Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Dec 2012

Vol. 129 No. 8

Adjournment Matters

Army Barracks Closures

I apologise to the Minister for arriving late and briefly delaying him. The issue I raise is the proposed closure of the Reserve Defence Force facility in Clonmel. As the Minister will be aware, Kickham Barracks closed on 29 March last, thus ending 350 years of a military presence in Clonmel. The Third Cavalry Battalion of the Reserve Defence Force was attached to the barracks and following its closure, negotiations with the Minister resulted in a Reserve Defence Force headquarters being located in Clonmel. As a result, 55 active members continued their weekly meetings and training at the location.

As a result of the Minister's recent announcement in that the Reserve Defence Force will be consolidated nationwide, the Third Cavalry Battalion will cease to function in Clonmel and move to Cork. This decision has come as a great shock to the 55 members of the battalion who serve in the town. This group, which include individuals from Carrick-on-Suir, where I live, Cahir, Fethard and surrounding areas, will have to travel to Cork for training every week if they wish to continue to serve their country. Making this journey of approximately 70 miles in each direction will require the provision of at least two minibuses. While I am aware of the cost of renting, operating and maintaining the building currently in use in Clonmel, the decision to close the facility and incur weekly transport costs to Cork does not make financial sense. Moreover, the loss to Clonmel of this military unit, of which I was a member for many years, will also result in the loss of a military tradition as Reserve Defence Force will no longer be recruited in south County Tipperary.

Following his recent announcement, the Minister indicated the closed Kickham Barracks will be developed to provide a new Garda barracks and other services. At this late stage, I appeal to him to give a commitment to serving members of the Reserve Defence Force in Clonmel that he will reserve a section of the new facility at the barracks to allow them to return to Clonmel. Such a decision would save money in the long term and allow a 350 year old tradition in the town to continue. It would also facilitate continued recruitment in the local area of young men and women who wish to serve in the Reserve Defence Force. I ask the Minister to consider my proposal and look forward to his response.

I thank the Senator for raising this issue. As he will be aware, a value for money review of the Reserve Defence Force, RDF, was recently completed and published. The review was undertaken by a steering committee with an independent chair and had representatives from the Department of Defence, the Defence Forces and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. It found that the current effective strength of the Army Reserve and Naval Service Reserve, at 4,500 personnel, was substantially less than half that of the 9,692 personnel for which the organisational structures were designed. In addition, it found that the low uptake of training within the reserve raised serious questions about its current capacity. For example, during 2011 the number of reservists who met paid and unpaid training targets required for the payment of a gratuity was 2,010 personnel.

The steering committee made a series of recommendations which were aimed at ensuring a viable Reserve Defence Force into the future. In this context, a key recommendation was for a major reorganisation of the Reserve, with organisational structures that were sustainable within the current resource envelope. Arising from the reorganisation of the Permanent Defence Force, within a strength level of 9,500 personnel, the number of Permanent Defence Force personnel available to support the Army Reserve in a full-time capacity is being reduced to 48. A cadre of a further nine Permanent Defence Force personnel is assigned to support the Naval Service Reserve.

The steering committee recommended an Army Reserve and Naval Service Reserve based on a total strength ceiling of 4,000 personnel, 3,800 of whom would be Army Reserve and 200 of whom would be Naval Service Reserve personnel. It recommended the retention of a country-wide geographic spread, with units in existing Permanent Defence Force installations and 16 locations outside these installations.

I accepted these recommendations and directed that proposals for new organisational structures be prepared. The Chief of Staff and Secretary General of my Department submitted a joint report which set out detailed reorganisation proposals, including unit structures and the location of Reserve units. Their recommendation was based on a single force concept which differs from the current model of Reserve organisation. Army units will have Permanent Defence Force and Reserve elements rather than a parallel Reserve structure as at present.

This approach offers significant advantages in terms of accessing equipment and training. Under this organisational model, the only Army Reserve elements outside Permanent Defence Force installations will be Reserve infantry companies. All other Army Reserve combat support and combat service support elements will be co-located with their PDF counterparts in PDF installations. This will be in Cork in the case of 1 Brigade. Accordingly, it is no longer feasible to retain Reserve cavalry or medical elements in Clonmel. The training and support of Reserve elements of Defence Forces units located in PDF installations will be undertaken by the PDF element of those units. The 16 Reserve infantry companies outside PDF installations will have additional support from 16 teams of full-time PDF personnel.

The Senator will appreciate that the consolidation of existing Reserve into a small number of full strength units means it is not possible to retain all existing locations. Clonmel was not selected as a location for one of these 16 infantry companies which are distributed throughout the country. I emphasise that this is not a negative reflection on the quality of participation of the current reservists in Clonmel but reflects the reality that all locations cannot be retained.

All members of the Reserve will be afforded the opportunity to apply for positions within the new organisational structure, having regard to their particular needs. The closest Reserve infantry companies to Clonmel will be based in Waterford, Kilkenny and Templemore. Personnel will be able to avail of retraining should this be required. The overall travel costs of the new Reserve units will not be known for some time but I can confirm that no increase in the overarching Reserve budget is anticipated or planned. I am satisfied that given a reduction in direct expenditure on the reserve of €11 million in 2013, the new Reserve will be significantly more cost-effective than the existing organisation.

I emphasise that the contribution and commitment of each member of the Reserve is valued and appreciated. I sincerely hope all members of the Reserve Defence Force will continue to serve within the new organisation. Unfortunately, I cannot accede to the request made by the Senator that we preserve the Reserve in Clonmel or that Clonmel remain a location for Reserve training.

The Minister is proposing to provide finance for the development of the old Army barracks into a new Garda unit. When that happens and when the economic situation is better, will he consider returning an element of the Reserve Defence Force to Clonmel? While the Minister has listed the nearest locations, this is a cavalry battalion that is to be located in Cork. Therefore, the costs, as I have outlined, can be estimated and will certainly outweigh the current costs. I regret that I must raise this issue on the Adjournment and that this seems to be the last chance for the military serving in Clonmel.

The decisions made in this regard were based on the operational assessments and judgements of the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General of my Department looking at the most appropriate locations to ensure we preserve a nationwide representation of the Reserve. In respect of the issue the Senator raised relating to Cork, I emphasise that all reservists will be invited to apply for positions within the new organisational structure. They must decide based on their particular circumstances as to which units best serve their needs. This can and may include transferring from their current corps such as cavalry to an alternative such as infantry. Every effort will be made to facilitate reservists with their choice, however, this may not be feasible if units are over-subscribed. As this process unfolds, there will be a clearer picture as to the locations which reservists wish to relocate to. It is important to state that military authorities have informed that they do not envisage transporting reservists from Clonmel to Cork or other locations.

I hope members of the Reserve Defence Force, particularly active members who are doing the community a service and are committed to and very much enjoy their involvement and engagement in the reserve, will show the flexibility and understanding that is necessary in the circumstances that now pertain. In the context of the reserve, we must ensure that it has a capability, that members of the Reserve participate in the minimum training and that the Reserve readjusts to the very substantial and dramatic changes made in the Permanent Defence Force where we have moved from a three-brigade to a two-brigade structure. I have an obligation in current circumstances as Minister for Defence to ensure the reorganisation of the Permanent Defence Force is reflected in an appropriate reorganisation of the Reserve Defence Force in the context of ensuring the public gets value for money and that we do not unduly waste resources. In addition, the advantage of the new arrangements is that there will be greater connectivity between the Permanent Defence Force and the reserve, as opposed to a reserve operating to a great extent as a separate organisation save for the PDF cadre that was available to assist it in its operations and training.

I hope the reforms will be welcomed by the members of the Reserve in so far as they will have a changing and, I hope, more relevant role and a greater engagement with the PDF in general. I also hope that those members of the Reserve who have been engaged and active will continue to do so. I am also anxious to ensure that, in the context of the Reserve, we have a real strength as opposed to a nominal one. I have concerns that, as I pointed out in 2011, only 2,010 of the 4,500 members of the Reserve fully participated in the minimum seven days training that is prescribed to maintain some degree of capability within the Reserve. I am sure the reservists in Clonmel are disappointed that this location has not been retained. We will over a period of months be working through the implementation of the reforms, which will not be implemented overnight. A consultative process is taking place. I wish all the members in Clonmel well and thank them for their service so far. I hope those members in Clonmel who are committed to and actively participating in the Reserve can readjust to maintain their involvement.

Wastewater Treatment Issues

I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to the House and thank him for taking this matter on the Adjournment. I commend him for moving to implement this legislation as I know it has rested on successive Ministers' desks as a way of avoiding the enactment of it and complying with our EU obligations in this regard.

We all know that clean water is essential not only for our health and well-being but is a prerequisite for multinational companies who want to set up on these shores. Clean water is of paramount importance to the economy and our health. Given the existence of approximately 450,000 septic tanks and wastewater treatment systems, the Department and associated agencies have quite a large number to police. While registration is mandatory, could the Minister provide the House with an update as regards the most recent registration numbers of wastewater treatment systems under the Water Services (Amendment) Act 2012?

It is an unfortunate reality that many householders are struggling. In particular, there is a significant number of rural householders who face the possibility of having to spend thousands of euro upgrading their tanks while city dwellers do not face such charges. Not only is this an inequity, it is financially onerous on people living in rural areas in these recessionary times. I ask the Minister to earnestly consider providing financial support for low-income families for remediation works that may be necessary following an inspection under the Act.

I thank the Senator for the opportunity to outline the position with regard to the registration of domestic wastewater treatment systems.

The Water Services (Amendment) Act 2012 provided for the establishment of a new system for the registration and inspection of septic tanks and other domestic wastewater treatment systems. I made regulations in June setting out the procedures for householders to register details of their treatment systems with their water services authorities. The Local Government Management Agency developed an online registration facility, on a shared service basis for the 34 county and city councils, and the agency has also been tasked with managing a central bureau to process written applications accompanied by registration fees. Registration facilities have been available from 26 June 2012. In keeping with a previous commitment, I set the registration fee at €5 for the first three months of the registration period, up to 28 September this year, and the fee payable since that date is €50. The registration fees are intended to cover the costs to the water services authorities of administering the registers and managing the risk-based inspection system which will be implemented in 2013.

As of 10 December 2012, applications in respect of the on-site wastewater treatment systems of 241,000 owners, who have registered online, by post or in person at their local authority offices, have been processed. I understand that approximately a further 50,000 owners have submitted registration applications which have yet to be processed by the bureau operated by the Local Government Management Agency. This means that more than 290,000 owners have registered their systems. This compares with the almost 500,000 houses that are served by septic tanks or other on-site treatment systems that were recorded in Census 2011. Householders who have not yet registered have until 1 February 2013 to register their system. I would encourage each of them to register on time to ensure they are in compliance with the law. Registration can be done online, by post or at local authority offices.

I am very aware of the concerns that have been expressed and raised by the Senator that some householders are concerned they may incur significant expense in repairing or upgrading their systems if they fail an inspection. I have stated on a number of occasions that I am prepared to consider all possible options to provide financial support to those householders whose wastewater treatment systems are deemed, following inspection under the new legislation, to require substantial remediation or upgrading. The provision of any financial support will have regard to the overall budgetary situation and to the financial position of the individual householders concerned. If we are introducing any financial support at some stage in the future, this support would be targeted as a last resort to people on low incomes who have been unable, due to their means, to facilitate a major improvement of their wastewater treatment system.

I remind the House that this legislation was introduced to ensure compliance with a European Court of Justice ruling against Ireland. It is important the legislation is fully implemented not just to comply with the court ruling but also to protect our very valuable water resources. The Senator is correct to point out the importance of good quality water to householders, the agriculture and food industry and businesses generally.

I thank the Minister for outlining the situation. I welcome the fact that 290,000 people have registered their septic tank or wastewater treatment system. It is also welcome to hear the Minister not ruling out the possibility of providing financial assistance for those whose tanks might fail a test.

I wish to make it clear that if we are introducing a scheme of financial support, it will be on the basis that, arising from an inspection under the regulations outlined in the legislation or arising from the Water Services (Amendment) Act, the possible solution of a problem that might arise with a wastewater treatment system is to de-sludge. This is the solution that was found in Cavan. In 2004, Cavan County Council quite correctly identified that it had a very serious problem with pollution of its waterways and lakes. Some of it was due to difficulties with groundwater arising from leaks from septic tanks. The regulations that were enforced by Cavan County Council in 2004 showed that approximately 11% of the wastewater treatment systems failed following an inspection. I do not anticipate that there will be as many wastewater treatment systems as in Cavan County Council, but I accept there will be exceptional cases where, through nobody's fault, a substantial sum of money will have to be spent on remediation works. I am particularly conscious of that for low-income families and people on social welfare. The most important matter as far as we are concerned is that people will register by 1 February 2013. If a person does not register, they will certainly not be considered for any grant assistance. Ultimately, I am anxious to ensure the systems are working properly, that groundwater is protected and that it is not a financial burden on anybody.

Special Educational Needs Services Provision

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy John Perry. I would appreciate a comment or response from the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, on the case of a young ten year old boy whose parents have withdrawn him from school due to their concerns about him. I sent the details to the Minister for Education and Skills a few weeks ago and I hope he provided them for the Minister of State, Deputy Perry. I understand they are also under investigation by the Garda.

The little boy has multiple and significant special needs. He has been diagnosed with an intellectual disability, Down's syndrome, arthritis, Down's syndrome atrophy, sleep apnoea and hearing loss. He also has a cardiac condition. Unfortunately, this ten year old boy has been out of school since last April, due to the concerns I outlined to the Minister. Significantly, it must be taken into consideration that the boy is non-verbal, which raises huge communication issues. Nobody knows a child better than the child's mother, and his mother reported that the child had become very withdrawn and unhappy at the school he was attending. Since she removed him his general health and overall mood have greatly improved.

The boy's parents are extremely anxious that he return to full-time education. I have met the little boy and his parents. I concur with them that he needs to be in education. However, they have genuine concerns about the school at which he is currently enrolled. They did not make the decision to remove him lightly. They only did so only after a series of incidents over a two-year period. The boy is on a waiting list for two other special schools but there is no guarantee that a place will become available for him. In the interim, the parents applied for the home tuition grant to ensure he could continue his education. Unfortunately, this has recently been refused and the child has not received formal education for the past eight months. The home tuition grant for a child with special needs is granted only where a child is waiting to be placed in a suitable placement. The reason given for the refusal was that the child still has a place available to him in the school he was attending. The parents believe this is not in the best interests of the child and argue that a placement in a suitable school is not available. They believe there should be a review of this decision.

I ask the Minister to address the situation in order that this young boy can return to formal education as a matter of priority.

I thank the Senator for raising this important issue and for giving me the opportunity, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, who regrets he cannot be present, to outline the current position regarding this case.

The child in question is enrolled in a special school. This school has a staffing of an administrative principal, 14 class teachers and 27 special needs assistants to cater for the 99 pupils enrolled. This is an overall staff to pupil ratio of one staff member per 2.4 pupils in the school. The National Council for Special Education, NCSE, has advised the Department of Education and Skills that it considers this level of staffing sufficient to meet the special educational and care needs of all the pupils enrolled in the school, which includes the child in question.

In October 2012, an application for home tuition for the child was submitted to the Department of Education and Skills under section 2(b) of the scheme, that is, children with special educational needs who are awaiting an educational placement.

Eligibility for tuition in this regard is determined in consultation with the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, through the local special educational needs organiser, SENO. The SENO in question verified that a placement remained available in the special school in which the child is currently enrolled. Consequently, the application was refused, as funding for home provision arises only where a place is not available.

The Department operates another home tuition scheme where the child does not have a school place, is without the offer of a school place and on whose behalf a school place is being actively sought or a section 29 appeal is being taken. This home tuition scheme is an interim measure pending the offer of a school placement. I understand that an application for home tuition was again refused because a school placement was available.

The National Educational Welfare Board, NEWB, subsequently appealed the Department's decision on home tuition on behalf of this child's parents. The appeal was rejected on the same grounds, namely, that the child remained on the roll of the school in question and a placement was available for him there, as a consequence of which the home tuition scheme could not apply to him.

Regarding the role of the NCSE in these matters, the position is that there is no formal requirement for continued NCSE involvement once a placement is available for a child. In this case, however, the SENO has been advised that the boy's parents might seek assistance regarding an alternative placing and the Department of Education and Skills is happy for the SENO to provide support in respect of any option they are considering.

The NEWB has a particular role in securing a return to school of a child who has been withdrawn regardless of whether there is a special educational need. I understand that the NEWB has been assisting the parents in attempting to secure an alternative school placement for their child.

The Senator referred to parental concerns and I fully respect the fact that this is a sensitive case. I should clarify that, under the provisions of the Education Act 1998, the board of management is the body charged with the direct governance of a school and with employing school staff. Accordingly, whereas the Department of Education and Skills provides funding and policy direction for schools, it does not have any power to instruct schools to follow a particular course of action regarding individual complaints.

If a parent or guardian is still unsatisfied after having brought a complaint to the attention of a school's board of management, he or she may write to the Office of the Ombudsman for Children, which may independently investigate complaints relating to the administrative actions or inactions of a school recognised by the Department of Education and Skills, provided that the parent has fully followed the school's complaints procedures. The key criterion for any intervention by the Ombudsman for Children is that the actions of a school have or may have adversely affected the child.

The Minister of State, Deputy Perry, always seems to take those Adjournment debates where I am not happy with the response. I am very disappointed in this instance. Where a child has an intellectual disability or, as in this case, special needs, we must consider each case individually.

If the child was attending a normal school, that is, one that was not a special school, his parents could just send him to a different school in the area if that was their preference. Unfortunately, as the child is attending a special school and no other special school is available, he is caught in a terrible loop. His parents are clearly unhappy with his current placement. They have noticed a significant improvement since removing him. Surely, where they send their child to school is a matter of parental choice. He has been out of school since last April, some eight months ago, and priority needs to be given to his case. We owe him the right to an education.

I do not want to repeat anything that has been stated but, in fairness to the Minister, Deputy Quinn, the reply was comprehensive. Meaningful negotiations are under way and the NEWB has been assisting the parents in attempting to secure an alternative school placement for the child.

They have been given no guarantee of a place in September.

No, but meaningful negotiations are under way. The school has 14 class teachers and 27 special needs assistants, SNAs, to cater for the current enrolment of 99 pupils. The parents are unhappy with the situation in the school but the Minister is doing everything that he can. The school has autonomy, in that the Department can set policy but cannot give exact directions in respect of specific matters.

I am sure the outcome will be satisfactory. The Minister is determined in this regard, although he does not have the power to involve himself directly. Nor would one expect him to. In fairness, the Minister is doing everything that he can and has not been criticised. Meaningful negotiations are being held with the parents and the NEWB to determine how best to rectify the situation. I am certain that, after a calm, cool debate, it will be resolved.

I hope. I thank the Minister of State.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 12 December 2012.
Top
Share