Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Mar 2014

Vol. 834 No. 3

Topical Issue Debate

Coroners Service

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and his office for allowing me to raise this issue. None of us can imagine the horror of losing a child or a sibling at a young age, but that happened on 16 August 2009 when Sebastian Creane was murdered in his home by Shane Clancy. One can only imagine the lengths one would go to as a parent or a sibling to get answers to try to understand what led to such an event. The Creane family have been on that journey since that horrific night and have been treated abysmally by the organs of the State.

I will be submitting separate parliamentary questions on the role of the State broadcaster. It is hard to imagine that six weeks after that incident, RTE thought it appropriate to devote a segment on "The Late Late Show" to the murder of Sebastian Creane. Less than six weeks after he died and before the inquest into his death, it thought it was worthwhile to debate the issues surrounding it. It decided to proceed without involving the family even though they would not have been able to do so at that stage. RTE's behaviour was crass and unbelievable. It was a dereliction of its duty to the people as the State broadcaster. Those involved in the decision to broadcast should hang their heads in shame and answer the questions put to them about that programme.

Sebastian Creane was murdered by Shane Clancy who took his own life on the same night, so there are two families grieving. However, the coroner's inquest into the death of Shane Clancy proceeded with very little input from the Creane family who had questions they wanted answered. They put those questions to the coroner and he agreed that their submissions would be respected at Shane Clancy's inquest. It was agreed that there would be input from a representative of the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland. Those agreements are all on record because having been so alienated by the institutions of the State, the Creane family felt the need to record the conversation. At that meeting the coroner said he knew they were there because of RTE, such was his awareness of "The Late Late Show".

However, none of the agreements the coroner entered into was fulfilled at the inquest. The inquest returned a verdict that did not answer the family's questions and they were then forced to go to the High Court at considerable distress on top of the most unimaginable distress already to try to get the answers. So far they have not been able to get those answers. This shows that at a coroner's inquest, there are very few avenues for a family to pursue their questions, an issue we need to address.

Where a coroner has let a family down and has not adhered to his commitment to them, there is no redress for that family. We are all subject to performance reviews as public servants. We go before the electorate. Every other member of the public service is subject to some sort of review. Coroners must be and there must be an avenue for families who feel alienated by an inquest process to get justice and get answers. There should be some recourse available where a coroner has not done his or her job.

This was the most horrific tragedy and unimaginable loss. That loss and sense of betrayal have been exacerbated by the response of the organs of the State, a State that seeks to cherish children and cherish its citizens, but instead forces them to go down a legal route while they grieve over the loss of a son, brother, nephew and friend. Surely we can do better.

On behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, who unfortunately cannot be here, I thank Deputy Calleary for raising these matters and I appreciate the concerns he has articulated. As the Deputy will be aware, the relevant circumstances are linked to a very tragic set of events which occurred in 2009 and resulted in the deaths of two people. The Minister is very conscious that these deaths have impacted significantly on the families concerned and this is, of course, fully understandable.

The primary legislation currently applicable to coroners, the Coroners Act 1962, specifically prohibits the consideration or investigation of any question of civil or criminal liability at an inquest. In that regard, it is a requirement that the inquest must be confined to ascertaining the identity of the person on whose death the inquest is being held and how, when and where the death occurred. With regard to the holding of an inquest under the 1962 Act, a coroner is a statutory officer exercising quasi-judicial functions, in which regard he or she is independent. Accordingly, a coroner is responsible for the holding of an inquest and for conducting the inquest. In that regard, it is not open to the Minister or his Department to intervene on a particular case. However, the courts have ruled that they have the capacity to determine whether a coroner may have exceeded his or her jurisdiction in respect of a specific inquest. Within that framework an application for a judicial review may be made if it is considered there has been a defect in the conduct of an inquest or in its conclusions.

The circumstances linked to the case referred to by the Deputy are undoubtedly complex and it would not be appropriate to enter into a discussion on them. That being said, I might mention that these circumstances have led to judicial review proceedings which were initiated against the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Attorney General. In the event, the proceedings were not successful and, given the background involved, the State did not seek to recoup its costs.

No doubt the Deputy will recall that the Coroners Bill 2007 was restored to the Order Paper in 2011. The Bill provides for a comprehensive overhaul of the law relating to coroners and it provides for the recognition of the views of a victim's family. In particular, section 36 provides that the coroner is required to inform the family of the deceased person, or such interested person as the coroner considers appropriate, of a range of matters relating to the investigation of the death. The coroner is required, in as far as is practicable, to keep such persons informed of the progress and conclusion of the investigation. The Coroners Bill is being reviewed within the Department of Justice and Equality. This process will be completed as quickly as possible and the Deputy can be assured the concerns he has raised will be taken into account in the course of the review. The Minister is very conscious of the hurt and trauma for family members involved in this tragic case.

When will we see the Coroners Bill in the House? Does the Bill make any provision for sanction if a coroner does not perform his or her duty? Will there be a way of measuring how that duty is performed in terms of his or her interaction with the family, including taking expert evidence that may be suggested by the family in order for them to get answers?

While we disagree with the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, on many things, he has a consistent track record of involving victims and promoting the rights of families of victims. In that context, this matter is very urgent. Families who are traumatised and suffering enormous grief should not have to go to the courts to get answers. I hope the Minister will use some of the findings from this case to enhance the Coroners Bill to give the families of victims, particularly in a murder case, a better standing and respect. The Minister should look at the issue of media treatment of cases, particularly before a formal inquest gets under way, to ensure the rights of families are respected up to and during the inquest process.

I thank the Deputy for his remarks. The Bill was published in 2007 and it is unacceptable it has taken so many years to get it on the Statute Book. The Deputy asked about the timeline. I understand it is the firm intention of the Minister to review this as quickly as possible in order that we can make progress and review it in a way which involves many of the issues the Deputy has mentioned.

In regard to civil law, as he rightly points out, there has been a substantial improvement in respect of the treatment and the rights of victims in cases before the ordinary courts. Whether there would be some new provisions within the Bill to deal with coroners where some malpractice or complaint has arisen is, I believe, a separate issue on the basis that there always has to be, under our system of courts, some form of a judicial appeal. The current dilemma is basically on a point of law rather than conduct and that issue would have to be teased out.

With regard to the Deputy's concerns about the review, we need to get to the review and resolve this as soon as possible. We certainly need to enhance the standing and the information given to victims and their families as a result of cases before the Coroner's Court because, of course, the court is a fundamental part of finding the facts of a case, certainly in regard to the basic information as to how someone died and the circumstances around it. People who die have rights too. It is established under international and Irish law that there is a right to find out exactly what occurred, when it occurred and the how, if one likes. In so far as we need a piece of modern legislation in respect of the Coroner's Court, the existing legislation is certainly not adequate and the Minister accepts that. As far as he is concerned, it is a priority to fix that by way of the review, as he has outlined.

Hospital Consultants Recruitment

I am very pleased this subject has been selected. I doubt the Minister for Health or any other Minister can be satisfied with the situation that pertains in regard to neurological services. We have just seven rehabilitation consultants in the country and we are ranked second worst in Europe. If we increased this figure to 50, we would still be ranked second worst in Europe, and if we increased it to 150, we would still have fewer consultants per capita than Serbia, Croatia or Latvia, all of which have overcome very serious economic and governance issues in recent years.

This is having a very direct impact on people who urgently need care. It is inhibiting and making people dependent rather than independent, and that itself has costs. The Neurological Alliance of Ireland, which is an excellent organisation that works tirelessly on this issue, has produced statistics recently that show 40% of those affected could not access neuro-psychological services, 25% could not access physiotherapy or occupational therapy, 57% were badly impacted by the rising cost of medication, 25% were forced to use private physiotherapy services, which is a very big expense for them, 17% were refused a medical card, 10% had their medical card withdrawn and 84% had serious concerns into the future about the cost of health care and cutbacks.

The alliance has identified a number of areas where it believes changes need to happen urgently. The question of waiting lists and the recruitment of specialists is critical. Multidisciplinary care is hampered by an over-stretched level of staffing and the embargo. The aftercare at community level is practically non-existent in some areas. This is an area where we are not working very smartly in that it will cost us to keep people dependent. Urgent investment is required in this area.

I welcome the opportunity to raise this very important issue. There are some very startling figures in regard to the number of people who are suffering with neurological problems. More than 700,000 people in Ireland have some neurological condition and in ten years time there will be 860,000 such people. That is a staggering number of people who will be impacted and it points to the urgency of the issue. Some 44,000 individuals are newly diagnosed each year and 89,000 individuals are disabled by their neurological condition. In excess of 66,000 people care for someone with a neurological condition. I know people's eyes sometimes glaze over when one starts quoting numbers, but these are very stark and startling figures.

I will not repeat the points made so ably by Deputy Murphy in regard to the low number of neurologists in the country. I take a moment to reflect on our colleague, Deputy Nicky McFadden, who is suffering from motor neurone disease. What we need is not just adequate but proper neuro-rehabilitation. If the people who are suffering from any of the many known diseases which are neurologically based, such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and motor neurone disease, do not have proper access, they are less likely to return to work, which may be possible depending on their condition. They are also more likely to need expensive nursing home care and their stays in hospital will be for longer or they will be more frequently readmitted. We need to look at implementing the neuro-rehabilitation strategy which was planned in 2011 by this Government. That is something we need to prioritise and I call on the Minister for Health and the Government to do so.

I thank both Deputies for raising this very important issue on health care provision and service. As both Deputies will know, in 2011 a national policy and strategy for the provision of neuro-rehabilitation services in Ireland was set out for a four-year period from 2011 to 2015, and the Health Service Executive established the clinical rehabilitation medicine programme by way of a number of initiatives in that area. Many people believe the key to success of these developments is the approval and assignment of regional rehabilitation medicine consultants, which was the point raised by Deputy Murphy. I want to put on record, because it is important to do so, that the number of rehabilitation medicine consultants nationally increased from seven to 12 in 2013 with the appointment of five new national and regional specialists currently taking up posts, a point I will return to later. Specialist inpatient and outpatient units have been identified to operate in each of the four current Health Service Executive regions, with clinical governance and expertise provided by the National Rehabilitation Hospital.

I understand the National Rehabilitation Hospital has put in place a number of new initiatives to address the issues raised by the Deputies. The first is a pooled shared waiting list so that, whereas previously the patient waited for the consultant he or she was under, the patient now waits with everyone else and, as availability arises, he or she is dealt with. Second, the early access rehabilitation unit caters for patients whose treatment programme can typically be completed in a shorter period, which enables increased throughput of patients with less complex needs. Third, the National Rehabilitation Hospital actively manages the waiting time for admission to the high-intensity rehabilitation beds, and the current average waiting time for admission is down from 273 days to 148 days, so obviously some progress has been made under the National Rehabilitation Hospital.

The Government has committed to part-funding a 120 bed rehabilitation unit with integrated therapy spaces to replace the existing National Rehabilitation Hospital at an estimated total cost of €54 million. The national clinical programme for neurology has reviewed the demand and capacity for access to neurology consultants for adult services. Consultants have been appointed to seven of the proposed ten additional posts over the past 18 months. The remaining three consultant posts are in various stages of the national recruitment process. One consultant neurologist has commenced in paediatric services, along with two additional consultant paediatric neuro-physiologists.

The HSE has made commitments in the 2014 operational plan on the implementation of the neuro-rehabilitation strategy. A steering group has been established to guide its implementation and ensure adequate links with the clinical rehabilitation medicine programme.

The improvements are tiny in comparison with the need identified. It is shameful. When one looks at the return from being smart and helping people to rehabilitate in order that they can play a more active and, possibly, complete role in society, it is mind-blowing that our ambition is so limited. It is not just about counting the cost of appointing specialists; it is also about outcomes and the roles people can play. We talk about the provision of high dependency beds in the National Rehabilitation Hospital; there are only three such beds. We are keeping people in acute hospitals when they could move to rehabilitation centres. It is so short-sighted. Money is also being cut in the not-for-profit sector in which there is voluntary support. Therefore, people are being hit on the double. There is a need to revisit this issue. It is about working in a smarter way and taking a longer view. Too little has been done.

I very much welcome the news that additional consultant neurologists have been appointed this year, but that is only part of the picture. There are many other parts of the strategy on which we need to focus. Only a very small proportion of people can access the National Rehabilitation Hospital. I think the figure is about one half because of where they are located. Those living in regional areas need to be able to access specialist rehabilitation services in regional hospitals. There is also a need for community-based teams to provide rehabilitation services for people close to their own homes. Aids and appliances will be needed to enable response times to be much quicker. People with a neurological condition require counselling, support and information. This is part of the bigger picture for those who urgently need a response from us to resolve the difficulties they are experiencing.

I share the frustration of colleagues about the roll-out of a programme that dates back to 2011 and a strategy which at the time was to be achieved within a four-year timeline and their desire to achieve much more for people who find themselves in this position. As Deputies Marcella Corcoran Kennedy and Catherine Murphy said, this is about more than just acute hospital services. It is also about the supports we need to provide for communities to help people on their journey of rehabilitation.

On behalf of the Minister for Health, I wish to state the Government is committed to the strategy and believes it is the best way to achieve the improvements in services for people who find themselves in this position. Obviously, the commitment to part fund to the tune of €54 million a new rehabilitation centre with over 120 beds and which will provide multidisciplinary therapy support is welcome, but we must get on with the task of fully funding the service because that is the only way we will be able to make a difference. I note that the steering group has been established. I am not aware whether both Deputies are members of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, but it might be offer a useful opportunity to call in the steering group at the earliest opportunity to see what progress we can make, particularly in making sure the three additional postholders are in place this year. Providing for such oversight of the work of the steering group would be very useful and is something the Minister would support. We need to keep up the pressure to make sure we deliver on the strategy.

Counselling Services

Rape Crisis Network Ireland, RCNI, is a specialist information and resource centre on rape and all forms of sexual violence. It is the umbrella body for member rape crisis centres which provide free advice, counselling and support for survivors of sexual abuse. There is real concern about the future of RCNI as its funding is due to cease at the end of March and that a tendering process for services is proposed when an invaluable service with a proven track record is already available in RCNI.

RCNI is responsible for the development of a national database which is essential in developing policy objectives and service responses. These data represent the collective story of the survivors who have utilised rape crisis services and are a vital tool in working to end sexual violence and providing the best possible service for survivors.

RCNI represents member rape crisis centres on important committees such as the National Steering Committee on Violence Against Women and its sub-committees, the regional advisory committees and the Commission for the Support of Victims of Crime. Its representation on these committees ensures survivors' voices are heard at a national level. It partners with Foróige, the national youth organisation, to deliver the integrated youth development programme REAL U.

RCNI is responsible for the development of the best practice model signed up to by all member rape crisis centres. All rape crisis centres sign service level agreements with the HSE which require compliance with Children First. RCNI monitors member rape crisis centres to ensure each centre is compliant in meeting all Children First requirements and ensures all rape crisis centre boards have adopted best practice standards not just in respect of Children First but in all policies.

RCNI is responsible for providing member rape crisis centres with specialised training for both staff and volunteers around court and Garda accompaniment. It has a dedicated expert and specialist resource to support a wide programme of work to obtain justice for the victims of sexual violence. It provides rape crisis centres with the opportunity to interact with each other, allowing them to learn from each, support and help each other, share resources and ideas and inspire each other.

If funding for RCNI is discontinued at the end of March as has been signalled, it will, in turn, have a seriously negative impact on individual rape crisis centres and the survivors who use their services. larraim ar an Rialtas gan maoiniú a ghearradh don eagras fíor-fiúntach agus tábhachtach seo. Tá RCNI ag cabhrú le lár-ionaid ar fud na tíre atá ag tacú le daoine a d'fhulaing éigniú. Beidh sé scanallach má leanann an Rialtas ar aghaidh leis an chiorrú seo. In ainm na ndaoine atá ag braith ar an seirbhís seo, ná dean é.

I have a reply from the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs who, unfortunately, is out of the country. She asks me to apologise to the Deputy for being unable to attend the debate and is grateful to the Deputy for putting this matter on the agenda of Dáil Éireann. I will not read out the first page of the reply because we know about the Child and Family Agency which I think we all support and the work it is doing in the provision of domestic and sexual violence services.

As part of the establishment of the new Child and Family Agency, a dedicated position of programme manager for domestic, sexual and gender-based violence has been created. I understand the new programme manager took up the position in early February this year. I also understand the HSE spent over €17 million on the provision of domestic and sexual violence services. This included the funding of 60 services and centres throughout the country comprising €10 million for 20 crisis refuges, more than €4 million for 16 rape crisis centres and almost €3.5 million for 24 support services.

Rape Crisis Network Ireland received funding of €256,000 from the HSE in 2013. The financial statements for 2012 indicate that the organisation received total income of more than €650,000, including €256,000 from the HSE. Rape Crisis Network Ireland had a two year service level agreement with the HSE which expired on 31 December 2013, but which was extended to 31 March 2014 to allow for the establishment of the Child and Family Agency, the appointment of a programme manager for domestic, sexual and gender-based violence services, and to enable the agency to tender for future support services to support front-line agencies. The recently appointed programme manager responsible for domestic, sexual and gender-based violence services is working with the head of procurement in the agency to establish a tender process, due to begin in September, for longer-term provision of support to front-line agencies from 2015. The process will be open to all qualified providers, including Rape Crisis Network Ireland, to tender for this new contract.

The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs discussed the issue of funding of Rape Crisis Network Ireland with Gordon Jeyes, who is the CEO of the Child and Family Agency. It has been decided to commission specific projects from a number of providers during 2014, including Rape Crisis Network Ireland, and discussions regarding these contracts are in train. In allocating funding for support activities to front-line services in 2014, the focus is on activities that will enhance the capacity of the agency to ensure front-line services are supported in the delivery of high quality effective services. I assure the Deputy and the House that funding is ring-fenced to provide front-line services in this area and there are no plans to reduce supports to key services.

I thank the Minister of State and appreciate that the Minister is not in the country, and that he is delivering the reply on her behalf.

I appreciate it will not be possible to get into the nitty-gritty of this, but it seems to me that for a part of this year we will not know who will fulfil the critical function that RCNI has fulfilled very effectively during its tenure, to my best knowledge. A process will now get under way with the signalled conclusion more than six months away, when a decision will be taken on funding supports for the provision as and from 2015 of the services that RCNI has fulfilled. I am very concerned about the here and now. This is not a matter we can move about on a chess board or anything else. It is of such serious and immediate import that we must have permanently in place the overarching role that RCNI has clearly played as a critical umbrella force on behalf of the rape crisis centres across this land.

I can only urge the Minister of State to use his own good offices with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs to appeal for every consideration to be given to the role of the RCNI and to its continuance at least during any so-called interregnum period. Those from rape crisis centres who have been in touch with me would favour RCNI being able to continue to carry out its particular role and service. I have no reason to dispute that. If those who are at the coalface of the provision of supports to victims of sexual violence have absolute confidence in RCNI, then I believe their opinion must count for something.

I very much appreciate the remarks of Deputy Ó Caoláin concerning the very important role RCNI plays. I am aware of that. Without understanding a huge amount of the reasoning behind this, it probably comes down to the fact that since 1 January 2014, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs took over responsibility in this area instead of the Minister for Justice and Equality. It falls under her remit because the Child and Family Agency is within her Department. From a good governance perspective, it is important that where the State is grant aiding organisations, it does so in a clear, transparent way. It would seem that the new director believes the appropriate way to channel the very significant resource, which is not diminishing in any way, is in a way which effectively invites tenders again for longer-term funding rather than the kind of annual funding which most organisations feel to be unfair to them.

The question the Deputy raises is the here and now, as the funding envelope finishes at the end of March and he wants to know what will happen between now and September. The key issue is whether there can be any retrospection when the issue comes, because I do not want to interfere with the tendering process, nor does he. It probably is fair that there should be some interregnum period while the tendering is taking place for accessibility of funding. The Deputy is wondering what happens between now and September, and I would be confident of its later continuation and support. I will raise this issue specifically with the Minister to see exactly what additional support can be given between now and September.

Community Welfare Services

I appreciate that this topic was chosen. It comes about as a result of the centralisation of social welfare and community welfare services in Mayo. I acknowledge the reasoning behind it, which is the creation of a one-stop-shop and improved services for people on social welfare in order to get long-term unemployed people back to work. Community welfare officers deal with a range of other subjects, however, and many of those are emergency situations at short notice. We have a huge area where there is no public transport, but many of the people who call to the clinic would not have their own transport and they need to talk to someone face to face.

The worst affected area is in east Mayo, followed by south Mayo. Clinics have been closed in Kilmovee, Kilkelly, Charlestown, Kiltimagh, Swinford, Ballyhaunis and Foxford. This means that the entire east Mayo area is left without a community welfare service on the ground. My own home parish of Kilmovee has been assigned to Ballina, which is 51 km away. Mayo is the third biggest county in the country. Kilkelly is a similar distance to Ballina. Ballyhaunis is assigned to Castlebar, which is 45 km away. Kiltimagh is 26 km away. I note that Westport is 11 km from Castlebar, but its service has been retained, although I have no problem with that. I point that out more for the need for something to be done about east Mayo rather than to close down any other service.

South Mayo has also been badly affected including Cong, Shrule, Hollymount and Claremorris. I do not want to jump up and down, as it were, without making suggestions. There could be a centralised office in east Mayo, which has an area larger than County Louth. A central office would provide a point of contact within reasonable distance and would represent a solution. Another option presents. Kilmovee is one of the places I mentioned. It is six miles from Ballaghaderreen, Roscommon, where there is an office, but people are being told in the Kilmovee community centre, where the social welfare officer calls once a week, that there is no cross-border co-operation. People must therefore make a round trip of more than 100 km even though there is an office six miles away. There must be a solution rooted in common sense. I look forward to the response. I will then have a couple of further questions.

I apologise on behalf of the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, who cannot be here this evening. She has asked me to respond.

A key objective of the transfer of the community welfare service, CWS, from the Health Service Executive to the Department of Social Protection on 1 October 2011 was to provide a streamlined and consistent service to the customer. As part of this process and to support the Department's activation commitments under the Pathways to Work programme and the development of Intreo services nationally, it has been necessary to review the administration of all services, including the CWS. Pathways to Work involves the provision of opportunities, support and assistance to unemployed people by intensifying the Department's level of engagement with them, particularly those who are or become long-term unemployed. The Intreo service delivery model offers practical, tailored employment services and supports for jobseekers. This new service model, which is more efficient in its delivery, is being rolled out across the country. Roll-out is due to be completed for all offices by the end of 2014. Speaking as Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, I understand we will be up to 62 by the end of the year. The most recent completion was in Castlebar.

To maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of operation and to ensure continuity of service in light of reducing resources in County Mayo, a decision was made to relocate the CWS to five dedicated locations where Intreo centres will operate. These locations are at Achill, Ballina, Belmullet, Castlebar and Westport. A full range of services will be available at single locations in these places. In the coming weeks, up to eight staff drawn primarily from the CWS will take up new roles as activation case officers supporting those who are unemployed across County Mayo. Where the CWS is being re-structured, alternative arrangements are being put in place to ensure customers are provided with ongoing access to the supports provided by the service. In general, this means the frequency of available public clinics has increased, an improved and enhanced telephone service is available, and alternative arrangements are in place for those who cannot travel due, for example, to illness. These arrangements include visits to the client's home if necessary. Customers who live closer to clinics in other counties can also be accommodated by visiting those clinics instead and practical local arrangements can be made in this regard. I hope, therefore, that the issue the Deputy raised can be resolved.

That might be a solution.

It is also important to note that people claiming supports under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme tend to interact with the Department only on an occasional basis. This may be where, for example, they seek an exceptional needs payment or claim additional supports such as rent or mortgage interest supplement, which are usually reviewed once to twice yearly. Staffing needs for all areas within the Department are continuously reviewed to ensure the best use is made of all available resources with a view to providing an efficient service to those who rely on the schemes operated by the Department and that the services provided are reconstituted, where necessary, to meet the changing needs of society.

I thank the Minister of State for the statement, especially the clarification on cross-border co-operation. A solution may be possible, which is not what I heard on the ground yesterday. If that has changed, I welcome it. I ask the Minister of State to seek clarification from the Minister for Social Protection on the issue of home visits. Is that something that can only occur in exceptional circumstances or is there wider scope? It would be a solution in certain cases in which transport issues arise. Is it an exceptional or real option? I also ask the Minister of State to inquire of the Minister whether I can meet officials in the west on the cross-border issue. It is timely we are discussing the matter today since the last clinics will take place either today or tomorrow. I am anxious therefore that a solution be put in place as quickly as possible to overcome the problems to which I have referred. I have not mentioned south Mayo in great detail. It would be useful to put a cross-border arrangement in place with neighbouring Galway for that part of Mayo.

The suggestion of a meeting with officials is a very practical one. The manager of the local service should meet the Deputy to iron out some of these issues. We have five Intreo offices in County Mayo.

One side is left.

I accept that the spread is more north and west than south. They are fine offices. I was recently in Castlebar for the opening of the Intreo office there and passed by the Achill office on my way to look at the flooding problems. The offices represent a much better way to transact business. People can use the five offices, which are open five days a week in Ballina and Castlebar, three days a week in Westport and two days a week in Belmullet. My understanding from the notes I have been given is that intra-county clients can, where practical, be accommodated in neighbouring counties. That must be teased out.

The Deputy asked about making home visits and I will read out the note I have been given. It states:

If a face-to-face meeting is still necessary and the customer is unable to travel to the public clinic, arrangements can be made for an officer to visit the customer's home.

We need to tease that out too to ensure clients and people in the Department are aware of what the Minister has said in reply to this debate. I thank the Deputy for raising the matter and I hope we have clarified some of the issues to which he has referred. If a further meeting is required between the Minister and her staff, we can organise that.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.20 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 25 March 2014.
Top
Share