This is a sensitive case and I have called on the Minister to cover the costs of the €350 bill for school transport in this extreme circumstance. It concerns a 12-year old girl in my constituency who is about to start secondary school. Over a number of years she was sexually abused and a court case is ongoing. As a result of the case the girl's mother decided to change her school to prevent her from coming into contact with any of the people involved in the case, such as witnesses, for example. It was decided it was in her best interest to attend a secondary school in the nearest town. Unfortunately, this is not the nearest secondary school to her home and, therefore, she has been asked to pay €350 to Bus Éireann to cover the cost of her school transport even though her mother has a medical card. If this child were to go to the nearest secondary school, she would qualify for free school transport but due to the extreme circumstance, I ask the Minister to intervene in this case due to the sensitivities surrounding it. This change of school is deemed appropriate by her mother and the support services. I ask the Minister of State to waive the school transport fee in this extreme circumstance. The bus passes close to her house and goes to the town anyway but her family does not have the money to pay the fee. I have tried reasoning with the Department of Education and Skills but have hit a brick wall. I urge the Minister to State to examine this extreme and unique case and to do everything in his power to help the 12 year old girl to get on with her life. I ask that the fee be waived in these exceptional circumstances.
Adjournment Matters
School Transport
I thank the Senator for raising the matter.
At the outset I want to stress that school transport is a very significant operation managed by Bus Éireann on my Department's behalf and covering 82 million km. annually. In the region of 113,000 children, including more than 8,000 children with special educational needs, are transported in approximately 4,000 vehicles on a daily basis to primary and post-primary schools throughout the country.
Under the general terms of the post-primary school transport scheme, from the commencement of the 2012-13 school year, children will be eligible for school transport where they reside not less than 4.8 km from and are attending their nearest education centre as determined by my Department or Bus Éireann, having regard to ethos and language.
Under the terms of the scheme, children who are not eligible for school transport may apply to Bus Éireann for transport on a concessionary basis subject to a number of conditions which include the payment of the €350 annual charge. The charge may be paid in two instalments in July and December. I can assure the Senator that while I sympathise with the situation he outlined, the school transport schemes must be administered equitably on a national scale. There is an exemption for eligible children who hold valid medical cards. Unfortunately, the exemption does not extend to children availing of school transport on a concessionary basis.
If the Senator wishes to engage further with my office and provide me with a greater level of detail of the exact situation I will engage with him further to see if we can come up with a satisfactory solution to the problem.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply and I will engage with him on behalf of the young girl and her family. As I said, it is an exceptional circumstance and we must do everything that we can to help. I accept that the transport scheme must be administered equitably on a national scale. This is an exceptional case and I ask for the Government's sensitivity in dealing with the matter. Times are tough but the Government cannot lose its core and must try to help the people in most need. I hope that the Minister of State will see his way to do so when I furnish him with further details.
Patient Redress Scheme
I thank the Minister of State for attending to allow me to raise the issue of compensation for the patients of the obstetrician, Dr. Michael Neary, who were excluded from the Lourdes hospital, Drogheda, redress scheme in 2007. It was rolled-out to women who suffered unnecessary hysterectomies or removal of ovaries by him.
However, 35 women were excluded from the redress scheme. Some 29 were excluded on age grounds, as anyone over the age of 40 years was excluded, and a further six women, including two who lost children. One lady was excluded because her procedure was delayed by one week and, as a result, it took place three days after her 40th birthday. Lately I spoke to several of these ladies and they are anxious to get closure as soon as possible in order for them to get on with the rest of their lives.
Last February, the Minister for Health, to our absolute delight, committed to carrying out an immediate review for the women who were excluded from the redress scheme. At the time he indicated that the review was at an advanced stage but that was almost six months ago. This evening I raise my concerns for these women and to highlight the fact that five years have passed since the original redress scheme. These women have already suffered once through Dr. Neary's actions. I urge the Minister to ensure that the review is forthcoming as soon as possible in order that these ladies may finally get closure on the dreadful wrong that wasdone to them. I ask that they are not subjected to further suffering due to a delay by the Government.
The programme for Government commits to finding a mechanism to compensate these women who were excluded on age grounds. We also need to deal with the matter in a sensitive and effective manner. I ask that the review is published as a matter of urgency or that a date be given now on when to expect the review.
As a mother and a former patient of Dr. Neary, I empathise with the situation in which these unfortunate women were subjected. To be denied the opportunity to have children or subjected to early menopause is extremely difficult for any woman. To have these procedures performed on women when they were not clinically necessary, and the resulting strain that has been placed on these women and their families, must be acknowledged for the abomination that it was. I ask the Minister to address the matter urgently.
I am taking the Adjournment debate on behalf of my colleague, Deputy James Reilly, Minister for Health. I thank the Senator for giving me an opportunity to outline to the House the steps being taken to address this important matter.
As the Deputy is aware the programme for Government commits to seeking "a mechanism to compensate those women who were excluded on age grounds alone from the Lourdes hospital redress scheme." The Minister is conscious of the distress that has been caused to a number of women and recognises the difficulty that the issue has caused to those affected by it. The Government is committed to dealing with the matter sensitively so that, if at all possible, closure can be brought to those affected.
The Lourdes hospital redress scheme was established following the findings and recommendations contained in the report of the Lourdes hospital inquiry into peripartum hysterectomy which was published in 2006. The inquiry was conducted by Ms Justice Maureen Harding Clark. The inquiry did not extend to a wider examination of Dr. Neary's general practice or the clinical practice of his colleagues. During the inquiry, Ms Justice Harding Clark became aware of certain patients who underwent bilateral oophorectomy procedures, or the removal of their ovaries, which were not clinically necessary. These women lost their ability to reproduce and suffered immediate surgical menopause.
The scheme of redress approved by the Government was a non-statutory, ex-gratia scheme. Awards were determined in 2007 and 2008 by an independent redress board chaired by Ms Justice Harding Clark. The objective of the scheme was to provide compensation to the patients of Dr. Michael Neary who received unnecessary obstetric hysterectomies, that is, hysterectomies carried out in association with pregnancy, and also women under 40 years of age who received unnecessary bilateral oophorectomies. The Department of Health has been engaged in a review aimed at finding a mechanism to compensate those women who were excluded from the original redress scheme on age grounds alone. The review involves taking legal and other advice, including from the Office of the Attorney General, on this sensitive issue and departmental officials have engaged with the Attorney General’s office. The Minister is aware of the recent media reports in respect of High Court litigation where sums have been awarded to plaintiffs against the congregation of the Medical Missionaries of Mary for incidents that occurred prior to the State taking over the hospital. In this context, he also understands that litigation is before the courts in respect of two plaintiffs who were patients of Dr. Neary.
My colleague, the Minister, would like to assure the Senator that he is committed to finding a mechanism as soon as possible and that he intends to bring proposals to Government for its consideration of the matter at the earliest opportunity. The Senator can rest assure that the Minister and his Department are aware of the sensitivities associated with the issue and understand the importance of finding a solution that will bring closure for all concerned.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I reiterate my plea for an urgent redress and for a date to be set for a review, preferably before the end of the summer. If we go into September without it the matter will drag on.
I will convey the Senator's concerns to the Minister.
Garda Districts
I am grateful to the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment. The merger of the Ashbourne and Laytown Garda districts in County Meath is an important issue for the county and I understand that it took effect inApril.
The Ashbourne and Laytown Garda districts were two of the most populated in County Meath and between them contain seven of the ten largest towns in County Meath.
The Laytown district was established in 2008 as a result of the increasing population and the need for a more effective Garda presence in east County Meath which, I understand, is one of the largest districts in the country. A decision was taken by the Government and the Garda authorities to merge the Ashbourne and Laytown districts with effect from 2012, which results in a Garda district stretching from the bridge at Kilcock on the Kildare-Meath border up to the edges of Drogheda in County Louth. It is unacceptable that this should be a one Garda district that facilitates cutbacks in the area, particularly in regard to community policing. There is no direction of resources into areas of high population. The population increases which continue apace have not been recognised. There is no recognition of commuter belt crime which has become prevalent in that county, along the N2 and N3 within the merged Garda districts. It will leave the public more fearful and exposed because the Garda cutbacks have been targeted at the areas where there are no people and more crime.
I call on the Government, the Garda authorities, the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Garda Commissioner to reverse the decision to merge Laytown and Asbourne and to provide a policing service in the two areas. These areas are not well served by Garda station closures. It would be impossible to close Garda stations in the merged district because there are so few. No new Garda stations have been opened in the new towns in that area during the past ten years. This decision must be reversed. While there is an excellent superintendent in charge of the district, that superintendent should be more focused on one particular area and not on, effectively, half of County Meath as there are three Garda districts dealing with the other areas which are predominantly rural. I call for the decision to be reversed. I hope the Minister will not say this is not a matter for the Government because I am aware the Minister for Justice and Equality would have discussions with the Garda Commissioner on this issue. Certainly the Minister has an influence and I want it used on behalf of the people of County Meath.
The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, has asked me to thank the Senator for raising this important issue.
The Senator will be aware that proposals to alter Garda districts are a matter, in the first instance, for the Garda Commissioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Garda Síochána Acts. In that context, section 22 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 requires the Garda Commissioner to prepare an annual policing plan setting out the proposed arrangements for the policing of the State for the following year, including any proposal to first, establish or dissolve a national unit of the Garda Síochána, second, alter the boundaries of a regional geographical area under the control of an assistant Garda Commissioner or of a divisional geographical area under the control of a chief superintendent, third, establish or relocate a divisional headquarters under the control of a chief superintendent or of a district headquarters under the control of a superintendent, or fourth, open a Garda station in a new location or cease stationing members in an existing station.
The Garda annual policing plan for 2012, which was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on 5 December 2011, set out the Commissioner's proposals in regard to changes within the Meath Garda division under which the Laytown district was merged with the Ashbourne Garda district. This occurred on 29 April 2012. The current strength of the new Ashbourne Garda district is 109 from a total of 296 gardaí in the Meath Garda division. There is also a total of 29 Garda reserves and 22 civilians attached to the Meath Garda division of which eight Garda reserves and six civilians are attached to the Ashbourne Garda district. The resources available in the Meath division are further augmented by the Garda national units such as the Garda National Drugs Unit, the Criminal Assets Bureau and other specialised units.
In preparing the policing plan, the Garda Commissioner reviewed all aspects of the Garda Síochána's policing model, including the deployment of personnel, the utilisation of modern technologies and the operation of Garda stations, in terms of opening hours and possible closures. In addition, all divisional officers were asked to assess the level of activity in each Garda station in their area. It must be stressed that the key objective of this ongoing review was and is to promote the more efficient and effective deployment of resources rather than secure specific cash savings.
The Commissioner's priority in introducing this change was to ensure that the most appropriate policing arrangements are in place to ensure the continued delivery of an effective policing service to all areas concerned and to ensure that Garda resources are deployed to meet the existing and projected policing requirements of the Meath Garda division in 2012. The Minister has been assured by the Garda authorities that the policing service provided within the Meath Garda division will be maintained following the proposed merger. The Commissioner is satisfied that this change will deliver greater efficiencies in the deployment of personnel and other resources, for example freeing up a superintendent for redeployment.
Garda management will continue to closely monitor the allocation of resources, taking account of transfers and retirements, crime trends, policing needs and other operational strategies in place on a district, divisional and regional level. The Meath Garda division and the new Ashbourne district are subject to the same level of monitoring and decision making to ensure that optimum use is made of Garda resources and the best possible Garda service is provided to the public. The Garda Commissioner has reiterated the commitment of the Garda Síochána to providing a professional and effective service to the community and has the Minister's full support in this regard.
The Minister wishes to pay tribute to the Garda Síochána for the commitment and professionalism it displays in carrying out its duties.
The Minister of State said that of the 296 gardaí in County Meath, 109 are in the Ashbourne-Laytown district. That means that this district has 50% more gardaí than each of the three districts on average. It shows that the breaking down of the districts in County Meath was not done on a population basis. That is a root cause of the problem. I join the Minister in paying tribute to the gardaí on the ground. They are professional and do the job as best they can. However, the Government must continue to provide the resources and must be aware of the changing population as in County Meath.
For the benefit of the Deputy, the personnel strength for the Meath Garda division on 31 December 2007 and on 31 May 2012, the latest date for which figures are available, was 264 and 296, respectively. This represents an increase of 32 or 12% in the number of personnel allocated since that date. The personnel strength of each Garda station in the Meath Garda division on 31 December 2007 and on 31 May 2012 is set out as follows: on 31 May 2012 there was a total of 29 Garda reserves and 22 civilians. On 29 April, Asbourne Garda district and Laytown Garda district were amalgamated as set out in the 2012 policing plan. All division resources are further augmented by a number of Garda national units, such as the Garda drugs unit, the national immigration unit, Criminal Assets Bureau and other specialised units.
The personnel strength of the Garda Síochána as at 31 December 2007 and May 2012 was 13,755 and 13,581, respectively. The Government's programme for national recovery has set a target for a reduction in the numbers employed in the public service between now and the end of 2015. A decision on when Garda recruitment will recommence will take into account the target reduction and the rate of retirements from the Garda Síochána.
In respect of the Meath Garda division the following is the breakdown: Ashbourne — on 31 December 2007 there were 44 gardaí, on 31 May 2012 there were 46 gardaí; Dunboyne — 16 in 2007 and 14 in 2012; Dunshaughlin — 21 in 2007 and 21 in 2012; Duleek — three in 2007 and three in 2012; Laytown — 12 in 2007 and 25 in 2012; Kells — 45 in 2007 and 50 in 2012; Crossakiel — zero in 2007 and one in 2012; Oldcastle — four in 2007 and three in 2012; Athboy — six in 2007 and four in 2012; Navan — 57 in 2007 and 75 in 2012; Nobber — three in 2007 and four in 2012; Slane — four in 2007 and four in 2012; Ballivor — three in 2007 and three in 2012; Enfield — 12 in 2007 and 7 in 2012; Kilmessan — one in 2007 and one in 2012; Longwood — one in 2007 and two in 2012; Summerhill — one in 2007 and three in 2012; Trim — 30 in 2007 and 30 in 2012.
Sick Pay Scheme
It is good to see the Aire Stáit in the House to take this Adjournment matter. The Minister is here as a business person as well as the Minister responsible for businesses. This Adjournment matter is to do with the transfer of responsibility for sick pay from the Department of Social Protection to employers generally. The proposals mooted by the Department to transfer the costs of the first two to four weeks of sick leave to employers is concerning employers up and down the country.
As the Minister of State is aware, businesses are under severe financial pressure due to a lack of confidence among consumers about spending money. The domestic economy is in decline and for that reason many jobs in businesses are being lost, and the businesses already in operation and trying to develop are finding it extremely difficult to survive and obtain credit from financial institutions. Having spoken to a number of chambers of commerce in the north west region, particularly in Donegal, I believe the course of action being proposed by the Department of Social Protection is flawed, principally because it would place an additional and unjust burden on businesses at a time when many of them are struggling to stay afloat.
The Department's justification for the proposal, as I understand it, is that it would merely bring Ireland into line with other European jurisdictions. However, the argument fails to take into account the cost of doing business in Ireland. The argument that Ireland is unique and not making employers responsible for sick pay is spurious when one takes into consideration the massive impositions this would place on companies and on employers within the country. Data published by the National Competitiveness Council show that the cost of doing business in Ireland remains higher than that in the eurozone area and the EU 27 averages. For that reason, there is no doubt that the rationale that the cost of sick leave should be transferred to employers to bring Ireland into line with those countries is technically flawed.
The range of costs in the report include the figure that Ireland has the second highest minimum wage in the EU. Many Irish small and medium businesses are bound by agreements that oblige them to make payments above the minimum wage. Due to the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, Ireland is one of the few European countries where additional Sunday premium payments are mandatory. No such premium exists in major competitor countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom and France.
Businesses in Ireland have to deal with an array of different items of legislation and regulatory bodies. Those include the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court, the joint labour committees, the Organisation of Working Time Act, and the National Employment Rights Authority. Further costs are then placed upon businesses and many employers through unjust and unnecessary employment regulation orders and registered employment agreements. One only has to talk to those in the restaurant sector to hear about the pressures they are under from environmental health officers, EHOs, up and down the country. As someone who has a professional background in the food safety sector, I am aware of that from speaking to hotel owners. I was doing a clinic in a hotel over the weekend when an EHO came in and listed an array of changes that would cost €15,000, even though the hotel never had a complaint about a food poisoning instance. Those are the regulatory burdens that are targeting businesses.
The cost of business and professional services are generally higher in Ireland. The service producer price index shows that the cost of selected services in Ireland are now 0.7% above 2006 levels. While that increase is less than in some EU countries, Ireland's figures started from a very high base. Budget 2012 introduced a 2% increase in Ireland's VAT rate, giving it the joint sixth highest in the EU. That has had a considerable impact on the profitability and competitiveness of Irish small and medium businesses. The consumer sentiment index produced by the ERSI and KBC Bank shows considerable decline in consumer confidence in the wake of the VAT rise.
At a time when businesses are under increasing pressure it would be the last straw for many businesses if they were forced to take on the responsibility of the Department of Social Protection and pay sick pay to employees for the first two to four weeks. I am not arguing that employees should not get their sick pay. I am saying that the sick pay responsibility should rest with the Department of Social Protection because at a time when we need jobs to be created and people to spend money in the economy to get it going again, this would be the wrong way to proceed. I am aware that business owners up and down the country who are creating jobs are very concerned by this move. I hope the Minister of State has some good news to give reassurance to the sector.
I would like to apologise at the outset that my colleague, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, is unable to be here to respond to this debate. On her behalf, I thank the Senator for raising this important issue.
The question of introducing a scheme of statutory sick pay, whereby employers would directly meet the costs of sick absence for an initial period of illness, is being considered in the context of the need to reform the social welfare system to bring it into line with practices in other countries in this area; the need to address the deficit in the Social Insurance Fund; the need to limit progression from short-term illness to long-term illness or disability; and in the wider context of enhancing the health of the workforce and addressing levels of absenteeism.
A range of complex issues must be addressed before any decision could be taken by Government on the possible introduction of a statutory sick pay scheme. These include the extent of coverage; the duration of payment; the rate of payment; compensation mechanisms for employers where appropriate; and how to ensure that a scheme of statutory sick pay would be enforced and policed.
The impact of introducing a statutory sick pay scheme would be contingent on the way all of these issues are addressed and how, ultimately, such a scheme would be structured. The Minister is acutely conscious of the pressures facing employers in the current economic climate and, in particular, the pressures facing small and medium sized enterprises. A preliminary analysis based on estimates of absenteeism in the private sector indicates that if a sick pay scheme with a duration of four weeks were to be introduced, it would add about €1 per week per employee to the costs of employment. In the event that a scheme were to be introduced, the Social Insurance Fund would continue to provide supports for extended periods of illness.
The Minister for Social Protection hosted a consultative seminar on the feasibility and implications of introducing a scheme of statutory sick pay in February of this year. That seminar was attended by a broad range of key stakeholders who were afforded an opportunity to discuss the complex issues involved. A report of that seminar was published on the Department of Social Protection website recently and provides the basis for further consultations with key stakeholders. All of the issues around statutory sick pay will be discussed in the course of the wider process associated with the preparation of budget 2013 and any decisions which might be taken by Government on the possible introduction of such a scheme will be considered in that context.
I thank the Senator again for raising the issue and assure him that the concerns he has raised will be brought to the attention of the Minister for Social Protection.
I thank the Minister of State. I know he is responding on behalf of the Minister for Social Protection and that his Department has responsibility for employment but I am not sure what planet the Minister for Social Protection is living on if she believes that a preliminary analysis based on estimates of absenteeism in the private sector indicates that if a sick pay scheme with a duration of four weeks were to be introduced it would add about €1 per week per employee to the costs of employment. That is off the wall and does not seem to make any sense. If, for example, a small shop owner in west Donegal or Cavan has three employees and one of them is, through no fault of his or her own, off sick for three weeks, how will charging the employees an additional €1 a week over the year cover the costs of that sick leave? Who has the Minister consulted on this? She has not consulted the chambers of commerce or the business sector. I urge the Minister of State, whom I respect, and his senior Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, to do their utmost at Cabinet level not to accept the arguments being put forward. There are other ways of dealing with this issue. When something is not broken, an attempt should not be made to fix it. The current scheme works and protects employers and employees. Transferring the burden will ensure we drive another wedge between those who create jobs and provide services in the economy. This is wrong and I hope that in the lead up to the budget, the Minister of State will do his utmost to fight against these proposals.
The number of people claiming illness benefit and other disability payments has increased greatly in the past 11 years. There has been a 40% increase, from 173,000 to 242,000 between 2001 and 2011. During that period, Exchequer spending on illness benefit alone has risen from €330 million to €876 million. Transferring responsibility for some element of sick pay would generate administrative savings for the Department and would enable a greater level of resources to be employed in addressing the wider controls, management and activation agendas and would bring Ireland into line with other peer countries.
In Australia, employers pay ten days per annum and employees receive from six to 12 weeks on full pay and four weeks at half pay. In Belgium, employees get four weeks on full pay. In the Czech Republic, employees get two weeks on 60% of average pay. In Denmark employers provide from the top rate of illness benefit to normal pay. In Finland employees get nine days. In France employees are paid from top of the illness benefit to normal pay. Germany pays six weeks on normal pay. Hungary provides 15 days at 80% of salary. Iceland provides one month at normal pay. Italy pays 180 days, six months per year. Luxembourg pays 13 weeks. New Zealand pays five days for each year of service. Norway pays 16 days of full pay. Poland pays 33 days at 80% of pay, based on the previous 12 months. Spain pays 15 days, with the first and fourth unpaid. Sweden pays 14 days at 80%. Switzerland pays three weeks at full pay, then 80% for up to two years. The UK pays 28 weeks at the sickness benefit rate.
As indicated, Ireland is an outlier when it comes to employers being obliged to fund some element of sick pay. Most other European countries, including all of our major competitors oblige employers to pay for some sick pay costs and the extent of this obligation varies considerably. For example, it is two years in the Netherlands, 28 weeks in the UK, six weeks in Germany and nine days in Finland. That is the background to the approach we now propose.