Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Feb 2013

Vol. 221 No. 7

Adjournment Matters

Free Travel Scheme Eligibility

Senator Kathryn Reilly

I thank the Minister of State for taking this matter on the Adjournment. I have raised it because a replacement bus service for west Cavan has recently discovered that it cannot accept free bus passes, as the service will be considered a new applicant. Local representatives and residents are arguing that the route does not necessarily constitute a new application, as a different company is providing a rural community with the same route that was recently removed by Bus Éireann due to cuts. The Department of Social Protection has stated that it is not in a position to consider applications for additional routes to the free travel scheme, as the scheme's expenditure has been frozen at 2010 levels in line with the National Recovery Plan 2011-14.

What provision is being made for people who had been availing of the free travel scheme under Bus Éireann, but who cannot avail of the free travel scheme following the removal of the route and the subsequent replacement of same by alternative providers? I have discussed the matter with many of the people in west Cavan and elsewhere who have been affected by such a scenario, in that they are no longer able to use their bus passes because spending on the scheme has been capped at 2010 levels.

Entitlements to free travel have been whittled down by cutbacks. The ability of people in rural Ireland to travel affordably is being diminished. Considerable relief was expressed in the communities of west Cavan when the removed bus services started to be offered through an alternative arrangement. However, that the free travel scheme will not extend to them is a harrowing blow. The company that has stepped in to provide this vital rural service in west Cavan is a part of a group and is a reputable provider of rural and interurban services that are no longer offered by Bus Éireann. In many areas, such companies are often the only suppliers of public transport.

Given the fact that the services in question are licensed, the company should be empowered to operate the free travel scheme on the same basis as Bus Éireann. The routes are the same but the operators are different. In many parts of the country, including along these routes, people would not have effective access to free travel without the services of such companies.

I wish to highlight the problem of rural isolation, which could easily stem from this issue if transport is not affordable. People can be dependent on others to get them to neighbouring towns to avail of services, an occurrence that has become increasingly common since the removal of services from towns. People, particularly in rural, isolated communities like west Cavan, must travel longer distances.

The removal of the free travel scheme for people on the routes in question could further reduce access to services for people in rural Ireland. For this reason, will the Department of Social Protection consider an amnesty or the like for the service providers who take up the mantle of rural services dropped by Bus Éireann so that they can access the free travel scheme?

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Lucinda Creighton)

I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for Social Protection. When spousal and companion passes are taken into account, there are more than 1.1 million customers with some free travel eligibility and in excess of 745,000 customers with direct eligibility.

Expenditure on the scheme was frozen at 2010 levels by the last Government, leaving a provision for the scheme in 2013 of €77 million.

The free travel scheme is currently available to all people living in the State aged 66 years or over and to carers and to customers under 66 who are in receipt of certain disability-type payments. Customers can travel for free on most CIE public transport services, Luas and a range of services offered by up to 90 private operators in various parts of the country. Given the challenging budgetary context, however, it is timely to review the current operation, future direction and efficiency of the scheme and to ensure it is consistent with other travel schemes funded by the Exchequer.

In this regard, an interdepartmental committee commenced a review of the scheme last year. One of the aspects being examined is the extent of the service provided, and this will involve an assessment of the need to adjust the service having regard to its coverage to ensure it is consistent with current and anticipated future needs. This committee comprises representatives of the Department of Social Protection, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the National Transport Authority. It is expected to conclude its work by the end of the third quarter of 2013. The report will feed into future policy development and the forthcoming budgetary process.

Ports Merger

Senator Denis O'Donovan

I thank the Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, for coming to the House to take this issue. In many instances we do not get a line Minister in here and I appreciate his interest in this area.

I have argued this matter with a previous Minister, former Deputy Noel Dempsey, for many hours in the Seanad. For the past ten or 12 years, the Bantry Harbour board has been a success story and it should be left as it is. It is an unusual model, and apart from the oil storage and facilities on Whiddy Island, there must also be consideration of Garinish Island, which is a tourist interest, of inland fishermen and of the people still living on Whiddy Island. It encompasses approximately two thirds if not three quarters of all the Bantry Bay area, which is the second finest bay in the world. It is approximately eight miles deep and an average of eight miles wide in most areas. It has taken the biggest oil tankers ever built into the harbour and it was successful in retaining the entire British admiralty fleet at the time of the 1796 invasion.

There are a few points worth making. Its current structure is a low operating cost model, with no tax paid on profit. Members, at their own volition, get no payment whatever and all profits are retained and spent locally. The board has local control, with many users' interest in the bay being properly looked after. Its key focus is improving the marine infrastructure deficit in the inner harbour, which is an historic problem going back decades. It has a healthy bank balance somewhere in the region of €1.5 million. Its net worth and balance sheet has grown eight-fold in the past ten years, with €4.5 million spent in the past seven years on the development of Whiddy slipway, the Abbey Point slipway, commercial pontoons, pier raising at the main pier, land acquisition, derrick purchase and the surveys and planning costs for the inner harbour master development plan, of which I am sure the Minister is aware. The master plan can be rolled out in coming years, subject to income availability from the oil shipping being protected.

The best way forward is to continue the harbour where it is, spending the money on local infrastructure and capital investment. I am expressing the fear of a vast majority of people in the greater Bantry area, including fishermen, harbour users, yachtsmen and oarsmen, etc. A plan was afoot prior to the Minister's arrival at the Department to have the Port of Cork assume control of Bantry, subject to certain conditions, and we are afraid that the greater interests of the people in the Bantry area will not be properly serviced and funding will be taken from the Whiddy oil process. I have absolutely no doubt if the board had a deficit of €1.5 million, the Port of Cork would walk away. At times the authority appears not to be interested in Bantry but I am afraid of conceding any big issue.

After many years, the Bantry Harbour board was established under a former Minister, former Deputy Peter Barry, and it is working very well. It has a low cost and is efficient, and it is making money. When the process is not broken, why should we fix it? I have very deep-rooted views on the matter as my forefathers going back to before the Great Famine were fishermen in Bantry Bay. I know most of the inlets and outlets there for good or bad. I am deeply concerned that if the Port of Cork takes over the running of the area, it will have a negative impact on many other interests. It may be good for the oil terminal and similar development but there are also socioeconomic and tourism interests to consider, as well as the welfare of inshore fishermen. There is also substantial fish farming in Bantry Bay and the fear is that down the road other interests will suffer and the community will be negatively affected if Bantry Harbour board is in any way taken in charge by the Port of Cork.

Perhaps I have gone on a tangent but I wait anxiously on the Minister's response.

An Cathaoirleach

Before calling the Minister, I welcome a former Member of the Dáil and Minister to the Visitors Gallery, Mr. Noel Davern.

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar)

I thank the Senator for raising this important issue. Policy relating to regional harbours, published in the Government's ports policy statement in 2005, is that the continued operation of harbours under the outdated provisions of the Harbours Act 1946 is unsustainable on the grounds of good governance. It proposed that harbours would best achieve their potential through their transfer to local authority ownership or, in the case where harbours had significant commercial traffic, consideration would be given to bring them under the control of a port company. My Department has worked with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government over the last number of years to progress the transfers.

The transfer of harbours is consistent with the following objectives: reduction in the number of State agencies and public bodies; strengthening corporate governance of significant State assets; unlocking amenity value of the assets to the benefit of local communities; and enabling the repeal of the outmoded Harbours Act 1946. Twelve from a total of 13 harbours have now successfully transferred. Fenit Harbour transferred to Kerry County Council on 1 October 2011 while Baltimore, Kinsale and Arklow harbours transferred to local authority control on 1 January 2012.

Bantry is now the only remaining harbour operating under the Harbours Act 1946. The core business of Bantry Harbour is the oil storage and transhipment terminal on Whiddy Island. The Phillips 66 oil facilities on Whiddy Island are privately owned. Aquaculture, fishing and tourism are prevalent in the harbour and a number of cruise liners also visit the harbour each year.

The KPMG review of regional ports and harbours, published in 1999, recommended that the harbour authority merge with the Port of Cork. It was of the opinion that amalgamation with Cork Port would provide access to port expertise, marketing, strategic development planning and the skills required for the regulation of navigation, ship and port security requirements, pilotage, safety, emergency response, pollution, etc. Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners are currently the responsible authority under the Harbours Act 1946 for the control, operation and development of Bantry Harbour. Their main role relates to jurisdiction over the waters such as pilotage, responsibility for safety and navigation and so on. The operation of large oil tankers, bulk carriers and cruise liners in and out of the bay requires specific expertise. The Port of Cork currently provides a harbour master's service on a contractual basis to assist in this regard.

Work commenced in 2012 to examine the requirements necessary to transfer the harbour. The harbour commissioners established a sub-committee to examine this issue and officials from my Department have been working with both the Port of Cork and the harbour commissioners on the transfer. During these discussions, the Port of Cork has clearly indicated that it is positive about the transfer and willing to work with the Department and the harbour towards this objective. Cork Port already has a very good professional relationship with Phillips 66 through the oil refinery in Cork harbour. It also has a contractual arrangement with Bantry to provide professional expertise and a harbour master to bring in large oil tankers and cruise liners into the bay. This is an absolute requirement by the company to operate the business in Whiddy to help mitigate the risks of maritime accidents, environmental damage, etc.

I met representatives of the harbour commissioners in July 2012 and more recently this month in Dublin.

It is my intention that the transfer should take place with the co-operation of the stakeholders concerned. A positive discussion took place and a number of issues were clarified.

As the Senator is aware, provision was included in the Harbours (Amendment) Act 2009 to allow the transfer of Bantry Harbour to the Port of Cork to take place. That Act provides that a public consultation must be completed before any transfer and, in section 18(2)(d), it outlines how that consultation should take place. I intend to hold a public consultation over the next month or so on the proposed transfer of Bantry to the Port of Cork, as required by the legislation.

In relation to the future and the independence of the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners, the board was appointed in 2009 for a five-year period which will end in October 2014. Similar to the legal position that pertained in relation to the transfer of other regional harbours, should the harbour transfer before that date the board will stand dissolved on the date of transfer.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

It seems that what I feared is likely to happen. In 1999, when the KPMG report was produced, the harbour board and the facilities were in a totally different place. As huge progress has been made since, the KPMG report is 14 years out of date. I argued that at length with the former Minister for Transport, Mr. Noel Dempsey, as the Cathaoirleach will know.

The amendment to the 2009 Act was made following four and a half hours of haggling in the Seanad when I persuaded the former Minister of State, Mr. Noel Ahern, to agree to a public consultation with the people of Bantry. I am not happy with the way things are progressing. If matters proceed as they are going, with no autonomy for the existing harbour board or proper controls in Bantry, more harm will be caused. Somewhere down the line, a successor to the Minister will be reminded that a huge mistake was made in giving control to Cork Port, which has a different agenda. It has no interest in tourism, small fishermen, aquaculture, traditional diving, marine related sports or Garinish Island. There is tunnel vision in this regard.

This development was steered before the Minister's time. I resented it and fought it.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator holds the record for the length of time speaking in the House on a single issue.

Senator Denis O'Donovan

I was a lone voice. I intend, if necessary, to stand alone on this issue. Whatever about my political future or the future of Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners, this is a retrograde step.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

All that is intended to happen at this stage is the public consultation. That is happening because of the work the Senator did in the previous Seanad. I do not wish to prejudice the outcome of that process at this stage.

When I met the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners, they were keen that a local board should be retained and that Bantry should have some autonomy. They were keen that fees and profits should remain locally and be invested in the area. They also had an interest in having improvements done to the inner harbour and the area around it. I am open to suggestions in that regard. That is what the public consultation will be about.

It is certainly not my intention to do harm. I appreciate the work done by Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners for the harbour and for the area. I had the pleasure of visiting Bantry and I hope to do so again, and to be welcome there. It is not my intention to do any harm. I am just trying to regularise the situation.

It is not fair to say Port of Cork has no interest in tourism. The company has done a pretty good job in attracting cruise ships to Cork city in recent years and is taking an active interest in the Cork Harbour project, particularly for tourism. I take the point the Senator is making, nevertheless. Bantry is quite a distance from Cork city and it makes sense to have some sort of identity or autonomy there.

Transition Year Selection Process

Senator Imelda Henry

As Fine Gael spokesperson for children in the Seanad, I was contacted by the parents of a child in a school in north Dublin. The school, which is a community college, has 60 places in transition year, 84 pupils applied and their son was turned down for a place. In junior certificate year, the pupils are asked to complete an application form for transition year and, I understand, the headmaster and teachers decide who wins out in the selection process.

Transition year is very important and too advantageous to pupils to allow a local headmaster and teachers to decide who is selected for it and who is left out. Such a system is open to abuse, favouritism, discrimination and prejudice and should have no place in the world we live in today. I understand the pupils were marked by their ten teachers on a scale of zero to ten. The issue is one of equality, transparency, favouritism, discrimination, prejudice and the rights of children.

The parents who spoke to me are disappointed and their son is also disappointed that of the 18 in his class who applied 16 got places, he being one of the two who did not. No child should have to be made feel that way at school and we must do all we can to safeguard the well-being and welfare of all children.

If there is insufficient funding for the school to offer all its pupils transition year, it should not be offered to any. However, if the Minister for Education and Skills wants his schools to offer a limited number of transition year places, they should be offered on a fully transparent and random basis. Some schools, for example, have a lottery system where parents are invited to attend.

Who gives these people the right to say which child is suitable and which child is not? That decision is much too important to give to people who are close to the issue. There is a clear conflict of interest when teachers are asked to decide between a colleague's child and nobody's child. A lottery is clearly a good solution.

Children doing the junior certificate examination are at a vulnerable age and undermining their self-esteem and confidence in this manner is extremely dangerous. I highlight the current suicide problem in the country. We owe children a much higher duty of care. If a child were to self-harm as a result of being depressed or let down by such an unfair system we would regret it.

Schools should have a policy on transition year. Some schools make that policy public but they are not required to do so. I am speaking about a specific school in north Dublin, but I believe this happens in several schools throughout the country.

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

I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn. I thank the Senator for raising this issue. It affords me the opportunity to outline to the House the situation with regard to the funding for the transition year programme.

Transition year is a one year programme, available to all second level schools. It is designed to act as a bridge between the junior certificate and leaving certificate programmes. The Department of Education and Skills provides teaching resources and additional grant aid to schools that offer the transition year programme. A teacher allocation is given to each school offering the programme, based on a pupil-teacher ratio of 18.25:1 for DEIS schools, 19:1 for schools in the free education scheme and 21:1 for fee-charging schools. Approximately 1,700 whole-time equivalent teaching posts were allocated to schools in the 2012-13 school year in respect of transition year at an estimated cost of €109 million. Schools in the free education scheme also qualify for payment of a transition year grant of €95 for each pupil participating in the programme. The cost of transition year grants in 2012 was €2.7 million.

Schools are free to devise a flexible modular programme within an overall framework set out by the Department. Each school designs its own programme within set guidelines to suit the needs and interests of its students. In establishing its own distinctive programme content, the school takes into account the possibilities offered by the local community interests. The cost, therefore, of the programme is dependent upon the particular circumstances in each individual school. Schools are conscious of any additional costs being imposed on parents in the current economic circumstances and seek to minimise these. Schools may seek voluntary contributions from parents, provided it is made clear to parents that there is no compulsion to pay and that a child's place in the programme is not dependant on a willingness to make a contribution. This is, of course, a key requirement for all recognised schools in the free education scheme. Such schools must not operate a charge, in whatever form, that is in effect a mandatory fee and that is contrary to the principles of the free education scheme.

While the transition year grant has not been reduced in the lifetime of the Government - it was reduced from €100 to €95 per pupil in January 2011 - overall resources to second level schools have. I fully acknowledge that this reduction is challenging for schools. In respect of transition year, schools have autonomy on how best to prioritise their available resources. The management authority of each school also carries responsibility for making decisions regarding participation in the transition year programme in that school. Approximately 75% of schools participate in the programme. In some schools, the programme is compulsory for all students. In those that offer it as an option, circumstances may arise where it is necessary to limit the number of students who can avail of it. In cases where restrictions apply, schools should have clear procedures regarding how places are allocated to students.

Transition year offers students an opportunity to mature and develop without the pressure of an examination. It also provides an opportunity for students to reflect on, and develop an appreciation of, the value of education and training in preparing them for the ever-changing demands of the adult world of work and relationships. Given the scale of our economic crisis, there is no scope to introduce new or additional funding measures to assist schools in providing the transition year programme. I thank the Senator for the opportunity to respond to the House and to clarify matters regarding the programme.

Senator Imelda Henry

The Minister stated schools should have clear procedures regarding how places are allocated to students. I understand what he is saying, but the difficulty is some schools have unfair systems, particularly the school to which I referred. It is unfair how students are chosen. I am not too concerned about the funding issue, but I am concerned about the procedure to decide who is selected. I will take this issue up and contact the Minister for Education and Skills directly. I thank the Minister.

Library Projects

Senator Michael Mullins

I thank the Minister for taking this matter relating to the new library project in Ballinasloe. The public library service in Ballinasloe has suffered because the existing library building in the town, which opened in 1971, has not been satisfactory due to poor location and poor design. The physical condition of the building has deteriorated considerably in recent years and there has been no investment in it. In 2006 Ballinasloe Town Council purchased the Convent of Mercy building and the adjoining convent chapel on Society Street, Ballinasloe, with a view to Galway County Council refurbishing and developing the buildings for use as a branch library.

Stage 1 approval for this project was first given by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government back in June 2007. Both the main convent building and the chapel building date from the mid-19th century. The architects have addressed various conservation issues and the result is that a listed building will be brought back into public use through accommodating a modern public library facility. This is an important project which should be brought to fruition. Galway County Council is committed to this project. A building has been purchased and the council has invested much administrative and engineering staff time in taking the project through the various stage 1 and stage 2 phases.

In August 2011, following an application from Galway County Council, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government made €115,297 available, which allowed the council to engage consultants and a design team to prepare the project for Part 8 planning under the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. The council engaged consultants and work proceeded on detailed design for the project. A Part 8 planning application was submitted to and approved by the town council. I am anxious that the project should receive from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government an approval to go to tender. The estimated total cost of the project is €3.3 million.

The library provides a valuable service for the community. It has European direct status for the next five years and hosts many art exhibitions for individuals and community groups and a small dedicated staff provide an amazing service, despite the serious limitations of an unsuitable building. The people of Ballinasloe deserve a facility designed to meet the needs of the community in the 21st century. I appeal to the Minister and his Department to support this project by permitting it to go to tender immediately.

Deputy Phil Hogan

Under the Local Government Act 2001, each local authority is deemed to be a library authority and it is a matter for each local authority to prioritise its actions in terms of delivering library facilities, including premises in its catchment area. Under section 78 of the Act, a library authority may take such measures, engage in such activities or do such things in accordance with law, including the incurring of expenditure, for the provision of library services as it considers necessary or desirable. A library authority may, in particular, arrange for the provision of premises and facilities, including mobile facilities, for the library service, as it considers appropriate.

In 2008 my Department requested library authorities to provide details of priorities for library development within their area. In its response, Galway County Council ranked a new branch library in Tuam branch as its main priority, followed by projects at Ballinasloe, the replacement of a mobile library and two delivery vans, and fit-out of a new branch to be constructed at Mountbellew . In 2010, my Department provided funding of €460,000 to Galway County Council towards the new Tuam branch library and a further €250,000 for a new mobile library. In 2011, I announced a new library capital programme to support the continued development of the library service in Ireland within budgetary constraints through the local authorities.

Following detailed consideration of the various library priorities communicated to my Department, I included the offer of grant aid in 2011 to Galway County Council of €250,000 or 75% of eligible costs towards the Ballinasloe library project. The funding was provided to allow the council to engage consultants and a design team to prepare this project for Part 8 planning. Of this grant offer, €115,297.87 was drawn down by the local authority. Due to the constraints on funding provision, it was not possible to offer grant assistance beyond 2011.

Galway County Council's proposal is to refurbish and develop the former Convent of Mercy building and adjoining chapel in Ballinasloe for use as a branch library. The estimated total cost of the project is €3.252 million. The council engaged consultants and work proceeded on a detailed design for the project. A planning application for the project was submitted to Ballinasloe Town Council in mid-2012. It is open to the local authority to proceed with this project using its own resources, which would be a good way for it to demonstrate its commitment to the project. Available funding for 2013 of €5 million is expected to be fully committed to ongoing library projects. Since 1999, my Department has provided €123.5 million towards the development of infrastructure and stocking of the library service in Ireland, including the projects I mentioned in east Galway. There is no doubt that this has helped local authorities to develop a good library infrastructure in the country and to provide excellent library services to the public from junior infants to college students and from preschool children to senior citizens. I regret that the additional resources the Senator is requesting are not available from central funds to advance the Ballinasloe project.

Senator Michael Mullins

I thank the Minister for his reply, although I am disappointed. I had hoped that out of the €5 million being allocated by the Department this year, funding could be found for Ballinasloe branch library. Will the Minister examine the Ballinasloe case? The county council is committed to the project and there is huge support in the town for it. Ballinasloe Town Council is particularly supportive of this project. Given that as far back as 2007, there was an expectation that this project would proceed, I ask the Minister to re-examine it with a view to giving the go-ahead to allow it go to tender.

Deputy Phil Hogan

Many things were in anticipation as far back as 2007. We were in a different financial and economic climate at that time and we have had to make considerable adjustments to the capital and current expenditure programmes of the State to meet our troika requirements. Unfortunately, the library programme is not immune to this. I am delighted that Ballinasloe Town Council is interested in progressing the project and I understand it has considerable capital resources in its account. It is open to a local authority to examine the feasibility of proceeding with a project out of its own resources. The €5 million that will be spent through the library programme this year is for ongoing projects. No new project will commence or be approved in any part of the country in 2013.

Senator Michael Mullins

I assume the Minister would be supportive of the town council funding the project.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 27 February 2013.