Perhaps you might like to comment on this issue, Mr. Farrelly. We previously discussed this matter on 16 January. We will hear from the Comptroller and Auditor General first.
Report on Value for Money - Driving Test Service (Resumed).
Acting Chairman
Mr. Purcell
This issue was discussed briefly at a meeting on 5 October last and was scheduled to be heard in January but the committee ran out of time. I will recap on a few points which give a flavour of the report.
A theory test required under a 1991 EU directive has yet to be introduced. Some discussion took place on that issue during the meeting in October. The wide disparity in pass rates for driving tests between centres suggested that a uniform driving test standard was not being applied. As we all know, demand for driving tests has increased considerably in recent years. The number of applications received in 1993 was approximately 100,000 and this increased to approximately 170,000 last year. The supply of tests, for various reasons, did not increase at the same rate, leading to long waiting lists. At the time the report was produced, the waiting list stood at 88,500. This number had fallen to 72,500 by the end of 2000. I am sure the Accounting Officer can provide us with up-to-date figures in that regard.
The Department of the Environment and Local Government has a stated target of all driving tests being carried out within ten weeks of receipt of application, an ambitious target. When the report was issued some applicants were waiting as long as 59 weeks. By the end of last year, the maximum waiting period had been reduced to 45 weeks. I am not sure of the up-to-date figure. Again, I am sure the Accounting Officer will be able to supply that information to the committee. Clearly, progress is being made but there is a long way to go before the ten week target is achieved.
The committee will recall that in response to my report, the Department engaged a firm of management consultants to examine the organisation and delivery of driver testing. As far as I am aware, that report has not been finalised.
As the Comptroller and Auditor General said, we presented a statement to the committee at the October meeting in response to the value for money report on the driver testing service. I express our appreciation to the Comptroller and Auditor General for compiling this report. Some people may see such things as unhelpful or as putting us in the dock, but I do not see it that way. It is very helpful in advancing us towards our agenda which can be very difficult - I do not refer to political difficulties.
Since October last the waiting list for driving tests has been reduced substantially, by over 15,000. The number on the waiting list now stands at 70,400. The comparison between today's waiting list and that of 12 months ago creates the wrong impression in terms of what has been achieved because by virtue of the substantial increase in capacity and throughput because of extra testers we can clear many more now. The average waiting time nationally is down to 18 weeks, quite adrift of our quality customer service requirement of a ten week maximum waiting time referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The improvements being made in this service are such that we are well on our way to attaining the ten week maximum waiting period. We will achieve that target later this year.
We now have 115 testers on our books. We have put in place bonus schemes to encourage them to do tests outside normal hours and we have brought back some people on retirement to do limited tests. Massive changes have taken place. From my perspective - politicians will know this better than I because they are closer to the coalface - I do not see this issue as a problem for the public. We are in a position to provide a test for anyone in urgent need of one. There has been a dramatic improvement in this area and it will continue. Members will be aware that recruitment in all areas is increasingly difficult. We have increased our numbers and have broken this problem to some extent.
We engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers to undertake a review of the organisation of the driver testing service in response to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. This report is in the process of being finalised. I have no doubt it will raise fundamental issues which will require detailed discussions with unions and so on. It is timely and appropriate that we have this detailed analysis and report of the system. They will consider, without being clear of what is contained in their final report, measures to make the service more friendly and identifiable which is also important. It is not merely a question of providing a driving test, the manner in which it is undertaken is also important.
The need for new IT systems also arises in providing a better service not only to people but also to the Oireachtas because of the number of parliamentary questions to which we are unable to provide answers.
The committee may also wish to know that as part of our contribution to e-government, applicants for driving tests will soon be able to apply via the Internet and pay their fees in the same way. I am glad to be able to say this at this meeting rather than at an earlier one when one might have said there was no point in providing Internet facilities if one cannot provide a driving test. However, we are at the stage where we can provide the tests.
Will Mr Farrelly address the other two matters - the theory test and the disparity in pass rates and standards?
I cannot say definitely when the theory test will be introduced this year. It will be done through a privatised system.
On the disparity in passes, there is a system where supervisory driver testers accompany testers on tests. The intention is to keep control and uniformity in the decisions of different testers across the system. We asked the consultants, who will be reporting soon, to look at that also. We are conscious of it and the differences in the schedule can be seen. At the same time we must be careful because there can be good reasons for a disparity in passes between different areas. The prevalence of driving schools, their quality and local conditions are all factors.
I raised this in the Dáil following our October meeting and from the figures I noticed there was a big variation from area to area in the numbers on waiting lists. Bearing in mind the substantial increase in new drivers, the service has improved. However, if someone is looking for a job, for example, which requires a full driver's licence, 18 weeks is a long time to wait. I know the Department attempts to give preference to people with a promise of a job but more effort should be made from a cost point of view to reduce that 18 weeks. It is a long time to wait to get a job or to be able to drive to work. Hundreds of people drive from my constituency to Dublin every day, many of them on provisional licences. How does the Department propose to reduce that 18 week period?
As I said already the Department's target is ten weeks maximum. Taking into account the progress being made we expect to reach that towards the end of the year. We are sensitive to employment issues and if someone shows that they need a licence for a job, they will be accommodated. Often this may mean giving such a person an appointment which has been cancelled. We are effective at doing that.
The Deputy raised the issue of disparities in waiting times between different test centres. This was more of a problem when we had unmanageable arrears, but that situation is being dealt with. We are looking closely at regularising waiting times in different areas. There are problems that will be dealt with in the consultants' study. One issue is inflexibility in working conditions. We are not free to move people throughout the country. I accept that it is necessary to take this out of the system and I am convinced that on the basis of progress made that it can be done. One thing I emphasise is that if people want a driving test to get a job, we will accommodate them.
Acting Chairman
Your target date of ten weeks is important and Deputy Bell made the point that it needs to be uniform across the country. Mr. Farrelly mentioned that the consultants - I cannot recall the name——
PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Acting Chairman
——were due to deliver their report by the end of last year. Why has there been a delay?
The question of driver testers, unions and all the rest is a sensitive one. The consultation process took much longer than envisaged. That may prove helpful in future. The report is essentially completed and should be with us soon.
Acting Chairman
We as a committee set tight target dates. We expect Departments to deliver on time and they do so within reason. I think, in using consultants, that the old days of their saying they have difficulties can no longer be tolerated. I am glad it is almost ready.
We move on to item 10, the value for money report on the special housing aid for the elderly scheme from the Department of the Environment and Local Government.
I declare an interest in this as I am secretary of the voluntary group, SHAFE, in Cork city which administers this scheme. We are a voluntary company which works in the greater Cork area through FÁS and the Southern Health Board.
Mr. Purcell
The report is an examination by my staff of the operation of the special housing aid scheme. It has operated since 1982 when it was introduced as an emergency response to the situation where old people died because of poor housing conditions. It is designed to carry out remedial work for those without the funds or the personal capacity to do the repairs themselves.
Since 1982, State expenditure on the scheme totalled £52 million, most in recent years from a modest start. The scheme is operated by health boards and overseen by a task force representing Government Departments, local authorities and voluntary bodies. Its funds come out of the Vote for the Department of the Environment and Local Government. The scheme is worthwhile as it improves the quality of life of a sizeable number of vulnerable old people for a relatively modest amount of money. It is administered with the minimum of red tape and needy cases are prioritised when brought to the attention of the health boards, but there are some problems. Waiting periods for getting the work done can vary from six months to four years depending on the health board area. Inadequate financial resources, administrative capacity and more recently, contractor availability and the shortage of FÁS trainees all contribute to the extent of the backlog.
The way the scheme is delivered varies considerably between health boards. Most health boards would have used FÁS trainees to carry out a significant proportion of the work but the Midland and North-Western Health Boards hardly use these trainees at all. Half the health boards use grants to applicants for the major part of the job and in this way cut down on administration costs. This approach may just act as a disincentive to potential applicants who may be unwilling or unable to take the responsibility for getting the builder on the site, obtaining planning permission where required and ensuring that the work is properly done.
The scheme has been on a temporary basis for 18 years or so and while good work has been accomplished during those years it is time to take a fresh look at it. I accept there will always be an element of having to react to emergency cases, but there appears to be a need for an analysis of the condition of the housing stock of the elderly, particularly those who are poor and living alone, in order that a co-ordinated strategy for improving their living conditions can be devised. The formulation of a strategy is dependent on a level of certainty about the resources that will be made available and this implies that the scheme should be put on a more permanent footing. Better co-ordination would also mean that good practices in the delivery of the scheme could be transferred across health boards for implementation and more hard information on the impact of the scheme could be obtained.
At a time when long-stay hospital and nursing home places are at a premium it makes good sense to invest modest amounts in measures to enable old people to live at home for as long as possible. Given the cost of residential places for the elderly the likelihood is that the scheme represents good value for money for the taxpayer provided it is properly resourced and administered. The key lies in improving the scheme without losing its current valuable strengths. Those strengths are the flexibility in the way the scheme is delivered and the informality with which the schemes are provided for at a local level.
Acting Chairman
Would you like to comment on that Mr. Farrelly?
The comments I made on the earlier report are equally true. This report is timely, welcome and helpful. As the Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned, this scheme has been running since 1982. It is administered by a task force under the chairmanship of our Department including representation from the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, ALONE, St. Vincent de Paul and Dublin and Cork Corporations. As the Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned the strength of this scheme has been flexibility and the fact that individual health authority areas have been allowed to respond in a manner appropriate to particular needs and demands.
The report identifies certain problem areas. The Comptroller and Auditor General referred to the operation of the scheme by individual health boards. That needs to be assessed to apply the best approach across all boards. In the past efforts were made to come up with a unified application form which would apply in all health boards. There was difficulty with this because some boards had different needs depending on how they operated the scheme. However, I accept the point being made that it is time to see what can be learned but I hope we do not lose the element of flexibility because it has been the essence and basis of the success of this scheme. It is appropriate that in the light of the Comptroller and Auditor General's study we should revisit this issue.
The introduction of strategic planning at local and national level was also raised. The intention would be to address this at a future meeting. The need for more formal evaluation at local or national level is the issue and we intend to address it at a specially convened meeting of the task force shortly. The condition of housing of the elderly was also mentioned. There is a pilot operation in the Western Health Board area to look at this matter. I am conscious of the need to provide a scheme which will deliver on the original intention and contribute to the comfort of the elderly with flexibility and the minimum of formality. We have the people and the task force to do that. The current scheme has operated for a long time and served us well but it is timely to examine these issues and we will do so.
The question of funds was another matter mentioned. In the past funding was a bigger problem than it is now. A major problem now would possibly be getting the work done. All options must be retained here. The contract system may operate in some places or the grant system in others. Also the scheme has been well supported by FÁS under different schemes and FÁS employees have come in and done the work very successfully. That flexibility needs to be retained because of current employment circumstances. Some of these jobs would not appeal to modern contract system operators.
I agree with the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General. There is no doubt that this is one of the best schemes ever introduced at local level. I agree with Mr. Farrelly that flexibility should be maintained. I was initially opposed to the payment of grants because what was happening was that elderly people were being granted sums in the region of £1,000 where the job cost maybe £3,000. It was fine to give elderly people a £1,000 grant but where could they find £2,000 or more to have the work carried out. Many of them are very old and are unable to communicate with carpenters, bricklayers and builders. They do not know about statutory forms other than maybe a phone call. They depend on public representatives, social workers and people like that to assist them. The question of flexibility is very important and the scheme should be looked at.
In my area, I know of people who wished to have work done but did not have the money to do it. The elderly as such are not a lobby group politically speaking and one only hears about the problems by visiting the elderly. It is a very important scheme and I cannot overstate its value to old people. I understand there is a problem with some kind of work. Many elderly people live in old houses with leaking roofs or bad kitchens. I understand there are restrictions in some areas because people were injured climbing on to roofs and claims were then made against FÁS. Perhaps we could speak about insurance cover for people operating under the FÁS schemes - who is the insurer and whether there is a restriction on the type of work that can be done.
The most expensive jobs to be done in the homes of old people include installing bathrooms or shower units, heating and roof repairs. Painting and decoration are also included in this scheme, but the other elements are more crucial to the health of elderly people.
The major emphasis in this scheme is to protect the fabric of the house, its slates, roof and windows. Other works are permissible but the most important consideration is to keep the house habitable and suitable for the needs of the person in question. The average cost of these jobs across the country is about £2,000 or just under that. The last thing needed on this scheme is for anyone to start drawing up firm and rigid guidelines with restrictions as to what can be undertaken. This is not a house improvement scheme in the sense of the improvement scheme we had in the past. The intention is to do urgent works which are necessary to continue to meet the needs of the person involved.
I am just trying to find the graph in terms of the uptake, now that there is a few more bob available than there used to be. What has been the pattern in recent years and will there be a bigger uptake?
In 1995, there was just under 2,934 grants and 1996 was more or less the same with 2,967. In 1997, there were 2,854. There was a small jump in 1998 to 3,300, and there were 3,200 in 1999. Last year, 2000, there were 3,600 grants. The number of jobs being done has increased by more than 25% over the past three to four years, from 2,800 to 3,600 and that is nationwide.
Is it constrained by capacity in particular areas? Is there a backlog of applications in one health board or one region in particular?
There is a backlog of applications and it is constrained by capacity in terms of getting somebody to do the type of job or work involved. FÁS certainly has done wonders with its various work schemes in the past in this area. To what extent in the future that will continue is something we will watch very closely. It is a marvellous system once one can get the people, and it relieves the stress and worry on the elderly people involved.
Is that as evident in the cities as it is in rural Ireland?
Definitely not. It is more, I suppose, the elderly person living outside of cities or urban centres. I do not have precise figures here. The western area would have huge demands and it is not city or urban based.
Acting Chairman
I have a particular interest in this. I welcome the Comptroller and Auditor General's value for money report because it gives a very clear analysis of it. Marvellous work has been done and more than 40,000 housing repairs have been undertaken for the elderly. There were very extreme conditions in many areas when this scheme was introduced and things have improved a great deal since. However, there are still many elderly people suffering.
The scheme has been great value for the £44 million that was spent. I am told by the Comptroller and Auditor General that it is the first report that has ever sold out from the Publications Office and a second run was needed. I am aware that there is a great public interest in this.
Wearing my other hat, I sometimes stir the pot a bit at health board meetings when I am aware of a particular case. I am usually told it is not I who will have to appear before the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General. People are afraid of that particular body, august and all as it is.
The Comptroller and Auditor General's report has highlighted the degree of flexibility. My one concern is that on reviewing it we might get rid of any of that flexibility. The question has been raised with me many times as to whether the local authority should handle this scheme. I give a very emphatic "no" as my answer. The degree of flexibility would not ever be achieved because it would become bogged down in bureaucracy. Flexibility is more important at all times.
I accept the point made by the Secretary General and the Comptroller and Auditor General that we can look at what was done and see how we can learn from that. This should be done in a very open and transparent way and not to try and include greater accountability. I have found some situations to be a little worrying. Often professional people from the health board come out to perform inspections and they seem to have the idea that they can examine six windows, replace four of them and leave the other two. We should do more work and there should be fewer impediments. There seems to be no difficulty with money, but there is a rider to the hand-out each year. It says that the greatest number of jobs possible are to be carried out. It is an excellent and informative report which shows the value of the value-for-money approach and is most welcome. Is there any comment from the Department of Finance?
Mr. O’Neill
As far as I know, there is no money constraint about this. There are no financial constraints on making it operationally effective.
Acting Chairman
I propose that we note the report. I understand that, due to his impending retirement, this may be Mr. Farrelly's last appearance before the committee. I thank him for his excellent co-operation and openness in assisting the committee in its work and compliment him on his willingness to take account of points which may have sounded critical on occasion, his efforts to meet all the requirements of the committee and the quality of the documentation which he has supplied.
I fully agree with the Chairman's comments.
I also thank Mr. Farrelly for his years of service to the committee. I have a question about the position of those who emigrated to Britain when conditions in Ireland were not as good as they are now. Many of them are now elderly and may have fallen on hard times in various British cities. Is there any initiative under way in the Department to look at our capacity to facilitate such persons who may wish to return to Ireland? There was a commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to undertake a study or set up a task force on the issue. I do not think it has been implemented. I do know, however, that there have been some good voluntary schemes, however limited.
I appreciate the comments which have been made. The political system has always treated me kindly.
On Deputy Rabbitte's query, while there is no major programme in place, there are some funds available for certain bodies, such as Cara, which provide limited services in this area. I will check the situation and provide an update for the committee.
I understood the Department would be involved in progressing the relevant provision under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. The current generation of Irish people has an obligation in this matter.
There are two issues involved. On the one hand, there is a major effort to canvass Irish emigrants to return home and take up employment opportunities. At the other end of the scale we have those to whom DeputyRabbitte refers, who need some support in their difficult circumstances.
They sent money back to this country at a time when it was needed. I understand from emigrant groups that many of them are now living in poor conditions and sometimes in poor health having worked for most of their lives in occupations such as the building industry. They would come back if there was some kind of congenial environment to facilitate their re-entry.
Without wishing to raise obstacles, there are accommodation problems right across the board, as we have discussed here already, and the scope for an initiative is limited. However, I agree that a start has to be made somewhere on an operation of this kind.
I suggest that there might be a suitable prototype in a scheme which is operating very successfully in Mulrany, County Mayo, in which a Dr. Crowley is centrally involved.
Acting Chairman
I agree with Deputy Rabbitte's comments. In or about 1990, when the British-Irish Parliamentary Body was first set up, this was one of the issues identified for attention by one of the three standing committees. There was particular reference to building site workers, many of whom are living alone, with a variety of problems, medical and otherwise. It has taken a long time to get any action on the problem. Perhaps Mr. Farrelly will convey the committee's concerns to the Department of Finance with a view to progressing an interdepartmental approach involving the Departments of Health and Children and the Environment and Local Government and others.
We will report back to the committee on the matter.
With regard to the efficacy of the subsidy, through the health boards, in respect of private rented accommodation, has the study by the Departments of Finance, Health and Children and others yet been completed and, if so, is a report available?
One study has concluded and is available.
Does Mr. Farrelly recall a discussion which the committee had with the Department, Dublin Corporation and the health board about the subsidy scheme?
Yes. The study was concluded subsequent to that meeting and the report is available. We will send the Deputy a copy directly.
Acting Chairman
Is it agreed that we note the value-for-money report on special housing aid for the elderly? Agreed. Once again, I thank Mr. Farrelly and his colleagues from the Department of Finance for their assistance.
The witness withdrew.
Vote 10 - Office of Public Works.
Mr. B. Murphy (Chairman, Office of Public Works) called and examined.
Acting Chairman
Item 11 is Vote 10 - Office of Public Works. I wish to apologise to the chairman of the Office of Public Works for the long delay in getting to this item. We had a number of value-for-money examinations and a number of other items which took longer than we expected to deal with. In the circumstances, I suggest that we deal with just one issue, namely, the survey of Stafford House. First, I must make the witnesses aware that they do not enjoy absolute privilege and they must be appraised that, under section 10 of the Act dealing with the compellability of witnesses, others are likely to be notified of these proceedings. I invite Mr. Barry Murphy, chairman of the Office of Public Works, to introduce his officials.
Mr. Murphy
Thank you. I am accompanied by Mr. Sean Benton, chief engineer, Tony Smith, and Mr. Joe Farrell, director of financial services.
Acting Chairman
We kept Vote No. 10 open as we wanted to revisit it and it is a technical mechanism for that. I will refer immediately to the survey. Our documentation states that it was agreed at the committee meeting on 14 December 2000 that Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and administrative staff of the Houses would be surveyed as to their views on the new facilities. This survey was to be completed by 28 February 2001 and not during March 2001. The Chairman at the previous meeting commented that administrative officers should also be surveyed as they are, in some ways, the permanent Government. We discussed the survey in detail and 28 February was the target date.
Mr. Murphy
Thank you, Chairman. Since December the Office of Public Works has discussed the survey with Members and staff in the Houses and the wish was for the new facilities to be in use before undertaking the survey. The Office of Public Works wrote to the committee on that subject and handed over the various committee rooms on Tuesday of this week, according with the timescale foreseen. The intention now, if it does not cause difficulty to the committee, is that the Office of Public Works will undertake the survey in the last week of March. There will be several weeks' experience of the committee rooms at that stage, as well as two months' experience of the other rooms, and the survey can be assessed in early April and brought back to the committee at that point with the results.
Acting Chairman
The following is the text of a letter from the Office of Public Works to Mr. Eugene Crowley, senior clerk of this committee. It reads:
Dear Mr. Crowley,
I refer to your letter of February 2, 2001 in which you raise the issue of surveying Members of the Oireachtas and the administrative staff on their views of new facilities. Following your attendance before the Committee on December 14, 2000, a second information notice was issued to Members and their staff on January 13, 2001. In that notice we advised Members and their staff that once the final settle-in period is complete we would conduct a survey of their views during March, 2001. As the date for final completion is now March 6, 2001 it is our intention to conduct a survey very soon afterwards.
Yours Sincerely,
Brian Barry Murphy,
Chairman.
We were very anxious that before completion the survey would be done to check if there were items that might be changed or might be turned around. This was seen as better than finishing everything and then going back to suggest changes. That was one of the primary objectives of the survey.
Mr. Murphy
I was looking at it as a customer satisfaction survey. To put the committee's mind at ease, the Office of Public Works have put two staff members dealing with individual Members' problems, listening to what they want and correcting and adding according to their requirements. One of our architects is also available to give advice during this phase. This help is not restricted to Members but to staff also. Wehave dealt with all queries on a one-to-one basis and have corrected the individual items as required.
Acting Chairman
The committee felt that it was critically important to have the staff surveyed as they are permanent within the House whereas elected Members might be a little overawed by the new facilities. I was hoping that problems which exist might be discussed before completion. I will not labour the point and will take the point Mr. Murphy makes. I invite Deputy Bell to make any observations he wishes on this item.
I have none to make.
Acting Chairman
I want to know if staff members were consulted and whether that was a wide consultation process.
Mr. Murphy
It was on a person by person basis.
Acting Chairman
I cannot argue with such a reasonable approach. I have complimented Mr. Benton already on both occasions we have met. When people mentioned difficulties during the moving-in period, I expressed my approval as Acting Chairman of the committee. However, that does not mean that all Members are happy. It is such a large expenditure that it is critically important that we have our fingers on the pulse. On what date will the survey be complete?
Mr. Murphy
In the last week of March and we will then need a week or two to assess the returns. There will be a questionnaire sent to all Members and staff in the House. We hope to have the survey fully complete about Easter. This will cover not just the new extension but also £9 million of work spent refurbishing the old block and the engineering block which will be included in the survey.
Acting Chairman
You have anticipated my next question. There have been major changes and improvements. We are providing a service to the public, and although I am not suggesting you survey the public as well, the survey should try to ascertain the reaction of the public who come in to use the committee rooms. As taxpayers, they are paying for the improvements at the end of the day. The committee is anxious that they are facilitated. There will be some points that will come up in the survey and it is important that staff views on practicality and efficiency of improvements are dealt with.
Mr. Murphy
While we will be doing this survey in the last week of March, we will also be maintaining our person to person and day to day contact so that we will be able to provide a service.
Acting Chairman
I was just getting the technical aspects right. We will not close Vote No. 10. That will allow us to revisit that item although I do not expect many problems. There may be some problems with temperature controls which are difficult to understand. Some areas are like hothouses while others are chilly. Is it agreed to leave that Vote open, Deputy Bell?
Yes.
Acting Chairman
Item No. 12 comes under any other business, that is, to agree the agenda for the next committee meeting on Thursday, 29 March 2001. At that meeting we will consider the matter of the Office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform - Vote 19. We will also consider the matter of the Garda Síochána - Vote 20; the Prisons - Vote 21; Land Registry and Titles - Vote 23; and the Courts - Vote 22.
Before we adjourn until Thursday, 29 March, I thank the Chairman of the Office of Public Works, Mr. Barry Murphy, and his staff for attending today. I apologise for the delay earlier. We look forward to meeting them in April.
Mr. Murphy
I hope we meet in the new rooms.
Acting Chairman
Thank you.
The witnesses withdrew.
The committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m.