I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for tourism and sport to the House.
Adjournment Matters
Ports Development
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am looking for an update from the Government on what plans it has to upgrade development at the ports at Rosslare Europort and Waterford. It is coincidental that today we heard a very positive announcement regarding the building of a state-of-the-art facility by Glanbia Ingredients Ireland Limited at Belview, which is around the Port of Waterford, that will create about 70 jobs directly and potentially up to 1,600 jobs in the region through increased dairy production. Obviously, that is great news.
One of the reasons I raised this matter is the need to look at the potential of the Port of Waterford and Rosslare Europort. I appreciate that there has been a review of ports across the State but there is a concern in Wexford and the south east that we need to move the management of Rosslare Europort away from CIE and towards a more independent port authority. That makes sense. There is also a sense that we need to look at how we can improve operations at the port. Rosslare Europort is the largest roll-on, roll-off port in the State and is hugely important to the south east. The Port of Waterford is equally important to the economy of Waterford and the south east and I would like to find out what the Government's plans are.
I know that proposals have been made to deepen one of the berths at Rosslare and potentially in Waterford Port, too. Is that being considered? Is it a possibility? Have feasibility studies been carried out?
Does the Minister of State accept that Rosslare Europort, a roll-on roll-off port, and the Port of Waterford, a load-on load-off port, are very important to the regional economy? They are strategic assets. If the south east is to capitalise on its potential and create the jobs it needs, we will have to get the best from the assets we have. There is no doubt that we need to put in place infrastructure across the region such as roads and wastewater treatment facilities. That is important, but it is equally important to look at existing assets in the region and these two ports are key examples. There is a sense in the region that we can get more from both. That will require investment, a strategic vision and policy changes and, in the case of Wexford and Rosslare, it will and should mean an independent port authority to manage the ports and be involved in putting in place a strategic plan for them. I will listen to the Minister of State's reply and thank him for coming into the Seanad.
I apologise on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, who is at a Cabinet meeting and cannot attend this debate.
Is there white smoke?
There is smoke, but I do not know what colour it is.
I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister who published a new national ports policy in March. This new policy aims to harness the potential of every port in Ireland, including Rosslare Europort and the Port of Waterford Company.
Our ports are vital to our economic recovery and future economic prosperity. As an island nation, we depend on the quality and efficiency of our ports more than most of our trading partners. Recent analysis by the Competition Authority indicates that approximately 84%, by volume, and 62%, by value, of all goods moved into or out of the State come through our ports. Many of our major exporting sectors, for example, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and agri-foods, are heavily reliant on the commercial ports.
It was clear that the previous ports policy did not allow for the diversity within the sector. There are 19 ports that handle commercial traffic in any given year. There are, however, big differences between these ports and their roles and functions. The new national ports policy, therefore, categorises them as ports of national significance, tier 1; ports of national significance, tier 2, and ports of regional significance. National ports policy must focus on those ports which fulfil a national function. This realignment of national policy focus will, in part, be facilitated by a transfer of control of the ports of regional significance from central to local government. Legislation to provide for these transfers will be introduced by 2015.
Funding for port infrastructural development must be sourced by the ports. There is no Exchequer funding available. The Government is open to a variety of mechanisms for private sector investment in the port sector. Additional funding opportunities may also arise through the European Investment Bank or other State or European sources. Any such investment will only be made, however, on a commercial basis with a commercial return.
At European level, work is continuing on the new trans-European network transport regulation which will allow for some parts of the network to avail of EU funding through the Connecting Europe facility. Both the Port of Waterford Company and Rosslare Europort are designated as forming part of the "comprehensive" network and will, therefore, have the opportunity to apply for such funding, if required, in the future. National ports policy categorises Rosslare Europort and the Port of Waterford Company as ports of national significance, tier 2. These are ports that are responsible for at least 2.5% of overall tonnage through Irish ports, have the clear, demonstrable potential to handle higher volumes of unitised traffic, and have the existing transport links to serve a wider, national marketplace beyond their immediate region. Between them, these two ports handle approximately 8% of total tonnage handled in the State and enjoy good road and rail connectivity. Both offer services in the higher value unitised sectors, lift-on lift-off in Waterford and roll-on roll-off in Rosslare, that support competitive conditions within these sectors by providing an alternative to the two larger unitised ports of Dublin and Cork. It is, of course, the case that both Rosslare and Waterford Port face differing challenges.
Rosslare Europort is unique within the commercial port sector as it operates as a division of larnród Éireann rather than as a stand-alone commercial port company. This is due to its unusual legislative background and the port is technically part of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbour Company. Several studies have highlighted the potentially inhibiting factor of the port's unusual legislative and operational status, when compared to the other State-owned ports, and recommended its integration within the State commercial port governance framework. In January this year Indecon economic consultants were commissioned to examine the port's current commercial and operational efficiency and consider whether the port was maximising its potential. It is expected that the report will be completed and presented to the Minister in the summer. Without wishing to prejudice its conclusions, the Minister is committed to acting to ensure the port's potential is achieved in line with its designation as a port of national significance, tier 2.
The Port of Waterford Company has, unfortunately, witnessed a significant fall-off in trade in the past decade. This is particularly severe in the case of its share of the lift-on lift-off market which fell from almost 20% in 2001 to 5% in 2012. In real terms, the drop in total tonnage handled in the Port of Waterford across all modes and by lo-lo is even starker, falling by 30% and 29%, respectively, between 2001 and 2011. These declines led to the company last year commissioning an external review of its business. That review contained a number of important recommendations designed to address and reverse the company's current situation. The board of directors has accepted these recommendations and is working towards their implementation, notwithstanding the challenges involved. The implementation of these recommendations is crucial to the future of the Port of Waterford. Like Rosslare, the port is significant in the context of a national ports policy and the Government is committed to ensuring it achieves its potential.
Rosslare Europort and Waterford Port will continue to play an important role in the economic development of the State. Obviously, they face challenges, but both have significant potential and the Government is committed to ensuring they enjoy a vibrant future.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. The figure he quoted for the fall in the Port of Waterford's share of the lift-on lift-off market from 20% in 2001 to 5% in 2012 is very stark. It is a remarkable drop. There have been independent and in-house reviews of the port which will make recommendations. There will be a need for the Government to support development at the ports at Waterford and Rosslare. Crucially, the Government has a leading role to play in examining the strategic land banks and sites around the ports such as the Belview site in Waterford. It has a responsibility to be part of the solution. We heard a good announcement today about Glanbia. That is part of it. There is the possibility, too, of the sugar beet industry being revived and the development of a bio-refinery plant. The Belview site would be a good location and offer new opportunities for the port because these are export-led industries. If we maximise the potential of the surrounding sites in and around the port, that will give it a lift and help to increase its share in the load-on load-off market. I reinforce that point. I understand there are limitations to what the Government can do directly with the port, but it has responsibility for the land banks and strategic sites around it.
The Senator is correct. There are difficult challenges facing both ports and one can see from the statistics and the drop in goods coming in and out of the port that it has problems, which is why it commissioned its own report. The Government has commissioned its report. The Senator is correct that today's news is very good for the south east and I am delighted with it. He is also correct in saying this affords an opportunity to the ports. While he has not yet received the report, the Minister is committed to these two ports. It is important that the port companies consider ways and means to look for business, particularly following the announcement of the new jobs. The current situation cannot continue.
People must be realistic. If one loses that type of business and if that is the type of tonnage operating in the port, it just cannot exist. It requires the company, Government, community and business support of the region. Today's announcement is great. With regard to funding, there is EU funding and I hope some of that can be drawn down.
Wearing my other hat, Rosslare and Waterford, but particularly Rosslare, are important to our tourism infrastructure. We need that port very badly. Tourism is also very important for that region. For that reason I hope that when this report is produced something can be done for these ports through everybody working together.
The Minister of State is always upbeat and positive.
Like myself.
Wind Energy Guidelines
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. I am seeking a moratorium on future wind farm developments. I have three reasons for doing so, which I will explain presently. Senator John Whelan and I have been beating the drum about wind farm developments for the last 14 months. What we are seeking to achieve is the right of people to live in peace and tranquillity within their community, without having to live beside and with the effects of wind turbines. That is why I introduced a Private Members' Bill in February 2012, which passed through this House with flying colours but did not get support elsewhere.
The first reason for seeking a moratorium is that the decision of the European Court of Justice strongly indicates that the State may be liable for the adverse effects of wind farms which were granted planning permission between 1999 and 2012. This is because the State failed to implement Article 3 of the 1985 environmental impact assessment, EIA, directive, which was to apply to wind farms from 1999. The EIA directive was agreed by all EU member states, including Ireland, and provided that any project within the EU that has an impact on the environment would be consistently subject to an independent environmental impact assessment by the competent planning authority. The competent planning authority must not only describe but also investigate and analyse the direct and indirect effects of the project on the following specified factors: human beings, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets and cultural heritage. Sadly, there has been no regard to people's human rights, the landscape or, indeed, people's material assets. Apart from the obligation on developers to produce an environmental impact statement, EIS, there is also a legal obligation on local authorities to carry out an independent environmental impact assessment. Planners within local authorities were doing that themselves, and this was deemed to be illegal.
The second reason for seeking a moratorium is the decision by the European Court of Justice on 14 March 2012, in the Leth v. Austria case, that failure to implement Article 3 of the EIA directive can lead to state liability in the case of property devaluation. I got a consultant to examine this and he has estimated that we could already be liable to compensation of approximately €1 billion for developments that have been granted planning permission but which are not compliant with the EU directive. Who will pay that bill?
The third reason is that we are currently reviewing the guidelines pertaining to wind farm developments. There is an acceptance that the guidelines are out of date because they are based on 1980 material. Heels are being dragged on reviewing the guidelines and for that reason I ask the Minister to implement a moratorium. In addition, given that all of these developments have been non-compliant, it is important that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources write to all the developers who got planning permission and ask them if they can now comply with the EU directive. If they say they cannot, and they clearly cannot, it is incumbent on the Minister to withdraw the refit energy feed-in tariff, REFIT, funding that is in his gift under EU and environmental law.
With regard to the spin surrounding all these proposed wind farm developments throughout the country and particularly in the midlands, four or five months ago there was an announcement that 66,000 jobs would be created. Two weeks ago that was refined in The Irish Times to 2,000 jobs and tomorrow's edition of The Irish Times will probably report that hundreds of jobs will be created in this project. It is spin all the way when it comes to the wind energy sector. I believe we are being sold a pup and people throughout the country are beginning to wise up to that. There will be a serious revolt against these plans. Unless we take the landscape and the lives of people into consideration and respect both, there will be a problem. This requires the wind energy sector to conduct its business in a far more transparent way. We also have a duty to the taxpayer, and we certainly do not need another Army deafness case. That is coming down the track unless we deal with this in the right way.
I thank the Senator for raising the issue. I am aware that he has a keen interest in this area.
The wind energy development guidelines of June 2006 provide advice for planning authorities on catering for wind energy through the development plan process. The guidelines are also intended to ensure consistency of approach throughout the country in the identification of suitable locations for wind energy development and the treatment of planning applications for such developments. To ensure that Ireland continues to meet its renewable energy targets and, at the same time, that wind energy does not have negative impacts on local communities, my Department, in conjunction with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and other stakeholders, is undertaking a targeted review of certain aspects of the wind energy guidelines of 2006. This focused review will examine the manner in which the guidelines address key issues of community concern such as noise and proximity.
All statutory planning guidelines issue first in draft form for a public consultation over a period of a couple of months. Once the consultation period is closed the submissions received on the draft guidelines are considered and taken into account in the final form of the guidelines. The draft guidelines will, like all other new or revised guidelines, be subject to extensive public consultation for a period of six weeks to two months. The indicative timetable for the publication of the draft guidelines is quarter three or quarter four of 2013.
Planning is a dynamic policy area and there are over 25 sets of ministerial policy guidance in place, including the guidance on wind energy developments. At any given time my Department is therefore likely either to be in the process of updating existing guidance or developing new guidance. Typically, there is a lead-in period of several months between publication of draft guidance for public consultation and the publication of final guidance taking account of the submissions received. Examples of recent such processes include updated statutory guidance on retail planning in April 2012, development contributions in January 2013 and guidance on carrying out environmental impact assessment in March 2013. The imposition of a moratorium on retail development, the levying of development contributions or development requiring environmental impact assessment pending publication of the final guidance would clearly have been inappropriate. Therefore, I do not believe it either appropriate or necessary to impose a moratorium on planning applications for wind energy development at this time.
I appreciate that there is a review of the guidelines in place. We must wait to see what comes from that. I realise there are targets for green energy and so forth, but we have done this from 1999 to November 2012 in defiance of EU directives. That is the problem. We are clearly leaving ourselves open to be sued. The developer, the local authority and the Government will be sued. I have already been told that house prices will be devalued by between 20% and 50%. There are a couple of ways to deal with this. First, county councils can decide to revoke planning permission. That is within their gift. Second, the Minister must withdraw REFIT funding where EU directives have been breached. It is important that he be informed of that. At least I have put this on the record of the House.
I realise these are important points and we will examine all of them. Clearly, the voice of the community will be heard in the consultation process.
Labour Court Recommendations
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, for coming in to take this matter. I will be as brief as I can. Labour Court Recommendation 19550 relates to approximately 4,100 home care workers who worked in non-profit making organisations, the majority of which were funded by the HSE in the home help sector. The Labour Court recommendation stated: "Having considered the submissions put to it on this case, the Court is of the view that the best way to deal with the matter is by way of a Gratuity Scheme based on 4.5 weeks' pay per year of service." This relates to the fact that previous Labour Court recommendations had effectively bestowed upon workers in the sector the same rights as direct employees of the HSE. There are other recommendations with regard to sick pay which have not been dealt with yet either but I am dealing with this issue specifically. It relates to approximately 4,000 workers represented by SIPTU an approximately 80 others represented by IMPACT.
I wrote directly to the Minister for Health and the parliamentary affairs division of the HSE. This issue is relevant to several agencies, including Fingal Home Care, which I am representing, and workers in that sector who worked between 2000 and 2008. The reply from the HSE stated that a number of agencies submitted the requested data to the HSE and that the information was subjected to meetings both internally and with colleagues in the Department of Health and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Unfortunately, the HSE indicated that is was not in a position to fund the significant costs which arose nor was any additional funding made available for it to do so. That position was advised to both staff representatives and agencies in 2012. The HSE concluded by stating that due to current financial constraints the position remains.
I have a small degree of sympathy for that case but the fact remains that there are several thousand workers who have made contributions and who are entitled to average payments of between €12,000 and €15,000 for up to eight years of service within the sector. They are entitled to these payments and two Labour Court recommendations have reaffirmed as much. Most of these workers have retired from the sector but they had relatively low-paid jobs, earning anything between €9 and €11 per hour, and therefore the average payment of approximately €12,000 is significant to them. It is within the gift of the Department of Health and the Minister to affirm the recommendation and to pay the moneys. The moneys are due to these workers and they are entitled to them for the period 2000 to 2008.
I have taken up the case of and met approximately 90 workers in my area of Fingal, Dublin, but this is relevant throughout the country. It is not only relevant to Fingal but I am starting on that premise.
The payment is not significant in the context of the overall health budget. The money is owed to these workers who have worked at the front line of the health services. All of us fully recognise the great work that home help workers carry out and the value of that work. If we recognise the value of the work they do, surely they are entitled to the gratuity payment that has been affirmed by the Labour Court. I am keen to hear the response of the Minister of State and I thank him again for coming in to take this matter.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue. I am deputising for the Minister for Health who is unavoidably absent this evening.
That is understandable.
The Government and the HSE, as the statutory body responsible for the delivery of health and personal social services, recognise the important and valuable role of home helps in enabling older persons to live in their homes and communities in accordance with Government policy. Home help and home care are delivered by the HSE, voluntary, not-for-profit and private service providers. These non-statutory organisations are funded by the HSE under section 39 of the Health Act 2004, which provides that the executive may assist a body that provides a service similar or ancillary to those which the executive may provide. The pay and superannuation terms and conditions of the staff of such providers are not subject to the control of the Department of Health and, as such, these staff are not classified as public servants.
Access for home helps in voluntary organisations to a pension scheme similar to that provided for home helps in the employment of the HSE has been the subject of several Labour Court recommendations involving SIPTU, IMPACT and the HSE. Pension access for home helps directly employed by the HSE was addressed by the Department in 2005. Access to the scheme is strictly limited to staff employed directly by the HSE. It is not available to home helps employed by voluntary agencies because they are not public servants. In June 2009, following a hearing of union claims for access to a pension scheme for staff of voluntary home help providers, the Labour Court recommended that this issue should be dealt with by way of a gratuity scheme based on four and a half weeks' pay per year of service and that the scheme should take effect from the date of the home helps' collective agreement of August 2000.
Given the serious budgetary constraints under which the HSE has been operating in the period since the recommendation was made, the executive has not been in a position to provide the necessary funding to the employers concerned. This position was advised to the staff representatives and the agencies in February 2012. It is not possible, given the Government's financial requirement that health service funding should be focused to the greatest possible extent on maintaining front-line services, to indicate a point at which it may be possible to re-examine the issue.
I thank the Minister of State for taking the time to come to the House and give his response and I will not detain him any longer. I am disappointed with the response. I appreciate why the Minister for Health cannot be here this evening. I call on the Minister of State to bring this back to the Minister for Health. It has been outlined clearly that the Government is not even arguing that these workers are not entitled to these payments. I have written to the Minister for Health to try to quantify what the cost would be to the Department of Health.
I will continue to pursue the matter and this is simply the beginning. These workers are entitled to this money. It is difficult because I cannot explain to them, nor should I have to, why we are not paying them although it has been affirmed independently that they are entitled to these payments, which average approximately €12,000. I call on the Minister of State to bring this back to the Minister for Health. I have written to him to quantify the matter and I will continue to raise it. We will look at other legal venues available to the workers to ensure they get the money they are due.
I thank the Senator for raising the matter. His comments will be conveyed to the Minister. I have much sympathy for the case he is making. I realise, recognise and acknowledge the excellent work being done by home helps throughout the country. Unfortunately, we are in a financial situation in this country whereby there are things we can afford and other matters that we cannot afford. I hope time will bring the solution.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 May 2013.