Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Nov 2014

Vol. 859 No. 2

Topical Issue Debate

National Car Test

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this matter. The national car test, NCT, is a vitally important innovation. It has saved lives and made our roads and vehicles safer. Most people are obliged to have their cars tested every three years. An issue arises, however, in the context of the long waiting lists for car tests in some areas, particularly where I reside. I am aware of one centre at which the waiting period for an NCT is four months and of another at which it is three and a half months. These waiting times are unreasonable. People should be able to expect to have their cars tested within one month of applying.

This is becoming an extremely serious issue because the penalties for not having a current certificate are severe. One's car can be impounded, one can be fined up to €2,000 or one can be imprisoned. I suggest, therefore, that the Minister consider changing the regulations in order that such penalties might be waived in instances where people already have appointments for tests but where the relevant date is beyond the expiry dates on their current certificates. I am aware that people can apply 90 days prior to their certificates expiring and all kinds of advertising campaigns, etc., are in train to try to encourage them to do so. However, people are only human and they often wait until a month or six weeks prior to expiration before applying for the test. They then discover that they will be obliged to wait for four months for a test. Does this mean that they are obliged to keep their cars off the road for a month or six weeks while they await tests? Does it mean that when they drive to the test centre, they are breaking the law? Will such people have the penalties imposed if they are intercepted by the Garda? As I understand it, this is a straight-to-court offence.

As already stated, this is a serious matter and it is unreasonable to expect people to wait for up to four months in order to obtain a car test. In order to overcome this problem, the number of test centres should be increased, facilities should be put in place to ensure that people can have their cars tested in an efficient, effective and timely manner or that the penalties should be waived in circumstances where someone can prove that he or she applied for the test - in good faith - and that his or her car is due to be tested at a date which is later than the expiry date listed on his or her NCT certificate. This is a reasonable proposal and I ask the Minister to consider it. From the end of the current year, serious changes will be made to the system. People should be able to apply for the test a month before their NCT certificates are due to expire and they should be given an appointment for a test within a reasonable period thereafter.

Perhaps the Minister might indicate what are the current waiting times at each of the 47 NCT centres throughout the country, particularly in respect of online bookings. Obliging people to ring up and wait for a cancellation before being granted a date for a test is a cause of stress. Motorists must often take time off work in order to have their cars tested. This is a serious issue for all kinds of reasons. Will the Minister outline what is the average waiting time and what are the longest and shortest times? Why is it that it can take up to four months to have one's car tested in some areas, whereas in others it takes much less time? Will the Minister indicate the number of people who have been offered free NCTs this year as a result of their not being offered a test within 28 days? If he does not have that information with him, perhaps the Minister might forward it to me. Will he indicate the number of cars on the waiting list for tests in general and also the number that are on the emergency or urgent waiting list as a result of the fact that the certificates relevant to them are due to expire within 28 days?

I do not want to name particular locations but, as already stated, there is one centre where the waiting period is four months and another at which it is three and a half. I checked the position in respect of a number of centres this morning and discovered that people who apply for tests today will be obliged to wait until 10 February, 18 February, 24 February or 25 February before they can have their cars checked. Obviously, such dates lie well beyond the period in which one is reasonably expected to have one's car tested. This is a serious matter and I ask the Minister to deal with it in a serious fashion.

I thank Deputy Stanton for raising this important matter. I will not be able to provide answers to all the questions he posed. I will, however, revert to him on those to which I am not in a position to respond now. I will be able to address some of the broad points he has raised.

I agree with the Deputy regarding the importance of NCT certificates and the difference they make in terms of ensuring the safety of cars and their occupants. It is correct that there is currently a strong demand for car tests but I have been informed by the Road Safety Authority that, in national terms, the system is well capable of meeting existing demand. I have figures in my possession to support this assertion. If the Deputy is in possession of figures which indicate that this is not the case, I would be very interested in his supplying them to me in order that I might follow up on the matter.

I wish to make clear that, as Deputy Stanton noted, since 2009 it has been an offence to use on public roads a vehicle which does not have a valid NCT certificate. At present, this is a straight-to-court offence which attracts five penalty points on conviction. What I will be doing shortly - by commencing section 10 of the Road Traffic Act 2014 - is bringing this offence within the fixed charge payment system. This will give people who are found not to have valid NCT certificates the option of receiving three penalty points on payment of the fixed charge rather than, as is currently the case, being automatically required to go to court where they will then receive five penalty points on conviction. There is a change taking place in order to allow for a larger proportion of the work relating to these offences to be deal with outside the court system. People who take the option to which I refer will, as already stated, only receive three penalty points. I am seeking to have the change in question implemented soon and this has given rise to the increased demand to which the Deputy refers.

The National Car Testing Service, NCTS, is required to achieve an average waiting time of no more than 14 days for full tests and no more than seven days for retests, with no individual test centre having a waiting time exceeding 21 days for full tests or 14 days for retests. The average waiting time in 2013 for a full test was 11.6 days and 4.4 days for a retest. In the first quarter of this year, the average waiting times were 11.6 days and 3.5 days, respectively. In quarter 2, these times were 12.1 and 3.3 days, respectively and in quarter 3 they were 10.9 and 2.88 days.

The RSA informs me that the NCTS met all performance standards in regard to waiting times in 2013 and to date in 2014. There has been some suggestion that there is currently a large backlog of customers waiting three months or more for a test. I am informed that this is not the case nationally.

Customers who need an early test are currently getting a test appointment, on average, within two weeks, with the vast majority getting their appointments within four weeks. Retest appointments are, on average, booked within three days. I will respond further when I hear what the Deputy has to say.

I thank the Minister for his response. I invite the Minister to go online, enter a car registration number and see what appointment date he is given. We did it this morning and noticed waiting periods of four months and three and half months in two test centres in my part of the country. In other areas, we were given the date of mid-February. Averages are averages but I am interested in individual areas where there are spikes and considerable demand. Our research this morning does not confirm what the Minister just said, unfortunately. Perhaps I am missing something.

People are now being urged to apply for their test 90 days in advance. This indicates there is considerable pressure on the online system. This means some test centres are working very hard and doing great work. This is essential and I am not in any way saying it is not but I am saying certain people are under pressure to have a test done on time and to obtain a valid certificate. If their cars are not tested on time, they must take them off the road or ring up to try to get an emergency date. An emergency date might not suit because people may be at work or otherwise, as the Minister knows.

I invite the Minister to get his officials to check individual test centres around the country to determine the online position of each of them. In some, the waiting period might be a number of days but I know from the information I gleaned this morning that the waiting periods in some are months. A very close friend of mine applied on 27 October and received a date of 26 January. I saw the documentation and know that is exactly the case.

This is an important issue. If it cannot be resolved and long delays continue to obtain, will the Minister consider being lenient in the shorter term towards people who apply in good faith and are given a date way beyond the expiry date of their certificate? They apply in good faith but cannot have their vehicles tested on time.

Let me respond to the various points the Deputy put to me. The first concerned the online indication as to when an appointment can be secured. I have discussed this with the Road Safety Authority and have been told that the indicator shows the average waiting time but that if somebody who needs an NCT to meet his legal requirements telephones his centre directly, he will receive an appointment time inside the required deadline in the vast majority of cases. From my contact with the Road Safety Authority on this matter, which has been raised with me by constituents and other Oireachtas Members, I have learned the authority is clear that if the time on the website does not meet the needs of the vehicle owner, he should contact his test centre. All steps are being taken to give people an appointment time that suits their needs.

Regarding the second point the Deputy made, I will certainly check further to determine whether there is any regional trend behind the national average times that should be of concern. I have been assured by the Road Safety Authority that this is being managed to ensure people can get their NCT certificate granted or renewed.

Let me consider the Deputy's final question, on changing the implementation period or lead time. This has been advertised for quite a while and it has been the subject of radio advertising to raise awareness. I am planning to enact the measure in early December to make the important change happen. I expect that if people's NCTS test date is due to fall within a reasonable period, the Garda will exercise discretion. I will examine the regional allocations to note whether they correspond with the trends alluded to by the Deputy. However, I must stress again, from having checked with Road Safety Authority, that if contact is made with the NCTS by telephone, an appointment can be given in the timeframe that meets one’s needs.

Local Authority Housing Provision

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys. I welcome the investment made by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, in social housing. It is the largest investment in the history of the State and amounts to €3.8 billion. It is likely to produce in the region of 100,000 units of accommodation in the next five to six years. Ironically, that is the exact number that was produced in one year alone, 2006, the last great boom year of the Celtic tiger. The houses that were built then were not suitable for accommodation because of their locations and the incentives that were given. There were holiday homes, etc., all over the country. Housing was largely private and there was almost no social housing. Despite the bumper number of houses built, which was roughly the same as the number built in the same year in England, with its population of 56 million, Ireland, with its population of 4.5 million, was actually building the same number of social houses before the crash as after it. We now have waiting lists, a severe housing crisis, a problem with people sleeping rough on the streets and homelessness. The problem is particularly bad in my constituency, to the extent that a new group, Inner City Helping Homeless, has been established to deal with homeless people and rough sleepers in the area.

What the Minister is doing is extremely welcome but in the short term there is a need for accommodation. In Gardiner Street Upper in my constituency, 99 units of accommodation, built at a cost to the taxpayer of €17 million, have been lying idle since July, or almost six months. They are lying idle because of an unseemly row between Dublin City Council and the Catholic Housing Aid Society. Dublin City Council insists on the differential rent so it will be reasonable for its tenants, who will be taking up 75% of the accommodation. The Catholic Housing Aid Society insists on what it calls an economic rent.

This means that there must be a deposit of €500 to €600 presented first and then the rent will be between €500 and €700 per month, which is well in excess of social housing anywhere. We have reached a stage where there is no progress being made on either side.

Tenants who left their accommodation in 2006 at the height of the boom were told by the Catholic Housing Aid Society that they would be back within two to three years, and eight years later they are still not back. Even though some of them have been allocated the places in the housing they are moving into, there is no sign that they will move in before Christmas.

Six months down the road, new bright warm accommodation developed to the best standards is ready and lying idle. If tenants moved into that, it would create vacancies elsewhere which would be enormously beneficial to those in overcrowded homes in the present housing crisis.

I call on the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Kelly, to ensure that the State investment of €17 million is secured and those for whom it was intended get that accommodation before Christmas. Let that be the Christmas present they get. There is no reason they should not move in.

The Archbishop of Dublin, on the other side, should be putting pressure on the Catholic Housing Aid Society to ensure that it does not continue to make those demands. The Catholic Housing Aid Society made the same demands when the funding was being made available from the Government and it had an unseemly wrangle with the Government as it was not satisfied with the funding. Now it is having this with the tenants and it is the poor tenants who are losing out in the long term.

I thank Deputy Costello for raising this matter. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Donohoe, sends his apologies as he had to go to the Seanad.

As they say in the best panto, "He is behind you."

The Minister is back.

The Minister, Deputy Donohoe, has a interest in this as we represent the same constituency.

I thank Deputy Costello for raising this important matter. Both myself and the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, share his concerns that this modern purpose-built facility has not yet been tenanted and I understand that officials from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government are working closely with Dublin City Council to resolve the matter urgently.

As Deputy Costello will be aware, this facility was funded under the Department's capital assistance scheme, which provides essential funding to approved housing bodies to give an opportunity to get a decent home to those in categories he outlined, especially those with disabilities, the homeless, emigrants returning from England and elsewhere, and victims of domestic violence. The Catholic Housing Aid Society is the approved housing body involved with the Fr. Scully project. The Deputy is correct that €17 million has been spent by the Department on this project. Officials in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government have been working closely with Dublin City Council during the construction and completion of this building, which, the Deputy will agree, is a fine facility on Gardiner Street.

In February last, in excess of €26 million was allocated to local authorities nationally by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in respect of commitments on projects under way under that Department's capital assistance scheme. A further capital investment of more than €46 million to approved housing bodies for the construction of accommodation was announced in May last to provide a total of 416 units of accommodation for those with special housing needs, including the elderly, persons with an intellectual or physical disability and homeless persons. Dublin City Council received an allocation of more than €13 million under this programme.

However, the City Council advised the Department during the summer of difficulties in its negotiations with Catholic Housing Aid Society in agreeing the rent on these units. Deputy is absolutely correct that this is unseemly. There are tenants who need to move into that accommodation urgently. The Department and the Dublin City Council chief executive met on this issue as recently as Monday last. I understand that the rent levels proposed by Catholic Housing Aid Society in respect of these units exceed the general rents for units funded under the capital assistance scheme and are more in line with market rents, despite €17 million coming from the State. It is proposed that the rent structure should more reflect the rental accommodation scheme payment or differential rent.

With the urgent need for housing, this is an intolerable position. We, as a Government, need to move urgently on it. As Deputy Costello stated, there are 99 units. There is a meeting scheduled for Friday next and both the Department and the city council will bring maximum pressure to bear to resolve the issue. As the Deputy stated, this has a domino effect. If we can get those units filled, it will create other vacancies. It involves more than these 99 units. Dublin City Council has nomination rights over 75% of those 99 units which is part of the conditions of receipt of the €17 million.

I fully support the Deputy's proposal. The Minister, Deputy Kelly, is proactive in this regard. Certainly, we will update the Deputy and the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, of the outcome of Friday's meeting.

I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I am glad that he considers the position intolerable. It is going on for six months and is likely to be seven or eight months if it continues after the Christmas period.

He stated there is a meeting on Friday. I have tenants coming along to my advice centres who were moved out of their accommodation in 2006. Some tenants died in the meantime. They all were elderly at that time. The tenants have been given the numbers of the accommodation they are to move into - this would be the 30% that the CHAS has to allocate - but now it appears that none of them will move in before Christmas. It is a totally unsatisfactory situation. Dublin City Council cannot do anything about other 70% it has to allocate and it has persons on the waiting list who are in urgent need of accommodation. Of course, there is the domino effect. This will create space for others, especially at this point in time when we are in such urgent need of interim housing before the big housing programme comes on stream.

We need immediate action from the Minister and the voluntary housing association. It is 100% State investment. If the Minister can do it on one side, and if the Archbishop can put pressure on the other, we could have a Christmas present for 99 vulnerable people in the community. That is the way it should be. There is no reason it should not be like that.

I have just come from a meeting setting up a committee for the victims of the fire in Gloucester Place off Sean MacDermott Street yesterday and there is a great response from the community. They are so enthusiastic about helping out in any way they can. A bank account has been established for donations in the Bank of Ireland, Marino branch, in Fairview, Dublin 3. If anybody wants to donate to it, the account number is 84680567, or one can donate online as well. That is the response that is coming from the community.

Given that the Government is making a good response in terms of putting €3.8 billion into social housing, why can we not get the voluntary housing association for which the units have been built to allocate those units to its tenants who are in such dire need?

I fully agree with what Deputy Costello has outlined. I also extend sympathy to the family whose house went on fire. It is an example of such a strong community on the northside of the city and the same sentiment is evident in the strong community in my own area.

This matter can do reputational damage to the voluntary housing sector. We certainly want to work with it in partnership to supply good quality social housing. Deputy Costello is quite correct. The State must move to protect the €17 million that has been invested by it.

It is intolerable that the units are empty at a time when people are living on the streets. It is at the top of the agenda of the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, to ensure the homes are allocated and not just as a Christmas present; the allocation should take place this week. I cannot understand why an agreement cannot be reached at Friday’s meeting with the voluntary body. The housing agency in question knew the terms and conditions when it accepted the money to build the units and now it must deliver. Most voluntary housing agencies with which I have worked have been extremely honourable and have delivered on their commitments. The housing agency involved in the development under discussion must now deliver on its commitment this Friday in order that the commitments that were made to people in 2006 in Deputy Joe Costello’s constituency are honoured. The situation is intolerable, wrong and unacceptable. If there is an agreement on Friday with the voluntary housing agency in question, I will work very closely with the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, on the matter.

As Deputy Joe Costello outlined, the archbishop has a moral obligation to bring pressure to bear also. An agreement was made that the 99 units would be delivered and they were paid for. People have been given the number of the house which has been allocated to them, yet they have been left waiting. The Government has lived up to its side of the bargain and delivered the money. The Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, announced today that €3.8 billion would be allocated to social housing.

The Minister of State is over time.

I will finish on this point. We wish to work in partnership with the voluntary housing agencies but they must deliver on their side of the agreement. I thank Deputy Joe Costello for raising the matter.

HSE Staff

I appreciate the opportunity to raise the issue following a report which appeared in The Irish Times recently, which showed that the number of senior management staff in acute hospitals has increased from 273 in 2011 to 303 in 2014. That is a rise of 11%.

The number of senior managers has increased by that amount over the three and a half years even though there has been a significant reduction in the budgets over the same period. According to an internal HSE report, the increase took place at a time when the number of nursing and support staff reduced. The report was presented by the HSE to a joint committee chaired by an official in the Taoiseach’s office. The committee includes a representative from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Department of Health. The reason the group exists is because the Taoiseach decided more than a year ago to take “a hands-on approach” to the dysfunctional Department of Health. That was the beginning of the process to side-step the Minister of the day. The Taoiseach has ultimately seen that through and we have a new Minister. Perhaps the new Minister will be able to rescue the Department of Health from the Department of the Taoiseach.

This is one issue I know the Minister will wish to raise himself. He will want to know why there is an increase in the number of white-collar staff at the expense of nurses and doctors in white coats. I would like the Minister to respond to a point. I am told a number of hospital managers have made requests for top-up payments and that 85 cases have been referred to the Department of Health for a decision. Could the Minister provide an update not just on the increased numbers, but the requests for top-up payments for managers as well?

I will be very brief. The point is quite clear. The programme for Government outlines the dismantling of the HSE and the establishment of another agency to deliver health care and to bring it under the auspices of the Department of Health. When Fine Gael was in opposition, it was very clear that it wanted to dismantle the HSE. It said it was bureaucracy gone mad and wholly inefficient, and other terms were used to describe it on a continual basis to make political capital out of the HSE. However, we now find that, in government, not only has the bureaucracy the party so much reviled not been reduced, but it has increased.

The figures, as outlined by Deputy Fleming, are quite shocking. Senior hospital management has increased by 11% at the same time as there has been an attack on front-line services right across the health service from consultants down. Could the Minister refocus and reprioritise in order that a recruitment process could be initiated for consultants and others involved in the delivery of key health services that are most needed, namely, front-line services, and that we would stop the feathering of senior hospital management, which is something Fine Gael was opposed to only four years ago? Could the Minister outline the actions he is taking to ensure funding is available for the delivery of priority front-line services and not for the recruitment of senior hospital management?

There has been a reduction in staff among the lower clerical grades of 4% at the same time as there has been a huge increase in the number of senior hospital management grades. There has been an increase in that staff cohort from 273 to 303, an increase of 11%. The Minister’s priorities have gone askew, which exposes the hypocrisy of what his party said it would do and what it is doing.

I welcome the opportunity given by Deputies Billy Kelleher and Sean Fleming to address this matter. At the end of 2014 there will be approximately 97,000 whole-time equivalent, WTE, employees working in the health service. The figure rises to 102,000 when home helps, graduate nurses on the nurse graduate programme, and staff participating on the support staff intern scheme are included.

In March 2009, in response to the financial crisis, the Government of the time decided that the numbers employed across the public service must be reduced in order to meet fiscal and budgetary targets and introduced a moratorium on recruitment and promotion in the public service, which the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has now ended.

In order to mitigate the impact on front-line services of the overall reduction in employment numbers, the priority was and is reform of how health services are delivered in order to ensure a more productive and cost effective health service. The revised working arrangements provided for in the Haddington Road agreement are a pivotal element of that.

I will outline the facts in that regard. There has been a significant reduction of 15,893 employees or 14% of the workforce in the HSE since 2007. The reduction in the number of staff working in management and administration roles was even higher at 18%. In contrast, the number of midwives and doctors has gone up since 2011. The number of nurses has certainly reduced. We have lost far too many of them, but not as many as might appear to be the case, when one includes the graduate nursing programme and the very large number of nurses who are now employed through agencies.

Senior management roles, that is to say, roles at grade 8 and higher, have fallen since September 2007. It is important to say that this group of managers represents just 1% of all health sector staff and approximately 6% of management and administrative staff. Numbers employed in middle management roles in the HSE have also fallen since 2007.

The Haddington Road agreement made provision for the regularisation of long-term acting posts. Under the agreement, employees who had been working in an acting capacity at a higher grade for a period of two years up to 31 December 2012 were to be appointed to these posts on a permanent basis as long as certain conditions were met. Close to 400 staff in the management and administration category have been regularised in this process, including the 30 senior managers referred to in the article in The Irish Times yesterday. What was not said in the article is that applying the exact same principles, an additional 848 nurses and midwives, 248 social and care professionals, and 26 doctors and dentists were regularised in the exact same way. Very many more doctors and nurses had their positions regularised than managers or senior managers.

In return for the Haddington Road agreement, significant change was sought with regard to how posts of a promotional nature would be covered during periods of future absence. With effect from 1 October 2013, no payments are made to staff who take on temporary acting-up appointments to cover annual leave, sick leave, special or other leave, or to allow for the completion of a recruitment process. Instead, staff are expected to take on the role and responsibility of the higher post for such periods without additional pay, provided this period does not exceed three months.

While it is a matter for the HSE to determine the composition of its staffing complement, it is important not to underestimate the significant role that management staff play in the direct support of front-line services.

I thank the Minister for the information he supplied. Essentially, I am wearing my hat as spokesperson on public expenditure.

I am shocked to hear that the Haddington Road agreement seems to be increasing costs in the public service. The agreement was intended to lead to a reduction of €1 billion across the public service, one third of which was to come from the HSE because it employs approximately one third of all public service employees. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide some indication of the actual savings in the Department of Health and the HSE as a result of the Haddington Road agreement on a year-by-year basis for the period 2013 to 2015, as the agreement is due to expire in 2016.

I note the Minister did not deal with the issue of the top-up payments for senior managers. Up to 85 such cases have been referred to the Department of Health for decision. I ask if the Minister would provide that information later in a written reply.

The Minister has referred to the years 2007 and 2011, in order to support his argument. Taking the base year of 2007, there has been a pro rata larger increase of senior management compared with the recruitment of front line staff. As the Minister is aware, commitments were made by this Government to protect front-line staff and that the numbers would be increased where such was needed. It is evident that there is pressure on all of the major front-line services, such as accident and emergency departments, maternity and theatre services. In view of the fact that the HSE's funding has decreased, one would think that priority should be given to the recruitment of front-line staff.

The Haddington Road agreement has resulted in significant expenditure savings in the public service and the health service but the agreement contained an amount of give and take; it was not all take from the public servants as some things were given back. Among the things given back was that people who had been acting up and working in a post above their official posts were upgraded into those posts and this included more than 800 nurses, just under 30 doctors and 30 senior managers. This provision was part of the agreement and it was applied across the board, it was not some form of special deal which only applied to senior managers.

In reply to Deputy Fleming, I do not have the year-on-year figures for the agreement but I can make them available to the Deputy's office. Deputy Kelleher may be interested in the figures for the difference between September 2007 and October 2014, which are the most up-to-date figures. The number of directors has decreased from 218 to 195; the number of senior managers has decreased from 1,013 to 975; the number of middle managers has decreased from 3,736 to 3,516; and the number of general administrative staff has decreased from 13,253 to 10,268 - that is 3,000 of the famous 5,000 middle managers who are now gone. In that period the number of doctors and midwives has increased but I accept that the number of nurses has decreased and it is an issue I intend to reverse in the coming year. The recruitment embargo is gone, thankfully, but that does not mean we are awash with cash but it means we have more flexibility within our payroll budget and we can move some of the agency staff back into regular posts, in particular, nursing posts. I hope to improve the graduate nursing programme to make it more attractive to nurses to encourage more of them to take up those positions and to stay in the country. If we can agree pay scales with the IMO, we hope to be in a position in the new year to advertise for more than 200 consultant posts. It will make a big difference if we can agree on the salary.

The number of top-ups started with about 200 cases and this number has been reduced to 85 over which there remains an argument. It appears that the people are contractually entitled to those payments. The alternative is to go to law but the HSE must ensure that it does not incur significant costs in legal fees only to lose the case. It would make much more sense not to end up spending a fortune on legal fees if the HSE is contractually obliged to make those payments. That is the current consideration.

Symphysiotomy Reports

The symphysiotomy payment scheme is due to close in eight days' time, yet victims of hepatitis C and the residential institutions had three years in which to apply for compensation. The redress scheme for the Magdalen women had no closing date for applications. However, in this instance, the survivors of symphysiotomy have been given an unprecedented period of 20 days. It has been said, and the Minister has responded to me, that late applications will be considered but at the discretion of the assessor, Judge Maureen Harding Clark. This is in marked contrast to the other instances I have cited and yet there are no appeals allowed. We need to recognise that some women still do not know that they were subjected to this horrific procedure. There are women who, for emotional reasons, cannot yet bring themselves to come forward. There are women who were operated on in this country, who were subjected to this procedure and who have since emigrated. There are women without records and women suffering from dementia. All of these are entitled to a caring and inclusive consideration.

This redress scheme is a pathetic effort which is cold and callous. That is the view of a number of the women with whom I have spoken. It is designed to force acceptance of its terms by women who are already weary, who are aged, many of whom are in ill-health. They know that if they do not accept the Minister's terms their entitlements die with them. It is a shameful way to treat innocent women who have already been so cruelly treated. I urge that at the very least the Minister arranges for the extension of time of notice of application to present to a period of three years, in line with the other instances I have cited and not the insulting and outrageous 20 days that currently is the case. The scheme is set to close at the end of next week. I ask the Minister if he will act now.

I ask the Minister to explain why he chose the route of such narrow parameters for the time period as outlined by Deputy Ó Caoláin. The women concerned have been waiting for years. It is an accepted fact that they were butchered as a result of the twisted theory that women could continue to have baby after baby, year after year, with the connivance of the medical profession and the acquiescence of the State. People gave sighs of relief when the scheme was announced. However, the short time period for making application is a concern.

The requirement to provide a specialist medical report is a difficulty for some women. They do not know how to access such a report. Deputy Ó Caoláin referred to women who will have difficulty making applications to the scheme. I ask the Minister to explain how a poor person with limited means will be able to access specialist medical reports. Only medical consultants will give these reports and State-appointed doctors will not. The scheme will not pay for independent medical reports so this is an attack on less well-off women. The scheme is procedurally flawed. Contrary to the UN human rights committee recommendation the scheme offers no individualised assessment nor any right of appeal. Why is this the case? If people are left out of a scheme, their hurt is compounded. It is a paper scheme with no oral hearings and no right of appeal against the decision of the assessor. People are asking why this is the case.

The surgical symphysiotomy payment scheme commenced on 10 November. The Government has agreed that the scheme will also include payments for the small number of women who have had a pubiotomy. The scheme is designed to be simple, straightforward and non-adversarial, and aims to minimise the stress for the women concerned. Many are elderly and may not want to experience the delay, publicity and financial risks that sometimes come with a court case. I met the three support groups representing the women last September and their views helped to shape the scheme. The scheme is supported by two of the three groups.

Ms Justice Maureen Harding Clark, a retired High Court judge. has been appointed as independent assessor for the scheme. Ms Justice Harding Clark, from her previous work on the Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital redress scheme, brings valuable experience to the role of determining the appropriate level of award for each individual.

The symphysiotomy scheme is open to women who are still living and who underwent a surgical symphysiotomy or pubiotomy in the State between the years 1940 and 1990, although we have no evidence of procedures occurring after 1984. Awards of €50,000, €100,000 and €150,000 will be offered.

It is not a requirement to retain a solicitor to make an application. However, the scheme provides for applicants to have legal and other advice available to them in preparing to submit an application if they wish. Applications must be made within 20 working days of the commencement date, which was 10 November 2014. The closing date, therefore, is Friday, 5 December 2014. In exceptional circumstances, Ms Justice Harding Clark has discretion to extend the time for receipt of applications by an additional 20 working days, to Wednesday, 14 January. I do not think it is necessary to extend the closing date for the scheme at this time.

It is important to say that in the event of a delay arising in the compilation of an applicant's supporting documentation due to a difficulty in obtaining medical records, as Deputy Crowe alluded to, the application may be submitted with an explanation of the reasons for the absence of the documentation. It is still possible to make an application even if it has not been possible to put together the medical records at the time. The details of this provision are set out in the terms and conditions of the scheme on the scheme's website.

The judge reported that by last Thursday more than 60 women had applied for awards under the scheme. There are eight working days left to apply and I urge every eligible applicant or her representative to submit her application within the appointed timeframe. My Department will make payments in the case of seven women shortly and others should have payments before Christmas.

The scheme is voluntary and I want to emphasise that women do not waive their rights to take cases to court as a precondition to participating in the scheme. Women may opt out of the scheme at any stage in the process, up to the point of accepting their award. It is only on accepting the offer that a woman must agree to discontinue her legal proceedings against any party arising out of a symphysiotomy or pubiotomy. The Government hopes the implementation of this scheme will help to bring a resolution on this issue for the women concerned and their families.

The assessor and her team are willing to assist and advise any applicants or survivors in getting their paperwork together. If somebody does not want to accept the award offered, she can take her case to the courts and have her individual case assessed as to whether medical negligence is proven and an award is justified.

The Minister said that in exceptional circumstances Ms Justice Harding Clark has discretion to extend the time for receipt of applications by an additional 20 working days, which is up to 14 January 2015. I do not believe the Minister's hand is entirely across all of this. I believe some of it most certainly was devised before he took up the health portfolio. Why does he believe these very restrictive opportunities have been laid down in this particular case regarding this particular cohort of victims? It compares terribly with the State's position on the other cases I have instanced, such as hepatitis C, residential institutions and Magdalen laundries. It is intolerable this is the situation that applies. Even if Ms Justice Harding Clark were to apply her discretion, it is only an additional 20 days.

In my opening contribution to this Topical Issues debate I instanced a number of possible situations that can arise where women may not be able to present to take up the offer of the terms of this redress scheme. Will the Minister please explain why he believes it is necessary to apply such a restrictive timeframe in this instance? Will he please, and I am asking sincerely, reconsider this particular element to allow more time?

I asked about independent medical reports and those women from a poor background who do not have the money to obtain them. How do they do so within the time period the Minister has outlined if they do not have money? It is a fair question and it has not been addressed by the scheme. The Minister stated there are other possibilities for people. I hope the Minister has an answer.

I agree with my colleague that the narrow parameters of the scheme by their nature will further compound the hurt and insult many people feel. Although this has never been about the money, the assessor is giving the impression that most of the women will receive €100,000, but nothing could be further from the truth. The way the scheme is set out, 96% of the survivors, if they apply, will possibly receive €50,000 for a lifelong disability. The higher sums will only be payable where a significant disability lasting three years or more can be shown to be directly attributable to the operation of symphysiotomy. Very specialised reports will be sought and these will cost money. In some cases people will have to go outside the State. How will people do this if they do not have the financial wherewithal?

The Deputies may not believe it, but the idea here genuinely is to bring about a resolution and draw to a close an issue which has been going on for far too long. It is to help women come to a resolution. The assessor and her team are there to help survivors get the award, and to get the higher award if possible. In my view most of the women will get the higher award because the definition of severe disability in the scheme is three years of symptoms including instability in walking and back pain. On meeting the women it is evident that in a very large number of cases they have had such a disability and will therefore qualify for the higher award.

I will certainly check up on the issue of medical reports. My understanding is the vast majority of survivors already have reports. More than 150 of them have or had cases before the courts and others have records from their GPs or consultants. In the past, they were offered the services of a consultant urologist, consultant gynaecologist and triple assessment at Cappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital. I do not see why anyone would have to travel outside the State for such an assessment. I will certainly check up on the issue. I would not like it to be the case that anybody lost her opportunity to apply because she could not obtain a medical assessment of some sort.

What about those with dementia? They seem to be excluded from the scheme.

They are not excluded.

They are not, but how they go about applying for the scheme itself is very narrow. This is the understanding of many of the groups.

If somebody has dementia to the point she does not have mental capacity, somebody can make the application on her behalf.

Top
Share