Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Feb 2012

Vol. 213 No. 12

Adjournment Matters

Care of the Elderly

Senator Jimmy Harte

The issue of Lifford Community Hospital was debated here recently. A report issued by the HSE West last week indicated that Lifford Community Hospital would close in three months subject to consultation and a review. There will be a meeting tomorrow with Mr. John Hayes of HSE west in Letterkenny to discuss the plan. I was born in Lifford community hospital and some of my family members passed away there over the years. The most recent HIQA report from September 2011 highlights the great care patients are getting in the hospital and how well the hospital is regarded in the community. It also acts as a step-down facility for Letterkenny General Hospital which is approximately 20 minutes away. Mr. Hayes has admitted that this may pose a difficulty. In light of the favourable HIQA report perhaps the Minister might suggest that the hospital be given one year or two years rather than the three months, which would allow patients the time to get used to the fact that it might close down.

My most recent visit to the hospital was before Christmas. Some of the patients regard the hospital as their home. One patient said, "This is my sitting room and this is my fireplace." Most of them would be over 80 and regard it as a home. I accept that if they are moved to St. Joseph's home in Stranorlar they might be cared for as well. However, moving them from what they regard as their home could come as a shock to them. The community in Lifford has raised more than €100,000 to assist the HSE in whatever way possible to improve the facilities in the hospital. While I accept the building is old, the quality of care cannot be overstated.

The report highlighted that the hospital can give better care because the numbers are small. There are 11 long-stay beds and nine respite beds. The fact that the numbers have fallen gives them a better quality of care. I ask the Minister to extend the time from three months to 12 months or perhaps two years before a closure takes place.

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

I thank the Senator for raising this important issue. I apologise that the Minister of State with responsibility for care of the elderly, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, was unable to address the issue. It provides me with an opportunity on her behalf to update the House on the matter and to outline the background to the current situation and the action taken by the Health Service Executive.

The Senator will be aware that the moratorium on recruitment and compliance with national quality standards are impacting on the community hospital system in Donegal. These pressures are mirrored across the country and are well documented. I acknowledge that there is a considerable concern about the future of our community nursing units. There is no doubt that we are facing challenges in this sector owing to staffing and funding issues, and the age and structure of the existing units.

The HSE West service plan for 2012 proposes that a rationalisation of residential facilities be undertaken following extensive consultation with patients and relevant stakeholders regarding Lifford Community Hospital. Lifford Community Hospital is one of 11 community hospitals in County Donegal. It was established in 1799. Over the past 12 to 18 months the hospital has reduced its bed capacity from 40 beds to the current 20 beds. The HSE is now considering a proposal to discontinue the inpatient services at Lifford Community Hospital. This includes 11 long-stay residential beds, five respite-specific beds, one palliative-care bed and three assessment-rehabilitative beds.

The proposal envisages that the physiotherapy department, dental and chiropody clinics located at the hospital will continue to provide services to the local community. Access to the primary care services would remain unchanged. However, prior to any final decision being taken a three-month period of consultation by HSE management will begin on 1 March with all residents, their families and staff. This consultation period will focus on the provision of information on the proposed changes and the options that are available to the residents, and will allow time for them and their families to consider these. Any proposals for the continuation of services or provision of alternative services, whether from the local community or other interested parties will be actively considered as part of the consultation process.

The HIQA acknowledges that the facility's age, layout and structure pose challenges to the delivery of care. It further acknowledges that the reduction in numbers and the clear demarcation of respite and long-stay accommodation has assisted the hospital in meeting the regulations in terms of provision of service to long-stay residents. However, the HSE estimates the cost of future compliance with HIQA standards, SARI guidelines on infection and the national standards for safer better health care is approximately €1.5 million. The capital requirement to upgrade or extend the facility is one factor informing the decision to propose the closure of the facility in 2012. Other factors include the moratorium on recruitment and the cost of care per resident which is now not sustainable in comparison with other units and the private sector.

In addition, there is existing capacity within the local public and private residential facilitates to accommodate the 11 long-term residents in Lifford based on their preference. All developments have to be addressed in the light of the current economic and budgetary pressures and any decisions taken by the HSE must have regard to this and the current moratorium. I trust the House will agree that we need to ensure that the highest standard of care will continue to be provided to all residents in a safe and secure environment. Providing quality and safe care will always remain at the heart of any considerations.

Senator Jimmy Harte

I accept the points the Minister makes, but I have one question. Would the Minister agree——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should bear in mind that the Minister is not the line Minister, for whom he is standing in.

Senator Jimmy Harte

I ask him to bring this to the attention of the Minister of State. Is it feasible that the three-month period could be extended to 12 months in consideration of the patients there?

Deputy Phil Hogan

I will ask her.

Senator Jimmy Harte

I hope they will not be asked to move within three months although I agree that they would be moving to a modern and well staffed facility. I believe these people need longer to get used to the idea that closure is taking place. These people are over 85 years of age and to ask them to move within three months is something of a shock at this stage.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am sure the Minister will take the Senator's points on board.

Local Authority Housing

Senator Averil Power

As the Minister is aware, more than four months have passed since the Priory Hall residents were forced to evacuate their homes as a result of a dangerous fire risk. Four months have passed since I raised their plight with the Minister in the House but there is still no sign of a long-term solution to their housing problems. In the short term the residents face the prospect of having to pay rent on temporary accommodation as well as paying their mortgages because the council is appealing the High Court decision to the Supreme Court. I was genuinely shocked to read the response of the Minister to a question on this issue tabled in the Dáil last month. The Minister put it to the House that Dublin City Council had made commendable efforts to provide for the needs of the residents. Frankly, there is nothing commendable about forcing people out of their homes with no advance plan for emergency accommodation for families with infant children who were unsure where they would sleep in subsequent days. There is nothing commendable about trying to make the residents pay rent on temporary accommodation on top of mortgage repayments on uninhabitable accommodation in Priory Hall.

Overall, Dublin City Council's approach has been typified from the start of this debacle by a distinct lack of humanity. My concern is that by listening only to the council's version of events, the Minister is getting a warped view of the reality faced by the residents. By passing the buck between each other, Dublin City Council and the Department are effectively ensuring that no State body is taking responsibility for resolving the problems in Priory Hall.

The Department is insisting that the matter is the responsibility of Dublin City Council. However, Dublin City Council has made it clear at meetings which I attended that it is taking instruction from the Minister's Department and that it has been warned not to set a precedent by accepting responsibility for Priory Hall. This buck-passing must stop. I urge the Minister today, as I did four months ago, to meet the residents and to hear at first hand how all of this is affecting them and their families. I believe if the Minister sat down and listened to them he would feel compelled to help them, to put aside all the bureaucracy, to stop passing the buck and to do the right thing.

I urge the Minister to ensure a proper system is put in place at national level for dealing with housing evacuation situations. Unfortunately, the problems in Priory Hall are likely to recur to varying extents in other developments throughout the country. It is neither fair nor sensible to allow different county councils to take different responses. No doubt the Minister is aware of the announcement yesterday that 250 householders in Belmayne, north-east Dublin, must move out of their homes temporarily due to fire safety problems. Thankfully, they will be accommodated within the same development because there are many empty units in Belmayne and the works should take only a matter of days. Unfortunately, residents in others developments in the coming years may not be quite so lucky. I call on the Minister, who has national responsibility for this issue, to put in place a proper national system for dealing with future problems of this nature.

I fully accept that the responsibility rests with the developers. The State should ensure that the costs rest with developers when these issues arise in future. Unfortunately, we may end up with other situations where developers go bust and are not in a position financially to rectify the situation or where the likes of Tom McFeely, the individual responsible for building Priory Hall, try to do everything they can do avoid their responsibilities. It is sensible to get ahead of this before we end up with future problems. I call on the Minister to sit down, to bring all the agencies together and to put in place a framework for how these issues will be dealt with rather than leaving the residents to run from one Department to another and from the council to their national representatives in an attempt to get someone to take responsibility. Let us put a system in place now to ensure that problems in future can be deal with effectively.

Deputy Phil Hogan

The legal proceedings relating to Priory Hall are continuing and it would be inappropriate to anticipate their conclusion. I imagine Senator Power has no wish for me, as a public representative, to intervene in court proceedings. Dublin City Council's appeal against the High Court order that it pay the costs of providing alternative accommodation for the Priory Hall residents will be heard on 24 April 2012. I realise this has caused a good deal of inconvenience to the residents through no fault of theirs. The lack of trust between the professional bodies, professional people and the developer has allowed this to happen from the beginning.

At my request, the Department is being kept informed of developments by Dublin City Council. The Department has assisted the council, in consultation with NAMA, in securing alternative temporary accommodation for many of the residents. My Department has made a contribution towards the costs necessarily incurred by Dublin City Council, in the context of the High Court cases, in providing temporary accommodation for households evacuated from Priory Hall.

Dublin City Council is the designated authority with powers to enforce the statutory requirements arising under current legislation, including the Fire Safety Act, the Building Control Acts and the Planning and Development Acts, all of which are at issue in the case of Priory Hall. The council is also the designated housing authority under the Housing Acts.

My responsibility is to ensure that appropriate statutory requirements, technical standards and administrative provisions are put in place under the relevant legislation. This responsibility has been fulfilled and is not in dispute. I have no role in enforcement activity or in the direct provision of housing services. Residents at Priory Hall and their representatives have previously been advised of this standing division of responsibilities.

In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to meet the residents at this point. As I have stated on many occasions I must act appropriately and within my powers, especially since the case is already the subject of legal proceedings. The overriding priority is to facilitate the return by residents to their homes as early as possible. In this respect it will be necessary to ensure that these homes are made fit for purpose and that the costs of so doing fall where they should. I have asked Dublin City Council to do all within its powers to achieve this objective and I have asked the Department to continue to liaise closely with Dublin City Council in this regard.

The council has made commendable efforts to provide for the needs of residents to date and it continues to work proactively on their behalf towards achieving the necessary and longed-for resolution of the issues at Priory Hall. Difficult legal issues arise including issues of enforcement. The fire officers of Dublin City Council were the people who identified the problem. In the circumstances, I urge all concerned to allow the council to continue to deal with this situation even though it is protracted and things are not happening as fast as I would like. My Department will continue to liaise with the council with regard to its ongoing response to the needs of the residents and its efforts to facilitate their return to their homes as early as possible. Substantial works remain to be undertaken before this can take place. The council is making every effort to achieve the remediation works as quickly as possible.

Since taking office I have clearly signalled that consumer protection in the area of quality construction of new dwellings is a priority matter. I am dealing with legacy issues of poor building standards implemented by previous Governments and I intend to change the regulations and the system of regulations as soon as I can. In July 2011, before any of these matters came to light, I announced several measures to be advanced by the Department and local authorities with a view to improving compliance with and oversight of the requirements of the building regulations. Mandatory certification and improved inspection arrangements are key reforms which will be put in place in 2012. These will have the capacity to improve the quality of buildings while ensuring that problems like those that have arisen at Priory Hall do not visit homeowners again.

I have also publicly articulated my views on the role played by construction professionals and industry interests in certifying the building works at Priory Hall. I am most disappointed at the lack of attention being paid to this aspect of the problem by commentators in general. I hope that they come to realise where the problem and a considerable part of the blame lies. From the point of view of the residents, the blame game is no good to them. We must get on with trying to help them. Given the law and the current situation regarding the potential case at the Supreme Court I can do no more than I am doing.

Senator Averil Power

In regard to the Minister's suggestion that some kind of legal impediment may prevent him from meeting the residents, the residents themselves are not party to the court case. They are unfortunate bystanders to this debacle. Nobody is asking him to intervene in the court proceedings. I have sought legal advice on the issue from experts in constitutional law and have been informed there is no legal impediment because the Minister is not being asked to exercise a judicial function, hold a parallel hearing, direct the judge or otherwise get involved in the legal determination of these issues. Nothing in the Constitution stands in the way of a political solution to a problem that is before the courts. I accept this is a serious issue and I would not ask the Minister to intervene if I believed he faced legal impediments in doing so.

In regard to a national framework for future problem developments, I welcome the fact that the Minister is being proactive in addressing the building regulations for future developments. I appreciate that he can do nothing about developments that were built wrongly in the past or the fact that the system was not good enough but in addition to changing the regulations and ensuring we do not encounter problems with future developments, we also need to put in place a system for dealing with problems in current developments. This is why I ask him to address the question I asked about the establishment of a national framework for dealing with Priory Hall and other developments that were not built properly and will not be affected by the new regulations.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I agree with the Senator. This is a legacy issue and, unfortunately, we cannot deal with existing buildings. I inherited this problem but I was trying to do something about the mandatory certification system before the issues arose at Priory Hall and Belmayne. I assure the Senator that according to the legal advice I have received, I am precluded from getting involved in this case. I am going to comply with my legal advice and I will not act other than legally because I do not want the outcome of this process to be other than the pursuit of the people who are directly responsible for the trouble caused to the residents of Priory Hall and Belmayne.

Teagasc Advisory Offices

Senator Michael Comiskey

I thank the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine for coming to the House to respond to my concerns about the future of the Teagasc centre in Manorhamilton. It came to light only last week that the centre's future was in question. A similar problem arose in 2003, when it appeared that Teagasc was planning to close its smaller offices throughout the country.

Teagasc or its predecessor, ACOT, has always maintained an advisory service in Manorhamilton, which is my local town. I have special responsibility for that area as the only Government Member from County Leitrim. The current office was built in the early 1970s and it has served the people of the area well over the years. When it was previously threatened with closure, we managed to keep it open. Since Christmas, the Teagasc office in Sligo was closed and its staff were moved to Manorhamilton, where five or six people are currently employed. Most of the staff would be happy to remain in Manorhamilton because it is easier to access than the suggested alternative of Ballymote for those who come from north County Sligo. If we end up with Teagasc offices in Ballymote in south County Sligo and Mohill in south County Leitrim, the northern parts of counties Sligo and Leitrim will not be covered by an office and farmers will have to travel 40 or 45 miles to Ballymote or Mohill.

Manorhamilton is ideally situated and Teagasc operates from a purpose-built office in the town. I will be attending a beef discussion group meeting at the office this evening and a sheep group has also been set up in the area. It is vital for the farmers of the area that we maintain the office. It would also encourage young farmers who are currently studying at agricultural colleges to stay in the industry. Farmers from north County Sligo are also attending courses and discussion groups at the office.

Under the Croke Park agreement, staff who move further than 40 km can incur additional costs, which would create further problems for Teagasc. We are only looking at the cost of running it. That building cannot be sold in the current market and it will just sit there. Significant amounts have been spent on the building since Christmas to facilitate the move from Sligo. It would be a great pity at this stage if the office was closed.

Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Simon Coveney)

I thank the Senator for raising the issue of the Teagasc office in Manorhamilton. I note his request that a commitment be given that the office remains open. In case the impression is created that this is a decision for the Minister, let me make the position clear. Decisions relating to the future of Teagasc local offices are operational matters for the Teagasc authority to consider. Teagasc operates as a separate State agency under the Department's aegis and it has statutory responsibility for the provision of advisory, education and research services to the agriculture sector. It is governed by an authority, which is representative of the main stakeholder groups in the agrifood sector. It is a matter for Teagasc and the authority to prioritise activities in the delivery of these services and to allocate its resources in accordance with these priorities. As far as my Department is concerned, ministerial responsibility is confined to matters of policy in accordance with the Act and the Minister does not interfere in the day-to-day operations of Teagasc.

The agency commenced a change process in 2009 to ensure it remains fit for purpose and delivers value for public money. The change programme addressed both the ongoing need for change and the need for significant resource rationalisation. Implementation is resulting in the disposal of surplus assets, a significant reduction in the number of research, advisory and educational locations, the cutting of management and administrative posts and significant productivity gains by staff. On completion, the future Teagasc will be a smaller, highly innovative, efficient and focused organisation.

I understand that, as part of the change programme, Teagasc has decided to concentrate the delivery of its services, including advisory services, at fewer centres. The existing network of advisory offices is being streamlined from 91 to 51 by the end of 2012. The specific criteria used by the agency in assessing the viability of advisory office locations includes client numbers, staff numbers, distance to clients, distance to other Teagasc offices and overall cost structure. The decision to close offices and concentrate the delivery of services at fewer locations is entirely a matter for Teagasc and its board. On average, clients visits an advisory office 1.5 times per year. Farmers tend to gravitate much more readily to other centres for public events such as seminars, farm walks, demonstrations and information meetings. A good example is the discussion group model referred to by the Senator where groups of farmers visit similar farms and share information and experiences in dialogue facilitated by their Teagasc adviser.

I understand from Teagasc that no decision has been made to close the Manorhamilton advisory office. A review will be carried out by the agency of its remaining advisory office structure on completion of the current rationalisation programme. Teagasc is committed to providing high quality advisory services to farmers in the Sligo-Leitrim region and to ensuring they have access to the best advice delivered by highly skilled advisory staff. In addition to the Manorhamilton office, enhanced advisory offices are located in Mohill and Ballymote. Teagasc opened a new purpose-built office in Mohill in 2009. This state-of-the-art facility, which cost more than €1 million to construct, includes new offices, training rooms and customer facilities.

I do not propose to comment on individual decisions taken by Teagasc regarding the delivery of its services at particular locations. I understand the local concerns that may arise are significant and are of concern to public representatives. However, that is a matter for the Teagasc authority to deal with and it is not appropriate for the Minister to become involved in a location by location basis. Teagasc is substantially dependent on taxpayer funded resources to deliver its statutory mandate. In the current economic circumstances, it has had to explore every conceivable option to minimise the Exchequer contribution. It embarked on an extensive rationalisation programme in 2009 to respond to these budgetary constraints in a manner that minimises the adverse impact on its services, clients and programmes. I am satisfied that Teagasc will continue to provide quality advisory services to farmers within the restructured advisory structure and plan it has in place.

I understand where the Senator is coming from. Many farming communities are attached to their local Teagasc offices, particularly where there has been investment in them in the recent past. My information regarding Manorhamilton is no decision has been taken to close the office. A rationalisation process is under way and if the future of the office is reviewed following that process, that will be an issue for Teagasc and its board. I cannot be any more accurate than that.

Senator Michael Comiskey

I very much thank the Minister because it is so far, so good. I will be in touch with Teagasc about the issue and, I hope the office will remain open in Manorhamilton. I will have to wait and see what happens.

The Seanad adjourned at 2.50 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 February 2012.