Topical Issue Debate

Lourdes Hospital Redress Scheme Extension

Deputy Brendan Ryan

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important matter and to share time with my colleague, Deputy Hannigan. Our colleague Deputy Gerald Nash, who is unable to speak this afternoon, has long advocated with me and Deputy Hannigan on behalf of the women excluded from the Lourdes Hospital redress scheme. I am very grateful to the Minister, Deputy Reilly, for attending in person to deal with this important issue. We share a constituency in which people are affected by the issue I raise.

There is a commitment in the programme for Government to seek a mechanism to compensate those women who were excluded on age grounds alone from the Lourdes Hospital redress scheme. Over the past 18 months, this matter has been raised by way of Topical Issue debate, on the Order of Business and in numerous parliamentary questions. Despite all this pressure, we have seen absolutely no progress towards a resolution for the affected women. Responses received by all public representatives have been very similar and give no comfort to the women. In May of this year, following my raising of the matter with the Taoiseach on the Order of Business, I received a letter from the Minister's office stating a review is ongoing to identify a mechanism to compensate the women, and that the review included instructions and legal advice from the Attorney General. The letter also stated it is the Minister's intention to bring a proposal to the Government on this matter before the summer recess. Given that we are so close to that recess now, can the Minister give us concrete information today on proposals for the women? The delay thus far has been inexcusable. I implore the Minister not to allow the delay to go any further.

Deputy Dominic Hannigan

I am thankful for the opportunity to raise this issue. I thank the Minister for being in the Chamber for this debate. He has recently returned from Vilnius and I hope his journey home was comfortable.

I have been raising this issue with Deputy Brendan Ryan and Deputy Gerald Nash since the Government was formed two and half years ago. We tabled parliamentary questions, had Topical Issue debates and requested meetings with the office of the Minister. As Deputy Ryan stated, we have been receiving the same answer for two and a half years. While all this has been happening, there are still 35 women who are waiting to find out whether they will receive the redress that they deserve and to which they are entitled. We feel the women deserve better than what they are getting.

My office spoke to the advocacy group Patient Focus this morning. It is very concerned about the response that the Taoiseach gave in this House on this issue. The group's concern, based on his answer, is that the commitment to publish the Walsh report, along with a credible plan to include the 35 women within the redress scheme, will not now be met before the end of next week, when the House is to rise. To quote the Taoiseach from this morning, "Given the time constraints on us between now and the summer recess, I will see what can be done.” The Minister knows very well from his involvement in this issue that we made a commitment in the programme for Government to compensate the 35 women. We did so with open eyes. In March, the Department made a commitment to have answers for the women by the end of next week. Like Deputy Ryan, I ask the Minister to give us a commitment to bring the Walsh report before the Cabinet on Tuesday and publish it, along with the plans to include the excluded women in the redress scheme by the end of next week. I hope he will be able to do that. It is expected that he can make this happen. He is very concerned about the matter and very committed. We need to see him deliver on it now.

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly)

The Lourdes Hospital redress scheme was established following the findings and recommendations contained in the report on peripartum hysterectomy at the hospital, The Lourdes Hospital Inquiry, published in 2006. The inquiry was conducted by Ms Justice Maureen Harding Clark. The inquiry did not extend to a wider examination of Dr. Michael Neary's general practice or of the clinical practice of his colleagues. During the inquiry, however, Ms Justice Harding Clark became aware that there were patients who had undergone a bilateral oophorectomy - the removal of both ovaries or a remaining single functioning ovary at the time of obstetric hysterectomy or as a gynaecological procedure - which was not clinically necessary. These women lost the ability to reproduce and suffered immediate surgical menopause.

The scheme of redress approved by the Government was a non-statutory ex gratia scheme. Awards were determined by an independent redress board in 2007 and 2008. It was chaired by Ms Justice Harding Clark. The objective of the scheme was to provide compensation to former patients of Dr. Neary who received unnecessary obstetric hysterectomies, namely, hysterectomies carried out in association with pregnancy, and also to women under 40 years of age who received unnecessary bilateral oophorectomy.

The Department of Health has been engaged in a review to consider various mechanisms to compensate those women who were excluded from the redress scheme on age grounds alone. This review involves taking instruction and legal advice, including advice from the Office of the Attorney General, with a view to bringing proposals on a scheme to the Government for a decision. It is my intention to bring these proposals on this important and sensitive issue to the Government before the summer recess.

Deputy Brendan Ryan

I thank the Minister for the positive response, with just a week to go in this session. I was concerned that previous commitments could not be met. I take the Minister's word that a proposal will be brought to the Government before the summer recess and I thank him for it.

Deputy Dominic Hannigan

I thank the Minister for his response. It was very clear and we are very grateful for it. I hope that he manages to find the time to talk to the various interest groups in advance of going public so they will be aware of what is being said.

Public Transport Fares

Deputy Simon Harris

I very much thank and welcome the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to the Chamber to address this Topical Issue on the anomaly faced by Greystones DART commuters with regard to the pricing structure of their tickets. It is really an issue of fairness and equity. Ten years ago, the DART was extended to my hometown, Greystones, and has been a great success. Every morning, thousands upon thousands of commuters use the service and everything is going well in that regard. The difficulty and lack of fairness arises from the fact that Greystones commuters are paying through the nose for the service. This arises from outdated pricing structures. This would be somewhat understandable if the extension were new but it is now a decade old. It is utterly unacceptable that, ten years on, Iarnród Éireann, in conjunction with the National Transport Authority, has not rectified this pricing structure anomaly.

The Minister does not set the price of train tickets and I am not asking him to. However, I am asking him to bang heads together and ask the NTA and Iarnród Éireann to undertake the necessary review to remove this anomaly. For example, a return DART fare between Bray, the nearest station to Greystones, and Pearse Station, costs €5.80, while a return journey from Greystones to Pearse Station costs €9.60. This is an additional 66% for the luxury of going one extra stop. I have pursued this issue in many ways before tabling it in the House, including extensive correspondence with Iarnród Éireann and the NTA. On 25 May 2011, shortly after my election to the House, I received acknowledgements from the then chief executive of Iarnród Éireann that these anomalies existed and a review of commuter fares would be carried out at the end of that year. More than two years later, while I acknowledge efforts have been made and there is parity of fares in annual tickets, if I board the DART in Greystones today, I will pay 66% more to travel to the city centre than a person boarding the train in Bray. This is not justifiable or fair. We are happy to pay our way but this must be done in a fair manner. The people of Greystones should not pay more than the people of Sandymount or any other DART location, proportionate to their distance from the city centre, for the luxury of using the service.

Following a frustrating period trying to rectify this, I ask that the process be sped up and timeframes put in place. I understand it is a difficult time for Irish Rail financially but we cannot have a situation in which the pockets of Greystones commuters are being picked because of an anomaly in the fare structure. That anomaly needs to be rectified and fairness is needed. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar)

Public transport fares are matters for the CIE operating companies in conjunction with the NTA. Under the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008, as amended by the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009, the NTA is responsible for determining fares in respect of publicly funded bus and rail services and I have no role in this matter. I have received, however, the information from both Irish Rail and the NTA.

Irish Rail states that the adult day return fares for Greystones are higher than those for Bray, as Greystones is the longest journey within the short hop zone. The distance from Greystones to Pearse Station is 29.6 km while that from Bray to Pearse Station is 22.4 km. The price per kilometre on the Leap card is 29 cent from Greystones to the city centre and 25 cent from Bray to the city centre. Although point-to-point prices are different for Bray and Greystones, Irish Rail points out that regular commuters can avail of monthly and annual tickets that are parity priced for both Bray and Greystones at €122 and €1,220, respectively. These offer significantly better value for customers travelling from Greystones.

I have also been in touch with the NTA about this issue and I have been informed that under Part 3, Chapter 2, of the Dublin Transport Authority Act, the authority has statutory responsibility for securing the provision of public transport services by way of public transport services contracts. Those contracts must, among other things, provide for the "fares to be charged and provision for the variation, including increase or decrease, of fares". The NTA has concluded contracts with Irish Rail, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann and these are available on the authority's website. Details of the its determinations on fares are also available on the website.

Irish Rail's current ticket pricing scheme is a product of a system that has developed over a number of years and the build-up over time of a wide range of differing fare levels has limited the opportunity for a clear pricing policy, relating fares to the service offering and providing consistent relationships between fares. The NTA is conscious of these challenges and is attempting to ameliorate the fare structures by gradually improving pricing and removing anomalies in the respective fare increase determinations. This is being done to implement a more distance-based fares scheme, whilst also protecting revenue at this critical time. One example of this from the NTA's most recent fares determination is that trips from Greystones to Lansdowne Road were changed from fare band E to fare band C. Prior to that change, a single adult trip, paid for in cash, between Greystones and Sandymount cost €3.30, whereas a trip from Greystones to the next station on the line, Lansdowne Road, cost €5.20. The fare from Greystones to Lansdowne Road has been improved to €4 from €5.20.

With regard to the differences in Irish Rail's fare levels from both Bray and Greystones to various destinations, the NTA has indicated that it will review these issues as part of the fare determination process later this year. However, the authority points out that examining the Greystones issue will not necessarily involve a reduction in the price of a fare from Greystones to the city centre, as this may result in an additional problem in trying to create a more consistent and well-designed fare structure overall. The fares from Greystones are more favourable if they are compared to the fares and distances on the northern commuter line.

The NTA has stated that it will continue to gradually implement changes to remove fare anomalies, extend consistent distance pricing and smooth the differences at the boundary of the intercity and commuter zones. This should lessen the concerns of the travelling public in particular locations but should also prevent the need for large fluctuations in ticket prices and provide more certainty and transparency in ticket fares, thereby achieving a better pricing structure that protects and supports travel by all.

Deputy Simon Harris

I thank the Minister for his response. On 25 May 2011, people from Greystones paid 67% more than people from Bray to get to the city centre, while today they pay 66% more. That demonstrates how slow and gradual this process has been. If it continues at this pace, people of my generation in Greystones need not worry about it because by the time the anomaly is rectified they will be entitled to the free travel pass. There is no justification for the failure of bureaucracy on this. I accept a number of the points made and I acknowledge the great work done on the Leap card. However, I have received correspondence from the NTA and Iarnród Éireann acknowledging that when the DART was extended to Greystones, they never upgraded the pricing structure. Greystones has always been viewed as an add-on to the overall DART system. This needs to be rectified. I was told in 2011 that there would be a review at the end of the year and this would be addressed. Now these bodies are telling the Minister that there will be a review at the end of this year.

The people of Greystones are not looking for a more favourable fare than those elsewhere but they are seeking fairness in order that when people look at the DART map and see they are going one stop further south or north, they see some fairness. Bureaucracy needs to catch up, particularly if we want to encourage people to use public transport. It costs €9.60 return to travel from Greystones to the city centre compared to €5.80 to travel from Bray to the city centre. This acts as a disincentive to use the DART.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I note the Deputy's comments. Nobody disputes that anomalies exist. I agree with him that there is a need for greater equity, but equity in train fares cannot apply only to the DART system. It must take into account the western and northern commuter lines. People travel similar distances to those from Greystones on an inferior service but pay more than them. In many ways, I am making the Deputy's case for him. There is inconsistency and a lack of equity. The NTA and Irish Rail want to phase in more consistent fares over a period without a big bang effect or a significant revenue loss. Perhaps that is the wrong approach and there should be a big bang effect rather than an incremental change, which is what is happening.

I am due to meet the chief executive officer, chairman and board of the NTA on Friday morning. I commit to making this an agenda item for discussion and I will get back to the Deputy following that.

Local Authority Finances

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

This is a simple matter that arises from a scenario whereby, through good management and prudent administration, Leixlip Town Council has achieved savings over the past number of years. We all subscribe to that as being important, progressive and admirable in the present climate. There are those of us who suggest that should have applied more in the past. The town council, having accumulated savings of approximately €300,000, would like to spend the money in its administrative area but because, I presume, of the proposed abolition of town councils, that is not in accord with departmental policy and, as a result, the town council is concerned about this. The town councillors, naturally, want to spend the money in their area because they feel they have adequate and important capital projects that require this expenditure.

Apropos of nothing, in general I do not agree with the principle that taxation should be spent where it is raised. That is unconstitutional. However, in the case of an authority at local level that has done its job well and achieved savings for a particular purpose, it is difficult to explain why it should not be allowed to spend that money. It is unfair. The only reason is the change in the administrative areas in the proposal to abolish town councils, notwithstanding their replacement by extra membership on local authorities.

I ask the Minister to consider the situation because of the good management of the authority in question. We must recognise what it has done so far and acknowledge its good management and practice in keeping with the best international traditions. Would it be possible to allow the town council to spend the money on the capital projects and programmes it has identified that would be of benefit to the local community, rather than spending the money in the wider amorphous area that will exist after the local elections?

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan)

Before I go into the detail of the case Deputy Durkan raised, I will give him some background information about certain controls in place since 2009 when a circular was issued by my Department in respect of the control and monitoring of local authorities' contribution to the general government balance, or GGB. The GGB is the measure of the borrowings and surpluses or deficits across the wider government sector, including local government.

The downturn in the economy and the pressures on Government funding generally require a sharp focus in all sectors, including local government, to ensure effective control and management of the public finances. In this context, the Department of Finance advised in 2009 that there was a deficit limit within the national GGB assigned to local government. That limit was set at €200 million. In February 2009, my Department set out details of the financial requirements for local authorities relating to their overall management of capital and current accounts. These requirements flow directly from the requirement for government finances, as a whole, to be managed in accordance with the EU-wide limitation on budget

In order to stay within the overall GGB limit, it is necessary for local authorities to maintain both their current and capital accounts broadly in balance in any one year. The only restriction on local authorities is that, in aggregate, capital income should equal capital expenditure in the year. Balance is only required at an overall level and this allows considerable scope for authorities to draw on their existing capital reserves as an element of their overall investment programme. The precise manner in which capital and current accounts are managed in order to achieve the overall balance necessary is a matter for individual local authorities. Within these overall limits, however, there is additional capacity for non-mortgage borrowing and the expenditure of capital balances on hand by local authorities. The process of prioritising applications for such projects for 2013 has been completed and my Department was guided by local authorities in respect of priority projects requiring funding this year.

While I appreciate that these GGB requirements impose limitations on local authorities, there are considerable funding constraints at all levels of Government. It is a matter for every local authority, including Leixlip Town Council, to determine its own spending priorities in the context of the annual budgetary process, having regard to both locally identified needs and to the available resources within the GGB limits, as outlined.

I checked further into the accounts for Leixlip. Deputy Durkan may wish to note that no request has been received from Leixlip Town Council to spend the balances in hand this year, although I have received a request to meet a delegation from the council. Leixlip has a non-rating town council. In 2012 its overall expenditure budget was €355,725 and its own local income was €3,000. In order to bridge the gap it would have submitted a schedule of town charges to Kildare County Council. The council has been transferring money from its revenue account - €41,000 in 2012 - towards capital projects to deal with matters such as the town hall fund, election costs, a playground project, town improvement and the Leixlip spa. I also inform the Deputy that the balance on the capital account at the end of 2012 was €348,167.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and informative reply. If I were a thinking person - which I am not - and on the ground, I would come to the conclusion that the Minister would be open to a submission from the town council seeking permission to spend the moneys in an appropriate fashion in concert with its entitlement and requirements, that due regard would be had to its adherence to good fiduciary policies in recent years and that, as a result, it might be possible to work out an equitable solution.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell)

Is the thinking man correct?

Deputy Phil Hogan

I assure the Acting Chairman that Deputy Durkan does not interpret me correctly. I have set out clearly that Leixlip Town Council has sufficient money in its capital account, as it had in 2012, to do some of the things it wishes to do. It should not take money from the revenue account in order to achieve the same purpose.

Schools Amalgamation

Deputy Michael Moynihan

The very important amalgamation of the two primary schools in Kanturk has been a long-running issue. Much work has been done in the past three or four years under the stewardship of Canon Jackie Corkery, who has brought great impetus, fairness and transparency to the ongoing issue. A considerable effort has been made by the VEC. In 2010 the Department of Education and Skills sanctioned a site and asked the VEC to look for one. It has been engaging with the county council, the planning authorities and so forth in regard to securing that site.

What I am trying to find out in this debate is the exact current position, the commitment of the Department to the project and the discussions that have taken place between the Department and the various stakeholders in the past month or six weeks. There had been a planning issue. The Department must be very clear about this. Will the Minister of State in the Department, Deputy Ciaran Cannon, outline clearly to the House the Department's commitment to this project, and will he ensure that everything that can be done at that level is being done to move the project steadily along?

There is no doubt this project is necessary and is a priority for Kanturk. As is the case with all amalgamations that reach category 1 within the Department, it should move sharply off the agenda. Again, I stress the commitment at local level on the part of the two boards of management, given the stewardship and hard work of Canon Corkery and the goodwill he has garnered in recent years, which is great to see. We now need to establish the facts. Both schools need a clear time guideline for the amalgamation. It has been discussed for a long time and there has been much interaction with the Department, the OPW and local bodies. The OPW was in discussions about the proposed site, entry and exit to it and the need for a second entry and exit point. In discussions with landowners and the OPW it was clearly indicated that there was a logjam and those concerned were asking the Department to commit to buying other land where there would be safe access. The OPW constantly gave the impression it was taking its instructions directly from the Department of Education and Skills.

Will the Department commit completely to the project and ensure there is no logjam on its side? This is a very important infrastructural project for the town of Kanturk and its hinterland and there have been many attempts over the years to try to bring it to fruition, with goodwill present on all sides, especially within the past three or four years, if perhaps not beforehand. That is a different issue we need not go into, although I could keep the Minister of State entertained all night in regard to what was done at the time.

The important point is that we make sure there is a timeline in place, that there is a full commitment from the Department of Education and Skills and that the OPW is fully engaged to ensure the application to the county council for further planning permission is proper and will ensure the outcome of having an amalgamated primary school in Kanturk, County Cork.

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon)

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter as it gives me an opportunity to outline to the House my Department's position on the construction of a new school building for St. Colman's boys' national school and convent girls' national school in Kanturk, County Cork. As the Deputy is aware and as he has outlined, my Department is endeavouring to maximise the efficient use of all available capacity in the public sector to assist in the delivery of the schools programme. In this context, the new school building in Kanturk referred to by the Deputy is one of 15 schools where responsibility for the delivery of the projects was devolved to the Office of Public Works. A service level agreement is in place between my Department and the Office of Public Works which outlines the roles and responsibilities of each of the parties in the delivery of education projects. It is a central tenet of devolution that responsibility for the delivery of projects, within certain agreed timeframes and parameters as laid down in the service level agreement, rests with the Office of Public Works.

In August 2012 a planning application for the construction of a new 24 classroom national school in Kanturk was lodged with Cork County Council by the Office of Public Works. In September 2012 a request for further information was received from Cork County Council covering access, drainage issues and landscaping. The Office of Public Works submitted a response to the issues raised in March 2013. Subsequently, in April 2013 Cork County Council notified the Office of Public Works that planning permission for the new school had been refused. Cork County Council stated it was willing to work with the Office of Public Works and my Department to endeavour to deliver the proposed school within a reasonable timeframe and that senior officials would be available to arrange pre-planning meetings to consider a revised planning application.

Officials in the building unit of my Department are examining the reasons given by the local authority as to why planning was refused and whether these reasons can be addressed from a value for money perspective. The Department will continue to liaise with the Office of Public Works, Cork County Council and other relevant stakeholders to establish if a solution can be found that is satisfactory to all concerned. Separately, my Department, in consultation with the patron and school authorities, has undertaken a recent review of demographic needs in Kanturk. The outcome of this review is that a 16-classroom new school building is sufficient to meet the long-term needs of the area. My Department has received written agreement from the patron's office and the school authorities to this change to the brief.

Deputy Michael Moynihan

I thank the Minister of State. The one concern I have relates to the phrase in the second last paragraph "the value for money perspective", but we will leave that issue to one side. Time is passing. I know that requests were made that the officials from the OPW, the Department of Education and Skills and Cork County Council meet the local stakeholders, the patrons and members of the boards of management. Is the Department absolutely and completely committed to this project? Without further delay will the Minister of State give a commitment, on behalf of the Department, that departmental officials with their colleagues in the OPW will commit to having an immediate meeting with officials in Cork County Council, the local stakeholders and the boards of management of the two schools within the shortest possible timeframe? Months are slipping by. There was a problem, on which Cork County Council deliberated very hard. I would like direct and straight answers from the Minister of State because this has been a long-running issue. Is the Department fully committed to the project and will the Minister of State instruct his officials to meet the OPW officials who will take the instruction to sit down with officials of Cork County Council? The county council has given me and others a commitment that it will meet at a moment's notice with the Department and the OPW and representatives of the boards of management to advance the project in order that everybody will know where they are at, what the issues are and how they can be dealt with.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon

I have indicated that officials in the building unit of my Department are examining the reasons given by the local authority for the refusal of planning permission and whether these reasons can be addressed, taking into account a value for money perspective, which is important. The Department would not be engaging in this assessment of the outcome of the planning process if it was not committed to the project. It has also undertaken a review of demographics in Kanturk and its hinterland, the area to be served by the new school. The review was part of the ongoing process to deliver the school. I glean from this response that the Department remains, and shall remain, committed to delivery of the project. Cork County Council raised one issue in the planning process. It was not satisfied with the access road to the school proposed by the OPW and required the road to continue past the school site to link with the town centre. The cost of providing the link outside the school site on third party lands has and should raise serious value for money issues for the Department. This is and should be the primary subject of any subsequent meeting between OPW officials, officials of the county council and officials of my Department. I will endeavour to have that meeting arranged as soon as possible. It needs to take place and I am confident that, with the collective expertise of those sitting around the table from the Department, the OPW and Cork County Council, a satisfactory conclusion can be reached soon.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 10 Jul 2013