Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Apr 2015

Vol. 876 No. 3

Topical Issue Debate

Mental Health Services Provision

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this Topical Issue after many attempts. I thank the Minister for Health for his presence. Undoubtedly, he will be aware of the impending decision of An Bord Pleanála regarding the national forensic mental hospital facility to be constructed in Portrane. There are grave concerns within the community about the routing of construction traffic, estimated at 30 trucks per day, in both directions through a small regional road and the village of Donabate. Approximately 10,000 people live between the two towns. The area's roads infrastructure is not up to the standard one would expect for such traffic movements.

I should preface my statements by saying that this project is very welcome among people in Donabate and Portrane, where there is overwhelming support for it. Of the 50 or so people with whom I have corresponded, only one questioned the decision to locate the facility in Portrane. As it so happened, that person was from Dundrum, which is from where the facility is being relocated.

The traffic issue will not go away. A decision will be made by 29 May. Although it may come sooner, I understand that there is a possibility that a decision may be delayed depending on whether An Bord Pleanála seeks additional information from the HSE or decides to assess its inspector's report. Traffic for the project will pass four schools of hundreds of children, a sports centre and a number of sporting clubs that are located around the site of St. Ita's Hospital in Portrane. The alternative is a temporary road, which forms part of the Donabate local area plan passed by Fingal County Council a number of years ago when I was a member of that authority. The temporary road project was to cost in the region of €1 million, but the offset cost that the HSE will have to meet to repair the local roads after and during the facility's construction will run into hundreds of thousands of euro, as we saw when the wastewater treatment facility was being constructed in Portrane in recent years and Fingal County Council had to reinstate roads that were completely destroyed by a far smaller number of heavy goods vehicles, HGVs, entering the site.

A hospital being built means large-scale precasts and units for lift shafts and the likes. These require long vehicles, which cannot pass one another on the bridge into Donabate village. For example, buses cannot pass one another on that bridge. Three roads meet there. The bridge was built when the rail line was created in the middle of the 1850s. Although there is new tarmac on the bridge, I am not convinced it can support two 50-tonne trucks at the same time.

While I do not expect the Minister to involve himself in the planning process, he has opportunities to speak with the HSE and to convey to it the importance of re-examining this issue on foot of An Bord Pleanála's imminent decision. I would be interested in hearing his comments on the matter.

I thank Deputy Farrell for raising this issue for discussion. I am taking this debate on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, who is on Government business elsewhere.

The Government has provided €125 million new ring-fenced funding since 2012 to develop and modernise mental health services in line with A Vision for Change. Along with the need to expand and enhance community-based services such as general adult teams, psychiatry of later life and child and adolescent mental health care, we have also prioritised key mental health infrastructural developments under the HSE capital programme, including the replacement of the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum, CMH. The provision of new facilities to replace the CMH and to otherwise enhance forensic mental health facilities nationally is a Government priority.

This project is being delivered in two phases. Phase 1 comprises core project requirements at St. Ita's Hospital, Portrane, as follows: a 120-bed national forensic hospital to replace the CMH; a new ten-bed mental health intellectual disability forensic unit; and a new ten-bed child and adolescent mental health forensic unit. Under phase 2, it is planned to provide three 30-bed intensive care rehabilitation units, ICRUs, to be located at Portrane, Galway and Cork, which are envisaged upon completion of phase 1. A fourth ICRU is intended for Mullingar, involving the conversion of an existing facility.

The HSE capital programme allows for the completion of phase 1 of the project - Portrane - with design work to be progressed only on phase 2. Phase 1 was designated in September 2014 as a strategic infrastructural development and proceeded on this basis. As is the case with the design, planning and delivery of major health capital projects, every effort is made to address all relevant issues during the construction phase in line with traffic management or other best practice issues associated with such projects.

While the project is progressing satisfactorily overall, the HSE has been conscious of the need to address various local concerns and thereby minimise future risk, such as site access and agreements with residents. These have been the subject of detailed consultations, as reflected in the HSE's submission to An Bord Pleanála. A decision is expected from An Bord Pleanála towards the end of May.

Subject to receipt of planning permission, enabling works will commence on-site shortly thereafter. Construction of this significant health capital project is expected to be finalised in early 2018, with the facility scheduled to become operational later in the year following equipping completion.

I stress that any intervention in the statutory planning process on this matter would be entirely inappropriate, as the Deputy acknowledged. The HSE will, of course, take full account of any issues arising from the expected An Bord Pleanála decision. In the wider context, all efforts should continue to deliver without undue delay the modern national mental health facility now being advanced.

I thank the Minister for his response. I acknowledge the very significant capital infrastructural investment that is being made in my constituency. This particular piece of critical infrastructure has been welcomed by the local community, but the three-year construction phase will have a very detrimental effect on people in the area. My concern is that the price to be paid to advance the project may be too high, perhaps even so high as the loss of a life. This is a village with four schools, a community centre, sporting organisations and so on, all located on the narrow local roads in and around the Donabate area.

The Minister mentioned the consultation process. I participated in that process and can say with confidence that the HSE did not take on board the views of the community. This was particularly evident at one meeting I attended together with the local Minister. The point was made by residents on several occasions that it was impossible to justify routing construction traffic over the bridge I mentioned, which is more than 100 years old and is most likely not up to the standard required to accommodate such traffic. The HSE needs to re-evaluate how this project is to be delivered. It is somewhat ironic that it might end up with somebody having to be put in the care of the HSE as a result of the construction process itself.

I appreciate fully what the Minister is saying in terms of it not being appropriate to interfere in the planning process. However, if there is an opportunity for him to discuss the matter with the HSE, following the decision of An Bord Pleanála, I ask that he emphasise the need to take on board the grave concerns of residents and public representatives in the area.

I very much appreciate Deputy Farrell's point. I know Donabate well enough from my time on Fingal County Council alongside the Deputy some years ago. I understand people's concerns about heavy goods vehicles going through the village and the impact on the bridge during what is a very substantial construction period. I cannot interfere with the planning process that is before An Bord Pleanála but I have discussed the matter with the chief executive officer of Fingal County Council and certainly will discuss it further with the HSE, once a decision is made by An Bord Pleanála, with a view to ensuring the impact on residents in Donabate is minimised and any safety concerns allayed.

Medical Inquiries

As a consequence of suspected cases of misdiagnosis in seven hospitals, with questions raised over the skills of three locum doctors, thousands of scans have had to be reviewed and hundreds of patients recalled. This news comes some years after the issue of delayed X-ray diagnoses at Tallaght hospital and similar issues at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda emerged. The HSE assured us in 2010 that procedures were in place to ensure X-ray readings would neither be delayed nor misread. Why then has the system let patients down once again?

When a patient has a test performed and receives an all-clear result, he or she is naturally relieved. Now, however, some patients not only have an anxious wait to find out if their all-clear result was correct but there is also the fear that a delayed diagnosis could lead to other complications. Why has it taken so long to identify this problem? Why are some of the patients who are affected finding out what is happening through the media?

The period in question is 2013 and 2014. We were assured in 2010, as I said, that national guidelines for radiological reporting were in place and being fully complied with by all acute hospitals throughout the country. As such, this issue should never have arisen. When it did arise, it should have been identified through the review process that was built into those national standards. That did not happen. The doctors in question moved from hospital to hospital within the State and have since moved outside the jurisdiction. Will the Minister indicate what is being done to protect patients in the United Kingdom and Australia who are now under the care of these doctors?

As I live in Drogheda, issues relating to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital are of great concern to me and my constituents. As Deputy Naughten notes, we have been here before. In fact, there is a major sense of déjà vu about the new revelations regarding cases of misdiagnosis. A report in the Irish Independent of 5 November 2008 related that nine cancer patients had their diagnosis delayed and one of them, who had since died, had missed a major chance of a cure for her cancer. This has been a problem for some time.

I am concerned at the lack of a dynamic within the HSE to deal with this issue. Heads must roll as a consequence of what has happened. How were the three consultants involved, one of whom worked in three or four of the hospitals, allowed into the system when they were not fit for purpose? A Google search of the literature indicates that significant mistakes can occur in reading around radiology, with an error rate of 2% to 20% indicated. However, we were assured that this would never happen again. Given that we know three doctors were involved, why has only one misdiagnosis case been reported in the media? Will the Minister explain that?

When was the Medical Council informed about this issue and what is it doing about it? Why is it the case, as reported in The Irish Times, that the doctors concerned cannot be brought back to this country by mandamus to be interrogated as to what happened? Either we are hiring consultants by way of a Google search or we have proper supervision and procedures in place. The fault here does not lie with the Minister but with the HSE, which is not delivering for patients in this regard.

Is the technology in these hospitals fit for purpose? In other words, is it possible that some of these errors occurred because the technology in use was not the best available in the marketplace? What protocols will be put in place to ensure that more than one set of eyes is cast over these scans, to use the Minister's phrase in an interview he gave earlier today? If it is necessary to send scans to specialists outside the State for a second read, then that is what we should do.

As I mentioned in a radio interview earlier today, I was first informed of this issue this morning and may not have all the information. Indeed, I am not sure anybody does have all the information. However, I certainly will provide whatever information I do have.

As I understand, in 2013 and 2014 questions were raised by clinicians working in our acute hospitals regarding the work of three locum or temporary radiologists. The hospitals involved were Bantry, Kerry and Cavan-Monaghan. It is not believed that the locum or temporary consultants are linked in any way. These three reviews in the three hospitals have been completed and all patients who required follow-up investigations have been contacted. The HSE has provided assurance that if patients at these hospitals have not been contacted by the hospital or their GP already, they have no cause for concern.

I understand a significant number of X-rays - in the thousands, as Deputy Naughten noted - were reviewed and only a small fraction, 100 or so, required follow-up and a repeat scan. Regrettably, one incident of delayed diagnosis has been confirmed. The HSE is following up appropriately with the patient and will provide whatever support is necessary. There is full and open disclosure, in line with policy.

As part of the HSE's risk assessment process, a review may require an audit of work carried out by a locum consultant in other hospitals. As two of the locum consultants also carried out some work in other hospitals, reviews in those hospitals are being undertaken.

In the case of two hospitals, Wexford and Roscommon, I understand that no patient safety concerns have been identified. Drogheda and Connolly hospitals are currently carrying out a preliminary audit over a short defined period to identify any possible errors or safety concerns. This preliminary work is being undertaken to provide assurance to patients that their X-rays or scans have been correctly assessed and reported. In both cases, it involved somebody who worked in those hospitals for a four-week period in 2013. Reviews will be necessary in a number of other hospitals where the consultants also worked.

I have been assured by the HSE that none of the locums involved is currently working in any Irish hospital and reports, as appropriate, have been made to the Medical Council. The reviews were carried out in line with the HSE safety incident management policy and the faculty of radiologists quality assurance guidelines. All cases have been managed, escalated and reported in accordance with the HSE safety incident management policy. Where further action was recommended, patients have been supported.

Radiological services will be improved through the new hospital groups. Within groups, a networked approach will be adopted, allowing the major centres to direct and manage services. It will also allow for greater quality control, quality assurance and frequent audits to pick up errors and identify patterns of poor performance.

I would encourage Members to know all the facts - I do not know them all yet - before jumping to conclusions and calling for heads or assuming that people have done wrong when that is yet proven. As Deputy O'Dowd pointed out, even the best radiologist in the world will have an error rate of 2%. When one gets two radiologists together to look at the same scan, they do not always agree. No matter what guidelines or procedures are in place or what assurances may have been given in the past, we will always have errors. That is why we must have audits regularly, we must have reviews and why sometimes we have to recall patients, which is what has occurred in this case. So far, of 5,000 or more scans reviewed, only one delayed diagnosis has been identified and that relates to only one of the three consultants. That is an enormous tragedy and I feel for the person involved. They will have the full support of the HSE in getting their treatment and are getting that now. What we have is well below the error rate of 2% so far. Things may change, more things may happen and there may be more information in the future. The facts of this are only emerging but let us stick to the facts and not jump to conclusions or start hanging people or calling for various actions to happen before we know everything that happened.

The most worrying aspect of the Minister's response is that there are a number of other hospitals involved. Can he indicate in how many more hospitals these locum consultants worked? How many more patients will have to worry until they get clarification in this regard?

The reason this issue arises is because we are so reliant on locum consultants. As the Minister will know, consultant radiologist posts in Roscommon County Hospital have been vacant for a number of years. We have been trying to get approval to recruit consultants. We have no permanent consultant radiologist at that hospital. Can the Minister give me an assurance here that those appointments will be made?

I wish to make two further brief points. The first is that the Minister failed to answer a key question. If patients in Ireland were potentially put at risk in regard to these doctors, patients in the UK and Australia where those doctors are now working are also potentially at risk. I raised an issue here in the past regarding a consultant who was not up to standard here and who continued to practise in the UK. I want an assurance that no other patient is being put at risk, be it in this jurisdiction or any other jurisdictions, if these doctors are not up to scratch.

We are running out of time, Deputy.

Second, why are we not using the key quality indicators that were set out in the Royal College of Surgeons standards in 2010 which would have identified this problem at a much earlier stage?

The facts of all of this emerged not from a statement from the Minister or a statement from the HSE, but from a report in the national media in The Irish Times. Why was a statement in regard to it not made by the HSE? How can we believe the HSE when it obviously kept this information from public view? We would not know of it if The Irish Times had not put it into the public domain, and the Minister would not know of it either. He only learned of it this morning like ourselves. Let us be honest and factual about this matter. Such incidents have happened before. People have died before their time. The result of a previous inquiry stated that somebody would not have died if they had been caught in time and their X-ray had been read properly. That is a fact.

The Minister stated in his reply that "Drogheda and Connolly hospitals are currently carrying out a preliminary audit over a short defined period". We do not know what is going on. The Minister said that "reviews will be necessary in a number of other hospitals where the locums worked". What is going on? The Minister is badly served - as are we - by the statement he read out. I want to know the full facts as I live beside a major hospital that serves the north east. The commitments we were given that this would never happen again in 2008, 2009 and 2010 were absolute and they were accepted, but this is happening today.

I do not have full information so I can only give the Deputies the information I have and I certainly will not withhold any information from them. I do not know the exact number of hospitals in which these three locums worked. That is being figured out at the moment. What I can say is that when it comes to the one locum associated with the one delayed diagnosis, all those cases have been traced. What is now being done, as I have been informed, is a trace-back of the two locums, against which no delayed diagnosis has yet been identified.

It is the case that we rely heavily on locum consultants in the Irish health service. The fact that we have now concluded an agreement with the IMO on salary scales will make it easier to hire full-time consultants and hospitals now have much more autonomy within their payroll budgets to hire people for full-time posts. We will, however, always have locums, particularly in smaller hospitals. A small hospital with, say, three or four radiologists or cardiologists or other consultants, is very much dependent on locums when one of the consultants is on maternity leave, out sick or away. It is different in bigger hospitals. If they have a rota of 15 or 16, it is possible to cover for one or two absences but that is not the case in smaller hospitals. That is an issue with smaller hospitals and we need to face up to it. The hospital groups will help. Additionally, when it comes to radiology, in particular, NIMIS technology will help because it has all scans on a digital screen. It is not in all hospitals yet but it will be. It allows for remote reporting and for audits to happen elsewhere. Measures have been taken to contact the hospitals overseas in which these three doctors are working. It is very important to bear in mind that no findings have yet been made against any of the locum consultants to whom we are referring.

Industrial Disputes

The next Topical Issue is in the names of Deputies Broughan, Boyd Barrett and Deputy Dooley who are sharing the time slot.

Tomorrow is International Workers' Day and it is astonishing that a Government with Labour Ministers would have countenanced the privatisation of significant portions of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann networks. The stonewalling of the NBRU and SIPTU by Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, and his colleagues has brought us to the awful situation where between 400,000 and 450,000 bus commuters will be left with no bus transport tomorrow and Saturday. Some 93% of workers with Dublin Bus and 95% of Bus Éireann staff felt they had no choice a few weeks ago but to vote for strike action. We have just had a news flash that the strike is going ahead, which is very disappointing. We welcomed that there was some engagement at the Labour Relations Commission.

Both SIPTU and NBRU have outlined their profound concerns for future pay and conditions of the workforce resulting from the proposed tendering and privatisation of Dublin city and national bus routes. Recent assurances from the companies and the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, may be worth no more than similar assurances given to the Aer Lingus workforce, as Deputy Clare Daly noted this morning. We have the example of the UK since the Thatcherite period in the mid-1980s when its national public bus network was privatised and eventually ended up as a cartel divided geographically between five operators.

The Taoiseach and the Minister have repeatedly spoken about the public service obligation subsidy of €90 million. They did not mention that the subsidy has been slashed by the Government and its predecessors since 2011, year after year.

The PSO for Bus Éireann was cut by €15 million, down from €49 million to €34 million. In the case of Dublin Bus, the PSO only represented approximately 30% of turnover whereas in many other European countries, PSOs are in the region of 70% of turnover. Both companies have produced surpluses in recent years and have brought forward many driver and route efficiencies, including network direct in Dublin.

It is very disappointing that even at this, the 11th hour, negotiations have not succeeded. I strongly urge the Minister to address the six areas of concern to the 6,000 staff and their trade union representatives. What progress, for example, has been made on registered employment agreements? It is my personal view that the Minister should simply abandon this crazy plan and put all of his Department's resources into developing a proper Dublin and national bus service.

If the Minister wants to avoid major disruption to hundreds of thousands of people over the May Day bank holiday weekend and prevent workers, who do not want to be on strike, from going on strike tomorrow, he should abandon this crazy plan to privatise 10% of the routes of Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus. A lot of mud has been thrown and confusion sown on this issue but the bottom line is that this is the beginning of an ideologically driven attempt to privatise bus services. The consequence of that will be to assault the pay and conditions of bus workers and to adversely affect the public transport system as a public service for those who need it. Essentially, what this Government is about is making public transport a purely profit-oriented business. That is absolutely retrograde and should be abandoned.

My own area will be devastated by the first round of privatisation. Six routes are affected, namely 75, 45A, 59, 63, 17 and 114. What characterises many, though not all, of those routes is that they serve areas that are a little bit off the beaten track and where many elderly and young people live. They would not necessarily be hugely profitable routes and if this plan goes ahead these routes will be lost, sooner or later. There is no way for private companies to make money from such routes other than by cutting the routes, reducing the service or attacking the pay and conditions of their workers. The problem with public transport in this country is simple. We provide one of the lowest subsidies to public transport in Europe at 29%; it is 39% in London, 57% in Zurich, 79% in Lyon, 68% in Brussels and so forth. That is the basic problem; we are underfunding public transport in order to force it towards privatisation. We should abandon that plan and avert the strike tomorrow.

It is deeply unfortunate that we find ourselves, at the eleventh hour, in a situation where tens of thousands of people will be without public transport in the coming days. The blame for that lies firmly at the feet of this Government. The fateful decision was taken by a Labour Party Minister, in consultation with the former Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, before the current Minister came into office. Notwithstanding that, an ideological position is being pushed by Fine Gael which has led to this crisis.

The Minister took the opportunity yesterday to suggest that it was a decision taken by a previous Government that led to this situation. However, he knows well that the 2008 Act was based on a European Commission regulation of 2007 which required legislation to cover competition. The legislation that was introduced in 2008 sets out very clearly in section 52 that the existing routes could be maintained by both Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus, based on an awarding mechanism that would see them retain what they currently have. Instead of using the provisions in the legislation to introduce competitive tendering for new routes, thereby protecting the core public transport network, this Government has chosen not to use section 52 of the legislation or, indeed, the agreements that were reached with unions at the time. It has chosen a path of dismantling the public transport system that is currently in public ownership. That is why the workers identify rightly, on behalf of the next generation, that if they do not take a stand now, commuters will be disenfranchised and routes and services will diminish in line with what happened in other jurisdictions, particularly in London.

I appeal to the Minister, through the NTA, to call off the process of competitive tendering and go back to the table to see how he can achieve his ideological goals in a manner that does not impact on the travelling public or the workers.

I thank the Deputies for raising this issue which is of huge concern to commuters throughout the country and to workers in our public bus companies. On Tuesday, I issued a statement which dealt comprehensively with the industrial relations issues involved in the current dispute between SIPTU, the NBRU and the bus companies. I confirmed that no current employees of the two companies would have to transfer to another employer should their company be unsuccessful in retaining one of the routes being tendered out in the current process. As this means that the terms and conditions of all those employees are fully protected, my statement provided a framework for the unions to return to the LRC to formalise an agreement with the companies on that basis and to agree a process to deal with any implementation issues which might arise. This statement removed any industrial relations basis for strike action by either union against the companies and should have led to an immediate calling-off of the strikes planned for this weekend and on five subsequent days in May. This has not happened and attempts have been made to justify the disruption this action will cause to the public and the damage it will cause to the companies, by reference to a range of issues which have already been addressed or which relate to Government policies and legislation which are entirely outside the control of the companies and are not a valid basis for legitimate industrial action.

To remove any doubt or confusion which may exist in the public mind, I want in the short time available to me to address again some of the points raised by SIPTU and the NBRU. First, they have stated that no bus worker should be compelled to move to a private operator under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment), TUPE, regulations. As stated, I confirmed on Tuesday that such a commitment can be given to all current employees for the tender process that is now under way. The unions have also said that the NTA must effectively regulate private operators who breach workers' conditions of employment. This is not an industrial relations matter between the unions and the two companies and is not a valid basis for industrial action against them. However, the NTA has already indicated at the LRC that it will develop a basic set of principles for inclusion in a statement of contractor employment standards for contractors on relevant public transport service contracts. This would indicate that it is NTA policy to ensure contractor compliance with employment law and the authority will apply a performance regime that would include performance deductions where breaches of contract obligations have been verified and not dealt with. The ultimate sanction, of course, is termination of the contract.

The trade unions have stated that labour costs must not be a considering factor in the contract tendering process. This is not an industrial relations matter between the unions and the two companies and is not a valid basis for industrial action against the companies. Furthermore, this is not a provision that is used in tendering processes. The unions have said that where legacy costs arise from lost tenders, workers must not be asked to fund these through restructuring. The companies have already given this commitment and will restate it in discussions at the LRC. In any event, legacy costs will not be significant because of growth in the overall market. Finally, the unions have said that registered employment agreements, REAs, for bus workers should be entered into by employers.

The Government has approved the drafting of legislation on REAs and sectoral employment orders, which is due to be published within weeks. Following enactment, it would be a matter for parties involved in the bus market as to whether they want to instigate discussions on an REA or approach the Labour Court for a sectoral employment order. Therefore this is not a valid basis for the current industrial action.

The Minister mentioned a statement of contractor employment standards, SCES, for proposed private operators on 10% of the PSO routes. However, across a wide range of policy areas, including finance, banking, energy and communications, regulation has not worked. We have cartels in energy with companies charging what they like.

I also asked about the registered employment agreement, which the Minister said would be published. Why has it not been published? Why has this work not been done? The Minister said sectoral employment orders can be made, but he has given no details. There is nothing here for very worried workers and their families.

The Minister referred to TUPE but we know the weaknesses of TUPE. It does not cover pensions and so on. There is no basis in EU or Irish law for the steps he is now taking.

We do not need this privatisation. It is not necessary. It was foisted on us by the late Séamus Brennan of Fianna Fáil. This is a Fianna Fáil production now being directed by Fine Gael to bring us a privatised public bus sector. The two of them will probably be together after the general election in a Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael Government.

The Deputy should not hold his breath.

This is what has been planned. This is what the Irish Independent wants to happen with Fine Gael having perhaps eight seats in Cabinet. They invented this.

No, we did not.

The late Séamus Brennan wanted to privatise a quarter of the bus network.

That is correct, but he never got his way.

I urge the Minister and I urge Labour Party Ministers to abandon this policy and give Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann the resources they need to produce the kind of good bus service we want. He should not bring us down this road, which has ended up with cartels and price-gouging in the UK, overseen by the current Conservative-led Government.

When we hear the Minister's response, which has failed to address either the questions we asked or, more importantly, the concerns driving the bus workers to go out on strike tomorrow, I have to say they are right and justified to proceed with that industrial action to force the Minister to back down. This is about the Minister's policy and not all these technicalities and legalities. It is about his policy and the obsession of Fine Gael in particular to privatise public services.

We need to be clear and the public needs to be clear that when those workers go out on strike against privatisation, they are acting in the interests of the entire public. As a result of privatisation there will not be a single extra bus route or bus journey on any of the routes that are outsourced. The only thing that will change is that in order to make money, those private contractors will have to cut the wages and conditions of workers or cut the services, or both. In the long run, services such as the ones I mentioned in outlying areas, of which our area will be particularly hard hit, will go because they will not been seen as profitable from the point of view of profit-hungry contractors.

We are saying the Minister should abandon the plan to dismantle the public transport system. It is wrong.

Yet again the Minister has announced what he believes to be the solution to this strike - that workers could remain with the two parent companies. All that he does every time he reiterates that is to prove that this is ideology over economics from the Government's perspective. If Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus have to retain staff they no longer require because they no longer retain the services, they will become more inefficient, making it more difficult for Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus to compete for the awards the Minister will be issuing from 2017 to 2019.

It is not acceptable for the Minister to say that somehow because of growth in the market these people will be subsumed into those companies because if the Bus Éireann network in Waterford is dismantled and the growth is in Dublin, does he expect these workers to travel from Waterford to Dublin to work? It is farcical. I know it was about the Minister putting his finger in the dam of the strike that is emerging, but it undermines the efforts he is making if it is supposed to be done under value for money. I ask the Minister to accept that the proposal based on Fine Gael ideology is wrong, to pull back at this late hour and ask the NTA to step back from competitive tendering.

As the strike is going ahead tonight, I ask the Minister to do two things. He should ask Iarnród Éireann to halt the works that are planned on the rail network over the weekend. Will he sign whatever order is appropriate to open up the bus lanes to commuters during the strike period?

Anybody who is going on strike tomorrow will not find themselves required to change company due to the tendering process that is under way. It is an intervention that is unprecedented in the recent history of both companies. It was made by the Government because I recognised the concerns that workers have regarding a change. I am also very conscious that what will happen tomorrow will cause immense harm to the company and to the travelling public. The losses for both companies will be in the millions of euro and millions of journeys will be affected by what could yet happen tomorrow.

The Labour Relations Commission and all that is available there provided a forum within which the framework I have outlined could have led to dealing with detailed matters of implementation. That would have allowed the residual issues that existed to be dealt with.

One matter that has been further emphasised throughout today is the issue of legacy costs. I have emphasised again here this evening as I did earlier that legacy costs as a result of this process will not have to be dealt with by the companies. As a result of what could happen tomorrow, great legacy costs will be conferred on both companies due to the scale of strike action that will happen. I will not be asking the taxpayer to pay for that cost.

I believe we will have a bigger bus market with a bigger Bus Éireann and bigger Dublin Bus within it. As we increase investment in both those companies we should do so in such a way that the best value can be gained for the taxpayer and where a degree of tension can be introduced for that market to ensure services are provided well and taxpayers' money is well spent.

Credit Unions

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for having accepted this particularly important Topical Issue matter. I also thank the Minister of State, Deputy Harris, for coming in to deal with it. I hope he will take seriously the issues I am raising.

The Minister of State will know from his party colleagues the huge controversy that has surrounded the closure of Newbridge Credit Union, both locally and nationally. Locally it was a union of enormous significance. Its building dominated the local streetscape in very much the same way that it dominated the local community. The size of the building reflected the importance of that organisation to the community as a whole and its loss has had a devastating impact on the community at large and in particular on low-income families.

The impact on low-income families has been further exacerbated by the contemporaneous closure of the local parish savings club on foot of legal advice arising out of the role of the charities regulator. As a result, Newbridge has become a playground for moneylenders and the least well off in the community are suffering most. Those are the difficulties we have to contend with.

The particular issue I wish to raise is death benefit or life assurance. One of the significant benefits that came to members of credit unions and a benefit that was of particular importance to people of relatively modest means was that on death they could avail of a benefit of up to €12,000 or €12,500.

The understanding was that when the credit union transferred to Permanent TSB, all of the loans, deposits and benefits accruing to members would also transfer. It was only realised in recent months that Permanent TSB will not provide death benefits. This is important to all members but it is particularly significant to people on modest means and older people for whom this was their only life assurance provision. It provided a fund that would bury them when their time came. People were alarmed to discover that Permanent TSB will not be honouring the commitments made by the credit union.

The State has committed €53 million to fund the transition of the credit union to its new manifestation. Given the amount that has been paid to Permanent TSB and the costs incurred in the process, some of which were questionable in terms of the role played by the Central Bank and the Department of Finance, there is a moral imperative to ensure that people who had this benefit in the past can continue to enjoy it in future.

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter and giving me an opportunity to provide information to him and his constituents. The Central Bank received approval from the High Court under the Central Bank and Credit Institutions (Resolution) Act 2011 to transfer the assets and liabilities of Newbridge Credit Union, excluding the premises, to Permanent TSB. This action was necessary to safeguard members' savings as the only alternative available to the Central Bank was liquidation, which would have meant the loss of unprotected savings of €11 million. These included the savings of charities, schools and individuals.

On foot of a request from the Governor of the Central Bank, the Minister for Finance agreed to pay Permanent TSB a financial incentive of up to €53.9 million to support the transfer. This consisted of €23 million in cash up-front, €4.25 million for restructuring and integration costs, €2 million for other transferring liabilities and a maximum of €24.7 million to cover additional costs resulting from all loans being written off with nothing recovered. A 50:50 risk sharing agreement is in place whereby the resolution fund will absorb 50% of losses on loans performing below their transfer value and share 50% of gains on loans performing above their transfer value. The financial incentive provided in the Newbridge case is fully recoupable from the financial services sector over time in the form of a levy.

The strategic approach taken by Permanent TSB to the former Newbridge Credit Union, including the provision of any insurance coverage for customers, is a commercial matter for that entity. The Minister for Finance was informed by the Central Bank that Permanent TSB wrote to the former members of Newbridge Credit Union in December 2014 to state its intention to fully integrate the business of the credit union into the local branch of Permanent TSB. This correspondence included details of Permanent TSB's approach to life insurance on deposits and loan protection insurance, which was a commercial decision taken by Permanent TSB. All questions regarding those assets and liabilities, as well as queries on ongoing customer products and services, can and should be addressed to Permanent TSB in the first instance.

The Minister for Finance emphasises the Government's recognition of the important role of credit unions as a volunteer co-operative movement and the distinction between credit unions and other types of financial institutions. The Government's priorities remain the protection of members' savings, the financial stability of credit unions and the sector overall. In February 2015 the Central Bank approved the extension of the common bond of Naas Credit Union to incorporate a number of other areas including Newbridge. This will ensure that credit union services are again available to people in the Newbridge area. The Government is determined to support a strengthened and growing credit union movement and we encourage the movement to work with stronger credit unions so they can provide a viable option for assisting weaker credit unions. Each and every action taken by this Government on the recommendation of the Central Bank was aimed at protecting members' savings, including charities, schools and local savers in the Newbridge area.

I support the objective of protecting savings but the issue of death benefit or insurance is a different matter. The Minister of State revealed that responsibility for this has been passed to Permanent TSB but agents of the State entered into an agreement with that bank before the credit union had been subsumed. The issue of death benefit should have been considered as part of this agreement. A considerable number of people are suffering because a benefit they expected to receive after being members of the credit union for several decades will now be denied to them. That is wrong and the Department of Finance should rectify the matter immediately. An information note circulated to people in advance of the credit union being subsumed stated that the legal agreements underpinning existing loan and other arrangements would not be altered by the transfer because Permanent TSB was simply going to assume the same rights and responsibilities formerly belonging to the credit union. That was people's understanding until December 2014, when the process was at an advanced stage. It is not too late to revisit this issue and do the honourable thing on behalf of the longstanding members of the credit union who expected to be able to rely on this death benefit.

I will bring the Deputy's views to the attention of the Minister for Finance. I am sure the Deputy did not intend this but I reject any criticism of Department of Finance officials or the Minister in respect of this matter. Every action taken was on the basis of protecting members' savings. I am sure the Deputy accepts the bona fides of the Department and the Government in that regard.

The other option was liquidation, which would have been more expensive and, more important, would have put savings at risk. The Minister for Finance, on the recommendation of the Central Bank, has put in place funds and measures to address the problems in Newbridge. The Deputy and other colleagues from that area have outlined to me the difficulties this has caused. I am pleased that the Central Bank has made a decision that will ensure credit union services can continue to be available.

As Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW, I am exploring how we can provide Intreo services from the former credit union building, as well as other opportunities to allow the community to benefit from the space provided. I look forward to working with local representatives and community groups in that regard.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.40 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 6 May 2015.
Top
Share