I welcome the Minister for Education and Skills to the House.
Adjournment Matters
Schools Building Projects Applications
I also welcome the Minister. My Adjournment matter relates to a school in my constituency, namely, St. Mary's national school, Stranorlar, County Donegal. The school was first constructed in 1958 and an extension was added in 1974. The current enrolment is 479 pupils. The school employs 36 people, of whom 25 are teachers, seven are special needs assistants, two are clerical officers and two are maintenance staff. A large proportion of the enrolment of 479 students, or 149 of them, are being taught in prefabricated accommodation situated to the rear of the school building. Only four of the 12 permanent classrooms have running water. The annual bill for rented prefabricated accommodation is €58,847. The new enrolments in the past few years are as follows: in 2010 it was 57; in 2011 it was 67; and in 2012, the current academic school year, there were 74 additional enrolments.
There is a major health and safety issue with the school. I know that the Minister may have visited the school and be aware of it. Certainly senior officials in his Department are aware of the school.
Is it located on the main road, on the right hand side?
Exactly. The school is located beside the church.
It is on the left hand side as one drives to Letterkenny.
Exactly. Often there is a funeral, wedding or mass at the church when children arrive at school in the morning. Recently I was at the school when children were being dropped off and there was an obvious hazard. The school is doing everything that it can and its caretaker looks after the arrivals of cars, buses and so forth. Safety is a critical issue.
With regard to school accommodation, I never agreed with prefabricated accommodation even when my party, Fianna Fáil, was in government and there was lots of money being spent. The money should have gone into bricks and mortar. Children should have proper classroom accommodation. That is not too much to ask. The health and safety concerns, the prefabricated accommodation, coupled with close to 500 children playing on concrete at the back of the school at lunchtime and break times, a lack of running water, toilet and sanitary facilities and so on is totally unacceptable. A new school on a new site would be an easy solution. A new site has been identified beside the current Finn Valley sports centre which is a nationally renowned centre with a new swimming pool project under construction. The centre also has a running track of European standard. The proposed site across the road has planning permission and is being purchased by the Department. All that is required is that the school project progresses to the capital programme.
Before my party left government the project had been placed on the capital programme. I know that there are competing demands but there is no school in a similar position and St. Mary's deserves to be included. Its omission means that I no longer know what school project deserves inclusion because this is an emergency case. The project has been progressed so far. I have been in written correspondence with officials in the Department. To be fair to them, they responded and outlined the situation. In the final paragraph of recent correspondence they outlined that the project could be included in the capital programme where funds are made available. I call on the Minister who may not have the answer, but I plead with him, to consider including the project given its unique circumstances. There are almost 500 children attending St. Mary's national school and they deserve to attend a school that is safe, fit for purpose, has running water and toilet facilities and where they are not in danger of being knocked down going to or leaving school. That is what I seek. This is a simple situation. The project has been developed so all that is required is for funding to be provided over a period to build the project. We live in an era where there is great value for money. We can get value when building such a project because contractors are willing to offer a competitive price. I hope the Minister will give me good news this evening. He is smiling and I shall take that as a good sign.
I am familiar with the school. Every by-election brings strangers to a constituency and one ends the campaign as an expert on every back alley and lane. I know the school and church well. I am glad for the Senator's illumination of the opportunity to build a decent school. There is no question about the unsatisfactory nature of the existing school and I concur with everything that he has said. I have received representations from other public representatives in Donegal about the school.
My problem, quite honestly, is the following. We are blessed with a growing population. However, I will not be blessed if the children born this morning are in four years time looking into a field and not a school yard, even if it all is covered in concrete and littered with prefabs and substandard buildings. I shall give the related figures. The pupil enrolment is currently about 515,000 in primary and 361,000 in secondary. That figure, combined together, is expected to grow by 100,000 between 2012 and 2019. In other words, an additional 70,000 pupils at primary level and another 30,000 pupils at post-primary level. Enrolment will continue to rise at post-primary level up to the year 2024 at least. I have heard what the Senator has said.
With regard to additional moneys in terms of the capital programme, buildings were taken off the capital programme, including this project, primarily due to analysis of the demographic growth of the area. There was no dispute about the necessity for a replacement building. If the population was static and in no way dynamic, or not exerting additional demand, then we had to reprioritise the school. When I introduced the five-year capital programme the dominant criterion, and there was more than one, was population growth. I will examine the case as requested by the Senator and see where it is in that context. I cannot give him any indication tonight.
I appreciate the Minister's response. It is catch-22 for the school and others. A gaelscoil in Buncrana, County Donegal, is also in a catch-22. If the current accommodation complement is not up to the required standard, parents will send their children to an upgraded school. It is unfair to penalise a school simply because it has not got the standard of accommodation to attract new pupils and increase its numbers. If a new school was built pupils would want to attend, given the nature of the adjacent sports facilities. I understand where the Minister is coming from. It may be simplistic but I plead with him to examine it again. I am available to give him any assistance that he requires. I do not want to play politics because I know that he is genuinely concerned. I ask him to examine the project favourably given how far it has come in the past few years.
Job Losses
I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. He will be aware that, unfortunately, Diageo has announced that it is ceasing its operations at the Waterford facility. That news came as a shock to the workforce. Some 35 direct and indirect jobs will go if this closure goes ahead. It also came as a shock to the people of Waterford, a city with 25% unemployment, which is facing an unemployment crisis in a region with 19%. We need to be creating jobs, not losing them. Any announcement such as this one is bad news both for those being made redundant but also for the economy in the Waterford region.
The Diageo plant in Waterford produces the essence concentrate for Guinness which is exported around the world. It is a top class, state-of-the-art facility. In 2004, the company invested €40 million capital funding in its Waterford facility. That was at a time when the company had downsized its operations in Waterford. This was seen as its stake in the area to which it was committed, yet a short number of years later Diageo has decided to cease production, despite the fact that €40 million was put into the facility. Less than €1 million of that sum came from Enterprise Ireland but nonetheless it was a significant capital investment by the company.
I ask the Minister of State to raise this matter with the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton. What steps have been taken by the Minister or his Department to safeguard jobs at the Waterford facility? Has there been any dialogue or communication between the company, the Minister and his Department? Has the company been asked to offer any rationale for its decision, given that it made such a big capital investment? Can the Minister of State detail the total investment of public moneys which has been put into this site over many years? Is there any clawback clause if the site is to be closed?
The trade union involved, SIPTU, is working hard to secure the jobs and is in discussions with the company. We wish them all well and hope the Minister and his Department will also become involved. I hope that effort will be successful. If it is not, however, and the company sticks to its plan to close the Waterford plant and move the operation to the St. James's Gate facility in Dublin, it is vital for Enterprise Ireland and the Department to consider some sort of replacement on that site in Waterford. It is an iconic building at the entrance to Waterford city, containing a state-of-the-art facility that cannot be left unused. It would be a travesty to abandon it. We must find some sort of replacement industry that can retain jobs and keep production going in some shape or form, if Diageo cannot be convinced to keep the facility open. For example, we could examine micro-brewing along with other options.
Is Enterprise Ireland alert to this matter? Is it working with stakeholders or individuals who may have ideas on how to protect and maintain jobs? I have raised this Adjournment matter to try to safeguard jobs. We want to support SIPTU's efforts to protect the existing employment and I hope change Diageo's mind. If that does not prove possible, what steps can the Department and State agencies - especially Enterprise Ireland - take to ensure some level of continuing production and jobs on that site? The building must not be left unused and vacant. As it must be utilised, I appeal to the Minister of State to do what he can to make that a reality.
I thank the Senator for raising this important matter. The operations of the company referred to by the Senator have been under review for some time. The company is expanding in St. James's Gate with a €153 million investment which will secure the future of brewing in Ireland. In this regard, €16 million is being invested in concentrate technology. While the expansion at St. James's Gate will have a spin-off effect of increasing barley purchases - all of which the company sources in Ireland, which I welcome - I was disappointed to hear of the proposed closure of the Waterford site at the end of this year with the possible loss of 21 jobs.
I am conscious of the anxiety that the proposed closure will create for the workers involved and their families, as well as for the local community. As the Senator said, it is an iconic building in Waterford carrying on a traditional business. It is important that the impact of the site's closure on employment in Waterford is minimised. The State's enterprise agencies will make every effort to develop new employment opportunities for Waterford and to support the retention of existing jobs there.
While the decision on plant closure is a matter for the company, I understand Enterprise Ireland is working with Diageo to find a replacement industry for the site. It is important to work on that opportunity. Clearly, while this is a real difficulty for Waterford, there could still be opportunities in this situation, such as micro-brewing to which the Senator referred. In addition, other possibilities can be considered. It is all about consultation between Diageo and Enterprise Ireland. In this respect, I understand that a number of potential investments are being actively considered and I am hopeful that any new investment will safeguard employment at the site. It is positive news that such investments are being considered.
I note the commitment of Enterprise Ireland. Last week it announced the highest exports ever from Ireland of €16 billion. The agency is doing an extraordinary job and the potential for new opportunities is there, given that the Enterprise Ireland management team is talking to Diageo.
The Government's top priority is to get Ireland working again. The Action Plan for Jobs, published on 22 February, is the next step in the Government's plan to rebuild the economy and accelerate the transition to a sustainable, jobs-rich economy based on enterprise, innovation and exports.
This is all about innovation, enterprise and exports. Ultimately, it is entirely Diageo's decision what to do but we must also consider community involvement in the region, with the county enterprise board and local government. As well as being part of the city's history, this iconic building presents an opportunity for Waterford and must be enshrined in the current discussions.
The Action Plan for Jobs, which contains 333 actions to be implemented this year by 16 Departments and 46 agencies, will build on the progress made in 2012. It will continue to improve supports for job-creating businesses and remove the barriers to employment creation across the economy. Support will be given to every opportunity for expansion of any business idea. These actions are additional to the 249 actions already implemented under action plan 2012, which have helped to support a net growth of almost 12,000 in private sector employment in the past year.
On foot of the job losses announced by TalkTalk in Waterford in September 2011, the Minister tasked agencies and stakeholders in the south-east region to come up with a set of actions to address the long-standing unemployment problem in Waterford and the region generally. The specific recommendations contained in the south-east employment action plan, produced by Forfás, are being progressed by a forum representing the agencies and key stakeholders in the region. I strongly advise the Senator to participate in that forum, which is where this matter should be discussed.
The full range of State supports will be deployed to support those Waterford workers at the appropriate time. The company and unions concerned availed of the industrial relations machinery of the State in the context of the company's earlier decision to close the Kilkenny and Dundalk breweries. The services of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court will, of course, remain available to assist the parties if requested.
State agencies will continue to work closely with each other and with local interests to support an integrated approach to job creation in Waterford. Enterprise Ireland's activity is focussed on the creation of new jobs through continuing to work with established companies in its portfolio. The agency is also supporting entrepreneurs in manufacturing and internationally-traded services companies which are setting up high potential start-up companies.
Enterprise Ireland's approach in response to job losses is directed at assisting any relevant employees affected. It seeks to enhance and facilitate the future employment prospects of the workforce concerned and to identify and support individuals who wish to start their own business.
In addition, anyone who has been made redundant or who is facing redundancy in Waterford and is interested in exploring options for setting up a business should contact the Waterford county and city enterprise boards for appropriate advice and assistance. The boards are a valuable resource for those starting a new business. In 2012, the boards funded a range of grant applications and softer supports such as training and mentoring of clients in the micro-enterprise sector. These investments resulted in a net increase of 53 jobs in the Waterford area during the year. IDA Ireland continues to actively promote Waterford for new investment and is actively engaged with its existing client base to encourage their transition to higher value activities and their continued commitment to Ireland.
Diageo Waterford received one grant package from Enterprise Ireland for capital equipment, totalling €800,000, which was approved in 2002. There is no grant liability and no clawback clause relating to this grant.
I am confident that the measures outlined in the Action Plan for Jobs 2013, together with the activities being pursued by the State enterprise agencies in Waterford, will continue to support business investment and help to create employment opportunities both in Waterford city and the surrounding area.
I thank the Minister of State for his lengthy and comprehensive response. This is an important issue for the people of Waterford but nobody in that county blames the Government for the fact that this company made this decision. We all accept that the company took a decision to consolidate its business in the State, regardless of whether we like it. That decision is very unpalatable for the workforce and the people of Waterford. However, there is a responsibility on the Government, the Minister, the Department and Enterprise Ireland to act. I am very pleased that not only is Enterprise Ireland alive to the need to do something but that it is actively working with potential investors. I very much hope that we can get one of those potential investors to secure development at the site and continue some sort of production there, thus securing employment at the site. It seems that is what Enterprise Ireland is working towards and it would be a very good day for Waterford if that can be secured.
Obviously, we still have to support the trade union in its efforts to change the minds of the decision-makers in Diageo but we live in the real world, where companies make such decisions all of the time. I commend Enterprise Ireland for its efforts and hope it achieves a good result for the workforce and people of Waterford.
The Government is very aware of the opportunities in Waterford and Enterprise Ireland will be actively working with the company to pursue alternative enterprises on this site. Clearly, this is not a blame game. What is important is that the Government creates an environment which is supportive of enterprise and the creation of jobs. We must encourage those with good ideas to commercialise them. That is the job of Government and we are very determined to continue this work. I have no doubt that this issue will be on the agenda of the task force for the south east set up recently by the Minister.
Drug Treatment Programmes Funding
I wish to raise the proposal for a south-east Fingal drugs and alcohol project, sent to the Department by the Howth Sutton Community Council in January this year. The request is that the Department replace a project that was serving this area up until the middle of last year. There was a Howth-based project that was providing a service for Howth, Sutton, Baldoyle, Bayside and the surrounding areas but there were difficulties with that project. Since it has closed, there is an enormous gap in services in the area, particularly in terms of prevention. The proposal was put forward by the community council following a considerable amount of research done through the local schools and youth services, as well as with parents and residents of the area, on the needs of the community in terms of drug and alcohol abuse prevention and diversion projects. That research, which was submitted to the Department, showed clearly a gap in such services in that area.
The proposal was submitted in January. The community council has since been finding it very difficult to get a straight answer regarding what is happening with the proposal. I wrote to the Department on behalf of the council and received a reply to the effect that the issue is a matter for the drugs task force. However, the drugs task force has said that it has been given a very clear message from the Department that it is being funded on an existing services only basis for this year and that it cannot approve replacement projects. It seems that this very worthwhile initiative, the need for which has been well established through research and analysis, may not be funded by the Government. The community council has not been able to get a straight answer on this question. Money was available in the past through a previous project. Funding was allocated to this area but now it is being left without a service. I appreciate that money is tight within the Department and that cuts have been necessary. However, of all of the services that need to be protected, drug projects are one of the most important. It takes so long to get the right services up an running in areas that have struggled for many years with drug misuse problems. In that context, it is a shame that the budget in general is taking a hit and while it is no reflection on the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, it does reflect the broader priorities of Government. All Ministers should ensure that this service area is supported. The amount of money involved is relatively small in the greater scheme of things.
I tabled this matter on the Adjournment in order to bring it to the attention of the Minister of State who is already aware of the proposal. I hope he can give me positive news today. The community council, which carried out the research and submitted the proposal, is a very professional organisation and is representative of all of the community bodies in the broader community. If any organisation is capable of getting a project like this off the ground and running it for a relatively small sum of money, it is the Howth Sutton Community Council. I hope the Minister of State has had a chance to read the proposal and that he can give me a positive answer, rather than just saying that it is an issue for the drugs task force.
On 7 January last, my Department received a proposal from the Howth Sutton Community Council for funding to establish a drugs and alcohol prevention project in south-east Fingal, which would serve communities in Baldoyle, Bayside, Sutton and Howth. The council wishes to set up a project to address a gap in service provision, as outlined by the Senator, that has arisen as a result of the closure in June 2012 of a community-based drugs project serving the Howth Sutton peninsula. Funding for the latter project was withdrawn by the HSE as a result of deficits in governance, financial control and accountability that emerged during an audit of the project.
The need for support within communities around prevention education for young people and support for families has been identified by Howth Sutton Community Council on the basis of findings from a strategic evaluation of projects conducted by Dublin north-east local drugs task force in late 2011. This evaluation included the former project serving the Howth Sutton peninsula. Supplementary research undertaken with local schools and community actors in late 2012 also informed the research findings.
The key recommendations arising from the research are that a project be developed in partnership with existing community and statutory agencies, which would work with schools, youth and family support groups to develop local strategies for substance misuse education and prevention. The proposal envisages that the project would initially focus on prevention, education and family support, with expansion into client-case management to be undertaken in the medium term if resources become available. The cost of the project, which would involve hiring a co-ordinator and a project worker, is estimated at €79,000 per annum.
As the Senator will be aware, drugs task forces play a key role in assessing the nature of the drug problem in their areas and co-ordinating action at local level in order that there is a targeted response to the drug problem in local communities. A total of €29.951 million has been allocated to the drugs initiative in 2013, the majority of which contributes to the running of community-based drugs projects supported by local and regional drugs task forces. This includes an allocation of €988,234 to the Dublin north-east local drugs task force, LDTF, which has responsibility for tackling the drug problem in the south-east Fingal area.
It is a matter for each drugs task force to decide which projects to support based on agreed priorities for their area within the overall budget available to them. The allocation to Dublin north-east LDTF was determined on the basis of the community-based drugs projects it recommended for funding in 2013.
I have been in contact with Howth Sutton Community Council and have advised it to submit the proposal to Dublin north-east LDTF for consideration. I have indicated that my Department will consider the proposal if it has been recommended by the task force. At this stage, the drugs task forces have been advised of their allocations for 2013. The funding of any additional measures is contingent upon the resources which are available to me for the year.
I wish to explain that to the House again. I do not have a discretionary budget. In general it is not a question of making an application to the Minister and for the Minister or departmental officials to review the project. I can see that this is a project of merit and I agree there is a gap in this area. I know there is a need, as the Senator has very carefully and persuasively outlined to the House. However, I cannot deal with the matter unless it comes to me by way of a recommendation from the local drugs task force. I have explained that to the local drugs task force and have also responded to Howth Sutton Community Council. However, if we were to seek to identify funding - difficult as that would be - it would inevitably affect the funding that would then not be available for other activities because I have a limited amount of funding available. While the Senator makes her case very well, there is a finite amount of funding. I could certainly not reallocate for 2013 unless I took money from somewhere else. We will need to see how matters are for 2014, but I also expect resources to be finite next year. I regret that resources are so limited, particularly in this area where the need is so great. However, we know why resources are limited and what has caused the overall financial situation the country faces. I am trying to do my best, as are the local drugs task forces with the funding available to them.
I thank the Minister of State for acknowledging the merit of the proposal and that there is a gap. While he has advised it that it should make a proposal to the local drugs task force, at the same time the Department has clearly advised the local drugs task force not to recommend new projects. My understanding is that it has been advised that its funding is only on the basis of existing services and there is no scope for others. This project is purely a restoration and it is not looking for anything new. The implicit suggestion is that if it wants to restore a project, it must cut other projects within the task force area. Obviously that puts any local drugs task force in an impossible position because the needs across a wider area are so huge. As there have already been cuts in services, it puts it in an impossible position to suggest the only way to get approval is to cut other services in the area.
This is money that was taken out of the pot for the Dublin north-east area local drugs task force to be used nationally; therefore, it is only fair that it should at least be back in the pot rather than be taken from other local services. It is an impossible position for everybody involved. It is a really worthwhile project, as the Minister of State has acknowledged. At this stage we are almost half way through 2013 and I hope he will look at it again for next year. If the Minister of State has time I invite him to meet some of the people involved and hear the case from them directly. I know he has already acknowledged the merits of the project, but he might feel more strongly about it if he could see the professionalism of the people involved and the potential for the initiative if it could get off the ground.
I certainly would be amenable to meeting the people involved and seeing the project. I want the Senator to be clear that there is no file or proposal on my desk that I have not read, in case the House might have that impression. We have not advised the local drugs task force not to recommend new projects. However, as the Senator has picked up correctly, we have said that the funding the local drugs task force has this year is its funding for this year. Of course 2014 is a new year and everything will be considered afresh, but there will still be a finite amount of resources. I know the history of what has happened here, to which I must have regard. The local drugs task force has a new chairman and a new co-ordinator. I am not saying anything about anyone who went before, but I think that is very helpful. They are very well organised and are very good people. We will do everything we can to assist but it is not a question of a dilatory approach on my part or that of the Department. These things are processed through the local drugs task forces.
Property Taxation Exemptions
I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to deal with the need for Minister for Finance to outline the steps he is taking to ensure standardised criteria are applied to unfinished estates in the calculation of the amount due in property tax. A large number of people were deemed to be living in unfinished estates and thereby got an exemption from last year's household charge. These same people are now baffled as to why they are not included in the local property tax exemption list. Many of them have a good case for feeling this way as in many cases the developer did not fully comply with the terms of the planning permission. They were bona fide purchasers of houses in the boom times and contributed handsomely to the Exchequer at the time. They have now been let down and are living in estates which might be substantially complete but have residual problems.
People living in an estate in Craughwell, County Galway, made plans to move out because a sewage treatment plant had stopped working and there were other residual problems relating to the builders' failure to build the estate. Among a plethora of planning permission breaches by the developer, the final coat of tar was not applied and there was no proper demarcation of common areas. This estate was developed in the early years of the boom. I am baffled as to why the bond was not drawn down on time in order to ensure these works were completed. The properties could have been taken in charge by the local authority.
The Minister for Finance should outline the criteria being applied to unfinished estates in the calculation of the property tax. Are the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners taking into consideration the underlying problems in an estate and not merely looking at outdated and obsolete valuations of properties? Are they considering issues such as those affecting the estate I mentioned in Craughwell? I hope they would apply a subjective valuation as a means of providing a just, fair and equitable system of property tax application.
I thank the Senator for raising the issue. Section 10(2) of the Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012, as amended, provides that a residential property shall be exempt from the local property tax, LPT, where it is situated in an unfinished housing estate. Section 10(1) of the Act defines an unfinished housing estate as a development of two or more buildings that is specified in a list prescribed under section 10(3) of the Act by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government for the purposes of the Act. Section 10(4) of the Act prescribes a range of circumstances to which that Minister shall have regard for the purposes of that section.
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has recently prescribed and published this list, which is set out in the Schedule to the Finance (Local Property Tax) Regulations 2013 and was compiled by local authorities utilising the categorisation employed for the purposes of the national housing survey 2012. The survey was carried out over the course of summer 2012 by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in conjunction with local authorities and the housing agency. The categorisation methodology for the survey was different from that used in 2011 and which provided the basis for the waiver from the household charge. That earlier categorisation related largely to the level of on-site activity at the time the 2011 survey was carried out and had less to do with the physical character of a development. The 2012 survey was based purely and objectively on the state of completion of a development. Only developments that were deemed by local authorities to be in a "seriously problematic condition", regardless of whether a developer was on or off site, were included.
For the purposes of preparing the final list of developments to which the exemption from the LPT would apply, local authorities were asked by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to confirm or update the then existing list as appropriate. The decision as to whether an estate is on the list of unfinished estates is in the ambit of local authorities and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, and not in the ambit of the Department of Finance or the Revenue Commissioners.
I understand the Senator is concerned about the criteria to be applied in the calculation of LPT for unfinished estates that are not on the list of unfinished estates published by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, that is, those which do not qualify for an exemption from LPT. The Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012, as amended, provides how a residential property is to be valued for LPT purposes.
LPT is a self-assessed tax and it is a matter for the property owner, in the first instance, to calculate the tax due based on his or her assessment of the market value of the property. While properties in a particular housing estate may not have qualified for an exemption from LPT on the grounds that the estate in question is not regarded as incomplete to a substantial extent, owners of residential properties in such estates should take all aspects that they consider relevant into account in arriving at an honest value for their properties. Such factors would include the state of completion of roads, footpaths, lighting facilities, and water and sewerage facilities within the housing development concerned. The charge to LPT is based on the chargeable value of the residential property and this is defined in the 2012 Act as the price that the unencumbered fee simple of a residential property might be expected to fetch in a sale on the open market were that property to be sold on the valuation date of 1 May 2013 in a manner that would secure the best possible price for it.
I thank the Minister of State for his very detailed response. I am glad that he has clarified matters, particularly in respect of the market value of properties. I was contacted by a number of people to whom letters were furnished by Revenue in which it was indicated that their homes were valued at €140,000, whereas properties in the estates in which they live recently sold for €80,000. It is good that the position in this regard has now been clarified. That will be of some benefit to the people in the constituency in which I reside who raised this matter with me.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.40 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 24 April 2013.