Adjournment Debate.

Community Employment Schemes.

Mr. McCormack

I welcome the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment. It concerns the three-year rule for community employment schemes but only in those schemes relevant to disadvantaged people. For example, in Galway city there is an independent living group which had 18 employees of community employment schemes. This week four of those people reached the three-year limit and had to terminate their employment on the scheme, with the result that four people with physical disabilities no longer have personal assistants. The Minister of State will say that the independent living group can employ four more people, but that is not so easy. First, one must advertise for them and, second, it is very difficult to find people willing to take up the position of personal assistant. A personal assistant who works with a disadvantaged person, or one who uses a wheelchair, for 19.5 hours per week over three years develops a relationship with that person and knows what to do and how to do it.

The Galway case is only one example. Every year over the next three years the independent living group will lose 18 personal assistants. As a result the people employed on the community employment scheme will return to unemployment assistance and receive €25 per week less than they received on the community employment scheme. For the sake of €25 the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise Trade and Employment is ceasing the employment of those people on a community employment scheme. Through the Minister of State, I ask the Tánaiste to exempt people working as personal assistants on community employment schemes. The work they do is very valuable to themselves and to those whom they assist, enabling them to lead independent lives in their own homes or in a community home.

In the Galway example the four who have lost their assistants must return to institutional care or to their families and the four assistants will be unemployed. The independent living group has advertised for people to take up those positions but cannot get them immediately, if at all, because they must pass security checks and be trained.

This rule strikes at the people least able to defend themselves. I cannot understand why the Tánaiste proceeded with the three-year rule, which came into effect in 2003, for people in this position. They do the most valuable work that any employees of a community employment scheme could do in looking after people and enabling them to lead independent lives, in institutional care or in their own homes, as happens in some cases. I appeal to the Minister of State to present the case to the Tánaiste.

It is not fair to send in the Minister of State because he has a prepared script that may not respond to the points I raise. This is one of the frustrations of raising matters on the Adjournment. The Minister of State brings in a prepared script which he or she must put on the record. I want the Minister of State to ask the Tánaiste to exempt people employed in community employment schemes who work as personal assistants to those with disabilities because it is impossible to replace the expertise and comradeship they have established with the person whom they are assisting. Those people are now being penalised. A wheelchair user who had a personal assistant was able to do his or her shopping and go to the cinema or elsewhere. However, he or she will no longer be able to do that because the three year rule dictates that the personal assistant must be sacked. Four personal assistants had their employment terminated in Galway this week.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. M. Ahern)

I thank Deputy McCormack for raising this matter on the Adjournment. Community employment provides unemployed people with temporary opportunities whereby they can develop their skills and obtain a recent track record of work experience. In accordance with the Government's decision in 1999 to restructure the programme, participation levels have gradually been reduced in line with reduced levels of unemployment and there has been a strategic shift in policy in favour of training and other more appropriate supports.

As part of the restructuring of the programme in 1999, eligibility for participation in community employment by an individual was capped at three years, effective from April 2000. That change was introduced to discourage repeated participation in CE schemes and to encourage unemployed persons to avail of training and education options where possible, which are shown to have more successful progression outcomes for individuals. The three-year cap was amended in August 2001 to allow particularly disadvantaged persons to remain on the programme for a further period. Participants are considered for an extension if, on reaching the end of their normal entitlements on CE, they are likely to experience difficulty in getting employment due to their age, literacy or numeracy problems or a lack of suitable jobs available locally. FÁS currently has discretion to offer up to 20% of the total number of CE participants a further period on the programme on a case by case basis.

As provided for in the PPF, consideration has been given to the mainstreaming of certain essential services provided through CE. In that regard, approximately 4,500 CE places in schools have been mainstreamed over the past number of years. This involved the appropriate degree of funding being transferred to the Department of Education and Science for the provision of relevant services in schools. In addition, approximately 2,300 places have peen provided on the social economy programme.

Detailed discussions took place during 2002 involving the Department of Health and Children, the health boards, FÁS and sponsor groups with regard to the possible mainstreaming of health sector places which would include personal assistant services. However, due to the amount of additional funding required by the Department of Health and Children to mainstream these positions, and having regard to other major demands in the health budget, it was not possible to proceed with mainstreaming in this area.

CE health sector places have been ring-fenced from any reductions that have taken place since March 2002. FÁS, which has responsibility for the day to day administration of the programme, makes every effort to ensure that places are maintained at the agreed level on ring-fenced schemes. However, it is important to remember that the primary purpose of CE is to provide short-term work experience and training opportunities for long-term unemployed persons and other disadvantaged groups with a view to facilitating their progression to work in the open labour market. It is imperative, especially with the reduced level of places available, that CE positions be vacated on a rolling basis to facilitate new participants and ensure that they are not blocked by participants who do not move on when their agreed participation period ends.

The total funding allocation for employment schemes in 2004 has been fixed at €351 million, which will support up to 25,000 places across the three employment schemes — community employment, job initiative and social economy. FÁS is being given some flexibility in the management of this financial allocation to maximise progression to the labour market while, at the same time, facilitating the support of community services. This allocation of €351 million is similar to the budgeted amount provided in 2003. The commitment to fund a continuing pool of up to 25,000 places across the three schemes brings clarity not only to the levels of activity which can be supported, but will enable FÁS to give a clear commitment to support local community services over an agreed period of time.

The future structure of the CE programme is under review by a group of senior officials and FÁS and this group will report to Ministers on the outcome of its deliberations shortly. In addition, FÁS has recently undertaken an internal review of the community employment and job initiative programmes, which will be published in due course. The senior officials intend to complete their deliberations shortly and the outcome will inform any future adjustments in the structure and the terms and conditions of these labour market measures. I assure the Deputy that I will bring this matter to the attention of his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey.

Mr. McCormack

The Minister of State should not forget to tell Seán Ó Neachtain as well.

School Closures.

Mr. Gormley

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise this important matter on the Adjournment. The closure of St. Mary's secondary school on a phased basis is a serious blow to the local community I represent. The community to which I refer is based in the Ringsend, Irishtown and Pearse Street areas and was described at a recent local meeting about the closure as traditional working class.

St. Mary's secondary school is on Haddington Road and it has served the area extremely well for more than 100 years. Great credit must be given to the Holy Faith Sisters for their dedication and commitment over that time. The nuns and teachers in the school are excellent and deserve great credit. Their dedication can be seen in the excellent results they have achieved over many years because of small class sizes. Many parents have told me that their children receive one to one dedicated schooling, which has resulted in better results.

We are now being told that the school must close because it is no longer financially viable, as the grant from the Department of Education and Science does not cover all the outgoings, because of the reduction in the number of vocations and because of what are called demographics — there are fewer people attending the school. I will come back to the financial problems shortly. As regards demographics, that argument is not easy to understand, given that there is a rising population in the area. We saw that recently when the boundary of the Dublin South-East constituency remained the same. More apartments are being built in the area and more young people with small children are moving to it. Where will these children, particularly the girls, go to secondary school?

Such is the problem in the area that the principal of Westland Row CBS, Mr. Ken Duggan, has suggested that the girls' and boys' schools should be amalgamated and that the new school should be located in the Dublin docklands area. That is an excellent idea, but it is a long way off. In the meantime, we must deal with this problem. Where will girls in the area go to secondary school? There is no answer to that question. Many schools in the area have been closed and people are now left with the choice of Muckross Park College, which is the closest, going outside the area or going to fee paying schools. These are not viable or acceptable options for many parents in the area.

The Department of Education and Science must think strategically. It needs to explore all the options and it needs to invest in the school. It needs to do everything it can possibly do to keep the school open. It cannot act unilaterally and needs the co-operation of the school and particularly of the trustees, who now have to report their intentions after the last meeting with the parents. I have asked the school authorities to give the parents some hope in this regard. If the trustees have decided they are to close the school, sell the property and make a profit, there is little we can do. I hope the Minister and his Department officials will liaise with the trustees to ensure the school remains open. We had a similar problem in the constituency with St. Anne's. What happens to the money a religious order receives on the sale of such a property? It is probably of little benefit to the religious order. The Department needs to decide what will be done for a growing population in the area and I hope the Minister of State will propose some solutions tonight.

Mr. M. Ahern

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter in this House as it affords me the opportunity on behalf of the Department of Education and Science to outline to this House the current position regarding the proposed closure of St. Mary's secondary school, Haddington Road, Dublin 4. St. Mary's secondary school is an all-girls' post-primary school with a current enrolment of 149 pupils. The trustees of the school, the Sisters of the Holy Faith, have indicated to the Department that they are not in a position to continue to provide post-primary education in St. Mary's secondary school. Accordingly, they intend to close the school on a phased basis by June 2006.

As trustees of St. Mary's secondary school, the decision to withdraw from trusteeship and management of the school is a matter for the Sisters of the Holy Faith. Therefore, it is not within the capacity of the Department of Education and Science to reverse the decision taken by the trustees to close the school.

The issues for the Minister for Education and Science are to ensure that the best interests of the pupils are looked after in the period up to the closure of the school in 2006, and to ensure there will be sufficient post-primary educational provision in the area for pupils who would normally have enrolled in this school. In this context, the Department is involved in an analysis of the three post-primary schools serving the needs of the south inner city area of Dublin. Crucial to this analysis is the exploration of the possibility of a single school development to cater for the 444 pupils currently enrolled in the existing schools. This exploration is being conducted in consultation with the relevant trustees. Additionally, an integral element of this process will entail an examination of accommodation options for the proposed development.

The school planning section of the Department will work assiduously to ensure that there is adequate provision in the south inner city area to meet the educational needs of post-primary pupils in the south inner city area. I again thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to discuss this matter in this House.

Hepatitis C Incidence.

Ms O. Mitchell

I am raising one aspect of the ten-year blood scandal saga, which is as scandalous as any of the others with which we are familiar. It is the failure to inform some blood donors that they had tested positive for hepatitis C, which precluded them from protecting other members of their family and loved ones, and from seeking treatment in a timely manner. In other words people with a highly infectious disease were stopped from seeking treatment, which could have prevented their illness from deteriorating and also protecting members of their family.

Although this was known for some time it was not until Donor L initiated court action that the full implications of this scandal became known and were widely discussed. At that time it became clear that Donor L was not the only one involved and there were possibly another 27 people who had not been informed. Both Positive Action and Transfusion Positive expressed concern that there were many cases of people who had not been informed. This among other matters prompted the Minister into promising an inquiry into this aspect, which is just one part of the long-running blood scandal.

For reasons, the details of which are far too arcane for me to cover in the short time available to me, no inquiry took place. At least one reason for this was that interests within the BTSB, the body to be examined and investigated, did not want it for a variety of reasons. I do not even understand why it was consulted or asked and it is beyond understanding as to why the Minister succumbed to its wishes. The only explanation is that there is an unhealthy overlap between the Minister's electoral interests, the Southern Health Board and the board of the Irish Blood Transfusion Service, and that this conflicts with the public interest. I would be interested to hear if the Minister has another reason for the failure to establish this inquiry.

The information made available to my colleague, Deputy Hogan, under the Freedom of Information Act gives cause for serious concern in this regard and also in regard to other matters which should form the subject matter of an inquiry. For instance why did both the BTSB and the expert group it set up to investigate the sites where blood testing should occur change their minds in favour of dual site testing to include Cork rather than the original decision which was single site testing in Dublin, which is more in line with international best evidence and experience. This is particularly surprising given the extremely poor record of the BTSB in any form of recording and communicating of information with others and even within the board itself. The Cork dimension seems to have constrained the Minister and resulted in a less than optimal solution from the public point of view.

This is no longer a matter the Minister can let slide. I am not calling for a tribunal like any of the other tribunals we have had in the past into financial scandals, bribery or corruption. These are matters that can wait some months without impacting the public or the public interest. However, this is a matter on which the clock may be ticking in a real way for some people. People may have been infected who have not been informed and this must be investigated. While the Minister considered this matter sufficiently serious to order an inquiry, he has allowed it to be delayed for whatever reason.

I understand the Minister is now suggesting this matter might now be better investigated after the Commissions of Investigation Bill has been processed through the Houses of the Oireachtas. This is rubbish. It is totally unacceptable to postpone an inquiry, which may be a matter of life and death for some people, to wait for a Bill that has not even been read once in the House. It represents yet another unacceptable delaying tactic.

I am aware of the seriousness of this allegation: it is criminal to delay any further. The Minister must establish an independent inquiry now regardless of whose toes he steps on. He owes it to those who have been damaged over the years by the omissions, actions or inactions of those who have managed or mismanaged the blood supply on behalf of the State. He also owes it to those who will give or receive blood tomorrow or who will need it in the future and to those who will depend on the existence of a stable, efficient, well-managed and well-resourced blood supply and a service in which we can all have confidence. While the inquiry is outstanding no such confidence can exist in the blood supply.

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin)

The Finlay tribunal, which reported in 1997, noted that between November 1991 and December 1993, donors in the Munster region who tested positive for hepatitis C were not immediately informed of their test results. One of these donors, known to the tribunal as Donor L, gave evidence that he had made blood donations regularly between 1986 and July 1993. He expressed considerable distress and anger that he had tested positive to HCV antibodies in December 1991 and that from then until November 1993, despite making donations on a number of occasions, he was at no time informed that they were being used for the purpose of testing only, nor was he informed that any form of positive test had arisen.

It is important to note that the Munster director of the IBTS gave evidence to the Finlay tribunal that the HCV screening available in 1991 was insufficiently precise to warrant the risk of upsetting a donor who was tested in the ordinary way, as was Donor L, by informing him of a positive result. She felt that the best course to adopt was to continue screening his blood on a regular basis by sending him an ordinary donor's notification card from time to time to see whether the apparent reaction would vary and also in the expectation that confirmatory testing of a more certain kind would become available very soon. She denied that this occurred inadvertently or through want of care. It was, she said, a conscious decision which she made with great difficulty concerning the position of donors who screened positive on the introduction of the test in October 1991. This was apparently implemented as a general policy and not merely in one case.

Mr. Costello

I am not seeking a commission of inquiry at the moment but, depending on the Minister's answers, I might be. I am here to ask that the Minister for Social and Family Affairs explain the discrepancy between payments to a family which voluntarily raises an orphaned child and the vastly superior payments to a family which raises an orphaned child who has first been the subject of a care order by the health board. This is one of the many anomalies that exists in the social welfare system. I am glad the Minister of State with responsibility for children is here. I hope we can obtain a resolution of this issue once and for all.

In the north inner city, in my constituency of Dublin Central, two families experienced tragedy. In each case the mother died and a child was orphaned. Both immediate families did the honourable thing and voluntarily took responsibility for rearing the children. They put roofs over their heads, fed them, raised them and provided medical care — one of the children requires constant medical attention and attendance at the Mater Hospital — as well as educational and family care. In all of this they saved the State a substantial sum of money. Institutional care was avoided and happy family contexts were provided for raising the children.

However, the State has the unhappy knack of taking advantage of families' generosity and voluntary assumption of responsibilities. As a result, each family is in receipt of a weekly payment of €97, which is now going up to €107. This is called the orphan's payment by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. However, if care orders had been signed and the children had been taken into the care of the health board, the families fostering the children would be in receipt of €289. Effectively, the families are penalised for saving the children the trauma of being taken into care and then removed from an institution. The ridiculous nature of the system is highlighted by the fact that in each case the same children would be involved and the costs of raising them would be the same. It is simply a matter of a minor mechanical difference in dealing with the care of the children.

Trying to find out anything about the matter is a trying and circuitous business. One must contact the Department of Social and Family Affairs, which refers one to the health board, followed by Park House, a social worker and the health board again. The message eventually obtained is that this is how it is. The rules were made and there is to be no change. One is told it is the way things are, as though it were cast in stone. It is not good enough. Children should be treated equally. I ask the Minister of State to correct this anomaly and not to discriminate against the many children and families in this situation.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. B. Lenihan)

I thank Deputy Costello for giving me the opportunity to address the issues involved. The Deputy will be aware that the orphan's payment is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. I understand from that Department that under social welfare legislation, an allowance may be paid in respect of an orphan by way of an orphan's contributory allowance, based on social insurance, or a means-tested non-contributory orphan's pension. These payments are intended to provide income maintenance in respect of children who satisfy certain qualifying criteria. Payment is made to the guardian of the orphan. "Guardian" is not defined and is generally taken to be the person having the care of the child.

The definition of an orphan, introduced in 1995 includes children where one or both parents are still alive but have abandoned or refused or failed to provide for them. This approach was seen as a necessary response to changes in social and family circumstances, that is, a large number of children being informally, without formal health board intervention, cared for by relatives due to a variety of personal circumstances. There are approximately 1,500 orphans in receipt of such payments. The Deputy referred to two such cases, but in the instances to which he referred, the children are orphans in that both parents had died.

The position of children who are the subject of care orders is that under the Child Care Act 1991, health boards are required to promote the welfare of children who are not receiving adequate care and protection. Where a child requires care or protection that he or she is unlikely to receive unless he or she is taken into care, the health board must take the child into care and provide the most appropriate form of alternative care for that child. The foster care allowance can only be paid in respect of children who are taken into the care of the health board and placed in foster care or relative care in accordance with the Child Care (Placement of Children in Foster Care) Regulations 1995 or the Child Care (Placement of Children with Relatives) Regulations 1995.

Under the regulations, a health board must assess the needs of a child placed in care and the suitability of the prospective foster or relative carers, and draw up a child care plan. The implementation of the child care plan places significant responsibilities and duties on foster carers, whether relatives or non-relatives. The foster care allowance is paid in recognition of these additional responsibilities and the additional costs of looking after foster children.

The allowance was restructured in August 2001 in response to recommendations contained in the working group on foster care report Foster Care — A Child Centred Partnership. The report recommended that discretionary payments made in addition to the basic foster care allowance should be abolished and that the foster care allowance should be substantially increased. As of 1 January 2004, the foster care allowance stands at €289.50 per week for children under 12 years and €316.50 per week for children of 12 years and over. The foster care allowance is currently paid in respect of approximately 4,000 children.

These recommendations were made on the basis of the views that were strongly expressed at consultation meetings held by the working group and the views expressed by the Irish Foster Care Association. The new scheme was put in place to achieve the objective of ensuring that foster carers are adequately recompensed for looking after their foster children without having to go through the process of making claims for discretionary payments.

The issue of care by relatives was dealt with in detail in the report of the working group on foster care, Foster Care — A Child Centred Partnership. The report sets out a number of basic principles that should guide placements with relatives. These are that the best interests of the child are paramount; that the child should be placed only in an appropriate, safe, healthy and stable environment; that the standard of care must be equivalent to that provided in a traditional foster care arrangement; that placements with relatives should only be made where a secure attachment exists or has the potential to develop between the child and the relative concerned; that a partnership approach should be used in developing skills and supports for relatives providing foster care and that placements should not be made as a means to provide income support.

The working group also discussed the possibility that some children are placed in the care of health boards to provide income support for the family in relation to the child. The group was strongly of the view that such a practice would be highly inappropriate. Income support is a matter for the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Children should only be brought into the care of the health board if they meet the criteria regarding the need for care and protection set out in the child care legislation. In addition, the choice of placement of any child in the care system should be based on the particular child's individual best interests.

I have indicated that the payment of the orphan's allowance or pension is a matter for the Department of Social and Family Affairs. These payments are made in accordance with social welfare legislation. With the exception of children who are placed in care under the foster care or relative care regulations, these payments are made directly by the Department of Social and Family Affairs, normally to the child's guardian. The circumstances in which these payments are made and the level of payment are determined by that Department.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 18 February 2004.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 17 Feb 2004