Adjournment Debate.

Health Service Staff.

Mr. Cregan

I thank the Acting Chairman for allowing me the opportunity to raise this important matter for my constituents in Limerick. The HSE must immediately appoint a third geriatrician to the mid-west HSE region, with particular emphasis on that post being filled in Limerick Regional Hospital, which will complement the current service to that hospital and its associated hospitals, St. Ita's Hospital, Newcastlewest and St. Camillus's Hospital, Limerick.

For many years I served as a member of the Mid-Western Health Board. I consider that board to have been extremely responsible. It always lived within its budget and did its business correctly within the limited resources available. One abiding memory I have from my time on the health board is that successive CEOs consistently reported to the board that the mid-west region received less funding per head of population than any other health board.

Evidently the HSE mid-west region is still behind other regions regarding consultant posts across all disciplines, as it always has been. I recall being told while on the board that it was short five, ten or 15 consultants. Two consultant geriatricians are attached to Limerick Regional Hospital and its two associated hospitals, St. Ita's and St. Camillus's. They work above and beyond the call of duty. Both are greatly concerned about the care of an increasingly elderly population. I have personal experience of the work of one of these eminent gentlemen, David Clinch. I cannot commend him highly enough for his caring nature, the way in which he carries out his duties and the concern he expresses on a daily basis for the improvement of services in our region.

A recent report by the national task force recommends a total of seven geriatricians by 2009. That is based on a ratio of 1:50,000. We have three geriatricians, at a ratio of 1:85,000 which is 35,000 more elderly patients than is recommended. These figures indicate the elderly population of County Limerick is not given the level of service required and deserved.

I repeat the geriatricians in the region work above and beyond the call of duty in Limerick Regional Hospital, St. Ita's Hospital in Newcastlewest and St. Camillus's Hospital in Limerick. However, because of the lack of response to the repeated requests that a third geriatrician be appointed, these gentlemen must use some of their time lobbying public representatives, the local HSE and the Department of Health and Children. It is about time we answered that call. This proposal has been under active consideration for a period of time. The time is right to make a decision and to fill that post.

I fully understand the demands on the Department and the Minister from all sections. All I ask for is a level playing pitch and a fair slice of the cake for my constituents in Limerick West. I appeal to all concerned to hear my plea and ensure this matter can be dealt with speedily. The Tánaiste and the Ministers of State, Deputies Seán Power and Tim O'Malley, have my full support in a difficult job. I commend them for the manner in which they carry out their duties. Having stated that, I appeal again for this matter to be dealt with urgently.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power)

I thank Deputy Cregan for raising this matter and I am delighted to have the opportunity to reply on behalf of my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children.

Mr. P. McGrath

It must not be good news or else she would have been in.

Mr. S. Power

We give the Deputy good news occasionally on the Adjournment. The issue raised by the Deputy is a matter for the HSE which has responsibility for delivering its service plan priorities in line with the funding made available to it. I understand from the HSE that the situation at present is that there are four consultant geriatricians employed in the former Mid-Western Health Board, two in the Limerick area, one in Clare and one in Tipperary North. I also understand from the HSE that the employment of a third geriatrician in Limerick is under active consideration. We will keep the Deputy informed of any change in the situation. I realise he has taken an interest in this matter for a long time.

As the House will be aware, an investment package of €150 million in services for older people and palliative care over the years 2006-07 was announced in the recent budget. This is the largest ever increase in funding for services for older people and underlines the Government's commitment to older people and to putting them at the centre of health policy in the future.

This is a full year cost and is broken down into €110 million for this year and €40 million more for next year. This package is a developmental one and has a particular focus on care in the community, with over €100 million being provided to support home and day care, including respite care for older people.

Initiatives in this area include the development of the home care packages to enable older people to remain living in the community for as long as possible in line with their expressed wishes, an increase in the number of home help hours provided, an increase in day respite care provision, a significant increase in the resources available to the meals on wheels service, funding to support the development of sheltered housing, the further implementation of the report on elder abuse by providing for dedicated staff and a research function in this area and €4 million has been put aside for the development of proposals in the primary and community care areas which are new ways of delivering service and reflect best practice elsewhere.

The level and range of the investment package clearly shows the Government's commitment to ensuring that the care we provide for older people is of the highest possible standard and in line with their expressed wishes.

Schools Building Projects.

Mr. Penrose

I wish to share time with Deputy Paul McGrath.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for permitting me to raise on the Adjournment the important issue of Dysart national school. A brief history of the situation is as follows. The school was approved for a grant of €350,000, the maximum granted under the 2004 small schools initiative, to construct a new school to service a large geographical area. The old school in Dysart was condemned as far back as 1999 — both I and Deputy Paul McGrath raised the issue many years ago — thus the need for this school to progress without further procrastination or delay.

The awarding of the grant under the scheme was vigorously and enthusiastically embraced by the board of management and, initially, two estimates were sought and they amounted to €350,000 to €390,000. By the time the tender was submitted in early January 2005, the best tender was €460,000 and together with professional fees the total cost for the erection of new modern school which would meet the needs of the young pupils attending the school and the staff, together with the ancillary facilities required, was in the order of €500,000.

Obviously, when the grant of €350,000 is taken into account, this leaves a shortfall of €150,000 which, in essence, is too onerous a burden for a small community to bear. While the small schools initiative may not have intended to leave schools with significant fundraising needs, that is the situation in which this small community of Dysart finds itself.

The planning guidelines for primary schools issued by the Minister's Department clearly indicated that the board of management was not free to tailor the scope of capital works despite what some of the officials state. Indeed, on the contrary, the board of management in Dysart felt constrained to work within those guidelines. As a result, the school designed is based on a two classroom school plan produced by the Department's architects.

Despite assertions by the Department to the contrary, there was no statement specifying three classrooms — its representative was told that approval was to build a two teacher unit. On 22 March 2005, an official from the Department was presented with a copy of the plans with a written request to meet the board of management. Further requests for meetings were submitted on 25 April 2005 and 15 September 2005 and both I and Deputy Paul McGrath raised the matter in the House subsequently.

It should be noted that in July 2005, €245,000, or approximately 70% of the original grant, was released to the school which would surely indicate approval and sanction for the two classroom school as planned. The matter has been through the appeals process. Both I and Deputy Paul McGrath tried very hard to get a positive result. We were extremely disappointed with the nature and tenor of the reply which referred the matter back to the school planning section. It was stated that the building project was unlikely to meet the long-term accommodation needs. Ultimately, the appeals board decided the school did not warrant additional funding to everybody's great surprise.

The Minister is aware that of the €150,000 shortfall, a significant amount of it arises as a result of the need for the school board to comply with the planning conditions set down by the planning authority. I understand a copy of the consultant engineer's assessment of the additional costs associated with that have been furnished to the Department.

The Minister should give the additional money required to deal with the extra costs which are clearly outside the control of the school authorities and were not set down by them. The accepted tender price to erect the school represents exceedingly good value. It is of paramount importance that the additional grant aid of €150,000 is provided to this small community.

On 24 November, the school met the Department but it received a point blank refusal. The delays have forced the children and teachers of Dysart to endure another year in an unfit building which was condemned as long ago as 1999. In January this year, the boys' toilet had to be closed due to a leaking roof so boys and girls must now share one toilet. The roof is also leaking rain water into the corridor on top of the ESB fuse box area.

Time is of the essence. If there is a lot of money to give out and if we are facilitating all sorts of developments and initiatives, surely a school is the first place to start and €150,000 is small bread to ensure comforts for teachers and pupils in this area.

Mr. P. McGrath

I thank my colleague, Deputy Penrose, for sharing time. This is a small rural community which is at a crossroads. There is some housing development in the area. This school has been condemned for some time. Initially, the old school was to be renovated but that proved impractical and not worthwhile. Plans were approved by the Department for a new school and expenditure appeared to be approved by it because no response was received from it. A contractor was brought on site and the school is half built. Since the local community will not be able to meet the additional requirement of €150,000, work had to stop. Will we leave it as it is? Will it be another white elephant like the hospital in Mullingar and several others? Let us make progress on the school and let common sense prevail.

Mr. S. Power

It is nice to see co-operation between the two Deputies opposite. Perhaps it is a sign of things to come.

Mr. Penrose

We always co-operate in the interests of our constituency.

Mr. S. Power

We all have that in common. I thank the Deputies for affording me the opportunity to outline the position of the Department of Education and Science with regard to the allocation of funding for school building projects and, in particular, the project at Dysart national school, Mullingar. Dysart national school is accommodated in classrooms in a building which was built in 1941. It has an enrolment of approximately 38 pupils and a staffing of a principal teacher and one assistant teacher.

The Department of Education and Science is moving towards a model of devolving funding, responsibility and authority, as appropriate, for building projects directly to school management authorities. Devolving of funding to school management authorities allows them to have control of their projects, assists in moving projects more quickly to tender and construction and can deliver better value for money.

This devolved initiative was originally introduced on a pilot basis for 20 schools in the 2003 school building programme and due to the positive feedback from schools was extended in the school building programmes of 2004 and again last year. While appropriate for many schools, the Department is aware that the devolved initiative is not necessarily suitable for all national schools seeking to refurbish their school building or to build new accommodation. It is not the intention of the scheme to leave schools with massive fundraising requirements. Rather, the level of funding should determine the scope of works undertaken. However, in some cases, the school site or building can be problematic while in others, the extent of the required work is too extensive for the funding available under the initiative.

In such situations, schools have a number of choices. They can reduce the scope of intended works, fundraise to cover the shortfall or withdraw from the scheme and be considered for inclusion in the mainstream school building programme in line with the project's priority band rating. This school was offered a grant of €350,000 under the devolved initiative in 2004 to provide new accommodation. The board of management accepted the grant offered and proceeded with the architectural planning of the project.

The school has received planning permission for a new school building subject to a number of conditions. Construction work on the new school started during the summer of 2005. It is clear from the information supplied by the school to officials in the Department of Education and Science that the grant of €350,000 will not be sufficient to construct the building as designed. Officials from the Department met the school authorities on 24 November 2005 to discuss this difficulty. An appeal for additional funding was considered by the appeals board and it is satisfied that under the terms of the scheme, the school does not warrant additional funding. The board of management has been informed of the decision.

Mr. P. McGrath

That is disappointing.

Mr. S. Power

I again thank the Deputy for outlining the current position to the House. I listened attentively to the issues raised by both Deputies and I will communicate that message to the Minister for Education and Science who, unfortunately, cannot be present this evening.

Water and Sewerage Schemes.

Ms C. Murphy

To stress the importance of investing in the sewage treatment systems in both the upper and lower Liffey catchments, I will begin by discussing water supplies in the greater Dublin area. At Ballymore Eustace, Dublin City Council abstracts 250 million litres per day from the River Liffey. There are proposals to take a further 66 million litres from the river at that source in the short term, which is too much.

The river then flows through County Kildare towards Dublin until it reaches Sallins where there is a major regional sewage treatment plant. This plant has serious problems and sewage leaks into the river, particularly in wet weather when one must also contend with storm water. The river, thus contaminated by waste, then continues through north Kildare towards Dublin where the next plant it meets is Fingal County Council's water treatment plant at Leixlip where 148 million litres are abstracted and treated.

Like other plants, the level of water treatment at the plant depends on the abstracted water's cleanliness. Obviously, when an overloaded sewerage plant upstream from it leaks into the river, the level of chemical intervention is much higher to clean up the water. An engineer informed me that this process is known as enrichment, although it is not the kind of enrichment for which I would wish. The plant serves Fingal, some of Dublin city, South Dublin County Council, north Kildare and Meath, all of which consequently have an interest in this issue.

Once the river passes by the Leixlip water treatment plant, it flows past the Leixlip sewage treatment plant which is also earmarked for expansion. I understand that this proposal may be funded. Local residents in Sallins noticed that sewage was flowing into the river and obviously were concerned about the quality of their living environment. Given the level of development that has taken place in that area, I can understand their concern.

Kildare County Council has written to me and to others in a categoric manner. It stated:

Given the unprecedented growth in the . . . catchment in recent years, and the combined nature of the network, both wastewater and surface water, the Sallins pumping station, along with other elements of the network have reached breaking point. The result is that in particularly in times of heavy rainfall, the network becomes overloaded and overflows occur at the pumping station into nearby watercourses.

In other words, into what will end up being our drinking water. The letter goes on to state:

Kildare County Council are fully aware of the situation and as far back as 1999 Kildare County Council commissioned a report to identify infrastructural requirements to meet current and future needs. This report was completed in 2002 and forwarded to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government . . . [The] overall cost of the proposed scheme is €65 million, which is obviously outside the scope of Kildare County Council's own finances and hence the need for departmental approval and associated funding. Kildare County Council has constantly pressed the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for approval of the overall report to allow it to proceed to the next stage . . . [The council] met with the Department in December 2005 . . . [and at that] meeting it was agreed to progress some of the recommendations . . . [to deal] with the short-term issues.

What is the problem? This work is necessary and those people who bought houses and have come to live in Kildare will not move out. They will not stop running their taps or flushing their toilets. Why postpone this work and damage the river for other uses? Why pump more chemicals into the population instead of cleaning up the water at source? The River Liffey's primary use has been designated as the supply of drinking water. We should stop using it as a toilet and should fund the necessary projects.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. B. O’Keeffe)

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. A huge range of important water services infrastructure is being progressed in Kildare at present with the support of unprecedented Exchequer funding from the national development plan. The investment in such infrastructure has made a key contribution to the economic growth that has benefited every part of Ireland, with Kildare very much to the fore in this regard.

The schedule of new water and sewerage schemes planned and in progress for Kildare under the Department's water services investment programme 2005 to 2007, which was published late last year, provides firm evidence of the Government's determination to safeguard the environment while at the same time providing for new housing, new jobs and all the other requirements of a successful and still growing economy.

The water services investment programme has allocated funding for water and sewerage schemes worth more than €220 million for Kildare, all of which will be put in place as soon as possible. Many towns and villages can look forward to new or upgraded sewerage facilities. Sewerage schemes valued at more than €90 million are under construction or are scheduled to start over the next two years.

The quality of waste water discharged into the River Liffey from the present Leixlip and Osberstown treatment plants is well within the prescribed treatment standards. In this context, it is worth noting that two thirds of all drinking water abstracted from the Liffey is taken at Ballymore Eustace, which is upstream of the two waste water plants. Drinking water abstracted from the Liffey at Leixlip is protected by the high standards of waste water treatment at the Osberstown plant.

The objective of the upper and lower Liffey valley sewerage schemes is to ensure that Kildare County Council can continue to maintain the highest possible standards for waste water discharges to guarantee drinking water standards, while at the same time supporting continuing economic and social development in the county for the foreseeable future.

More than €38 million of the planned €220 million investment in water services in Kildare has been committed to the upper and lower Liffey valley sewerage schemes. These major infrastructural undertakings involve a combination of upgraded and extended waste water treatment facilities and sewage collection networks that will serve more than a dozen towns and villages in the Liffey catchment, including Kilcock, Clane, Celbridge, Maynooth, Leixlip, Naas and Newbridge.

I am as anxious as the Deputy to see these schemes reach construction and completion as quickly as possible and my Department is doing everything it can to ensure that this happens. However, the Deputy will appreciate that multi-million euro projects that are funded by the taxpayer must go through detailed planning and development processes to ensure that they meet their intended objectives, that they are designed and constructed in an economical manner and that they produce treated waste water, or drinking water as the case may be, to a standard that meets national and EU requirements.

In May 2005, my Department approved Kildare County Council's proposals to proceed with work on an advance section of the lower Liffey valley scheme at Straffan, which I understand is nearing completion. The council's contract documents for the major elements of this scheme are also under examination in my Department. I expect these to be approved within the next few weeks. Kildare County Council will then be in a position to seek tenders for the scheme which will bring it to the construction stage.

The council's revised preliminary report for the upper Liffey valley sewerage scheme is being assessed by my Department. Here again the council can also expect a decision in the near future. Following this approval the council will be able to proceed with the preparation of contract documents for this scheme.

To sum up, my Department is fully committed to getting these important infrastructural schemes started quickly. To this end, I assure the Deputy we will complete the assessment of both schemes with a minimum of delay with a view to authorising Kildare County Council to advance them to construction as soon as possible.

Local Authority Staff.

Mr. P. McGrath

I wish to share time with Deputy Ring.

The review body on higher remuneration in the public sector in its report No. 38 of September 2000 considered that performance related awards for managers and assistant managers of local authorities were appropriate. The situation evolved so that managers of local authorities made submissions to a committee for performance awards in the local government sector under the chairmanship of the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The procedure is that the county manager makes a submission setting out his or her goals for the upcoming year and it is approved by the committee. At the end of the year, the manager reports back saying how well he or she did. It costs local authorities a total of €2.1 million annually, which must be paid out of their budgets. The average payment to the recipients is €10,000 per annum.

While I welcome this good initiative, nobody outside the committee can access the submissions to establish what they contain or the performance, tasks and so on undertaken by the county managers. How can we have a realistic idea of whether they earn the awards? One cannot acquire the documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1997. I raised this with the Taoiseach at a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. He was astonished and said I should get the documentation. He said he would see to it but nothing happened. One cannot even get a glimpse of these submissions.

The original terms of reference of the scheme stated local authority chairman should be given a copy of the submissions or at least a synopsis of them but this has been rowed back on. Additional moneys are awarded to senior local authority staff by the committee, which does not visit local authorities to speak to the chairman, members or staff. It is done entirely on a paper assessment. It is incorrect that this documentation should not be available. While I do not want to know who earns how much, I want to know the goals that are set, how they are assessed and what scrutiny is in place to ensure the assessment takes place.

Mr. Ring

I support my colleague on this issue which has bothered me for a long time. I have also tried to get this information. It is wrong that civil servants protect other civil servants. Why should the Freedom of Information Act cover Oireachtas Members, including Ministers, while senior public servants, including county managers, assistant county managers and directors of services are protected under the Act? Why should the taxpayer not know what these people are being paid for and why they receive these bonuses? Why should these people tell us how great they are? For example, the local authority in my county got rid of the refuse service and the mobile libraries this year. Are senior staff being given bonuses to take away services from the people?

The taxpayers of County Mayo and everywhere else are entitled to this information. They should know why these staff receive the bonuses, the amount of the bonuses and where the money comes from. The awards are funded by the taxpayer and local authority members should discuss these awards every year. A report should be brought before them and it should be listed on the agenda for discussion to see if the officials are entitled to a bonus. It is wrong that they are being protected by the Government and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and it is wrong that legislation was passed which provides for the protection of these people.

We cannot have two laws in this country. This is not Russia. We knew members of the establishment in Russia looked after one another but this is supposed to be a democracy. If information about Oireachtas Members can be published by every daily newspaper, the local newspapers should know how much county managers and directors of services receive in bonuses, especially when the people pay for them. They should at least know how much is being paid.

How can I obtain this information? When I table parliamentary questions, I do not want to be told to go to the Oireachtas Library. If the Minister of State's Department continues to issue such replies, I will make the staff busy because I will table many parliamentary questions and make many freedom of information requests. I am warning the Minister of State and his Department that if they want to play that game, I can play it too.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

I thank both Deputies for raising this important issue. A scheme for performance related awards for the local authority sector for managers, assistant managers and directors of services was introduced in 2003 following the recommendation of the review body on higher remuneration in the public sector in its report of 25 September 2000. The review body recommended that a committee for performance awards be established to monitor and adjudicate on the performance awards process in the local government sector. The committee comprises the Secretary General of the Department, two senior local authority managers and two members from the private sector.

Mr. P. McGrath

Keep it within the house.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

The committee's mandate is to make an independent determination of awards in accordance with the scheme formulated by the Department with the approval of the Department of Finance and which is consistent with principles recommended by report No. 38 of the review body. Under the scheme, participants prepare a statement of objectives at the beginning of the year and a self-assessment of performance at the end of the year. These objectives and assessments are subject to approval by the committee for performance awards which also makes the final determination of the amounts of awards.

The committee's reports for 2003 and 2004 are available in the Oireachtas Library. The reports contain details of the background of the scheme, including the setting of objectives, assessment of performance and the approved range of awards available under the scheme. The reports also include details of the distribution of awards as a percentage of pay, the range of monetary value of awards and the number of recipients. The report for 2005 will not be available until the second quarter of the year and I understand that the committee is considering including in that report details of total awards by local authorities.

Mr. P. McGrath

The committee did not outline the objectives.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

In the two years covered by the reports, awards to county and city managers ranged between 8% and 12% with an average award of 10.12%.

Mr. Ring

Not bad.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

In the case of grades other than manager, awards ranged between 4% and 15% with an average award of 9.9%. The maximum award of 20% was not made in any case. The average annual cost of the awards so far has been approximately €2.1 million across the local government sector.

The annual reports clearly set out relevant details of the scheme with the main exception of details concerning individuals. In a request for details concerning individuals in the comparable civil service scheme, the Information Commissioner decided on appeal that information on individuals constituted "personal records" in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1997.

Mr. Ring

He was a former civil servant.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

The commissioner in the decision stated that public servants, as with all employees, are entitled to a degree of privacy——

Mr. Ring

But not Deputies or Ministers.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

——in the evaluation of their work performance, competence or ability and found that this type of information is held by public bodies on the understanding that it would be treated by them as confidential. The commissioner found that, on balance, the public interest in protecting the right to privacy outweighed the public interest that the information be granted.

The operation of schemes of performance awards for senior public servants have in the past been reviewed by the review body on higher remuneration. That body has been activated again to review the remuneration of a wide range of senior public servants and has recently invited submissions by any person or organisation in connection with its review. It is, therefore, open to the Deputies to consider making a submission to the review body on any aspect of the current local government performance scheme.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 8 Feb 2006