishes to receive copies. There is also an interactive map viewer on the NPWS website where the boundaries and aerial photography of all nature conservation areas can be viewed.

Dublin Docklands Development Authority.

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Gormley, to the House and thank him for taking this motion on the Adjournment.

As he will be aware, last year he commissioned two reports relating to the operation of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. At the time, there were serious concerns about its governance and about planning issues, and the Minister requested the new chairwoman of the authority, Professor Niamh Brennan, to compile two reports on these two areas. I understand those two reports have been on the Minister's desk for four or five months. The former Senator, Déirdre de Búrca, castigated him for not publishing the contents of the reports, stated that they were quite explosive and suggested that perhaps he was deliberately refraining from publishing them for that reason.

The Deputy knows it is untrue.

The Minister stated that he had to get the Attorney General to have a look at them. Nevertheless, it seems a considerable period of time has elapsed and I now seek a date for their publication.

It is inevitable that in the case of reports of such importance some of their contents will be eventually leaked to the media. In those leaked reports there were serious allegations that State money was recklessly squandered by the docklands development authority in the purchase of the Irish Glass Bottle site which took place at the height of the boom in January 2007 and that a proper evaluation of the site was not conducted.

There were equally serious — perhaps even more serious — allegations that a significant number of projects granted planning permission by the docklands development authority may well be flawed and subject to legal challenge, as has already happened successfully in one case.

I have further issues that may or may not have been addressed in the reports. I am particularly concerned about the failure of the docklands development authority to address its mission statement, which was to provide 20% social housing on the docklands. In all, 811 units were granted planning permission but only 300 plus were built, and there were only 37 built on the northside. We have been told lies by the docklands development authority about, for example——

The Deputy will be aware that we do not like that word. I am only following regulations. Do not be offended by me.

——the units that were constructed in Castleforbes, where the Department paid €4.5 million or €4.6 million to the local authority to purchase those apartments. We have been told that the reason the docklands development authority is not releasing them — this is over an 18-month period — is that it did not want them to be sold at such a high price and it was waiting for them to be reduced. Now we discover they have not been even completed and yet the capital subsidy has been requested from the Minister and has been paid to the local authority, but the docklands development authority will not release them. Therefore, we have been told mistruths on this issue.

I also have serious questions about the propriety of some payments which were drawn down, obviously without the Minister's knowledge, from his Department for social housing that was constructed by various developers under agreements with the docklands development authority. This involved sums in excess of €50 million, where capital funding payments were made by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for social housing where an agreement had been made on the gasometer site, which is a 27-acre site that was in the ownership of the docklands development authority. Of course, the agreement was made with the developer that the 20% social housing, when constructed, would be transferred without charge to the docklands development authority, but it still appears to have drawn down the capital subsidy from the Department. Has there been double payments in this respect and what has happened to the money that has been drawn down, I would regard, wrongly? Has it been used, as I have heard, to defray interest payments on the €127 million of the 26% share of the worthless Irish Glass Bottle site on which it must pay interest?

Have the reports addressed these additional issues. If they have not, I want the Minister to address them. I can give him what further information I have on these matters.

I ask the Deputy to conclude.

I ask the Minister to publish the two reports immediately, state what action he proposes to take and address the issues I have raised.

While the Dublin Docklands Development Authority issue has been much discussed in recent times both in the House, as well as through the wider media, I am happy to clarify the matter for the Deputy.

As Minister and as a resident myself of the Dublin docklands area, I am committed to ensuring the authority's activities are compliant with its statutory requirements and its decisions are transparent and above board. I have taken the initiative in appointing Professor Niamh Brennan, an acknowledged expert in corporate governance, as chair of the authority. I also asked her to review the authority's corporate governance, reflecting the updated code of practice for State bodies published in May 2009.

On foot of this request, the board of the authority commissioned two independent reports to inform this review. The first was by Declan Brassil and Associates, chartered planning consultants, entitled, Review of DDDA Planning Structures and Functions, which examined the forward planning and development management procedures in the authority. The second supporting report, Report on Finance Functions — Particularly Procurement and Payroll, prepared by Ray King and Associates, incorporated public accountants and registered auditors, assessed financial control procedures, procurement and recruitment practices.

My Department received the authority's report on corporate governance, together with these two supporting independent consultants' reports, on 1 February 2010. They comprehensively examine how the authority's procedures and practices compare to best practice and the authority's board and chair have already addressed many of the issues identified in the reports, with a view to ensuring the current planning administration and financial management practices at the authority are robust.

I have repeatedly stated that I will publish these reports. I intend, however, to do it the right way, taking account of the advice of the Attorney General. I have been advised that before publication, the reports' findings should be put to the relevant former and current board members and DDDA employees to afford them an opportunity to comment. This consultation is already under way, and the executive board of the authority has committed to reporting back to me in late April. On foot of this, I will conclude my consideration of the reports, in consultation with the Attorney General, and report back to the Government.

It is not in anyone's interest to rush to hasty decisions which could jeopardise the reforms and measures that may need to be taken on foot of the reports. It is important that, as a responsible public representative, I follow the course of natural justice and allow potentially affected persons a right to be heard on these reports. In this regard, I am also mindful of the need to ultimately protect the taxpayer against any possible legal action arising.

A separate report from the authority regarding its participation in the Becbay joint venture and future decisions on the development of the former Irish Glass Bottle site was received in my Department on 5 February. I appointed independent financial advisers to assess the report, in consultation with my Department and the Department of Finance. It will be considered in the broader context of the corporate governance review of the authority.

Allegations were made across the floor of the House and outside it about the explosive nature of these reports and that they had some sort of political implications. The Deputy will see I was correct when I said these allegations were completely unfounded. Fine Gael has already published these reports and it is clear to most they do not contain explosive political material.

I want to ensure we get to the bottom of what occurred in the authority. The reports examined what happened. We need to find out why it happened and my commitment to the House is that I will do so in a thorough way. From the actions I have taken to date, I have done everything possible to ensure we have a properly functioning Dublin docklands.

I fully agree with the Minister and he has done a fine job in this respect. Will he take on board the assertions I made earlier and look into them too?

I wish the Minister, Members and staff of the Houses a happy and peaceful Easter.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 April 2010.
Barr
Roinn