Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Oct 2012

Vol. 217 No. 10

Adjournment Matters

Ambulance Service Provision

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. Last week in Letterkenny, an injured jogger had to wait 48 minutes for an ambulance to come from the hospital, which is about 1.5 km from where his injury occurred. It turned out that the ambulance came from Carndonagh, 35 miles away. Luckily, the jogger was not seriously injured but he could have been. He had to lie on the road with passers-by comforting him.

Six months ago, I had reason to get an ambulance. It arrived within five minutes and I was in hospital approximately ten minutes after the incident occurred. I am aware, therefore, of the comfort associated with having an ambulance arrive quickly and the professionalism of the ambulance and hospital staff. I would not like to believe I would have had to wait 48 minutes for an ambulance. I wonder whether I would have coped as easily as the jogger. Perhaps other people could have.

It is scary that in a town the size of Letterkenny, which is well serviced with a general hospital, primary care centre and general practitioners, an ambulance could take 48 minutes to arrive. It is not acceptable. I am not criticising the ambulance drivers or staff but pointing to a breakdown somewhere. This matter was aired extensively on local radio, thus giving a negative impression of the health service. If the incident was isolated, we could live with it. However, we are very concerned that if such an incident happens again, the injured party may not receive proper attention on time. If it had been a cardiac incident, 48 minutes would have been too long to wait. I still have not discovered why there was a delay. Perhaps the Minister of State will outline the circumstances and give comfort, if not a guarantee, to the people such that there will be no recurrence. Such an incident should not occur in this day and age, particularly when there is a hospital but a ten-minute walk away.

Luckily, passers-by assisted the jogger in question. In Letterkenny town, many people walk and jog in the evenings. The incident was an unfortunate one in which two cars collided and ended up on the footpath, injuring the unfortunate jogger. Perhaps the Minister of State will offer some comfort to those concerned about ambulance delays.

I am responding to this matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly. I expect that everyone agrees the Minister has spent considerable time today responding to questions. I thank the Senator for raising this matter and for the opportunity to clarify the position. It is important that it be clarified.

The HSE's national ambulance service, NAS, provides pre-hospital emergency care and emergency and some non-emergency patient transport. Before the NAS was established, each health board had its own ambulance service, with little co-ordination across board boundaries or national leadership on pre-hospital care. Supported by the Department of Health, the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council and HIQA, the NAS is providing national management of ambulance services. In particular, the following developments are continuing: ongoing reduction to two ambulance control centres; increased deployment of advanced paramedics, who provide more complex on-site care; modernisation of communications and control infrastructure; and the development of new performance indicators.

Where necessary, emergency cover is supported by advanced paramedics in rapid-response vehicles and by resources dynamically deployed from adjacent stations. A new intermediate care service is addressing routine inter-hospital transfers and releasing ambulances for emergency work, and the national aeromedical co-ordination centre organises aeromedical support, including inter-hospital transfers, transplant transport to the United Kingdom and the emergency aeromedical service, EMS, based in Athlone. The effects of these changes are improved efficiency and increased resource availability across the service.

In deploying emergency resources, the national ambulance service, NAS, operates under the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council, PHECC, EMS priority dispatch standard. The PHECC standard identifies the appropriate resource for emergency calls and promotes practice in line with Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, national standards for safer, better health care. These set out the principles for timely and clinically appropriate responses.

Ambulance crews are available to respond to emergencies, emergency transfers and lower acuity calls. Ambulance control centres are responsible for strategically deploying emergency ambulances to maintain emergency cover, and for dispatching the nearest appropriate emergency resource to a call. Emergency ambulances from all stations across Donegal are used in a dynamic manner to maintain emergency cover and to respond to calls as required. Ambulance stations across the county and adjacent counties support one another, and the nearest available ambulance responds to an emergency call regardless of where it is based.

Key to the Senator's issue, the NAS has informed the Department that, at 7.31 p.m. on the day in question, Ballyshannon control centre received a call relating to an incident in Letterkenny. The on-duty ambulance crews in Letterkenny were responding to other calls. In line with established procedures, an emergency ambulance was tasked from Carndonagh. This ambulance arrived at 7.55 p.m., 24 minutes after the call was received. Meanwhile, an off-duty HSE paramedic was at the scene from 7.50 p.m., some 19 minutes after the call, and had informed Ballyshannon centre of her presence. The ambulance left the scene with the patient at 8.10 p.m. and arrived at the hospital at 8.13 p.m. I am satisfied the nearest available and appropriate emergency resource was deployed and that established procedures were followed.

The NAS has undergone significant change to ensure quality, safety and value for money. As with other clinical areas, this process is ongoing as clinical needs and standards develop. These developments are in the best interests of patients and are a key part of the Government's work to ensure high quality emergency care. We all aim to have emergency calls responded to as quickly as possible. I do not mean to take away from this particular incident, but it is clear the most appropriate response was provided in the quickest possible time.

I thank the Minister of State. The call was received at 7.31 p.m., and I assume that it took three minutes from the call being logged to the ambulance being told to mobilise, as well as two or three minutes in travel time. However, the ambulance arrived at 7.55 p.m. Assuming the ambulance left at 7.35 p.m., it took approximately 20 minutes to get there. Perhaps I am incorrect, but the distance between Carndonagh and Letterkenny is 40 miles or so. I do not know how the ambulance could have travelled 40 miles in 20 minutes. What speed can an ambulance achieve? Perhaps the Minister of State might clarify. Seeing as how it would have taken 40 minutes at roughly 100 km/h, the ambulance would need to have been travelling at 120 mph to cover it in 20 minutes. Even if the times are correct, they are unacceptable in a cardiac arrest situation. A person would die. The person who arrived would not be a qualified cardiac medic whereas a cardiac unit was only 1.5 miles away.

It is unclear from the response provided to me whether the ambulance was actually in Carndonagh. It could have been somewhere else, but I will try to clarify for the Senator. Having spoken to some people in the Department, it is clear that, had the emergency call involved a person suffering a cardiac event, the response would have been different

It would have been. This is the idea behind having centralised, most appropriate responses. Centres take the details of the emergencies. I am sure this emergency was not pleasant for the person in question.

Pilot Training Colleges

I welcome the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, to the House.

I welcome the Minister and thank him for taking this debate. In or around 1 July, I was contacted by a distraught mother who had paid approximately €85,000 to have her son trained as an airline pilot. She borrowed some of that money and remortgaged a property, a story that is typical of many of the students caught in this situation. How much money has been lost by the students in total? The figure I have been given is between €5 million and €10 million. Why did the Pilot Training College, PTC, in Waterford accept money from unsuspecting students when there apparently were concerns about the company's viability as long ago as the end of 2011? That an organisation accredited by the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, took substantial sums of money in such a situation is a serious issue.

What investigation has the Department carried out to date, if any? What investigation has the IAA conducted? Is the Minister in a position to ensure the trainee pilots, some of whom have only received part of their training, will have their training completed by another accredited college? Is the Director of Corporate Enforcement inquiring into this debacle? If not, why not? Did an auditor for the IAA or the PTC raise questions about the company's viability more than 12 months ago?

A further issue has come to my attention. I will not be disparaging towards the directors or others involved, but some students e-mailed me. Has another company set up shop in recent days in the premises owned and operated by the PTC since that company's liquidation? If so, are any of the old company's directors involved with the new one? They may not be.

During my probing of the issue, I learned that the training institute in Florida was owed approximately €1.4 million by the PTC. What became of that money? The PTC extracted substantial sums from many young people, primarily boys but also some girls, so that they might be trained as pilots. Something is rotten. I felt for the mother who approached me at a wedding. I knew her to see her. She explained her extreme plight. That was early in the situation when the trainees were still in Florida. The Minister assisted in getting them home, but a cost of $500 or $600 per student to bring them back from America is small change compared with the substantial sums they have lost.

I am deeply concerned by a number of the issues that have arisen. I do not know whether the situation is as serious as I have been led to believe by some of the students and their families, who are scattered throughout Ireland. Would it be appropriate to notify the Garda of what the company was doing? The issue has come to light again. In the past week to ten days, the High Court appointed a liquidator to PTC. During the summer, there was some hope for a plan to save the company and complete the trainees' training.

These people have been wronged and the State owes them a duty. I hope the Minister will be able to answer some of these questions or give some good news about the Department guaranteeing the completion of the training for these pilots.

I thank the Senator for raising this important issue. The position which has arisen is most regrettable and came about from the failure of the Pilot Training College, PTC, a privately-owned and operated flight training school, to meet its contractual obligations to its students in the completion of their training in Florida. I fully understand the frustration felt by the students involved and their families and I expressed my sympathy when I met some of their representatives on 20 July last. Unfortunately in the current economic climate, many businesses have failed, leaving their suppliers, etc., out of pocket, including businesses where a State body has a regulatory role.

It is important that the role of the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, with regard to flight training organisations is properly understood. The IAA has responsibility for approving and overseeing flight training organisations in Ireland and the primary functions in this regard are the oversight of the safety, quality and standard of the training being delivered, the conduct of examinations and flight tests. It considers whether the company has sufficient resources to safely provide the training required to the internationally-determined standards but has no involvement in, or responsibility for, the contractual arrangements between PTC and its students. The IAA's role in the approval and oversight of flight training organisations is based on European rules and, unfortunately, PTC is not an isolated example, as there have been other similar failures in other countries in the recent past, with students suffering losses also.

As part of its regulatory role, the IAA completed audits on PTC in May 2011 and April 2012 and on PTC Florida in April 2011 and in October 2011. The IAA also made site visits in the first quarter of 2012 and in June 2012. During these various inspections it was clear that PTC complied with all EU and international requirements as a flight training organisation and there was no indication of any deficiencies. PTC's accounts were signed off by professional auditors and were not qualified in any way.

EU and international requirements state clearly that the financial evaluation carried out as part of the approval and oversight process is not intended to be a consumer protection provision. However, the IAA has tried to offer assistance to affected students where possible. On 26 June, when the IAA was notified that PTC were ceasing all training activities, it immediately despatched a representative to Florida to secure the records of all students, and all training carried out to date was credited towards the students' final qualifications where possible. The IAA has also worked with other flight schools to explore how students might complete their training elsewhere at as reasonable a cost as possible.

I am advised by the IAA that some 79 students have opted to continue their training with other approved Irish flight training organisations, 20 of whom are self-funded students. There are a further 19 self-funded students who have remained in Florida to pursue their training under the US system, with another 24 who have not decided on their future career. As a gesture of goodwill and without prejudice, the IAA funded the costs of students who wished to return to Ireland and 65 students availed of this offer.

On 26 July the High Court appointed an examiner to PTC Ireland. The IAA worked with the examiner to assess the options available but unfortunately two weeks ago the examiner advised the court that a potential investor had withdrawn and it ordered the liquidation of PTC. Whereas I and my Government colleagues sympathise with the plight of the students and their families who have suffered considerable financial losses through the collapse of this company, neither the Government nor the IAA accepts any liability in this regard. The Irish taxpayer cannot be liable for a company's debts just because it had an approval of some form from a State agency.

The Senator asks about reports that a new company has been established at the same address as PTC. I understand that a company, Clearsky Pilot Training College Limited, has been registered at that address. The IAA has not received any application for approval from the company involved. However, following these reports, last Thursday, 4 October, the IAA inspected the premises of the company in question and found that the company is providing refresher training for an international non-EU client. That training does not meet the standard required for an Irish or EU pilot's licence. Should this new entity wish to provide training meeting stringent EU standards, like any other company it will have to apply to the IAA for approval.

While the Companies Acts do not come within my remit, I am advised that a registered company is a legal entity separate from its owners, shareholders and directors. The owners of a limited liability company are liable only for the amount of money that they have invested in the company and are not liable for the entire debts of the company. PTC was such a limited liability company. Distressing as it may be for all creditors of PTC, whether students or firms, under the Companies Act, if a person is the owner or director of a company that is put into liquidation, the directors and owners are legally entitled to establish or continue to be involved with another company and the debts of the first company do not transfer with the owners or directors to the new company. Creditors of the failed private entity should pursue the recovery of their debts with the liquidator if possible. As I have said already, neither the Government nor the IAA accept any liability for a private company's debts. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the Senator's comments that the students and their families have been wronged. They have been wronged by the company involved and not the Irish taxpayer.

I cannot provide a figure on how much has been lost but it will amount to several million euro. It is important to bear in mind that this does not just affect the young guy down the road or his mother but other parties are also involved, such as foreign airlines, a business in Florida and many other creditors. It would not be possible for the Government to compensate some creditors because we have sympathy, but not compensate all creditors. That would run into many millions of euro, including payments to foreign colleges, students and airlines.

I cannot answer the question of why the company accepted money up to the point that it ceased trading but unfortunately it is not uncommon for a business to continue to operate until the day it ceases trading. I do not know if the Director of Corporate Enforcement or the Garda are involved in this case and I cannot speak for them. I hope they will take an interest in the case and if there is a case to be answered in terms of company law or any other matter.

I thank the Minister for being so frank. I am disappointed as I feel much concern for the students who have been wronged and there has been much light touch regulation from the IAA. Perhaps we could examine that in future. The IAA experienced a company getting into difficulty in the not too distant past, although it may have been before the current Minister took office. I am a solicitor by profession and it is my opinion that if a person or company takes in substantial sums of money up-front knowing that commitments cannot be fulfilled, it is bordering on criminal. The company sent these students to Florida knowing that fact, which is reckless trading. There should be some mechanism to punish such companies as we are talking about unsuspecting young people and their families. Some of these people put their life savings into the training scheme but the company was accepting this money up to the difficulties arising on 1 July. Somebody in the company knew damn well that within weeks it would be in a trading position where it would not be possible to survive.

The Minister should have another look at the matter because it will not go away. The liquidator will probably not even consider the people who have been wronged as priority debtors. These students should receive greater attention from the State as we sent them to be trained. The light touch regulation of the IAA must be tightened, and it is a bit like the banking regulation in the past, which had terrible consequences for the country. I respect the Minister in coming here to take this matter and I understand his plight.

I absolutely share the Senator's feelings in this regard. Some of my own constituents are in the same position as the people he describes. We have a shared experience of the feelings of the people who have been wronged. If there was reckless trading in the case, it is a matter for other authorities and the Senator makes a valid point in that regard.

There was a failure of another training college but that was more than 20 years ago. At a policy level we are considering the introduction of a bonding system where if this happens again, at least the customers and trainees would be protected. I do not accept that the IAA has been involved in light touch regulation and it is important to ponder the point. If the IAA had discovered that the company was in trouble financially, what could it have done?

All it could have done was close the company and told it that it could no longer trade and the people affected would be in exactly the same position they are in now except perhaps for the one or two who may have paid full fees in the past week or two. When it comes to bodies that are licensed, regulated or approved by a Government body, we should bear in mind that all the airlines are licensed or approved by government. Radio stations, all our public and private bus companies, hauliers, driving schools, private colleges and other institutions are all in some way regulated, licensed or approved by government. It would be very reckless of me as a Minister to put the Irish taxpayer on the hook for the failure of companies such as those.

Upward Only Rent Reviews

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and thank her for taking this matter in respect of which I seek clarification on upward-only rent reviews. Fianna Fáil has published a Bill dealing with the issue of upward-only rent reviews, which is within the bounds of the Constitution. As the Minister of State will know, upward-only rent reviews are crippling many businesses. Those tenants are fighting their landlords to try to stay in business and reduce their costs. Rents are falling all around Dublin and throughout the country, yet landlords are enforcing the lease clauses requiring upward-only rent reviews.

We have examined this issue on the basis that we must stay within the bounds of the requirement within the Constitution to protect people's private property and their interests in it. There was a commitment to address this issue in the programme for Government and in the manifestos of the two parties in government. The Fine Gael Party manifesto states that it would commit to end upward-only rent reviews. It also states, "We will pass legislation to give to all tenants the right to have their commercial rents reviewed in 2011 irrespective of any upward only or other review clauses." The programme for Government states, "We will legislate to end upward-only rent reviews for existing leases."

When Deputy Alan Shatter became the Minister for Justice and Equality he said this would take a few months. On 5 May he informed the Dáil that legislation on the issue was being developed and that he was in ongoing consultation with the Attorney General. In July he said that the matter was still with the Attorney General and in the 2012 budget the entire commitment was dropped. Retail Excellence Ireland, an independent group not beholden to any political party, said the Government lied to every retail outlet in the country. If the legislation we put forward is within the bounds of the Constitution, why is the Attorney General stating that this cannot be done?

I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality who is unable to be here for a myriad of reasons.

I welcome the opportunity to deal with the issue of upward-only rent review clauses in commercial leases. I would like to note the broader context which should inform this debate. That context relates to the ongoing work of Government to bring about the necessary transformational and structural changes to our economy which will assist struggling businesses and help them to grow.

The Government is acutely aware of the pressures felt by the retail sector in particular. However, in December last, the difficult decision was made not to proceed with the commitment in the programme for Government to legislate to end upward-only rent review clauses for leases entered into prior to 28 February 2010. It was a very difficult decision. This is not an area in which I was very involved either before or after.

The approach envisaged by the Government at that time aimed at providing relief for tenants whose businesses might be viable were it not for the adverse impact of paying rent significantly above prevailing market levels. However, the Government's legal advice was to the effect that the approach proposed gave rise to constitutional difficulties. There was a substantial concern that any legislative scheme involving interference in the contractual relationships of private parties would find it extremely difficult to survive a constitutional challenge. Furthermore, the Government was advised that any model proposed would require the payment of compensation to landlords whose rights were infringed, so that the proposal would be compatible with the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government was strongly of the view that compensating landlords in such circumstances could not be justified in the current economic climate.

Although legislative intervention may not be feasible, NAMA is playing a role in dealing with problems caused by upward-only rent reviews applying to NAMA properties. This role applies where tenants of NAMA debtors can show that the rents they are paying are in excess of current market levels and, consequently, the viability of their businesses is threatened. In such circumstances, tenants can seek NAMA's approval for rent reductions. By the end of August, NAMA had received 271 rent abatement applications, of which 206 were approved, four were refused, nine were not eligible because they did not refer to NAMA properties, and the remaining 52 were under review. Since the start of the year, NAMA has approved cumulative rent reductions of over €6 million.

By way of general comment, the common practice of including upward-only rent review clauses in commercial leases did not arise because of any legislative requirement. The nature and application of a commercial lease is a matter for the parties to that lease, and parties have always been free to agree that review clauses, other than those based upon the upward only model, be included in their leases. Furthermore, even where upward-only clauses are present, the parties have always been able to agree that a flexible approach should be taken both as to the amount of rent payable, and the way in which that rent is to be paid. In this context, the Government has repeatedly urged that a pragmatic approach be taken by those involved in lease renegotiation.

One of the difficulties in regard to rent reviews is the absence of readily accessible, accurate information in order to determine the market rent payable in respect of comparable commercial properties. The Property Services (Regulation) Act 2011 addresses this issue by providing for the establishment and maintenance of a commercial leases database by the Property Services Regulatory Authority. Work is under way to ensure that the database will be operational at an early date.

The attention of the House is drawn to the existence of a rent review arbitration code, to be found on the Department of Justice and Equality website, which was developed by an expert group whose membership was drawn from all relevant stakeholders and which provides a mechanism to deal with the resolution of rent review disputes in the commercial property sector. The code contains detailed provisions concerning the production of comparative evidence relating to property transactions. It also places a firm duty on all parties to disclose all relevant information in their possession. As matters stand, parties are free to specify that this code should apply to rent review arbitrations and all parties are encouraged to make use of its provisions. I hope that addresses some of the Senator's concerns.

I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I know she was not involved in making the promises or drawing up the manifesto. However, I am sure she will agree that it is not surprising that people are extremely cynical of all politicians in all political parties about issues such as this one when a commitment on this is contained in party manifestos and in the programme for Government. One must wonder who was advising all the parties concerned on putting this commitment in party manifestos without stress testing it or examining if it was doable or deliverable. Perhaps the Minister concerned who should have replied to this matter was involved in advising the inclusion of this commitment as part of the programme for Government without checking if it was constitutionally possible or feasible. I note from the reply that there were substantial concerns about this - that is the case with all legislation - that it was considered it would be difficult to achieve - it would be because that is what legislation is about - and that there was an issue regarding the infringement of rights. I know the reply was written by the Department of Justice and Equality.

It is disturbing that it is included in the reply that if one is lucky enough to be in a NAMA property, one might get a rent reduction.

It is obvious that they are getting rent reductions.

I know. However, one must be destitute, in a commercial sense, to be in NAMA and then one might get a rent reduction. There is no legislative requirement for upward-only rent reviews in leases, as was said in the Minister's reply. However, it was stated in the manifesto that there would be legislation against this.

I thank the Minister for coming to the House to clarify the issue. It is unfortunate for politics that things are included in manifestos that are not researched and if they were researched, it just makes people cynical that the attitude is: "We will put it in even though we know we cannot do it." Perhaps the Minister will convey the message to the Minister for Justice and Equality that despite the fact it was removed from the last budget and deemed to be not doable, he might consider it this time. Commercial retailers are on their knees and they need help from the Government.

The Government is aware of the difficulties being experienced in the retail sector. The evidence is before our eyes in the streets where we see the footfall is not the same as it was previously. The commitment in the programme for Government was made in good faith and was based on the recognition of the difficulties faced by the retail trade. However, nobody would dispute the Attorney General's knowledge of the Constitution and the legal position, and her advice is very clear. Equally, nobody would suggest that we should have to pay compensation to landlords as a result of an infringement of their rights. That is the advice being received. That advice has been given not once but several times because the Government was extraordinarily anxious to do something for this sector. It is unfortunate it is not possible to do it in this way. There might be other things that can be done to support it. It is not the retailer who is in NAMA but the property developer or owner, and in that context there is a negotiating position.

The Government made the commitment in the programme for Government in good faith but, unfortunately, it has been unable to do it.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.05 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 11 October 2012.
Top
Share