Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Jun 2006

Vol. 622 No. 3

Adjournment Debate.

Hospital Services.

Mr. O’Shea

On Monday last week an article appeared in the Irish Independent quoting from an internal Health Service Executive document, dated April 2006, entitled Framework for Progressing Co-Location of Private Hospitals on Public Hospital Sites. The article was headed “Plans for Private Clinics on Hospital Sites Shelved”, with the subheading, “HSE to pilot two centres before scheme go-ahead”. The article stated:

The paper reveals that the HSE plans to pilot up to two private hospitals on public hospital lands before deciding whether to continue with the project . . . . . The four hospitals seen by sources as most likely to be the first in line for private hospitals are St. James's Hospital and Beaumont Hospital in Dublin, Cork University Hospital and Limerick Regional Hospital.

Having campaigned for years for a radiotherapy unit at Waterford Regional Hospital, I found the report extremely alarming. On 25 July 2005, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, announced that the Government had approved a national network for radiation oncology services to be put in place by 2011. This network would include two integrated satellite centres for Waterford. Most of the funding for the approximately €400 million plus for the national capital investment involved was to be through a public private partnership.

On reading the article, I immediately tabled a parliamentary question asking about the development of the satellite unit at Waterford Regional Hospital. The same day, a press release came from the HSE stating that the Irish Independent article was without foundation and was based on an outdated internal document, despite a HSE clarification of the matter when speaking with the publication involved.

The press release also stated:

Expressions of interest are to be submitted to the National Hospitals Office by June 30th, at which time short-listing will take place. After the competitive dialogue stage, successful consortiums will be invited to tender for the provision of a private hospital on the above sites [those were the 11 sites that were named]. Depending on the number of successful applicants, the HSE will move forward with the co-location of private hospitals on all or some of the above sites.

When one examines the HSE statement, one is struck by the highly qualified nature of the final paragraph. There is no certainty as to how many co-located private hospitals will go ahead. Elsewhere in the press release there is mention of a competitive dialogue stage after which successful consortia will be invited to tender for the provision of a private hospital on the 11 sites.

Having queried this by means of a parliamentary question, I was insulted by the threadbare nature of the response that did not advance my knowledge of the matter in any way. On behalf of the people I represent, I demand to know what type of radiation oncology service is going to be provided and when it will be put in place. Various dates have been given for the provision of radiotherapy at Waterford Regional Hospital, from 2008 to 2011. I want to know if we are all being misled by the HSE and the Minister. Is the provision of radiotherapy through public private partnership at Ardkeen simply a gimmick by the Government parties to get them over the next general election?

Access for public cancer patients to radiotherapy can be provided this year at the University of Pittsburgh medical centre at the new Whitfield Clinic in Waterford, if public funding is provided. I am demanding an undertaking from the Tánaiste that cancer patients from the south-east region will not be denied this access, pending what may or may not be initiated by this Government at Waterford Regional Hospital. Such patients should not be forced to suffer gruelling journeys to Cork and Dublin when they are at their most vulnerable. Failure to cater for public cancer patients in this way is absolutely inequitable and unacceptable.

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Miss de Valera)

I am taking this matter on behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children. She has asked me to assure the House that the Government is committed to making the full range of cancer services, including radiation oncology services, available and accessible to cancer patients throughout Ireland in accordance with best international practice.

As the Tánaiste advised the Deputy in response to his question on 22 June, the Government's plan is for a national network of radiation oncology services consisting of four large centres in Dublin, Cork and Galway, and two satellite centres at Waterford Regional Hospital and Limerick Regional Hospital. In order to ensure that the same standard and quality of care is delivered in the satellite locations, it is important that they be fully integrated with the main centres. The same clinical staff will work in both the main and the satellite centres. This will enable patients to receive the best possible diagnosis and treatment from multi-disciplinary teams covering surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. It is intended that the service at Waterford will be linked to the existing radiotherapy facility at Cork University Hospital and that the service at Limerick will be linked to that at University College Hospital, Galway.

The capital investment involved in providing the national network is estimated at over €400 million, most of which is to be funded through a public private partnership. The PPP will be a single design, build, finance, manage and partially operate project. It is anticipated that the bundling of radiation oncology developments on a number of hospital sites into one contract with a large capital value will offer greater synergies and innovation, will transfer risk to the private sector and will ensure that all centres are compatible so that they can deliver integrated cancer care across the State.

There is a significant amount of work to be done in preparation for a public private partnership. Towards this end, the Department of Health and Children is working closely with the HSE and the National Development Finance Agency. The NDFA has assembled a team to progress the financial and procurement aspects, and the HSE has appointed a project manager to lead out on its input.

A clinical output specification group, which includes leading experts in the field, is well advanced in specifying the clinical aspects of the development. Technical advisers will be appointed shortly to advise on the construction and other technical aspects of the project.

The precise phasing of the development at Waterford and at the other locations will be addressed when the output specifications have been drawn up as part of the PPP process. The aim is to have the national network in place in 2011. This is an ambitious target but the Tánaiste is determined that access to radiotherapy services for people in the Waterford area will be enhanced at the earliest possible date.

Inland Waterways.

Mr. Gormley

I am grateful to the Chair for giving me the opportunity to raise what is a very important issue for my constituents especially and, indeed, anyone who cares about the environment. The mission statement of Waterways Ireland reads as follows:

Waterways Ireland is the guardian of Ireland's inland navigations. Our mission is to provide a high quality recreational environment on waterways in our care for the benefit of all . . . . . The inland waterways have intrinsic value as areas of ecological, archaeological, architectural, engineering and historic value. Their size and geographical extent within Ireland are of regional and international significance.

As a consequence, Waterways Ireland says it wants to manage them "in an environmentally sustainable way". These are lofty and laudable aspirations but do they match the reality? I am afraid they do not. The sections of the Grand Canal and Grand Canal basin in my constituency are in a poor state. They have been the subject of numerous complaints to my office. So frustrated are many of my constituents with the state of the canal that they have taken matters into their own hands by trying to clean it up themselves. I have assisted them on a number of occasions but in such a rich country — the second richest in the European Union, if we are to believe statistics — we should not have to undertake this sort of work, which is the duty of Waterways Ireland.

I urge the Minister to venture not far from his offices and take a walk along the canal towards Portobello. He can look at the shopping trolleys, traffic cones, beer cans, bottles and bin liners. Does the Minister think this is acceptable? He should walk towards Baggot Street, where he could observe people outside The Barge pub enjoying themselves. The canal is a wonderful amenity in our city, so often celebrated by one of our greatest poets, Patrick Kavanagh. Further along, close to Huband Bridge, local residents have for years looked for a new lamp stand. If one carries on along the canal, one would come to the Canal Basin and the Grand Canal Dock. Following pressure from me, a major clean-up was carried out there on 30 May last but it should never have come to that. I have photographs which show the appalling state the canal had fallen into.

Staff in Waterways Ireland have told me off the record that there are very serious funding issues in this regard. Last year, €7.75 million was spent on the cleaning of the canals. To date this year, only €2.88 million has been spent. More money is needed and more staff are required. My sources tell me that staff spend much of the summertime clearing out and cutting weeds, which is very time consuming, and that the amount of litter increases in the summertime. What is needed is greater investment and a dedicated core staff. I would go so far as to suggest we require dedicated canal wardens, which would be the best way forward.

There is no question but that the canal is a fantastic amenity. I recently visited County Kildare, where I swam in the canal, which is fantastic in that area. I would like to have a situation where we can swim in the canal in Dublin. We must clean it up. I have visited German cities where the canals are fantastic. That is the vision I have for the canal in Dublin and for my constituents. They will be grateful if the Minister of State can provide positive news.

Miss de Valera

I have listened attentively to the Deputy. I am delighted he has raised this issue because in so doing he has given me an opportunity to reacquaint myself with an area for which I had responsibility in a previous life. I am standing in for the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, who must attend to other responsibilities.

Waterways Ireland employs dedicated operational staff who are responsible for the upkeep of the Grand Canal. These staff carry out day-to-day maintenance operations and the cleaning duties to which the Deputy referred. Their duties include weed control, cutting and spraying in water, dredging, grass cutting, hedge cutting, towpath and bank maintenance and litter collection. The litter removal and grass cutting work is generally undertaken on a continual basis, with each section being attended to on a rotating three week basis.

At any given time, in the summer months, there are approximately nine full-time staff operating on the stretch of the Grand Canal between Ringsend Basin and the 12th Lock at Lucan, a distance of approximately 16 kilometres. These staff comprise three lock-keepers, two weed-cutting boat operators and four others involved in litter collection and grass cutting.

As the House will be aware, the summer months can bring their own problems regarding waterway maintenance and increased litter. To counteract these problems Waterways Ireland has hired a contractor with a hydraulic excavator fitted with a weed-cutting basket to cut and remove vegetation from the canal channel in the locations where this machinery can gain access. The use of this contractor has freed up Waterways Ireland staff to further concentrate on grass cutting and litter removal.

Waterways Ireland's regional staff monitor the situation on the ground on a daily basis and have noticed an increase in litter being deposited on the canal banks, which subsequently makes its way into the water channel. Waterways Ireland is determined to address this issue. However, I must make the point that people who use the canal — I am sure the Deputy will agree with this point — must take personal responsibility for not damaging the amenity that attracts them to spend their lunch time there in the first place. I plead with the general public to bring their rubbish back to the office bin with them and to enjoy their lunch alongside the canal but not to throw litter alongside or into the canal.

The Deputy will be interested to learn that Waterways Ireland spent approximately €750,000 in 2005 on maintaining the Grand Canal on the stretch between Ringsend Basin and the 12th Lock at Lucan. Much of that money could no doubt have been better spent if our citizens could be persuaded not to litter in the first place. That said, I am informed that Waterways Ireland will carry out trials with a specialist subcontractor towards the end of July using a purpose-built boat designed to collect and remove floating and submerged debris. These trials will be carried out on the city levels from Baggot Street to Portobello.

Waterways Ireland works closely with local community groups which are concerned about keeping the canal amenity in pristine condition, including groups who organise clean-up days in the area between Portobello and Ringsend Basin. The Deputy might be interested to know that one of these clean-ups is planned for this coming Saturday — he might be planning to join it.

We are all indebted to the great spirit shown by the local communities along the canal. However, neither local community groups nor Waterways Ireland can prevent other, less responsible, people from depositing litter. Dublin is privileged to have two wonderful canals at the heart of the city. Very few cities have such wonderful amenities and I would like the Deputy to join with me and the Minister in asking for greater civic responsibility from all users of the canal.

I commend Waterways Ireland on the tremendous efforts it is making to ensure the waterways of Ireland are preserved and enhanced for the benefit of all the people in both parts of the island.

School Staffing.

Mr. Perry

I previously put down a question with regard to St. Joseph's school, Killenummery, Dromahair, as there were 50 pupils on the roll for September 2006, which is one above the appointment figure. The Minister's reply was as follows:

The board, having considered the appeal with regard to the criteria outlined in Circular 0024/2006, was satisfied that a departure from the staffing schedule is not warranted in this case. The board of management of the school was notified in writing of the decision of the appeal board on 26 May 2006. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to intervene in the operations of the independent appeal board.

It would be appropriate to intervene. Both classrooms in the school are currently overcrowded. The junior room in particular falls well short of the accommodation criteria as per the rules for national schools. Currently, there are 22 pupils in a room which is 23.4 sq. m., an area large enough to accommodate only 16 pupils, according to section 31 of the rules for the national schools. The projected enrolment for the coming school year, 2006-07, will mean that there will be 27 pupils in this room. The senior classroom is an outdated prefab structure which can barely accommodate its current 22 pupils.

A letter from the principal states:

We intended to apply for a permanent structure pending the appointment of a second mainstream teacher. We do have a resource room in the main building which could be used to accommodate a concessionary teacher. If this happened there would be adequate space for all pupils. We would also like to highlight the fact that in terms of multi-grade classes, with four grades in each room class sizes of 27 and 22 are very high in light of the current guidelines and cramped conditions. We feel that it is very difficult to meet the needs of our pupils to adequately deliver the new curriculum under these conditions.

This is an appalling case. The indications for projected enrolments are positive. Having carried out a survey of the catchment area, the school authorities are confident of maintaining their attendance figures.

Part 2 of the schedule sets out three grounds for appealing a decision. They include circumstances in which a departure from the staffing schedule is warranted to meet exceptional accommodation difficulties such as schools operating on a split site for a period following amalgamation or prior to the provision of a permanent building or in the event that the board is satisfied, on the basis of verifiable evidence, that the required pupil numbers were enrolled in September or October 2005 but, due to circumstances outside the control of the school, were not enrolled on 30 September 2005. However, for staffing purposes, a pupil can be included in the enrolment of only one school in any school year.

I appreciate that the Minister of State was not directly involved in the case. I visited the school in question last week to find that one teacher is teaching 27 children in four classes in a room which is adequate to accommodate only 16 children. This places considerable pressure on the teacher. I am disappointed with the statement by the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, that the board of management was notified of the decision and that it would not be appropriate for her to intervene. As Minister, she has overall responsibility for these matters. As to whether the school was visited, it was not. In the case of exceptional accommodation difficulties, the question is whether the existing accommodation is adequate for an additional teacher. It is. Another question is whether the building unit of the Department has been contacted by the board of management regarding accommodation difficulties.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should conclude.

Mr. Perry

I ask the Minister of State to intervene with the appeal board in this case. The issue at stake here is one of equality at a critical time in children's education.

Miss de Valera

The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, is unable to attend this debate and has asked me to respond to the Deputy on her behalf. I thank the Deputy for raising this matter as it provides me with an opportunity to outline the position of the Department of Education and Science on staffing at St. Joseph's national school, Killenummery, Dromahair, County Leitrim.

The mainstream staffing of a primary school is determined by reference to the enrolment of the school on 30 September of the previous year. The number of mainstream posts is determined by reference to a staffing schedule which is finalised for a particular school year following discussions with the education partners. The staffing schedule is set out in a circular which issues from the Department of Education and Science to all primary school boards of management. Accordingly, all boards are aware of the staffing position for their school in any school year.

At present, the general rule is that the schedule provides at least one classroom teacher for every 29 pupils in the school. Schools with only one or two teachers have much lower staffing ratios than this, with two teachers for just 12 pupils in some cases and so forth. The general rule, however, is that there is a teacher for every 29 children in the school. Next year, this figure will fall to 28 children per classroom teacher and in 2007-08 it will be reduced to 27 per classroom teacher.

The school referred to by the Deputy had an enrolment on 30 September 2005 of 45 pupils, which warrants a staffing for the 2006-07 school year of a principal and one mainstream teacher.

Mr. Perry

The figure has increased to 50.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please.

Miss de Valera

I thank the Deputy for that information. The information I was given as late as this afternoon was that the enrolment on 30 September 2005 was 45 pupils, which warrants a staffing for the 2006-07 school year of a principal and one mainstream teacher. The school is also the base school for the services of a learning support-resource teacher shared with one other school.

To ensure openness in the teacher allocation system at primary level, an independent primary staffing appeal board is in place to decide on any appeals on mainstream staffing. The staffing of the school in question for the 2006-07 school year was considered by the appeal board on 25 May 2006. The board, having considered the appeal with regard to the criteria outlined in the Department circular 24/2006, was satisfied that a departure from the staffing schedule was not warranted in this case. The board of management of the school was notified of the decision of the appeal board on 26 May 2006. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for the Minister to intervene in the operation of the independent appeal board. I thank him for raising this matter.

Housing Management Companies.

Mr. McCormack

The practice of local authorities making it a condition of planning permissions for housing developments that an estate management company be established has got out of hand. Young first-time buyers and all purchasers in such estates are letting themselves in for an annual penalty which is much more dangerous than when rates were imposed on houses.

The management companies, which are set up by the developer, are charging householders figures ranging from €450 per annum in housing estates to €2,000 per annum in apartments. In some cases the fees can be doubled from year to year with no right of appeal for the householder. A year ago, when this matter was brought to the attention of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, he said he would do something about it. More than seven months ago, when I again raised this matter with the Minister in a parliamentary question, he stated: "The Law Reform Commission working group is currently examining a range of legal issues relating to management of multi-unit structures". What about householders in detached or semi-detached houses who are locked into the management company system set up by developers?

In the same reply, the Minister indicated that he did not approve of local authorities including a management company clause in planning permissions and noted that his Department had asked planning authorities to report on their policy on the attachment of such conditions on planning permissions. Nothing has happened since. Two weeks ago, the Taoiseach shed crocodile tears in the House about how this practice penalises householders and indicated it could not continue but neither he nor the Minister is doing anything to address the problem. It did not take me seven months to determine that the practice continues in planning authorities.

Last week, Galway County Council granted permission for the construction of 61 houses in Loughrea — planning reference No. 05/3642 — in a development in which standard houses account for more than 80% of the units. It will include three detached and 42 semi-detached houses, six terraced houses and ten apartments, yet the developer is obliged to establish a management company under a condition of the permission.

Similarly, in Galway City, I can cite two examples of recent decisions to grant permission where such conditions were included. Planning reference No. 05/470 relates to an application at Ballyburcach for four detached houses. Condition 19 of the permission states: "The proposed communal open spaces, car parking areas and access road within the site of the development shall be retained in private ownership and control shall be maintained by a properly constituted management company".

Also in Galway city, a recent decision — planning reference No. 05/833 — to grant permission for a development, including seven town houses at Newcastle Road, featured a condition requiring the establishment of a management company. All annual management company charges imposed as a result of these decisions will be borne by householders who have no control over the charges they will face. Will the Minister get his finger out and, if necessary, introduce legislation to end this practice of local authorities conspiring with developers to impose this additional financial burden on householders?

Is it right that I, a resident of an estate, receive free of charge a service for which all buyers of new houses in similar estates must pay, sometimes at exorbitant rates? The curious aspect of the management company clause in planning permissions is that the developer must set up the management company and these frequently consist of the same personnel as the construction company. In many cases, purchasers of homes in these developments commit to purchasing the house before they know the extra annual charges they will be required to pay to management companies.

It is time this Government woke up. How much more does it think first-time buyers can take? The Government has already added €40,000 to the cost of a house, abolished the first-time buyer's grant, raised VAT charges to 13% and made provision for development charges of up to €9,000 on every house. The annual management fee is equivalent to house rates except that the rates go to the developer rather than the local authority. What will the Minister do about it?

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. N. Ahern)

The Planning and Development Act 2000 allows for the attachment of management company conditions to planning permissions for residential estates. This recognises the fact that management companies have been traditionally set up for the maintenance of apartment buildings and their attendant private grounds. In late 2005 my Department requested that a survey of planning authorities be carried out regarding their policy on attaching planning conditions relating to management companies in different types of residential estates. The responses to that survey indicate that the majority of planning authorities do not attach management company conditions to planning permissions for estates comprising houses only. A number do so in very specific circumstances, for example, where there is a shared facility between those houses such as a playground that will need ongoing management arrangements. It is not appropriate to attach planning conditions regarding management companies in the case of traditional housing estates——

Mr. McCormack

The Minister should take the examples I gave him.

Mr. N. Ahern

By this I mean estates of houses with their own front and back gardens. Planning authorities should take in charge the public roads, no matter what type of residential estate is in question. On 25 January 2006, my Department issued circular letter PD 1/06 reminding local authorities of their obligations under section 180 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 regarding taking in charge of estates. The circular letter states that the existence of a management company to maintain elements of common buildings and carry out landscaping must not impact upon the decision by the authority to take in charge roads and related infrastructure where a request to do so is made. My Department has also asked all local authorities to prepare a policy on the matter. Councillors should be vigilant in upholding that policy.

The issue of planning authorities attaching conditions relating to management companies is not straightforward. This is because the traditional housing estate is, in many areas, being replaced by the mixed estate which contains apartments, duplex houses and terraced houses with shared facilities such as car-parking and gardens. High specification paving, lighting and landscaping are frequently features of such estates. Genuine questions arise as to whether it is appropriate that all these facilities should be taken in charge and maintained at public expense. Many of these facilities are replacing the traditional gardens which, in a conventional housing estate, would fall to be maintained by the residents rather than the local authority.

It is unreasonable to say it might never be appropriate for planning authorities to require the formation of a management company; this would contradict the enabling provisions in this regard decided by the Oireachtas in 2000. There may be instances, say in smaller developments, where the residents might prefer a management company to manage the facilities. In other cases they may have facilities, such as a children's playground or a shared sewage treatment plant, which they want to keep for their own use but which have to be managed.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the face of housing in Ireland is being totally transformed. This transformation has been underpinned by the 2000 Act. Some 35% of all dwellings built in the greater Dublin area are apartments, and that increases to over 50% in Dublin. That demands new policy responses from my Department and from local authorities. As the Deputy knows, I published last December the Housing Policy Framework: Building Sustainable Communities. This sets out an agenda for an integrated package of policy initiatives on matters which included supporting higher densities and compact urban settlement through design innovation in the creation of new homes, new urban spaces and new neighbourhoods.

The Department will also update the residential density guidelines and it is intended to examine the issue of management companies in that context. To do that the Department will shortly set up a working group representing the many interests involved to start considering these complex issues. Consideration will also be given to whether interim guidance should issue to planning authorities regarding planning conditions in relation to management companies. There are issues relating to the operation and control of management companies. My Department has raised ways to try to address those issues with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which has certain responsibilities in this area.

The Dáil adjourned at 11.05 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 28 June 2006.