We now move on to Topical Issues.
Leaders' Questions
It is Leaders' Questions. They are topical too.
What did I say? It is Leaders' Questions. I am sorry.
I will be as topical as I can.
I have Topical Issues on the brain.
As the Taoiseach knows, since last July we have been raising serious concerns about the Project Eagle deal, which involved the sale of the Northern Ireland portfolio by NAMA. Deputy Wallace has been very persistent in asking these questions as well. I put it to the Taoiseach in July that there is an ethical consideration here because it is not good enough for NAMA to say that everything is okay on its side, but there may have been issues on the side of the purchasers. The fundamental point for the Government and NAMA to consider is that the entirety of the deal must pass a basic ethics test. That there is £7.5 million lying in an offshore account makes me seriously concerned about whether this deal passes that ethics test. Given that this involves the sale of an asset belonging to the Irish taxpayer, the Government in this jurisdiction should be extremely concerned about what happened in the entirety of the deal. The Minister, Deputy Noonan, has said on the record that he wanted to accelerate the sale of the NAMA loan book generally. We suspected at the time that for political reasons he wanted to close it down in order that he could declare before the general election that NAMA was gone or whatever. There is no doubt there has been an acceleration of many of the loans on NAMA's book.
There was a further twist in the tale in the Irish News yesterday.
A letter written by Mr. David Watters, an accountant, to the managing director of Tughans solicitors, the firm involved in Northern Ireland on Project Eagle, was published in the Irish News. In the first sentence Mr. Watters says that he is writing "to lay claim to the acquisition fee of £7.5m your firm currently holds." He goes on to give the background to this claim, saying that he was responsible for what was originally called Project Amani and then Project Eagle. He says that the fee of £7.5 million was ultimately to be paid to a vehicle specifically formed for the purpose called Cadogan Futures LLP in November 2010. It seems that a group of individuals - shadowy individuals - were meeting behind closed doors-----
A question, please.
-----stitching up this deal as far back as 2010, the ultimate goal being to get it into one bundle, after which people would use contacts to interest investment funds and so forth.
The Deputy's time is up.
Mr. Watters said that "at this point I felt assured that £7.5m would be paid to Cadogan Futures LLP." He talks about a meeting on 4 July 2013 at Tughans. This letter was sent to Mr. Frank Cushnahan with a cover letter. Mr. Cushnahan was a member of the Northern Ireland advisory committee to NAMA. The more that unravels regarding this deal, the more genuine concern is generated. There are lots of allegations flying wildly about, but we do know some facts. We know that there is £7.5 million lying in an offshore account to be picked up by third parties. We know Pimco originally raised the red flag about this in terms of concerns about fees paid to third parties. We know that. Pimco says it subsequently pulled out voluntarily, but NAMA says it forced Pimco out.
A question, please. Thank you.
The same sets of solicitors were involved with Cerberus too. The bottom line is this: why is the Government ignoring this issue and essentially giving comfort to NAMA to put up a wall and not to engage fully in the investigation in Northern Ireland?
Thank you.
Why is the Government determined to try to make this go away? All I would say is that the evidence suggests that it is not going to go away and the Taoiseach has a responsibility to follow it up.
That is not the view of the Government at all. That is why there are two investigations going on here. This is a very serious matter. There is a political parliamentary commission looking at it and a police commission looking at it. There are also interests from the United States looking at it. NAMA appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts last week and gave a very detailed account of the procedures. Deputy Martin is right that £7 million has been identified in an account in the Isle of Man. Who was this destined for? Allegations have been made about personnel who were to be the alleged recipients of that money. That is why there are two investigations going on now.
From the point of view of the sale, NAMA has been very clear and forthright. It has provided all of the relevant documentation and the Minister for Finance has said that, notwithstanding the fact that the investigations are being conducted in a different jurisdiction, whatever paperwork, assistance or information is required from NAMA is being made available. I hope the investigations on two fronts can lead to the truth behind the £7 million finder's fee, an extraordinary figure, in an account in the Isle of Man and whom it might be destined for.
It is not the case that the Government does not wish to have this matter concluded and dealt with transparently and with full accountability. As far as the Minister for Finance, the Department and NAMA are concerned, co-operation and assistance are absolutely forthcoming. As I have said to Deputy Mick Wallace on a number of occasions, if there is evidence of wrongdoing then the opportunity is there to bring that to the notice of the authorities immediately, and I hope that happens.
The Taoiseach knows that the Northern Ireland Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Committee of Public Accounts are not going to get to the bottom of this. The letter I referred to earlier was written by the same gentleman who said, with regard to the Northern Ireland inquiry, that "Unsupported testimony provided yesterday at Stormont claimed I was due to receive a fee from monies paid to an Isle of Man account. That is completely false. I had no role in it, and was in no way party to, the issuance of this fee. Additionally, and for the avoidance of any doubt, I had no direct or indirect involvement in the Project Eagle transaction." That is from the same gentleman whose letter was published yesterday in the Irish News. That committee clearly is not going anywhere.
NAMA is under the Government's jurisdiction. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, was made aware of the concerns, including those of Pimco, but said he did not press the pause button. He did not tell NAMA to press the pause button either, but he should have, given the ethical issues that were raised and the knowledge that existed about fee payments to third parties-----
A question, please, Deputy.
-----which were clearly of such concern to all involved that the original successful bidder, Pimco, had to withdraw. NAMA's defence at the Committee of Public Accounts was that people could not expect it, notwithstanding those concerns, to have pulled the deal, which could have undermined the price. In other words, the price justifies whatever happened. NAMA is under the Taoiseach's jurisdiction and he can set up a statutory commission of investigation which has full compellability. In my view, that would be the honourable thing to do right now, but I can see that everyone wants to avoid that. NAMA wants to avoid it, as does the Government, but it is an essential step because NAMA will not go to Northern Ireland, which is appalling. NAMA has said that it will give evidence in private to the Northern Ireland parliamentary committee. Why does it want to give evidence in private? Why can NAMA not just go up North and give an oral public testimony?
Thank you.
Does the Taoiseach approve of NAMA not giving an oral public testimony to the Northern Ireland inquiry? He should not give me stuff about it sending documents up. Why will it not go up there?
Okay, Deputy. We are over time.
That is like the European Central Bank's sort of leithscéal - we are not answerable to the Irish Parliament but to the European Parliament and we will not turn up to the Irish banking inquiry. NAMA borrows from the ECB's book and says it is not liable in Northern Ireland and is not under that jurisdiction. I do not think that is tenable. Does the Taoiseach think it is?
Deputy Martin is taking a very simplistic view of something that is very complex.
Deputy Martin was only trying to help the Taoiseach.
NAMA is in this jurisdiction, and under the legislation it is responsible to the Committee of Public Accounts in this House, which reports to the Dáil and the Oireachtas. That committee is chaired by an independent member of the Opposition and is not chaired by a member of the Government. Deputy Martin is aware that NAMA appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts last week and clearly stated that the sales process that was conducted was in line with international best practice. It was conducted independently and overseen by Lazard, a major international bank. NAMA also said that the integrity of the sales process was fully protected and that no external members of the Northern Ireland advisory committee had access to any confidential information in regard to that sale.
Rubbish.
It also said that all bidders had equal access to information.
Also rubbish.
It also said that no third party, political or otherwise, had any influence over the NAMA board's decision on Project Eagle or was in any position to confer an unfair competitive advantage on any bidder. NAMA has fully committed, in this jurisdiction, to responding to any questions the Northern Ireland Committee on Finance and Personnel may have regarding the sale which were not covered during NAMA's appearance before the Committee of Public Accounts on 9 July 2015. We are dealing with two different jurisdictions and two different legal systems. I will give Deputy Martin an example, the case of the Kingsmill massacre, in which information that was available on Garda files here had to be physically transmitted to the coroner in Belfast for his examination after the Government here made a decision that whatever information was available in this jurisdiction would be made available to the authorities in Northern Ireland. There was a difficulty in respect of members of An Garda Síochána being in attendance at the coroner's inquest in Belfast, but the relevant information was made available. The same applies in this case.
The same does not apply.
We are over time now. Thank you.
Last month the Northern Ireland committee submitted a detailed list of questions to NAMA regarding the sales process and NAMA responded on 4 September in detail to each of those questions. The full responses to those questions run to over 300 pages and are on the NAMA website. They were also provided to the Committee of Public Accounts, to which NAMA is responsible in this jurisdiction. I also understand that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, has received a request from the Northern Ireland committee for any documents that are relevant to its investigation, and that the Department of Finance is working on that particular request.
Thank you.
It is a serious matter, but it is not as simple as Deputy Martin claims.
Will the Taoiseach set up a commission of investigation?
Thank you. Deputy McDonald.
Can I get a reply to that question?
Deputy McDonald.
I asked if the Taoiseach would set up a commission of investigation.
I am sorry, but the time is up. I cannot answer. Deputy McDonald.
Last week, I asked the Taoiseach to intervene personally on the issue of fire safety works at Longboat Quay. I asked him to contact directly the developer of the complex, Mr. Bernard McNamara, to ensure that he and those responsible for the lack of adequate fire safety at the apartments footed the bill. The Taoiseach indicated that he needed some time to acquaint himself with the facts of the case. He has now had a week to do so. Since last week, the position of the 900 residents of Longboat Quay has become worse. They now have 25 days to start remediation works or they will be evacuated. They have also been told by Dublin City Council management that the council will not be in a position to house them if they are evacuated. The derisory offer of additional funding from the Dublin Docklands Development Authority has been rightly rejected as unacceptable by residents. They have, therefore, 25 days to produce millions of euro. The Taoiseach and I both know that is neither possible nor fair that they do so.
Bernard McNamara and the people he employed are responsible for the apartments in Longboat Quay. It is not acceptable that residents spend night after night living in fear of fire or evacuation while Mr. McNamara goes about his business rebuilding his development empire. The solution to the problem at Longboat Quay can only be found if those responsible for the fire safety breaches are brought around the table and told to pay up.
I ask the Taoiseach again if he will pick up the telephone, call Bernard McNamara, demand to know what role he will play in resolving this problem and convene the meeting I described to bring all responsible parties around the table to foot the bill?
This is another example of the poor standards that existed during the so-called Celtic tiger years for buildings and apartment blocks such as Longboat Quay. Deputy McDonald is aware that the Building Control Act 1990 placed responsibility for compliance with building regulations on the owner of the building concerned, its designer and the builder-developer who carried out the works - in this case, the person named by the Deputy. Enforcement of these regulations and responsibility for their enforcement are matters for local authorities which have extensive powers of inspection and enforcement under the Building Control Acts and Fire Safety Act 1981.
The Deputy will be aware of the reports of fire certificates being issued and not being acted on in a particular time. The Planning and Development Acts and Housing Acts may also be relevant to fire safety, which has been the cause of the extreme and stressful position in which the residents of Longboat Quay find themselves. Remediation of defects - renovation works to deal with them - is a matter for the parties concerned, namely, the current owners and the builder-developer and his or her agents and insurers. If a satisfactory resolution cannot be found or achieved through dialogue or negotiation, the option of seeking a legal remedy is always available.
The issues that emerged during this debacle are a matter for the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, the receiver to the developer, the residents of Longboat Quay and their management company and Dublin Fire Brigade to resolve collaboratively. I understand that all these parties are anxious to find a resolution and the management company and others have met the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government in the past hour or thereabouts to seek a resolution to this matter in order that the residents, who paid good money for their apartments and homes, are not required to live in this very stressful condition where their homes are deemed to be dangerous.
Since Longboat Quay was built, a number of changes have been made to the regulations that apply. Since 1 March 2015, greatly strengthened arrangements have been in place for the control of building activity. These require greater accountability in respect of the conditions that apply and are awarded for planning in the first place. I am not aware of the detail of the outcome of the meeting between the Minister and representatives of the management company in the past hour. Responsibility is vested across a number of interest areas and I hope the matter can be resolved. I am aware of the reduction in the original figure mentioned but that is not satisfactory for the residents of Longboat Quay.
The Taoiseach very thoroughly washed his hands of this matter or at least attempted to do so. It is of no comfort to residents of Longboat Quay, whom I visited at the weekend, to hear the Taoiseach recount all of the malpractice of the past as that does not solve their problem. The residents find themselves in a position where there are very serious deficiencies in fire safety in the homes in which they live and for which, as the Taoiseach acknowledged, they paid good money. A derisory and unacceptable offer was made to them. The Taoiseach and I know that the residents cannot put their hands on thousands of euro and should not have to do so because the fault does not rest with them.
The Deputy should ask a question.
The Taoiseach needs to intervene. I can only assume from his response that he did not seek out Mr. Bernard McNamara. I tried unsuccessfully to get a telephone number for Mr. McNamara. If anyone has contact details for him, please pass them on and I will call him.
Deputy Martin should check his diary for the number.
Last week, the Royal Institute of Architects stated that many more cases similar to Longboat Quay could occur because building control legislation has yet to be fixed. It called for increased resourcing of local authorities to allow them to properly police building standards.
Sorry, Deputy, will you put a question, please?
It called for mandatory independent inspections that would be outside the control of developers, which would be a very important change. It also called for the establishment of a consumer redress scheme and very much more.
Sorry, Deputy, you must put a question.
All we get from the Taoiseach, however, is an unwillingness to intervene directly, as he should do, with Mr. McNamara and the other parties. The Taoiseach should make clear that residents will not be expected to put their hands in their pockets to pay for this work.
Deputy, will you put a question, please?
Rather than slapping himself on the back, the Taoiseach should give a commitment that he will introduce the necessary amending legislation and new resources to ensure this horror story is not revisited in the future. That is what he should do. Will he call Mr. McNamara and make plain that the residents will not bear the costs?
The Deputy must comply with the Chair.
That is what I want to hear the Taoiseach say and it is what the residents want to hear from him. They will not pay for this.
Deputy McDonald seems to absolve from all responsibility in this matter the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, the receiver to the developer, the management company, Dublin Fire Brigade and the residents of Longboat Quay who have a direct interest in the issue.
The management company is made up of residents.
The Deputy wants to focus on one name and wants me to state that, on her instruction, I will ring up the person in question. This is a much more complex issue than she portrays. Serious changes have been made to the building regulations since 1 March 2014. I regret to say that it is my belief, as the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government pointed out, that there are other cases in the system that may be more complex than this case. They are certainly out there. That is all a legacy arising from the assumption made by the party opposite that the country's services and future could be run on the takings from the construction sector.
Who controlled Dublin City Council?
What amendments to building legislation did the Government make in the past five years?
In many cases, including in this case, the taxpayer is at the end of the line and is left to sort out these matters. Deputy McDonald is absolving from all responsibility the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, the receiver to the developer, Dublin Fire Brigade and the management company. In her view, these parties do not have any responsibility in this matter.
As I indicated, the Minister met various people in the past hour. Far from washing our hands of this matter, as Deputy McDonald suggests, the Minister has acted to support the interests of owners and residents of developments about which concerns arise or allegations of non-compliance in respect of fire safety regulations are made.
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, has recently announced an independent fire safety expert report to develop a framework for general application where such allegations are made. The review, which will include a case study based on the Millfield Manor estate in Newbridge, County Kildare, and will conclude at an early date - by the end of January 2016 - will ensure appropriate or enhanced fire detection and alarm measures, some of which have been installed at Longboat Quay, ensure that appropriate escape routes from the premises are designed in accordance with current standards, which may not apply at Longboat Quay, and ensure that there are plans for proper evacuation and that such plans are rehearsed, as would normally apply.
So he is washing his hands of it. Very interesting.
Send him up to Prospect Hill on the Finglas Road also.
An Taoiseach, please.
The independent review group will also take account of the typical risk profile faced by residents such as these. There is supposed to be - the Deputy knows a lot about buildings, and she knows this - a series of regular meetings about any construction project that is under way, attended by those involved, whether it be the architect, the clerk of works or the developers and their personnel. Where a job is going wrong, it should be taken down and built to the specifications under the planning permission that was granted in the first instance.
In that case, call Mr. McNamara and tell him.
We are now nearly five minutes over time.
But no; the rush to build 100,000 houses a year and fire them up in any condition has resulted in Longboat Quay-----
And Prospect Hill.
And Priory Hall.
-----and other places around the country where ordinary people who went along and got money from their banks and lending institutions are now caught in fire traps, essentially.
And the Taoiseach is happy to let them pay.
We need to get to the bottom of this, and the five elements I have mentioned are central to sorting it out. Far from washing his hands of it, the Minister, Deputy Kelly, has taken a direct interest in it. The Deputy might not like to hear that, but it is a fact.
That will not happen in 25 days, and the Taoiseach will not ensure that the residents do not have to pay. He is a disgrace.
Price fluctuation is a major problem for Irish farmers. I heard on Euronews last night that at one time there were 4 million farmers in France, but now there are 1 million ranchers. The same appears to be happening in this country. The Government and previous Governments through the years have neglected family farms. Family farms are responsible for holding a great many local communities together in terms of their schools and shops. The Minister has created a bubble in the dairy industry, which is now turning sour. I grant that €13 million has been given to the dairy sector, but a bubble has been created in which 60,000 more calves will turn into cattle and hit the beef sector within the next 12 months. Promises the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the cartels in the factories agreed last January are now being broken and prices are dropping. Those promises are being broken without the Minister doing anything about it. Prices in the sheep sector seem to be falling the whole time. Young farmers trying to get out there, even though some of them went into it before 2008, have been forgotten. CAP funding is not for the family farm, with 80% of it going to the 20% of ranchers around the country. GLAS was put into Pillar 2 for the so-called family farm. In May last year, GLAS came out and 25,000 people went into it. Sadly, while it is a good thing that it is opening again, GLAS has been changed around completely. The family farm is being driven out of it.
I was at a meeting the other night about the beef genomics scheme. The statistics tell one that they are relying on 40% accurate information to tell farmers what to do. One cannot run a business on 40% accurate information. We have a Minister who is talking about helping different parts of rural Ireland.
Will the Deputy put his question?
Germany has signed up to the ban on genetically modified foods. Is Ireland signing up? Is the EU trying to bring ranchers in right around Europe, not only Ireland, given the way the grants system is progressing, when one looks at different countries and their different stories? Will the Taoiseach intervene in respect of the broken promises of the factories? In particular, I ask the Taoiseach to look at the hill farmers in his own area.
The Deputy is way over time.
He is well familiar with small family farms. Will he get involved in the GLAS proposals to ensure that farmers going into it are treated equally by comparison with the farmers last May? Are we going to have two farmers beside each other-----
Did the Deputy hear me? Will he put his question, please?
-----with the same acreage, one of whom is getting €1,500?
Will the Deputy please put his question?
Will the Taoiseach answer those questions, please?
I thank Deputy Fitzmaurice for his questions. He ranged over three different areas: GLAS, the beef genomics scheme and GMOs. He has also raised the issue of the decline in the number of farmers at European level, although he did not define what he considers to be a rancher in Irish terms. He made the point about rural development programmes. The enthusiasm and energy that was evident at the recent National Ploughing Championship from people all over the country, most of whom were small farmers, was self-evident. Every agricultural course in every agricultural college is booked out because young people now see the agri sector as central to their future ambitions and careers. GLAS will see the participation of 50,000 farmers, all of whom are small to medium-size farmers and not ranchers by Irish standards. The Common Agricultural Policy, with the extra €100 million thrown in for the rural development programme, the recent allocation in respect of the programme for the next number of years dealing with CEDRA, and the putting in place of a national strategy to allow communities, including family farms, to draw and avail of assistance are there for all to see.
I do not accept the Deputy's assertion at all that the Irish agri sector is in any way in decline. Of course, the lifting of milk quotas is not responsible in itself for the decline in milk prices. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, fought a good battle at European level to get an extra €13 million, which will be distributed based on the recommendations of the dairy forum, an important institution for dairy farmers - who are all, by the way, carbon-footprinted and contributing greatly to the future economic development of the country. Clearly, the beef trade can fluctuate, and factories have always had their influence in terms of setting prices. That is why we have managed to get access to the American market, the Japanese market for specialised cuts and the Chinese market. These are opportunities that must be worked on over the next period.
There is no commercial cultivation of GMO crops in Ireland, as the Deputy is aware. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the different agencies continue to discuss and consider the revised legislation on genetically modified cultivation and what, if any, are the practical and legal implications for the future. It is considered that acting to restrict cultivation where no cultivation would occur is unnecessary. Irish GMO policy, including in relation to the opt-out clause, which Ireland supported when first proposed, is continuously kept under review on the basis of experience and the approaches across member states. Ireland can still opt out of GM cultivation beyond the deadline of 3 October. None of the currently authorised GM crops will be cultivated in Ireland.
As such, while the Deputy paints a depressing picture of the agri sector, it is fundamentally central to the development of the economy for the next ten, 15 and 20 years.
There are challenges in there, but will dealing with this issue in a carefully structured way not lead to the futures and the ambitions and the livelihoods of thousands of family farms in the country?
The Taoiseach referred to youngsters attending colleges and things being booked out. That is 6,500 youngsters over the next two to three years. Consider the ages of farmers across the country. This issue must be addressed.
I will pin it down to one important scheme for the Taoiseach, the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS. For small farmers in Mayo and across the country, will the Taoiseach give an undertaking that the same terms and conditions will apply in two weeks' time as when GLAS opened to farmers last May or will he introduce separate schemes for two neighbours with the same acreage that will create a difference of €1,500? The hedgerows aspect, which was worth €1,000, will not be allowed. There is also a change in terms of old, rich meadows and pastures. I have pinned this down to one scheme because it gets complicated in the Dáil if one discusses too many. Will the Taoiseach intervene with his Minister as regards GLAS and ensure that those farmers who enter the scheme now will get the same terms, conditions and options as those who entered it last May? Will he give me a straight answer?
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I will try to answer for the Deputy. As he is aware, the Minister, Deputy Coveney, along with other members of Government, successfully negotiated CAP reform during the Irish Presidency in the first half of 2013.
We know about that.
As I said, 50,000 farmers will participate in this. They are all smaller farmers in the different areas of the country. A total of €1.4 billion-----
The Taoiseach already told us that. All I want to know is whether the Government will provide the same terms and conditions.
-----is allocated under GLAS over the course of the programme. The first tranche attracted 27,000 applications.
Suck it up.
Applications were received from every county, and virtually every action therein was included at some stage.
Answer the question.
Deputy Fitzmaurice is aware that, in his own county of Galway and Roscommon-----
Will the Government give the same terms and conditions?
-----they have demonstrated a keen interest in this scheme - 3,250 from Galway and 1,585-----
They know that. Come on.
I do not want to hear about that.
I am sorry, but will the Deputies please allow the Taoiseach to reply?
All that I want to know is whether the Government will give the same terms and conditions?
Will you hold on a second, please?
Sure, you know all the answers.
Through the Chair, not across the floor.
How many applied in Wicklow?
Deputy Fitzmaurice-----
I am sorry, but there is a time limit on this-----
He is not giving an answer.
-----and the Taoiseach's time is nearly up, so the Deputy will not get any answer.
The Taoiseach is wasting time.
The Minister, Deputy Coveney, indicated that the second tranche of GLAS-----
He is spending the least amount of time-----
-----would be launched in the coming weeks, and that is expected to attract significant interest as well.
There is a time limit on the Taoiseach as well.
Now, on the basis of the 27,000 applications that were submitted, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has indicated that farmers will have already met or exceeded RDP targets for low-input permanent pasture, protection of water courses, laying hedgerows, planting of new hedgerows, planting of traditional orchards-----
That is why the Deputy was asking.
-----bird, bee and bat habitats, wild bird cover and stone wall maintenance. The Deputy knows all about these things as well.
That sums up Dáil Éireann.
Is there a five-point plan?
The answer is "No".
GLAS differs from other schemes and has adopted a very different targeted approach here. In answer to Deputy Fitzmaurice's question, there is no reduction to the average payment that a farmer can receive and achieve under GLAS. Farmers and advisers have the potential to maximise the payment for each individual farmer when they are drawing up the individual's application-----
They cannot when the Government is excluding all of that.
-----and to achieve a payment of up to €5,000 under the scheme.
In case the Taoiseach did not know, he has contradicted himself.
While a small number in the beginning-----
Same options, but the Government is changing the goal posts.
Deputy Fitzmaurice said this will not work, this cannot work.
The goal posts are gone.
When the Department shows a deal of resolve-----
It is like playing hockey in Croke Park.
I am sorry, but I must intervene.
-----and understanding about how to work out these problems, they actually do work.
Deputies
They will not.
What about the corncrake and the hedgerows?
Birds and bats.