Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 May 2017

Vol. 951 No. 1

Topical Issue Debate

Local Government Reform

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

I welcome the Minister. This is a hugely important issue in my town, the area around Drogheda and the whole county. The latest census of population shows that Drogheda is now the biggest town in the country outside the major cities. The difference in population between Waterford city and Drogheda is less than 7,000, yet we have no proper local council and no local control, although there has been a huge influx of new citizens into the town. We have a huge need for housing and local infrastructure. We need the confidence of the people to be expressed through local democracy. The reforms which took place are not working. Power has moved from the borough council to the county council. That is no reflection on any of the wonderful officials who work in the county council, but it is a huge reflection on the lack of accountability and local control. We need control over planning and road infrastructure. We also need to invest more in town estates in the provision of footpaths and green spaces. We need more sports centres. Every single penny collected in property tax in Drogheda and district should be spent locally. Change is needed and it is happening, but there must be local control. That is the key point.

In its wisdom, the county council recently decided to spend €12 million on new local government offices in Drogheda. That money could be much better spent on infrastructure to improve estates and sports facilities. The town is crying out for investment and support. We have no IDA Ireland and no Enterprise Ireland office and no institute of technology. This week we have been told we are losing the Millmount development centre. Small as it is, it has the capacity to provide 24 hot desks for people who want to create their own businesses. Giving Drogheda city status is long overdue. It looks like, however, that we will not have a driving test centre, as I proposed some time ago, as there is some local political opposition to the site on which I thought we could work. We also have no local employment office. Decisions are made by people who do not live and work in Drogheda. I accept that the Minister is not in the job long and did not introduce the last item of legislation. It was introduced by another Government which we both supported. It was, however, wrong and does not work. We want local control and want it now.

I will speak for four minutes. The last time I spoke I was shut down because there was another Deputy who wanted to speak also. Narrow West Street in Drogheda is disintegrating and falling down. It is as if a bomb struck it. The town centre is dying because planning permission was given for out-of-town shopping centres, some of which are in the adjoining county. We need a rates base in Drogheda and to change the way things are done. A commission was set up to look at extending the borough boundaries, but the Minister had no influence on the decision. The recommendation was against increasing the capacity to govern locally. It was not a bad decision made by the Minister but a bad recommendation. Local government is not working and people are losing out. Everywhere I go they want to know what is being done and changing. Nothing is changing, apart from the population is getting bigger and demands are growing. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government (Deputy Simon Coveney)

Local government areas are specified in primary legislation. Section 12 of the Local Government Reform Act 2014 states the State is divided into local government areas known counties and cities and cities and counties. The Local Government Act 2001, as amended, provides for three cities - Cork, Dublin and Galway - and for each of them to have a city council. If an additional city council were to be established in law, it would have significant implications for the county in which the area concerned was situated, particularly with regard to the loss of functions of the relevant county council. This would, in fact, be the reverse of actions taken under the Local Government Reform Act 2014 which saw the integration of two existing city councils, Limerick and Waterford, with populations of 87,000 and 47,000, respectively, into two new stronger and better resourced city and county councils. In both cases, the description "city" continues to apply to their status as major urban centres. That status is in no way diminished by the fact that they no longer have separate local authorities. On the contrary, all of the indications are that both have progressed significantly in the past few years, not least in terms of economic activity. If Drogheda were to be considered for such a fundamental change in local government arrangements, as suggested in the Topical Issue, it would have wide-ranging implications not only for Louth County Council but also for Meath County Council. While a rigorous examination would be needed if a proposal to upgrade to city status was contemplated by the Government, it is possible to identify likely implications at a broad level, including, legal, financial, organisational and possibly electoral consequences, all of which would require careful and detailed analysis.

The town of Drogheda has recently been the subject of a local authority boundary review, as the Deputy mentioned. In June 2015 an independent statutory committee was appointed to carry out a review of local government boundaries in Athlone, Carlow, Drogheda and Waterford. In each case the committee was asked to carry out a review of the boundary between the respective local authorities and make recommendations with respect to those boundaries and any consequential matter it considered necessary in the interests of effective local government. The main rationale for undertaking the boundary reviews is that in each case there is a significant overspill of population into another county based on the population figures taken from the 2011 census. In the case of Drogheda, the town has expanded significantly into County Meath, with a population of nearly 6,000 reported as being located in County Meath in the 2011 census, which represents nearly 16% of the total population of the town and environs of 38,578. The report of the Drogheda boundary committee was submitted on 16 February 2017 and did not recommend, as the Deputy said, an extension of the boundary.

I have been to Drogheda a number of times and I am more than aware of the pressures on the town and the pace at which the population is growing and the need for both local and national government to respond to that pace of growth through the provision of social, community and quality of life infrastructure. Part of it has to involve good local governance. We have looked and are continuing to look at restructuring local government in Cork, Galway, Waterford and south Kilkenny. During these processes we will learn lessons and find better ways to govern in areas that have more than one boundary.

We also need to learn lessons in the context of the continued growth of Drogheda.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement of the issues relating to Drogheda and its environs. The fact is that Drogheda was turned down by the independent commission but that commission was absolutely wrong. Drogheda had a borough council from 1169 until its abolition in recent times. We need to get that council back and to have local control. Local debates would previously have taken place at borough council meetings, attended by local authority management and the public but that has all gone. There is no local debate now. Indeed, there is no local council, full stop and that is where the reforms were absolutely wrong.

The Government should restore a council to the town of Drogheda and its environs, with real power and real accountability. Longford has a population of approximately 40,000. It has a county manager and all of the infrastructure necessary for a county council but it has a smaller population than the town of Drogheda. Leitrim has a population of only 30,000 and yet it has the infrastructure that Drogheda so badly needs. Huge decisions must be made here. There is enough work in Drogheda and its environs to keep a full-time manager busy, 24/7 and that is what the people want.

The Minister has said that he is looking at a number of issues relating to other cities and towns. He called Kilkenny a city but it only has a population of about 25,000. There are 15,000 more people living in the town of Drogheda than in Kilkenny. While I appreciate it does not have its own city council, Kilkenny derives a certain amount of status from being called a city. We need to acknowledge the importance and worth of Drogheda, which is the biggest town in Ireland after Waterford. It needs a professional political base which it does not currently have. I urge the Minister to publish his report at the earliest opportunity and look forward to engaging with him on it.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I acknowledge the pace of growth of Drogheda. There is a series of reasons for that growth, including its proximity to Dublin and to international connections through Dublin Airport and the fact that it has provided an affordable option for home buyers. It has also built a big economy in its own right and is a regional driver in its own right. However, I do not think the solution here is to recreate city councils, even in cities like Waterford and Limerick, where we have now created city and county councils. That said, there is merit in looking at how Drogheda as a town is managed and by whom. At the moment, a significant proportion of the population is in one county, managed by the local authority in Meath, while the rest of the town, the majority of which is in County Louth, is managed by a different local authority. In those circumstances, it is very difficult to plan strategically, in terms of business, community development, planning and zoning, commercial rates and so on, for the expansion of a town that may at some point in the future become a city when there are two local authorities involved. I have made a clear decision on the boundary issues of Waterford and Kilkenny. We are not changing county boundaries there because there are all sorts of emotions involved in a decision like that. There are flags, GAA clubs, history and so on involved and asking a Kilkenny person to become a Waterford person or Louth person to become a Meath person will not work politically. However, we need to be able to re-evaluate governance structures to ensure that towns and urban conurbations can actually be managed as single entities in the context of their expansion. That is the context in which we need to look at the future of Drogheda.

Surveillance Operations

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

We will now move on to the next topic addressed to the Minister for Justice and Equality, in the names of Deputies Ó Snodaigh, Clare Daly, Boyd-Barrett, Eamon Ryan and Wallace. Deputies will have two minutes each to make an initial statement and the Minister will have four minutes to reply. The Deputies will then have one minute each to pose a supplementary question and the Minister will have two minutes to conclude.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I thank the Minister for coming to the House to address this issue. I raised this matter yesterday and what we have seen in the media so far is highly disturbing. I do not always believe everything or, indeed, anything that is published in the Irish Independent so I acquainted myself through other means with some of the background to the story. Apparently a highly decorated detective was taking a case against the State for bullying that he endured in An Garda Síochána. He alleges that he was forced to put illegal phone taps and traces on innocent people. There was no authority given to track their phones or to listen in to their conversations, in some cases for months on end.

There have been numerous phone tapping scandals over the years in this State. The Taoiseach said in 2013 that he operated on the presumption that somebody was listening in to his phone calls. The Attorney General did not have the confidence to speak over the phone to a former Minister for Justice and Equality, former Deputy Alan Shatter, and had to speak to him in person. When the former Deputy Michael McDowell was Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, he refused to confirm or deny that the phones of Deputies were being tapped. He finally admitted in 2003 that the phones of a number of Deputies in this House were tapped. Journalists' phones were tapped and Deputy Catherine Murphy uses burner phones on the presumption that her phone was being tapped when she was looking into the Siteserv issue. The whole thing is rotten.

When did the Minister become aware of the full extent of the disclosures from this officer?

Deputy Clare Daly

There is a certain irony in the furore in the media and among politicians regarding the issues of phone tapping and surveillance. It is as if this is a big revelation, that nobody knew this was going on and that it is a big surprise. This is not a surprise. Our legislation, passed by Members in this House as recently as 2009 and 2011, allows for lawful surveillance of citizens. I have no doubt the Minister will say that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for that, including counteracting terrorism, serious crime and so forth. We are told that there are safeguards in place to ensure that the privacy and human rights of citizens are protected but myself and Deputy Wallace have pointed out in this House, particularly during the last Dáil but also in this one, on numerous occasions that the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1993, the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009 and the Communications (Retention of Data) Act 2011 are not fit for purpose because they do not balance the rights in that regard. The Minister will say the Defences Forces, An Garda Síochána, the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Justice and Equality can seek to have peoples' phones tapped and to have their records looked at but that there is oversight, that a judge has to look at that at the end of the day. However, as we have pointed out, the judge who compiles that report goes in on one day, asks to see one or two requests out of thousands and then says that he or she was given everything asked for. That is not proper oversight and scrutiny.

A review was initiated last year when the media suddenly woke up to this issue when the phone records of some members of the media were being requested by GSOC. Those people were involved in criminality and GSOC was investigating criminal behaviour on the part of gardaí. That is when the media got interested. When are we going to review the 1993 and the 2009 Acts, which are open to wholesale abuse?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

It does not surprise me but it is completely scandalous that we have revelations from yet another Garda whistleblower alleging that innocent people's phones are being tapped. In one case, according to the allegation, a sitting Deputy had his or her phone tapped by An Garda Síochána, possibly as a result of pressure from a Minister. Certainly, the whistleblower believes it was a political move by a Minister at the time. The garda was subsequently transferred which certainly suggests that there was something seriously amiss and that the correct procedures for getting these taps were not being followed.

Deputy Clare Daly has alluded to the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993, which allows for bugging. The Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009 allows the police to break into one's house to install cameras and to come back after three months to take those cameras out. One might not know they were ever in one's house. There have been extraordinary allegations that all this is being done without proper procedure and oversight, and possibly for political reasons. The Taoiseach is supposed to get an annual report on complaints, but we have been told that no such records can be found, which is unacceptable. Will the Tánaiste get these reports? If there are any irregularities, will she hand the names over to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Can she say how times phone and mail surveillance has been authorised by her and other justice Ministers under her Government? How many of these cases of surveillance were political?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

It is important to try to get to the bottom of this story. We need to find out whether it is true. If it is true, we must find out who the people involved are. I take Deputy Clare Daly's point that this should not just be about the political system. We have this example. I was interested to listen to what the Taoiseach said yesterday when this matter was raised in the Dáil. My reading of what he said was that having seen the report of the review of the period in question, he does not think there is any evidence of anything. Is that the limit of the investigation we are doing? Given that a whistleblower has raised concerns about an incident involving his removal or change of position, is it not possible for the Minister for Justice and Equality to take targeted measures to find out whether this case is real? If it transpires that it is real, we need to get the details and ascertain how they can be shared. It is important for a variety of reasons that this should be done. I share the concerns expressed by Deputies Ó Snodaigh, Clare Daly and Boyd Barrett about the widespread use of surveillance by the Irish authorities and by the authorities in the UK, the US and elsewhere. Examples of such activity can be seen around the world at present. It is important for those of us in the political system to appreciate that if there is any sense that an office on the Government side is being used to put surveillance on the other side, that is hugely damaging to trust in the political system. It is very important for us to find out who it is. Until we do that, a whiff of suspicion and rumour will surround anyone who might possibly be involved, even though he or she might be completely innocent. We need to get to the bottom of this to clear everyone's name. We need to uncover whether this is true, who exactly was involved and what the consequences will be for the individuals in question.

Deputy Mick Wallace

This is the 13th time we have raised this issue in this Chamber. We have not been getting a whole lot of satisfaction. In January 2016, the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, announced a review of the Communications (Retention of Data) Act 2011 regarding information on journalists only. We pointed out that the review should be all-encompassing and should include the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009, the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993, as well as the 2011 Act, because all three Acts give State agencies the power to abuse the privacy of Irish citizens and not just journalists. The Tánaiste has said that the former Chief Justice, John L. Murray, has completed the report of this review. According to the Tánaiste, this report has been on her desk since 27 April last. When does she intend to publish the report? It seems that following the settlement of a High Court case involving a retired detective, the Garda brought the matter to the attention of the designated judge. Will the Minister tell us how soon after the High Court settlement this matter was referred to the judge? We met a garda who works in this area not so long ago. This individual, who was present when the designated judge came around in three separate years, told us that the manner in which this duty was carried out was a joke. The judge was given a cup of tea, asked to be given a look at this one and that one and said "have a good day, good luck". The system does not stand up to any scrutiny. It leaves a lot to be desired. It beggars belief that the Tánaiste is refusing to revisit it. We need to do things differently. The same assessment in England runs to 99 pages each year. Ours is just a rubber-stamping job.

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald)

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me an opportunity to address this matter. While it has been alleged in recent reports that there have been abuses in the interception of communications, it would be quite wrong to suggest it has been established that there has been widespread abuse of the interception system. Of course any abuse would be completely unacceptable. The reports do not specify the timeframe for these allegations, but I understand, in so far as it can be established, that they relate to the early 2000s. Plainly, it would be a matter of concern if there were any abuses of the system for intercepting communications. The notorious improper interception of journalists phones in the early 1980s led to the current legislation, which contains strong safeguards to ensure the system of interceptions is operated properly. As Deputies are aware, the interception of phones is governed by the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993, which sets out clearly and in detail the arrangements for giving effect to an interception.

It is important to use the short time available to me to give the House a full understanding of the multilayered checks and balances in the system. A Minister for Justice and Equality cannot initiate a warrant and can only act on applications made to him or her. A Minister for Justice and Equality does not and would not have any access to the content of any interception that may be made. The 1993 Act provides that only the Minister for Justice and Equality may grant authorisations to intercept communications; that this may be done only on the basis of a reasoned application from the Garda Commissioner, the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces or the chairperson of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission; that this may be done only for the purposes of the investigation of serious crime and in the interests of the security of the State; and that this may be done only when a number of strict tests, as set out in detail in sections 4 and 5 of the 1993 Act, are satisfied.

The conditions that apply to "serious crime" are that an investigation is being carried out into a serious crime or to prevent a serious crime, and that investigations not involving interception have not produced and are unlikely to produce the necessary information or evidence and that interception is likely to do so, and that the importance of obtaining the information justifies the interception notwithstanding the interference with privacy. The conditions that apply to protecting "the security of the State" are that investigations are being carried out based on a reasonable belief that activities which are going on endanger the State's security, and that investigations not involving interception have not produced and are not likely to produce the necessary information or evidence and that interception is likely to do so, and that the importance of obtaining the information justifies the interception notwithstanding the interference with privacy. As a further check, all applications must be considered by a senior officer of the Department before being submitted to the Minister to ensure the conditions set out in the Act are satisfied. All applications from the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces must also be recommended by the Minister for Defence before submission.

The designated serving judge of the High Court who independently oversees these matters must report to the Taoiseach at least once a year on the operation of the Act. Over the years, these reports, which are laid before the Oireachtas, have confirmed that the Garda and Army authorities have been in compliance with the Act. There has been some adverse reflection on the work of the designated judges. I must say this is utterly ill-founded. One should not underestimate for a moment the importance of the constitutional independence of the designated judges or, indeed, the considerable experience and abilities of the individuals who have carried out that role with distinction. The designated judge has full powers of access to all relevant people and documents. There is a corresponding obligation in law on all relevant people to co-operate. The current designated judge is Ms Justice Marie Baker. She is aware of the matters in question as they were raised with her by the Garda authorities. It is a matter for her to decide what action she will take in respect of these issues.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

Each Deputy has one minute in which to make a supplementary statement. I ask Deputies to respect the one-minute limit. I do not make the rules; I just have to implement them.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I do not know which of the recent Garda Commissioners - Pat Byrne, Noel Conroy, Fachtna Murphy or Martin Callinan - the Tánaiste has just tried to hang by saying she understands these actions "relate to the early 2000s".

The information I have is that these actions did not only happen in the early 2000s but that they have continued up to this day, and that implicates the current Garda Commissioner, who also happened to be the assistant commissioner dealing with security issues such as phone tapping from 2009 to 2011. Let us not forget that. The Minister cannot simply ignore the role-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

I do not want the Deputy to make charges against people who are not here to defend themselves.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The Acting Chairman is interrupting my time but I have not made any charges. I said that-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

I am entitled to interrupt the Deputy.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

-----the current Garda Commissioner was an assistant commissioner from 2009 to 2011.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

I advise the Deputy that time is moving on.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I am advising the Acting Chairman of what I said, if he would listen. From 2009 to 2011, the Garda Commissioner was the assistant commissioner dealing with the security matters which are covered in these allegations. I also believe the information I have-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

The Deputy's time is up.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

You have interrupted me. The information I have is that Garda whistleblowers' phones are being tapped up to the present day and those of journalists, Deputies and campaigners are routinely monitored.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

Thank you, Deputy. I am moving on. I call Deputy Clare Daly.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

How many of these were made in error? How many of these are being listened to and traced illegally? There is a range of questions on this----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

I will abandon this Topical Issue matter if the Deputy does not take his seat.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

-----but the opportunity to raise them is not being given to me.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

Do not shout down to me.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

You interrupted me for 20 seconds. I am finishing by using the minute that I was given.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

Okay. I am going to abandon this matter and the other Deputies will lose out.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

In fairness to the other Deputies, I will not finish my time, but you are disgrace in that Chair. You are totally partisan on this.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

That is a dreadful charge. I ask the Deputy to take it back.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

You did not allow me the time to speak and interrupted me by making a scurrilous comment.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

I will give the Deputy the opportunity to take back that comment. The Deputy is refusing to do so.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I refuse to do so.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

Okay. I am moving on. I call Deputy Clare Daly and she has one minute.

Deputy Clare Daly

The Minister said there is no evidence of widespread abuse. I put it to her that widespread abuse is lawful under our present system of surveillance. Despite the protestations about checks, restrictions and oversight, the reality is that our laws allow for wholesale covert surveillance without proper scrutiny and oversight. Sections 7 and 8 of the 2009 Act specifically allow for tracking devices to be placed on citizens' cars without going to any judicial authority for approval. It allows for a senior officer above the rank of superintendent to basically certify themselves to carry out covert surveillance on citizens. The reports the Judiciary do at the end of the day have no numbers, no reasons are given and there is no proper oversight. They are carried out in a day and a half. That is not fair. We need to have a radical overhaul of all of the legislation in this regard.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Following on from that, the emergency clause in the 2009 Act, which allows a superior officer rather than a judge to carry out these recording or tracking of people doubled between 2009 and 2010. Will the Minister explain what the hell was going on in that period?

I have a direct question for the Minister. During her tenure or the tenure of Ministers for Justice and Equality in this Government, how many phone and mail surveillance operations were authorised and how many of those were political in nature as opposed criminal? Will she comment on the report from the designated judge for 2016 on all the surveillance operations under both Acts and indicate if they were for political or criminal purposes?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I have the highest regard for Ms Justice Marie Baker. Will the Minister indicate when the judge was informed by the Garda - as was implied by the Minister today - of concerns about this particular reported case? In responding to that incident, will the Minister outline if the judge will report directly to the Taoiseach, as is normal, or will she also report the Minister for Justice and Equality? Will the judge's report in this regard be laid before the House or what is the mechanism whereby we can get to the bottom of this story? It is important that we do so, otherwise anything is possible in terms of who may be involved or what the real implications might be. Can the Minister give me a timeline as to when she expects the judge's report? Has the Department or the Minister finally got sight of the issues that the Garda authorities raised with Ms Justice Baker in this particular instance and when did they raise them?

Deputy Mick Wallace

The designated judge has issued the same identical two-page report since 2014 with only the year and date changed. That is no reflection on the judge. This is the system and it leaves a lot to be desired. There is zero detail in it. How can the Minister have confidence in the designated judge system after the March 2014 audit by the Data Protection Commissioner discovered that gardaí were systemically rubber-stamping requests for telephone data after the fact, a practice that is in clear breach of the Communications (Retention of Data) Act 2010 and something which the designated judge has obviously seriously failed to detect? Dr. T. J. McIntyre from Digital Rights Ireland has pointed out that the Irish oversight system is out of line with international practice. He said that in almost all EU member states there are parliamentary committees which can oversee surveillance by security agencies. Ireland is one of only four EU member states which does not make its security agency accountable to Parliament, instead on security matters the Garda Commissioner answers only to the justice Minister who also has the decision to tap phones in the first place.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

The Minister has two minutes to conclude.

Deputy Frances Fitzgerald

As I said, public reporting on this issue has not been specific as to the timeframe for these allegations. I have been advised that in May 2008, in the context of illegal action for personal injuries, certain allegations were brought to the attention of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform about abuses in the system. These certain matters and questions related to the early 2000s. These matters were brought to the attention of the then designated judge who examined them and concluded that there had been no breaches of the Act. Obviously, the Act has been overseen, as I said, and the designated judges have satisfied themselves that it is being operated in accordance with strict legal requirements. If there is evidence of anything else, that is investigated at any one particular point.

I also understand that following the settlement of a legal case earlier this year, An Garda Síochána contacted the designated judge to bring matters which arose in those legal proceedings to her attention, so the designated judge is aware of these matters and it is a matter for her to decide what, if any, action on her part might be necessary regarding this matters. To answer Deputy Ryan's question, the appropriate person to look into it is the designated judge who, as I have said, has full and independent powers in this regard. If one reads the Act, it is very clear that the functions of a designated judge are prescribed by law and I cannot seek to interfere with the exercise of these powers in any way. The House can be satisfied, however, that a constitutionally independent person is in place with full legal powers to address these matters. The important issue is not the length of the reports but the substance of the process.

Allegations have been made in reports that the phone of a political activist was intercepted at a time in the past. It is never the practice to comment publicly on the use of these powers in any particular case. There are restrictions in the law on the disclosure of the existence of particular interceptions. In respect of allegations made in reports, they have not been very detailed but it would appear, as I have said, they relate to matters alleged to have arisen in the early 2000s. Of course, many in this House will recall that at that time there were people who described themselves as political activists who were at the same time engaged in activities in support of unlawful organisations.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

Thank you, Minister. The remainder of the contribution can appear in the Official Report if she wishes.

Deputy Frances Fitzgerald

I will conclude by saying that I maintain the long-standing practice of my predecessors not to speak in detail about interceptions. However, I have made it clear previously in this House that I have not used the powers available to me to interfere with the wholly legitimate work of public representatives.

Forest Fires

Deputy Catherine Connolly

Last week I raised the matter of the forest fires that raged in Connemara all that week. I wish to pay tribute to the staff on the ground, the Air Corps, the Army, the Garda, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the staff of Coillte and muintir na háite iad fein. However, when I raised the matter last week, I got a five-page response from one of the Minister of State's colleagues and the only reference to Galway in it was that "we are aware that the fires are burning".

The extent of the fire was extraordinary. I understand the Minister of State visited the area this week and witnessed the aftermath of the fire where the green cover has been turned to brown and black. The Cloosh Valley has the largest forest in Ireland, as the Minister of State is aware, which covers 4,000 ha. Almost a quarter of it has been destroyed as well as 2,000 ha of bogland. When the fire raged, it raged on three fronts and one of them extended across 8 km.

It affected wildlife, the forest itself and bogland, and it constituted a major threat to family life.

In that context, although it was not the responsibility of the Minister of State, there was an indication that the Government was either not aware of or not taking seriously what was going on in Galway on that extensive area of land and the destruction of the forest. First, there was the threat to human life, and second, there was the absolute damage to wildlife and trees. There is the cost of that and losing mature timber, as well as what it will cost to replace all this. From listening to a contribution from the citizen science project on the radio, it seems the pollution levels were on a par with those in Beijing. The only difference is that it will not last, whereas Beijing, unfortunately, has an ongoing problem. The pollution was equal to that in Beijing, where people wear masks.

I thank the Minister of State for visiting the area this week but I expected somebody to go down sooner. A warning has been issued to the area, which is welcome, as nobody should be lighting fires, particularly illegal fires. However, there is a bigger problem and questions must be asked about how this got out of control. What risk assessments have been done by Coillte, as within the biggest forest in the country we have the biggest wind farm? The feeling on the ground - I am reporting what was said - was that some of the effort went to preserving that rather than controlling the fire elsewhere.

In the past ten years there have been very few prosecutions in this area. If my figures are correct, there were nine prosecutions over ten years. The Minister of State will deal with the issue of the prosecutions but I am asking a more general question. When will the Minister get a report on what caused the fire and what has been learned from it? No matter what we do, we will always have people who light fires when they should not. There must be an emergency plan in place and proper risk assessment. When will that report come before us, telling us the damage, replacement plans and timescales? Most of all, it must inform us how we can prevent this happening in future. That is the most important lesson to be learned from this.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Andrew Doyle)

I thank Deputy Connolly for raising this very serious issue. As she mentioned, I visited Cloosh Valley in County Galway on Monday and saw for myself the utter devastation caused by the wildfire that raged there until Thursday, 11 May 2017, when it was finally brought under control.

As I commented during my visit, fire poses a serious risk to life, homes, and property. Forestry and wildlife habitats are also destroyed. I understand that while a wildfire risk can quickly develop following dry weather patterns in all areas where flammable vegetation such as grasses, gorse and heather are present, especially in proximity to forests and other assets, most fires may have been started deliberately. To set a fire at this time of the year is not only illegal but also totally irresponsible. As we are all aware, the burning of vegetation is controlled by the Wildlife Acts. It is an offence under section 40 of the Wildlife Act 1976 to burn from 1 March to 31 August in any year any vegetation growing on any land not then cultivated. Individuals who are found to burn vegetation within that prohibited period are liable to prosecution by An Garda Síochána or by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. My Department has no role in this regard.

Forest fires have a wide range of impacts. With Cloosh Valley, I understand approximately 1,500 ha of forestry was destroyed and a similar area of bogland was destroyed on the perimeter, which is where the fire spread from. This is huge loss and the estimates come to approximately €4 million. To put this in context, the level of new planting annually for which grants have been paid over the last couple of year is in the region of 6,500 ha, so losing 1,500 ha in one foul sweep like this gives an indication of how massive was this incident.

With respect to cost, there is the loss of the value of the timber crop itself and the reconstitution costs. There were also the immediate costs involved in fire suppression as incurred by Coillte and the other agencies and bodies, such as the Galway fire service and the Air Corps, which were involved in monitoring and fighting the fires. In a time of budgetary control, such outbreaks put a heavy strain on all these bodies. Coillte, for example, has estimated the costs to be in the millions of euro. Other costs, which are difficult to quantify, include the disruption to normal fire service operation and the diversion of emergency services resources away from other life-saving operations.

I have focused on the impact on my immediate area of responsibility, namely forestry, but should advise that another impact is the risk to payments under the basic payment scheme, as I advised in my statement yesterday. Officials in my Department are currently analysing a wide range of satellite imagery to identify land burnt illegally during the specified closed season for burning. Historic satellite imagery is also being examined as part of this process. Agricultural and eligible forestry land identified as burnt illegally as part of this investigation will be deemed ineligible for payment under the 2017 basic payment and other area-based schemes. I want to stress in this regard that my Department will not tolerate incidents of illegal burning of land and will take all necessary actions to ensure compliance with the conditions of the various EU-funded area-based schemes, including reducing payments and penalties where applicable.

Another issue is the threat to health. The Health Service Executive issued a public statement last week about the recent gorse fires, advising that people should limit the amount of time spent outdoors in areas affected by any smoke or ash. I understand that smoke inhalation can have adverse effects, especially on vulnerable groups.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I welcome what the Minister of State is setting out but the difficulty is gorse fires have raged across all the west, with serious damage being done. This is not the first year it has happened and it has been ongoing for years. I welcome that the Department is taking satellite images, examining the damage and will take prosecutions if it can, that has simply not worked to date. A red alert was issued by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine before the fires broke out. When that was issued, what did Coillte do and what emergency plan went into place to prevent the damage? It had been anticipated.

I welcome what Coillte has done on the ground but I am talking on a general level. If a red alert is issued relating to fires, what actions would be taken by Coillte and what risk assessment had been carried out, given its experience over the years? This is the biggest forest in the country and we know a small group of people burn illegally. We do not know if that was the cause of the fire. The risk of damage is too much. I have not gone into the effect on bird life and diversity as the immediate concern was human life and houses. This should not have happened. When will we get a report as to what was lacking in the risk assessment or health and safety statement, or all the other elements that would be relevant to a forest of this size with the biggest wind farm? Why was this not anticipated? These are my questions, in addition to those concerned with prosecutions. They were always going to be a side issue in comparison with the overall plan.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I appreciate the points raised and, having visited the site, I know the work that was done. There were over 100 people there, including Coillte staff, the Army, Air Corps and some private helicopters who were experts in their actions. I visited a point where there was a new infrastructural road built by the wind company. As it was a crown fire, it jumped that road but those 62 km of new road infrastructure allowed emergency services to get in.

I looked at the map before I visited the site. The suspicion is the fire originated at a point some distance to the south east of the plantation.

The fire would have travelled pretty fast through what is bogland and a special area of conservation, SAC. The problem for contingency planning is that one would need to look at the perimeter, notwithstanding all the precautions that have to be taken on site and see how that vegetation can be controlled and managed. The National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, can give derogations for controlled burning, which is an essential part of vegetation management so that material can be edible. There was a noticeable lack of livestock and sheep on that ground.

I would not pretend to be the expert but it needs to consider how it will control that buffer zone and the vegetation so that it never gets to the point of being so tall, dry and highly calorific because that will burn. I have seen people in the Wicklow Gap, maybe hillwalkers or others, who through recklessness throw away a cigarette butt in the dry time when the wind is in the right direction. As the Deputy said, everything coincided perfectly, the change in wind direction and the drop in temperature assisted greatly in reducing the threat last Wednesday.

Sitting suspended at 4.21 p.m. and resumed at 5.01 p.m.