Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Mar 2005

Vol. 598 No. 5

Adjournment Debate.

Hospitals Building Programme.

Mr. P. McGrath

I wish to share time with Deputy Penrose.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this important issue. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley, to the House but I am disappointed, as are the people of Westmeath, that the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children is not present to reply to the debate. When she recently opened and closed a 12 bed unit in Mullingar hospital on the same day, she asked why I had not turned up at the opening to discuss the matter with her. My retort was that I would raise the matter in the people's forum, the Dáil. As my colleague and myself raise this issue, the Tánaiste feels free not to turn up to reply to the debate.

She stated in Mullingar a few weeks ago that she should make an announcement on the future of the hospital. Why is she not present to put on record her future plans for the hospital? What has happened there is an absolute disgrace. Phase 2a of the hospital was built in 1997 at a cost of approximately €10 million to the taxpayer. A five storey block was built but only one storey was kitted out with the remaining four storeys like warehouses, empty waiting to be occupied. Eight years later no detailed plans on how these floors will be kitted out have been prepared, no planning permission has been sought, no funds have been allocated and no timeframe has been set within which the extra work will be completed. The extra beds so long promised and so badly needed are not provided. We have been told on various occasions that the money for phase 2b of the hospital was ring-fenced and that, if Deputy Cassidy, who is not here to take part in tonight's debate, were elected to this House, in his words "immediate progress" would be made regarding Mullingar General Hospital. However, nothing has happened. Deputy Cassidy announced in April 2003 a 12-bed unit for the hospital. The Tánaiste had the brass neck to come to Mullingar to open it two or three weeks ago. As she left the hospital, the locks were turned again on the door of the unit that she had just opened. It will not be open for a few more weeks. What kind of carry-on is that? A Minister comes to open a facility, and as she leaves, the doors are locked behind her. Is that an opening? It is good for publicity and the television cameras and so on, but it is not good enough for the people of Westmeath.

The Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, answered a debate tabled by Deputy Penrose and me in October 2003, 18 months ago. During that debate, he said the Department was finalising the development control plan for phase 2b. I sincerely hope the Minister does not have that same phrase tucked into the speech he is to read us tonight. I hope he will not have the brass neck to issue to us tonight, 18 months later, what we got then. I want to hear what definite progress has been made, when we will be treated fairly in Mullingar, and when we will hear the real story regarding finalisation of this hospital.

Mr. Penrose

I thank Deputy Paul McGrath for sharing time with me. He and I have fought manfully on the floor of the House to try to ensure that the rightful property of the people of Longford and Westmeath, Mullingar General Hospital, will be delivered. It is a shame this Government has been pussyfooting around, foot-dragging and obfuscating for the past eight years. It is scandalous to see a building with people lying in beds with an occupancy rate of 130% overlooking a building, as Deputy Paul McGrath has said, with four floors uncompleted, some of it almost dilapidated. It has been there for eight years, turning grey while people look out the windows.

We have the second most efficient hospital in the country, and if this were delivered, we would have the most efficient. That is a compliment to the professionals, nurses, attendants and ambulance staff — everyone involved. They are asking what the timeframe is, when the money is to be provided, and when the hospital is to be finished. It is serving the people of Longford and Westmeath, and the commitment was given back in the 1980s when Longford did not have the services. It is time to get off the fence and fulfil the commitment. What has happened is disgraceful. It is a scandal, and it is about time that the Government got its priorities right.

Mullingar General Hospital needs 311 beds but has only 203. The occupancy rate is 130% in winter. It is disgraceful that we can waste €52 million on electronic voting when another €20 million would have completed the hospital. Can anyone explain this? The Tánaiste opened the new unit, and neither Deputy Paul McGrath nor I attended — rightly so, since it was a charade. It was an opportunity for photographs, with people straining their necks at the optimum angle to be recorded in the local newspapers. That type of cynicism has destroyed politics, and the people of Westmeath together with the people of Longford which may be included in the new constituency, have sent us here tonight. They are saying to us that we must get the hospital delivered, since they have been let down by the Government. It is an absolute scandal.

The Government should forget all its obfuscation and tell us when it will provide the money and why it has taken so long. They could have built the Great Wall of China in eight years, yet we cannot complete a hospital in Mullingar. Every time we attend a meeting, the public asks us when it will be delivered. I tell them that Deputy Cassidy promised upon his election in 2002 that he would be like a magician, arriving in a helicopter with schools and hospitals. Three years later, we are still waiting. Now the Minister should get off the fence. The people of Longford and Westmeath want Mullingar General Hospital finished once and for all for the general population who pay their taxes. We are fed up being treated like second-class citizens.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. T. O’Malley)

The Health Act 2004 provided for the Health Service Executive which was established on 1 January 2005. Under the Act, the executive has the responsibility to manage and deliver, or arrange to be delivered on its behalf, health and personal social services, including its capital programme. The progression of phase 2b of the Midland Regional Hospital must be considered in that context.

The necessary funds to progress phase 2b form part of the funding provided to the HSE in the capital envelope of the capital investment framework for 2005 to 2009. The hospital is being developed in phases. Phase 1 was completed in 1989 and phase 2a in 1997, at a cost of €13 million.

Phase 2a included "shelled-out"— external walls, floors and roof — accommodation for completion, or "fit-out", in phase 2b, the final phase of the current redevelopment programme, which is at the design stage.

The "shelled-out" accommodation is on four floors over the existing radiology department and a single floor over the existing entrance concourse. It was provided for future ward accommodation and an operating department. The accommodation was provided as part of the phase 2a contract as a long-term, value-for-money construction solution, which will minimise disruption to existing functioning accommodation during the phase 2b construction works contract.

The Department approved the Midland Health Board's stage 2 submission — development control plan — proceeding to stage 3 — sketch design and cost plan — for phase 2b in September 2004. It is anticipated that stage 3 will be complete in mid 2005. Phase 2b includes the fit-out of the "shelled" accommodation, together with additional accommodation to provide a pathology department, an operating department, general medical wards, a medicine for the elderly and rehabilitation unit, general surgical wards, day services, including surgery, administration accommodation, staff accommodation, an acute psychiatric unit, a child and adolescent psychiatric unit, an occupational therapy department, catering facilities, educational facilities and a new entrance concourse.

The executive is currently finalising its proposals under the CIF in line with the procedures set down by the Department of Finance. That process will be completed in the coming weeks. However, the Tánaiste is aware that the procurement priority for phase 2b has always been the fit-out of the "shelled-out" ward accommodation, as the first stage, to provide additional beds, and it is anticipated that this stage will be complete in late 2006.

The delivery of the balance of phase 2b following the first-stage fit-out mentioned is also being considered by the HSE in the context of determining capital priorities to be progressed in 2005 and beyond, in line with overall funding resources available.

Departmental Properties.

Mr. Gormley

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise this matter. I very much regret that the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, is not here this evening to answer.

The proposal to install a mobile phone base station in Ardee House, Ardee Road, Rathmines, arises from a review commissioned by the Minister's Department "to assess the suitability of the State property portfolio for use in the mobile telecommunications sector". The idea is to charge mobile operators for a licence to install and operate telecommunications antennae on public buildings. It appears that the very first public building to be the subject of such a licence is Ardee House, an OPW building that houses the Central Statistics Office. It is the location that is the real problem, since Ardee House is close to some of the major schools in the area. It is directly adjacent to St. Mary's College and Junior School and also close to St. Louis High School. The proposed installation will be within metres of the school buildings and grounds of St. Mary's College. It seems clear to me that the Department or its consultants did not consider the proximity of those schools in assessing Ardee House for its suitability and that the proposal must be withdrawn immediately. I say that not simply because of the great disquiet expressed to me by my constituents but because of the latest findings by the UK independent expert group on mobile phones, also known as the Stewart group. It clearly supports the application of a precautionary principle that should rule out this proposed installation.

Before I get into the health concerns that it raises, I will say a few words on planning. I raised this issue by way of a question in December 2004. In his reply, the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, stated regarding this installation: "Licensees will also be required to fully comply with normal planning regulations." I suggest that reply is rather disingenuous as the normal planning regulations in this case are the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, which exempt this installation from the normal planning process. In other words, the rules are that there are no rules. The normal planning process affords members of the public the opportunity to make observations on developments which affect them. In this case, neither the public nor the local authority can make any such observations.

The issue of planning in regard to telecommunications equipment is a key element of the Stewart report. Although it refers to the planning regime in force in the United Kingdom, the issues are largely the same in this State. In this respect, the recommendation of the independent expert group is unambiguous. It recommends that all base stations, including those with masts under 15 metres, be permitted development rights, that further erection be revoked and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to normal planning processes.

It is worth noting that the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 specifically exclude schools, child care facilities and hospitals from the schedule of buildings on which antennae can be installed without planning permission. This would appear to be a sensible precautionary measure given that, as the Stewart report points out, children will absorb more energy per kilogram of body weight from an external electromagnetic field than adults. However, the siting of a base station adjacent to a school makes this precaution worthless.

In reply to my colleague, Deputy Sargent, in the House last year the then Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources stated that in the particular case of an installation on the upper floor of a building, the aerials emit electromagnetic energy laterally away from the aerial installation. He further stated that the position which receives the lowest emissions from such an installation is directly underneath it. That was by way of reassuring us that the installation of a base station on the upper floors of a nursing home would have no adverse health effects. It follows from the Minister's statement, however, that we should be more careful of what is next to buildings on which such equipment is installed.

The independent expert group makes this point, specifically in regard to schools. The Stewart report states that because of the way in which emissions are beamed, a macrocell base station located near a school may cause higher exposure to pupils than if it were placed on the roof of the school building. In other words, mobile phone masts near schools, as in this instance, are more of a cause of concern than mobile phone masts on school buildings.

In these circumstances, what is the point in excluding schools from the planning regulations if we are to allow these antennae to be installed next door to schools without planning permission? Again, the Stewart report addresses this issue and makes a recommendation that the agreement of the school and parents should be obtained in cases where the beam of greatest RF intensity from a base station would fall on any part of the school grounds, whether this station is located on school grounds or nearby. In this instance there has been no consultation with the school or parents. Parents are completely in the dark about this proposal.

I emphasise that the reason for applying a precautionary principle in this case is not simply to ease the concerns of residents and parents but to take account of the fact that there is, as of yet, a paucity of scientific research on the effect of emissions from these installations. This is acknowledged in the Stewart report which notes that despite public concern about the safety of mobile phones and base stations, rather little research specifically relevant to these emissions has been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature. If the Minister goes ahead with this installation, it is nothing short of reckless.

Mr. T. O’Malley

I thank Deputy Gormley for giving me the opportunity to outline the matter to the House, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon.

Over the past few years, the Commissioners of Public Works have received an ever-increasing number of requests from mobile phone operators to install equipment on State property. These requests were dealt with on a case by case basis and the commissioners did not have a standard approach to dealing with such requests.

To develop a consistent and standard way of dealing with these requests, the commissioners appointed telecommunications consultants Vilicom Limited to assess the suitability of the State property portfolio for use in the mobile telecommunications sector and to act in an advisory capacity to the commissioners in their dealings with mobile telecommunications operators. This was also done in support of Government policy on the roll-out of 3G mobile technology and as part of the commissioners' transforming State assets programme.

A standard agreement, which sets out the terms and conditions under which operators will be allowed to install equipment on State-owned properties, has been finalised. Any mobile phone operator granted such a licence will be required to strictly comply with all relevant health and safety Acts, operate within current standards and EU regulations and adhere to the guidelines on exposure limits to emissions issued by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

This compliance with health and safety legislation etc., required under the licence agreement, also applies to any future relevant legislation or regulations and ICNIRP guidelines. Licensees will also be required to fully comply with normal planning regulations.

Part of Vilicom's role as consultants to the commissioners is to ensure that all equipment installed is constructed in accordance with all the relevant legislation in the first instance and to randomly test sites thereafter to ensure compliance is continuous.

I assure the Deputy that it is only within the strict framework outlined above and detailed in the licence agreement that the installation of telecommunications equipment on the State building on Ardee Road, Rathmines, has been approved.

Special Educational Needs.

Mr. J. Breen

I raise this matter as a result of a reply to a question I tabled last week to the Minister for Education and Science. She did everything but answer my question on that occasion. She kicked for touch on the issue, and when the Minister kicks for touch in answering a question, she would do justice to O'Gara or O'Driscoll. Many Ministers do the same.

Ennis has a population of approximately 26,000. I request autism facilities in a mainstream school in the town of Ennis. Ennis has a catchment area of 35,000. If it had mainstream autism facilities for children and teenagers those services would be available within five miles of the town. We have a first class autism facility in the other half of my parish in Inagh, and that is operating very successfully.

The Department gave 70% funding last year for the building and the community raised the other 30%. Six pupils attend that school. They come from Ennis, Kilmurray, Miltown Malbay and Toonagh. Ennis is 14 miles from Inagh and we need an autism facility in a mainstream school in Ennis where children suffering from autism can mingle with the other students in the school in a natural environment. We have facilities in Ennis for autism but there are no special schools. It is a swipe at the most vulnerable in our society that the Minister for Education and Science will not give a guarantee that autism facilities will be provided in Ennis.

There is another matter in Ennis which concerns the Minister's Department. Eleven pupils currently attend St. Michael's school for special needs children, but this school will be closed by 2006, although the Department of Health and Children has denied that. The school is not taking any more enrolments and when that happens it means the school is being phased out. I ask the Minister not to allow that to happen. The children attending that school have 14 hours education and tuition weekly. The school now wants them to attend two and a half hours of intense training, but that is not acceptable for children ranging in age from two and a half to six years.

If the Minister of State intends to give me the same reply as the one I got from the Minister for Education and Science last week, I ask him not to read it out because I do not want to hear it. If he has something positive to say, however, or if he can tell me that the Minister will provide the facilities I am requesting for Ennis, I will listen to the reply.

Mr. T. O’Malley

I welcome the opportunity to clarify the position of the Department of Education and Science in respect of education provision for pupils with autism in the Ennis area of County Clare. The Department of Education and Science supports the education of individual students with autism in various primary and second level schools throughout the country. The precise model of provision made available will depend on the assessed needs of the pupils involved. Some students are capable of attending ordinary classes on an integrated basis, with resource teacher and-or special needs assistant support. In other cases, placement in special dedicated classes or units attached to the school may be the more appropriate response. Such special classes operate at significantly reduced pupil-teacher ratios. A class catering for children on the autistic spectrum would be supported at a pupil-teacher ratio of 6:1. The Department also supports arrangements whereby second level students attached to these special classes are facilitated in attending ordinary subject classes on an integrated basis wherever possible.

In the primary school system, there are three special classes for pupils with autism attached to two special schools in Ennis. There are a further three special autism classes attached to three mainstream primary schools in County Clare, one of which is in the Ennis area. All six classes can cater for a maximum of six pupils with autism and are generally staffed by one teacher and a minimum of two special needs assistants. The Deputy may be interested to know that the Department of Education and Science is considering an application for the establishment of an autistic unit at St. Senan's primary school, Kilrush, County Clare. Officials from the Department are liaising with the national educational psychological service in this regard and a decision will be conveyed to the school in question as soon as this process has been completed.

I assure the Deputy that the Department, as a matter of general policy, is favourably disposed to making educational provision for children with autism, as and when required. The details of each application must to be carefully examined, having regard to such matters as the assessment reports for the individual children, the suitability of proposed accommodation from an educational and health and safety perspective and the proximity of existing autism-specific provision in the area. Should an application for additional autism provision be received from a primary school in the Ennis area, it will be considered in this context.

The Minister for Education and Science is aware of the emerging need for the development of appropriate second level education services for children with autism in Ennis who will be due to progress from the primary system in the coming years. Organising such provision is a significant task of the National Council for Special Education, NCSE. The latter was established as an independent statutory body with responsibilities as set out in the National Council for Special Education (Establishment) Order 2003. With effect from 1 January 2005, the NCSE through local special educational needs organisers, SENOs, will process resource applications for children with special educational needs. Where a pupil with special educational needs enrols in a primary or post-primary school, it is open to the school to apply to the local SENO for additional teaching support and-or special needs assistant support for the pupil.

The Department is confident that the establishment of the National Council for Special Education will prove of major benefit in ensuring that all children with special educational needs receive the support they require when and where they require it. I thank the Deputy for raising this matter.

Third Level Education.

Mr. O’Shea

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, is reported as having roundly endorsed the compelling case for a south-east university which was made at a regional conference in Waterford city last January. While acknowledging that the final Government decision would be guided by the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, the Minister and president of the Progressive Democrats stated that he believes "that in the south-eastern region between Kilkenny, Wexford and Waterford there is a future for a proposal to transform the existing third level infrastructure into something more elaborate and I would be the last to say that the march towards a university is to be cut off at the pass". He also stated: "Universities should not be centrally controlled and Waterford Institute of Technology should not all the time be answerable to an elected Minister."

The Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, who represents Waterford, made the keynote address at the same conference and stated that Waterford Institute of Technology, WIT "is a university in all but name". He also stated:

This is an anomaly which must be rectified in the very near term. It is a primary goal.

However, on 27 January 2005, in reply to two parliamentary questions I tabled, the Minister for Education and Science stated: "it should also be noted that the OECD Review of Higher Education in Ireland, which was released on 16 September 2004, recommends that the differentiation of mission between the university and the institute of technology sectors be preserved and that for the foreseeable future there be no further institutional transfers into the university sector".

The expert group from the OECD carried out a major review of the Irish higher education system which involved visiting Ireland and consulting extensively with all the major education stakeholders. The positions taken up by the president of the Progressive Democrats and the Minister for Transport, on one hand, and the Minister for Education and Science, on the other, are hardly compatible, to say the least. There is no other interpretation of what the Minister for Education and Science stated than that she intends to cut off Waterford's march towards university status at the pass. The president of the Progressive Democrats would be the last to say that this should be the case.

The position of the Minister for Transport is that WIT is a university in all but name and that the rectifying of this anomaly in the near future is a primary aim. This is incompatible with the statement that "the differentiation of mission between the university and the institute of technology sectors be preserved and that for the foreseeable future there be no further institutional transfers into the university sector".

The Government's policy on this hugely important issue for Waterford and the south east depends on whether one listens to the president of the Progressive Democrats and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, the Fianna Fáil Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, or the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, who, after all, has line responsibility for the third level education sector. The first two Ministers, Deputies Cullen and McDowell, would leave one with the impression that university status for Waterford is near hand, while the Minister for Education and Science appears to indicate that this status will not be achieved in the foreseeable future. Politics are undoubtedly being played with this extremely important issue which is vital for the future development and prosperity of the entire south-eastern region.

The parliamentary questions I tabled to the Minister for Education and Science asked for her proposals, first, to grant national institute of higher education status to Waterford Institute of Technology in order that NIHE Waterford may develop along the same route as the University of Limerick and Dublin City University developed from NIHE Limerick and NIHE Glasnevin, respectively, and, second, to grant Waterford Institute of Technology a stand-alone status similar to Dublin Institute of Technology as a first step towards university status. The two questions separately offered alternative routes to university status for Waterford Institute of Technology. The Minister's reply, "There are no plans to change the status of Waterford Institute of Technology", was negative and clear.

This Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government has no intention of conferring university status on Waterford Institute of Technology. This should be clearly and unambiguously understood. However, it should not deter, in any way, the purpose and commitment of those of us who understand how vital university status for WIT is in terms of bringing about a major enhancement of the economic, cultural and industrial development of the region. No less an authority than Dr. Edward Walsh, President Emeritus of the University of Limerick, has stated that the challenge for the State in establishing a university in Waterford should not be significant, either in financial or organisational terms, particularly in light of the major capital investment already made in buildings and infrastructure to support a 6,000-student campus at WIT and a new 150-acre campus at Carriganore.

Waterford is the only one of the five major cities that does not have a university. This is reflected in the annual spend for third level institutions in each of those cities. In 2004, recurrent funding was: Dublin —€490 million; Cork —€160 million; Galway —€117 million; Limerick —€101 million; and Waterford —€43 million. This is another illustration of the inequality delivered upon Waterford. Waterford has waited long enough and I am calling on the Minister for Education and Science to reverse her position and give Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford and the south-east region the vital additional third level status and investment that is not alone greatly needed, but richly deserved.

Mr. T. O’Malley

I thank Deputy O'Shea for raising this issue as it affords me the opportunity to clarify the position of the Department of Education and Science as regards this matter.

In July 1996, the Government approved in principle the recommendations in the report of the steering committee on the future development of higher education as a benchmark for future planning in the sector. The steering committee concluded that an upgrading and expansion of Waterford Regional College, since re-titled Waterford Institute of Technology, represented the most appropriate response to the higher educational needs of the south east region. The committee's report recommended an increase in student places, with the major focus of expansion to be at degree level, and a change of title.

The Government accepted these recommendations. The provision of both the total number of places and of degree level courses in Waterford Institute of Technology has since been significantly expanded. Over that period, student numbers at Waterford IT have grown by some 40%. It now provides a range of programmes, the majority at degree level, right across the academic spectrum, including the humanities, health and nursing, science and informatics, engineering, business and education. These measures have provided the necessary capacity for the institute to meet the identified higher educational needs of the south east region over the coming years.

The Minister for Education and Science stated recently, and it is worth repeating, that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a world-class third level institution without having the title "university". The same applies to the London School of Economics, the Geneva Institute and many others.

Nor has Waterford Institute of Technology's development been impeded by the lack of a university title. It has forged formal academic exchange and research partnerships with more than 40 universities worldwide. It has delegated authority to make its own educational awards up to Masters level, under the terms of the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999. Waterford IT has been extremely successful in the research field, with its researchers having competed successfully for prestigious national and EU research funding. One of the major PRTLI research programmes, Smart Space Management, is located in Waterford IT.

The OECD Review of Higher Education in Ireland, which was released on 16 September 2004, recommends that the differentiation of mission between the university and the institute of technology sectors be preserved. It identifies this feature of the Irish system as a great strength and recommends that, for the foreseeable future, there be no further institutional transfers into the university sector.

The south eastern region has benefited greatly from the presence of a very successful and flourishing higher education institution in the form of Waterford Institute of Technology. The Government is committed to supporting Waterford IT into the future in continuing to make a significant contribution to the economic, social and cultural development of the south east and beyond.

Again I thank the Deputy for raising this matter.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 2 March 2005.