I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to raise the very important issue of medical cards for persons with cancer. Medical cards have dominated much of the debate in recent months in that there was a proposal to cut their number and so on. I find it one of the hardest things in public life to get an answer stating a person suffering from cancer cannot be given a medical card. I raised this issue in the House only a number of months ago with the former Minister of State, Deputy Róisín Shortall. At the time she was in the middle of making a change, which I understood and accepted. However, I raise the issue again because I remain concerned that we have not arrived at a situation where people diagnosed with cancer, in particular the self-employed, can qualify for a medical card. Financial information is looked for, but the matter is very simple. When the oncologist sends a letter notifying that a person has cancer, he or she should be entitled to a medical card, at least for a short period until the financial and other issues have been cleared. My question is very specific. I raise the matter again today to ask that in a situation when a person is diagnosed with cancer, he or she immediately receive a medical card. The position is unfair. It is traumatic both for the person involved and his or her family. Cancer affects many people and their families. I implore the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, to act. Other countries also have dire financial problems and other issues that must be dealt with, but the reality is that we must look after sick and vulnerable people with cancer who are going through a very stressful period.
Topical Issue Debate
Medical Card Eligibility
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter.
More than 1.8 million medical cards have been issued to individuals, the highest number in the history of the State. It represents an increase of approximately 500,000 since the end of 2008. It is expected that the provision of GP services and prescription drugs under the general medical services scheme will cost almost €2 billion in 2012.
As the Deputy is aware, medical cards are provided for persons who, under the provisions of the Health Act 1970, in the opinion of the Health Service Executive are unable, without undue hardship, to arrange GP services for themselves and their dependants. Under the legislation, determination of eligibility for a medical card is the responsibility of the HSE. The assessment for a medical card is determined primarily by reference to the means, including income and expenditure, of the applicant and his or her partner and dependants. Under the legislation, there is no automatic entitlement to a medical card for persons with a specific illness such as cancer. There is, however, a provision for discretion by the HSE to grant a medical card in cases of undue hardship where the income guidelines are exceeded. The HSE set up a clinical panel to assist in the processing of applications for discretionary medical cards where there are difficult personal circumstances.
On the fast-tracking of medical card applications for certain categories, it is important to point out that the HSE already has an effective system in place for the provision of emergency medical cards for patients who are terminally ill, or who are seriously ill and in urgent need of medical care that they cannot afford. Emergency medical cards are issued within 24 hours of receipt of the required patient details and letter of confirmation of the condition from a doctor or medical consultant. This can be initiated through the local health office by the office manager who has access to a dedicated fax and e-mail contact within the PCRS. As a result, there are no plans to establish a new unit, given that this regime is in place.
With the exception of terminally ill patients, the HSE issues all emergency medical cards on the basis that the patient is eligible for a medical card on the basis of means or undue hardship and that the applicant will follow up with a full application within a number of weeks of receiving the emergency medical card. As a result, emergency medical cards are issued to a named individual, with a limited eligibility period of six months. The arrangement is slightly different for persons with a terminal illness. No means test applies to an application by a terminally ill patient. Once the terminal illness is verified, patients are given an emergency medical card for six months. Given the nature and urgency of the issue, the HSE has appropriate escalation routes to ensure the person receives the medical card as quickly as possible.
If an individual is unhappy with a decision made by the HSE on a medical card application, he or she has a right of appeal to the HSE appeals officer. The contact details of the appeals officer are provided by the HSE at the time of informing a person of a decision on his or her application. The appeal should be lodged within 21 days from the date of the decision.
I accept that matters have improved. I should have taken the opportunity earlier to thank the staff of the primary care reimbursement service unit who have adapted to the changes to their work practices and made the process much more efficient. The Minister of State referred to a new unit. I am not seeking that such a unit be established. I accept that the Minister of State is new to his position but I ask him to take matters in charge. The position has improved considerably in recent months. As outlined earlier, however, on Friday last I was visited at my constituency office by a person who was supposed to get a medical card but who did not receive it. The facts are not exactly as the Minister of State indicated. I am concerned about those who are experiencing undue hardship. In that context, the lines of communication must remain open. I again thank the Minister of State and ask him to continue to monitor the position.
I take the Deputy's point. It would never be the intention or wish of the HSE or any of us to discommode individual applicants, particularly those in the kind of circumstances outlined by the Deputy. I reiterate that there are more than 1.8 million medical cards and in excess of 130,000 GP-visit cards in circulation. This means that almost 43% of the population is covered by either medical cards or GP-visit cards. As stated earlier, the number of people in possession of these cards has increased enormously since 2009. The centralisation of the applications process has improved matters. Notwithstanding that difficulties may have been experienced or observed along the way, as Deputy Tom Hayes has acknowledged there have been manifest improvements. I cannot state that we have achieved perfection but the system has definitely improved. I observed that the latter was the case even before I took up my new position. We want these improvements to continue.
As Deputy Tom Hayes has also acknowledged, the primary care reimbursement service unit in Finglas is processing in the region of 30,000 to 40,000 applications on average each month. We have taken a range of steps to improve the system. The Deputy referred to an individual case. In that context, the HSE is reporting - I have no reason to question its information in this regard - that in excess of 95% of completed applications and renewals are processed within 15 working days. This is well ahead of the performance target and is not a bad achievement.
Home Help Service Provision
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this important issue. I am glad that the Minister of State, Deputy White, who has a fair degree of expertise in respect of Labour Court recommendations and who recognises their importance, is present. I look forward to his reply.
I wish to focus on the abject failure of the HSE to offer contracts to people employed as home helps and home care workers. Everyone is aware that these workers are predominantly female and that they play a pivotal role in the context of the HSE's home care and community care strategies. On 29 June 2012, the chairperson of the Labour Court made a recommendation - LCR 20312 - that the 2009 agreement regarding contracts for home helps, which refined an earlier agreement reached in 2007, "was reasonable and practical in circumstances where the hours of work of the home help service fluctuate to such an extent". The chairperson also recommended that the 2009 agreement should be used to conclude a final agreement which would address all issues raised by the unions and take account of the various matters raised by the HSE. She stated that discussions should be completed by the end of July, with the proviso that if there any issues outstanding, these could be referred back to the court for a definitive recommendation. Notwithstanding their best efforts to engage in a meaningful and constructive manner, the trade unions have been frustrated by the ongoing failure of the HSE to appoint an appropriate person of specific seniority to deal with this issue and assist in reaching an agreement that would be in everyone's interests, particularly those of home helps and the people to whom they provide services. I understand the Labour Court is equally frustrated by the dilatory behaviour of the HSE.
There were 12,356 home helps in 2008 or 2009 but their number had decreased to 9,384 as of 1 October last. Even with a decrease in the available budget, these home helps have continued to deliver the traditional and tremendous service that has always been provided. Since July, the number of home helps has decreased since 2%. This means that 10.25 million hours of home help services must be delivered by the 9,384 individuals to whom I refer. I deplore the reduction relating to this service. It is foolhardy to take away money from home helps, who play an extremely important role in keeping people comfortable and happy and ensuring that they can remain in their own homes and neighbourhoods. The amount it costs to put someone in a nursing home dwarfs that which is required to provide them with home help. It is about time those in the HSE removed their blinkers.
It is generally accepted that the working hours of home helps are not constant. In that context, some home helps could be offered redeployment if there was a reduction in their hours. This would mean that the HSE would not be obliged to engage in expenditure relating to agency work. The home helps and their trade unions are prepared to be flexible and adaptable but the HSE has been obstinate. Home helps are being treated as third-class workers. Some of them have been sent home, while others have been informed that they are on zero contract hours. A unilateral decision was taken to reduce their hours of work without any consultation whatsoever. This is 2012, not 1912. Home helps are surely entitled to be protected under the Croke Park agreement. In that context, there should be no displacement of their pivotally important work.
Home helps possess many skills. Some of them might have the necessary skills to allow them to work in the hospital service or they could share their hours of work between community and hospital services. However, they are not being afforded any recognition of the central role they play in the provision of health services.
It is disconcerting that the HSE has engaged - at great cost to itself - to privatise the home help service. I have seen the figures in this regard. We must ask whether the dilatory behaviour in which the HSE is engaging is part of a programme it has adopted in order to facilitate its agenda of privatising the home help service to a greater degree. Home helps employed by the HSE have been left with no safety net and are not being afforded equality of treatment. The latter is important. The HSE has blatantly resiled from implementing the guarantee of income clause which is set out in the agreement to which I refer. Surely home helps employed by the HSE are entitled to contracts of employment which reflect the hours they work. The HSE must honour the contractual arrangements in place and we must ensure work for the number of hours specified in contracts is provided.
We all know the value of home helps. They provide an invaluable service to older and vulnerable persons. I do not want to see a continuation of what has been happening to them, namely, the HSE outsourcing their work to the private sector. The HSE's actions in this regard have been greatly assisted by the fact that its home helps do not have meaningful contracts. It is past time the HSE behaved with the decency and decorum one would expect of any reasonable employer, especially a State employer. Its behaviour to date in respect of home helps has been less than stellar. On the contrary, it has been shameful.
I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. I wish to acknowledge his strong and impressive track record on the issue of carers and home helps for many years. As the Deputy noted, I had some experience of the Labour Court in a previous professional life. I was often - as I am sure he was - at the receiving end of its various recommendations, not all of which were favourable to those whom I was representing. I very much value the court and the industrial relations machinery of the State - both of which are important - and I would always encourage engagement with them.
I value the importance of the Labour Court and the industrial relations machinery of the State. I encourage all parties at all times to engage with those institutions.
My Department and the HSE recognise the importance of home help and home care in supporting older persons to live in their own homes and communities in accordance with Government policy. The HSE directly employs about 4,000 home helps. The number of hours worked by these staff varies according to service needs given that the home help service requires a unique set of arrangements to achieve the level of flexibility required.
The HSE has announced a reduction in the provision of home help hours as one of a number of measures required to address the current budget deficit, subject to home help services continuing to be available to those assessed as requiring them. A national contract of indefinite duration for home helps employed by the Health Service Executive was agreed in 2006 with the relevant trade union as part of the work of the high level group established to review home help services. The contracts of home help workers employed by the HSE have been the subject of further deliberation, including Labour Court consideration in the interim years.
As the Deputy mentioned, the terms and conditions of home helps employed by the HSE were covered by an agreement negotiated with the representative unions in 2009. On 29 June 2012, the Labour Court recommended that the HSE and SIPTU should engage on matters concerning home help contracts and in the event of there being any outstanding issues which could not be agreed that these would be referred back to the court. The HSE engaged with SIPTU and advised that as part of the process it would be undertaking an information-gathering exercise to ascertain the up-to-date position on the nature of the contracts held by home helps and the hours worked. This exercise is in train.
On 15 October 2012, having met with the parties again, the Labour Court recommended that the parties should re-engage under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and that this process should be completed by 30 November 2012. To assist the parties the court has identified the following issues to be considered: mechanisms to define specified hours; a protocol to be followed where specified hours are not met; qualifications for re-deployment; the question of privatisation, the use of agency providers and the establishment of financial data.
I fully appreciate the difference that quality home care can make to individuals and their families. It is widely acknowledged, both in Ireland and internationally, that the home help service is one of the key services in the community care of older people. The Government will make every effort, despite significant resource pressures, to protect front-line home support services for vulnerable older people.
I take everything the HSE says with a pinch of salt and a very good sprinkling of salt. The LRC agreement of 29 June indicated that the parties should enter into meaningful discussions on finalising a new agreement which should have been completed within one month of the date of recommendation, 29 June 2012. Allowing for the August holiday period, it should have been completed by the end of September. I hope the chairperson of the Labour Court takes this on board and moves ahead in the absence of the HSE. If the HSE does not come back by 30 November, I will be back here to ask about it in the House. The HSE will do everything to shilly-shally its way out of an agreement. I will not allow home helps across this country to be treated in a way that we had to fight against in the Lock-out. The Minister of State will appreciate the historical import of the Lock-out. It is time that the gloves come off. The HSE has been warned. It should become involved in the process in a meaningful way with people of stature and seniority who can conclude the agreement. The unions are prepared to be flexible as are the workers. They are even prepared to suggest solutions such as clustering of home help recipients so that a home help is not travelling ten miles to deliver the service but will stay within three or four miles. There are lots of money-saving suggestions. I agree that money is important but so are people's livelihoods and so are 39-hour contracts. People have families to rear and they cannot afford to have 20 hours taken away from them. I know the Minister of State has a particular interest in this area but I am sure he will expect there will be an agreement concluded by 30 November.
I have been assured that the HSE is working towards positive engagement at the Labour Relations Commission by the end of November, as the Labour Court recommended. The court has seisin of the issue at the moment so I do not think it would be appropriate to comment further given that the issues are being dealt with in that manner through the Labour Court. The date of 30 November is not too far away and it looms for all the parties.
Community Development Initiatives
I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. I raise a matter which is not unlike the previous issue as it is to do with community schemes to provide employment for the unemployed and for those who wish to make a contribution to their community. The home care issue is very relevant to this matter. Many people are of the view that community employment schemes should be extended to include home care. I was informed by HSE west that 79,000 hours of home help is available for 2,500 people in County Galway. This sounds impressive but there will be a loss of 12,000 hours per month. Community employment schemes could be extended to that area.
However, there seem to be differing rules and regulations governing three schemes and I will provide some examples. In the past if a community wished to prioritise a particular project such as building a wall, a meeting room or a group water scheme, the community employment schemes provided some assistance. For example, the extension or development of a graveyard would have been regarded as a local project. However, this does not seem to be the case now. Community employment schemes are not always permitted to become involved in such projects. There seems to be no difficulty as to the type of community work carried out under a rural social scheme nor are there time limits on the number of years a participant may be on the scheme. The big drawback is that a herd number is required in order for a person to qualify which means that person must be involved in the agriculture sector. That rules out quite a number of people from the scheme.
When Deputy Ó Cuív was the Minister responsible he introduced the Tús scheme which provides at least one year's work. My understanding is that a person cannot revert to community employment after completing one year on Tús.
I support all the schemes but there is a need for more places. There is also a case for retaining as many people as possible on these schemes because some have specialist skills who make a significant contribution to the schemes.
I ask the Minister of State to clarify the rules and regulations. One regulation states that community employment schemes may not work on graveyard projects. I refer to work to extend a graveyard by building a wall and this is a good example of the type of work that could be carried out. I refer in particular to the extension to Killyon graveyard in Newbridge, County Galway, near where I live. It was not possible to complete the work on that scheme because it was decided it was not a community project. The Department should allow works such as graveyard extension to be completed under a community employment scheme. I know this is what the people of Newbridge and Killyon would like to see happen.
There are many examples of community work that should be permitted. It is very unfair that two neighbours may be working on two different schemes but they are treated differently. They are both trying their best to work for the good of the community.
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. The employment schemes to which he refers came within the remit of the Department of Social Protection at the beginning of 2012. Community employment is an active labour market programme, with the emphasis on progression into employment and-or further education and training. The programme is managed within this context, with consideration given to the availability of resources and the needs of participants and the community.
The primary purpose of community employment is as a transitional programme to reintegrate the long-term unemployed and other specified disadvantaged groups into open labour market jobs. The programme is designed to provide fixed-term, temporary opportunities for persons on the live register who have been unemployed for a minimum of 12 months and in receipt of certain social welfare payments for specified periods. Participants on the programme work for an average of 19.5 hours per week and may also avail of training opportunities. Participation on the programme can vary from between one and seven years based on age and qualifying eligibility.
Under the community employment programme, public sector and voluntary organisations known as community employment sponsors are grant-aided by the Department in respect of sponsoring a community employment project. In turn, they benefit in a secondary way by being able to carry out worthwhile work which they could not otherwise undertake. Suitable projects are those that can be shown to respond to a clearly identified community need and develop the work skills of participants, thereby enhancing their prospects of obtaining a mainstream job. Revised community employment guidelines have been published recently and will be updated as and when required.
The community employment scheme, rural social scheme and Tús are employment programmes administered by the Department of Social Protection. The schemes have different target groups and overall aims, although they are similar in many respects. Participation on the community employment programme and rural social scheme is voluntary, while participants on Tús are selected by the Department of Social Protection. Each scheme has its own rules and regulations in line with the overall aims of each programme.
The rural social scheme is aimed at low income farmers and fishermen and fisherwomen. It provides a supplementary income where participants are unable to earn an adequate living from farming or fishing. To qualify for the scheme a person must be in receipt of certain social welfare payments and in return he or she provides services that benefit rural communities. The Department has overall responsibility for policy on the rural social scheme, including eligibility criteria. At a local level, the scheme is managed by implementing bodies such as local development companies and, in the Gaeltacht areas, Údarás na Gaeltachta.
A participant on the rural social scheme works 19.5 hours per week based on a schedule that is friendly to farming and fishing. This is done to ensure participation on the scheme does not affect a person's farming or fishing activities. Contracts run from the commencement date up to the following 31 March and participants may be considered for a further term following the initial contract if they continue to meet all the criteria for the scheme. Local management decides on each participant's renewal application. While it is not intended that anyone would remain on the scheme permanently, there is no definite time limit for participation.
Tús, on the other hand, is an activation initiative for those who are unemployed and on the live register. The initiative aims to support the work readiness of those who participate. It provides short-term quality and suitable working opportunities for people who are unemployed, while carrying out beneficial work within communities. It is hoped the scheme will contribute to the management of the live register and act as a disincentive to those who are not eligible for welfare benefits. Participants will be identified in the first instance by the Department of Social Protection by satisfying the following conditions. He or she will have been continuously unemployed for at least 12 months and "signing" on a full-time basis; be in receipt of a jobseeker's payment from the Department of Social Protection for at least 12 months; and be currently in receipt of jobseeker's allowance.
The Department will identify and contact persons on the live register who satisfy the criteria and offer them the opportunity to be considered for local placement as opportunities arise. When those identified agree to participate they will be referred to the local development company or Údarás na Gaeltachta office operating in their area for interview and consideration for placement. The local development companies and Údarás na Gaeltachta will maintain a panel from which persons will be recruited. As placement opportunities arise, those on the panel will be matched with the work and recruited. Prior to being offered a placement, it will be necessary to ensure that a person's general suitability for the work involved and his or her experience of similar work is established. This will be done at local level by relevant bodies. All types of work can be offered and details of the jobs available will be provided at an interview with the implementing body. Work will be community based and attempts will be made to match the person's skills and location to available work placements. It is obligatory to respond to any offer made to participate on Tús by the Department.
As Deputy Kitt may be aware, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, requested a review of the overall employment support schemes to ensure we obtain the best possible value from them.
The community employment programme, rural social scheme and Tús initiative are highly beneficial and much good work has been done under them. I ask that the Minister investigate differences in the manner in which the rules governing the schemes are applied in different areas. I hope the review will address the need to retain participants on the schemes.
The Minister of State indicated that participation in the community employment programme can vary from one to seven years based on age and qualifying eligibility. There is a significant difference between one and seven years and I do not know of many people who have spent seven years in community employment.
I stress the benefits of community employment to local areas and individual participants. As the Minister of State noted, schemes also provide an element of training which is also of significant benefit. I hope the Minister will do everything in her power to ensure the maximum number of people are employed on community employment schemes. A flexible approach must be taken to the rural social scheme, Tús and community employment. When communities identify projects, whether for water schemes, amenities that come under the Tidy Towns competition or, for example, an extension to a graveyard, these should be given priority by the Department.
I accept the points made by the Deputy. On the issue of rules, conditions or standards being applied differently, while I am sure the Minister wants rules to be applied uniformly in as far as this can be achieved, an element of flexibility is needed in all publicly funded schemes. It is important to acknowledge the need to have regard to the fundamental objectives of schemes, even as they evolve over the years. No one disagrees with the Deputy's comment on the need to value the community gain that arises from many of these schemes.
Unfinished Housing Developments
Just over a week ago I visited the Gleann Riada estate to hear at first hand the concerns of residents. Gleann Riada estate is an isolated estate that is located approximately one mile outside Longford town and does not have public transport links. I was taken aback by the litany of problems encountered by residents. There are slightly more than 80 dwellings housing approximately 300 men, women and children. Most residents have shared ownership and council mortgages, with nine of them in receipt of rent supplement.
As the Minister of State is aware, Gleann Riada is an unfinished estate on which a full block of apartments was pulled down earlier this year. The homes were built on a flood plain and the developer availed of section 23 tax exemptions. Two explosions in houses in the past seven months are suspected to be the result of leaking sewer gases caused by the insufficient and substandard sewerage network on the estate.
There is a terrible smell of sewage and other noxious gases, which has resulted in a large number of visits to local GPs for residents, who have missed work or school as a consequence. Residents throughout the estate report high rates of illness, and they are clear about who they believe is responsible. Local GPs are backing up these claims and are reporting higher rates of illness in Gleann Riada compared to other estates. There is visible subsidence under paths, shores and boundaries around the dwellings. One row of buildings which I am told should not have been occupied was occupied but it had no suitable fire escape. All it had was a door which led to a one-storey drop; the door was in place but there was no visible way out.
I visited a couple of the houses where gas monitors were in place. There was a very bad smell of sewage. The HSE and the local authorities have advised people living in these houses in what it has deemed as an unsafe estate to keep their windows open. Families struggling to make ends meet in what has become a living hell are being told, as winter sets in, to keep their windows open. These families are afraid to turn on the heating or light fires, cookers or even a cigarette for fear of another explosion. The HSE has said it is unsafe, yet people are still moving into the estate on rent supplement from the HSE. The State is actually subsidising the endangerment of these people.
The families are asking to be evacuated and accommodated elsewhere until the issues are resolved for once and for all. Is the Minister aware that the HSE has said this is an unfit and unsafe estate? Is he aware the estate was built on a flood plain? Is he aware that the HSE and Longford County Council have asked residents to keep their windows, doors and vents open, not to light fires and to smoke outside? I visited some of these houses. The chimneys are not properly secured, paths are sinking, the sewerage systems are substandard, and there are no proper radon layers.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. Who signed off on this estate? Why is the HSE continuing to offer rent supplement in the estate? Is the Minister aware that a HSE primary care centre has been built in a neighbouring field in the same flood plain? That primary care centre is essential for Longford, but why was it built in that location on a flood plain? What were the criteria used to make that decision? What investigations have been carried out into the standards that applied in this regard with planners and others in Longford County Council?
Having visited this estate and spoken to the residents about all the issues that have been raised, I am of the view that it should be evacuated. I ask the Minister to give us some indicator as to what can be done here and not kick the issue to touch to the local authority or elsewhere because this is a very serious issue.
I thank the Deputy for raising the matter. An explosion occurred within a private house - one of a terrace of six houses - in the Gleann Riada development in Longford in March of this year. Subsequently, Longford County Council appointed a firm of consulting engineers, Tobin Consultants, to investigate the causes of the explosion. The specific findings of the report from Tobin Consultants have been made available to residents of the terrace in Gleann Riada, in addition to general advice which was made available to other residents of the estate. Longford County Council has established a steering group to address the range of issues faced by the occupants of the Gleann Riada development and is liaising with the other State authorities involved including, inter alia, the Health and Safety Authority.
Given that this matter is currently the subject of legal action it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time, save to note that the Minister is aware of a second explosion having occurred in this development earlier this month and is following developments in respect of this estate closely. Unfortunately, the issues faced by the residents of the Gleann Riada development are a severe example of the legacy problems this Government inherited on a national basis in regard to unfinished housing developments throughout the State.
The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, is leading the Government's work on tackling this issue. She is chairing the national co-ordination committee on unfinished housing developments to oversee implementation of the report of the advisory group on unfinished housing developments, together with the Government's response to the recommendations. The committee comprises representatives from the banking sector, the local authorities, NAMA and the construction sector, as well as from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. The Minister, Deputy Hogan, considers that harnessing these various areas of expertise in a collaborative approach will result in the most effective resolution of the issues we face, many of which were set out by the Deputy.
Outputs from this committee so far include the preparation of a guidance manual, Managing and Resolving Unfinished Housing Developments, published in August 2011; the preparation of a key stakeholders' code of practice and a residents' guide, both published last week; overseeing a public safety initiative which provides funding support of €5 million; improved national and local co-ordination through the City and County Managers' Association; engagement and co-ordination of initiatives with NAMA; engagement with the banking sector through the Irish Banking Federation; and reviewing best practice initiatives and progress on the preparation of site resolution plans nationally. The committee is meeting on a regular basis with the aim of publishing a report on progress achieved within the next 12 months. In the meantime, work is ongoing on implementation of the report of the advisory group and real progress is already being made with regard to the public safety works required to improve the living conditions of existing residents in some unfinished estates. The Government is very much alive to the issues that have been raised by the Deputy.
I do not blame the Government for what has happened in this case. It did not happen on this Government's watch but on the watch of a previous Government in recent years when there was a lack of regulation, control, checks and balances.
This is a serious issue. The reports I have from people living in the estate as to what is happening, the state of some of the houses, and the fact that a second explosion occurred within a short time after the previous one indicates that there is something seriously wrong in the estate. The gap is so big one can see underneath the houses, and it is clear the ground is sinking. It is built on a swamp.
That brings me to another issue. The HSE rented a field beside this estate and put a new primary care centre, which nobody disputes is badly needed for the Longford area, in it. I cannot understand how that got past the planners, the inspectors and all the different regulations because this is only a recent event. It is a mile from the town. There is no proper public transport. How this site was chosen baffles me but someone must answer for that.
Studies have been done on the prolonged effects of the gases that have been identified, and there are monitors in these houses. They have serious effects. That is the reason we are getting reports of people suffering from nausea and headaches, and it is the reason there is an increase in illnesses. Doctors locally have verified that a higher proportion of people are sick in that estate than elsewhere.
I am aware there is a court case going on but when everything else fails, the Government must come forward and sort out these problems. That is what I am asking the Minister to do. When that court case and a number of other issues are settled, this matter will end up back in the Minister's lap and we will need action because the people in this estate cannot live in these conditions. The children are being put in serious danger. I plead with the Minister, when we get to the next stage, to take urgent action.
I note again the points the Deputy has made in his rejoinder. Like him, the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, is committed to resolving what is a spectrum of issues that have arisen not only in regard to Gleann Riada, which is the one the Deputy has raised, but the problems being experienced nationally by residents in unfinished housing developments, which is an acute and difficult issue.
Under the public safety initiative for unfinished housing developments, the Department has made allocations totalling €3.38 million to 21 local authorities from the funding made available to address immediate public safety issues. The works approved to date include the fencing off of unsecured and hazardous areas, capping of pipes, installation of street lighting and other works to secure sites. In respect of the development at Gleann Riada, Longford, the Department approved funding totalling €91,753 in August to cover the cost of addressing immediate public safety concerns there. Developments in 20 other local authority areas have also been supported under the public safety initiative.
The first annual progress report of the national co-ordination committee on unfinished housing developments, NCC, published by the Department on 5 July, confirmed that significant progress had been made nationally on the issue. While 2,876 estates had been identified as unfinished in the previous baseline survey, this number had been reduced to 2,066. It should be noted, however, that not all of these developments are seriously problematic, although many are. The Minister anticipates this progress will be reflected in the 2012 national housing development survey now under way. The results of that survey are expected later in the year.