Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Oct 2004

Vol. 590 No. 5

Adjournment Debate.

Health Board Services.

Mr. Carey

I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment. I want to find a solution to an issue that has been raised by many Members, including Deputy Broughan. Without wishing to make a pun, it is a sensitive issue. I first raised it when it came to my notice in late 2003 that some chiropodists in the Northern Area Health Board and, as I have discovered since, in other areas have a practice of charging a top-up fee to medical card holders. The fee started at €5, was increased to €10 and is now €15 whereas the medical card holders are by and large elderly people who can ill afford to pay.

As of the last correspondence with the Eastern Regional Health Authority chiropodists receive a payment of €18.32 for a surgery consultation, €27.55 for domiciliary care and a smaller amount for once-off treatment. I gather that all medical card patients are entitled to six so-called free treatments per year although other categories have been mentioned in ministerial replies.

This is a persistent problem that needs to be addressed. It affects the most vulnerable in our society. I know discussions took place between the Northern Area Health Board and the ERHA and, subsequently, discussions took place between the ERHA and the Department of Health and Children. A report was requested and has been received. However, I seek a solution so that patients can be treated without having to pay the top-up fee.

The issue has been ping-ponged across the table by the Department and the ERHA. Will the Minster give an assurance to the House that the matter is being addressed, hopefully in favour of patients? I recognise that the two chiropody associations, the professional body and another body representing chiropodists who trained in a different format, would like increased fees and improved payments. However, this ought not be to the detriment of medical card holders. While the dental profession led the way in this regard, as is its right, in this case we are talking about a very vulnerable group.

The Minister should consider the issue as sympathetically as possible. If there are financial implications, now is the time, as the Estimates period approaches, for this additional burden to be borne in mind and alleviated in favour of patients.

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

I followed with great interest what Deputy Carey said and I thank him for raising this important issue on the Adjournment.

While there is no statutory obligation on health boards to provide chiropody services to medical card holders, they make arrangements for the provision of such services. The nature of the arrangements and the level of service provided are a matter for individual health boards. In making these services available health boards have regard to a range of issues including overall service priorities and the level of funding available.

Accordingly, chiropody services provided by health boards vary somewhat throughout the country. Priority is usually given to certain groups of people, including people who are medical card holders aged 65 years and over. Chiropodists are paid €19.24 for a surgery visit and €28.94 for a domiciliary visit plus €3.48 for a treatment. The rate paid to chiropodists under the ERHA chiropody scheme is the approved sessional rate sanctioned in the Department of Health and Children's consolidated pay scales.

When it became known that chiropodists in the ERHA region were imposing an additional charge, the Department wrote to the authority stating that these were inappropriate and should not be levied on people who were deemed eligible for the service under the ERHA scheme.

The Department understands that some chiropodists and podiatrists providing services to patients have levied patients because they believe the fees currently being paid are not economic. The fees paid to chiropodists providing services under the ERHA scheme are increased in line with national pay rounds. Any increase in sessional rates is ruled out as a cost increasing claim under Sustaining Progress.

The ERHA has informed the Department that where there are agreements by providers with boards it is inappropriate to seek top up payments from clients, and where issues have been raised by clients and-or service providers with the area health boards in the eastern region they were advised that the rates agreed for the scheme were in accordance with those I quoted earlier.

Pension Provisions.

Mr. Broughan

I thank the Chair for allowing me to raise this issue because, since the Dáil resumed, I have been prevented from raising it on four or five occasions on the spurious ground that because it was an issue which affected a semi-State company, namely, An Post, it could not be raised directly in this House under the responsibility of a Minister. It is also notable that on two or three occasions on the Order of Business the Taoiseach refused to deal with me and to address this matter.

I speak not only for the An Post pensioners, although they are foremost in my mind. The points I make apply equally to the current employees of An Post who have missed out on two stages of the Sustaining Progress national agreement. As Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern refused on a number of occasions last summer to address this matter, claiming that section 13(1) of the An Post main superannuation scheme 1990, as amended in 1997, 1999 and 2001, forbade him to do so as it was a matter for the semi-State body. The current position, whereby 8,000 An Post pensioners on very modest incomes are being deprived of their due increases under Sustaining Progress, is disgraceful and outrageous. I am disappointed that the new senior Minister is not here this evening to respond to the points I wish to make.

This has been going on for almost a year. The pensioners missed out on a 3% rise on 1 November. They missed out on a 2% rise on 1 August. In a couple of months time they will be missing out on another 2% rise. There will therefore be an accumulated 7% loss for these most vulnerable citizens, 8,000 people and their families, perhaps 15,000 people in all.

This emerges apparently because the current chief executive of An Post, Mr. Donal Curtin, has linked the situation of the pensioners to negotiations on the transformation agreement of An Post with the current An Post employees. It is a disgraceful tactic by Mr. Curtin and by An Post management to attempt to use pensioners as pawns in a negotiation. It is utterly outrageous.

As I mentioned to the Taoiseach recently, we got our increases and are getting our increases under Sustaining Progress. It is outrageous that these most vulnerable former workers are not getting their increases. It is bad enough that low-paid workers in a semi-State company are denied their cost of living increases but pensioners are now being penalised for years of mismanagement by An Post senior managers and by the board. It is another example of the harsh right-wing ideology of this Government, despite all the palaver by the outgoing for Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, about a move to the left by the Fianna Fáil Party.

I have raised this issue with the new general secretary of the Communication Workers' Union, Mr. Steve Fitzpatrick, and I discovered that the union has again and again encouraged An Post to look after the pensioners, to give the pensioners their increases and in no way to try to link the two issues. That is why I remain convinced that the fault for this problem lies at the door of the current chief executive, Mr. Donal Curtin, and the management and board of An Post.

We are talking about national pay agreements, to which management, workers and the State put their names, that are intended to cover a range of interests including, in this case, the welfare of pensioners. What is happening is an attempt to pull the rug from under national agreements. There is no justification for this treatment of An Post pensioners. In the folder before me and in my office upstairs I have letter after letter and e-mail after e-mail from pensioners in virtually every constituency around the country. Through the Minister of State, I ask the senior Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, to at long last come in here, perhaps tomorrow at Question Time when we will all be here, and address this matter urgently and try to bring about justice for these most vulnerable workers. An important point about this matter is that most of the pensioners to which I refer were civil servants until 1989 and, under the Civil Service regulations, like many current workers at An Post, were covered by Civil Service superannuation. Why should these former civil servants be treated in this cavalier and disgraceful manner?

I thank the Minister of State for coming into the House and urge him to respond on behalf of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dempsey.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher)

I thank Deputy Broughan for raising this important issue relating to pensioners who have not been paid their increases under the national pay agreement. I also apologise on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, who regrets he is unable to be in the House to reply to this matter directly.

Both Minister Dempsey and I are aware of the situation that has arisen for An Post pensioners. The issue has been raised on numerous occasions and, as a Minister of State in the Department, I am aware of the situation. More particularly as a Deputy, I am aware of a number of people in my constituency who have suffered as a result of this.

Severe financial difficulties have given rise to a situation where the company has not paid Sustaining Progress increases to its serving staff and, by extension, to its pensioners. The resolution of these financial difficulties is the ultimate solution to the problem.

It will be helpful if l outline for the benefit of the House the background to this situation and how matters stand at present. An Post is facing an extremely serious financial situation, having suffered heavy loses in 2002 and 2003. In the interests of the company, its customers its employees and its pensioners, it is imperative that it is placed on a firm financial footing.

In this context, An Post management has had to implement severe cost cutting measures to stem the flow of losses, including in terms of the Sustaining Progress payments to its employees and pensioners. Authority to implement pension increases was delegated to An Post by the Department on 26 May 1989. Traditionally, An Post has granted increases to serving staff in line with national pay agreements. Increases to pensioners have then subsequently been applied in line with increases granted to serving staff. The terms and conditions, including those regarding the matter of increases, as enshrined in the An Post main superannuation scheme 1990, are based on those that prevailed in the former Department of Posts and Telegraphs. In regard to serving staff, the company is involved in detailed negotiations with its unions, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, to reach agreement on necessary restructuring to return to financial stability. These negotiations have impacted on consideration of increases for An Post pensioners.

The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has no function whatsoever in directing An Post in operational and commercial issues such as the payment of pensions and he does not propose to intervene in the matter. Nevertheless, the Minister is aware that An Post pensioners are concerned about the payment issue and that An Post management is reviewing this situation. In light of this review, he feels that it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage. Both the Minister and I are sympathetic to the situation in which An Post pensioners find themselves. While the permanent solution is for An Post to be placed on a firm financial footing as soon as possible, the company is at present closely examining pension increases. The Minister has asked An Post to keep us advised of developments. I will relate the issues raised by Deputy Broughan to the Minister when we meet tomorrow.

FÁS Training Programmes.

Mr. Hogan

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this issue of public safety. Since I raised this matter with the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, on Second Stage of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004, I believe that the company in question, Omlink International in County Meath, is no longer listed as an approved trainer on the FÁS website.

However, it begs the question how the company was approved in the first place, given the unusual circumstances in which it was approved as an assessment centre. It was suspended from a similar scheme operated by FÁS's counterparts in Northern Ireland and Britain. Who recommended the approval? Did FÁS know that the company was under suspension in Northern Ireland? How many other questionable approvals have been made? How many construction workers have been given skill certificates by firms which were not up to standard and are in breach of legal requirements under the Safety Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations 2001?

Approximately 30,000 people have skill certificates in the construction industry. We cannot underestimate the importance that those operating tower cranes and driving diggers and excavators should have the right training. This is a serious public safety issue. Will the Minister explain the circumstances which led to this company's delisting? Did it arise from an external complaint or from an internal FÁS review? When my attention was brought to the high level of serious construction accidents, over 90 deaths in the past four years, I raised these issues with the director general of FÁS. I was disappointed that his reply was economical on how many firms had been delisted. Instead, his reply suggested that all was rosy in the garden and all matters causing difficulties had been resolved.

The development of the construction skills certification scheme has created a market for training in the health and safety area worth many millions of euro. Unless FÁS applies the most rigorous tests to those it approves, there is a real danger that unscrupulous operators seeing a chance to make a quick buck will move into this market. This is not some academic exercise in approving trainers. It is an issue with serious life and death consequences for those working in the construction industry. If rogue trainers and assessors are allowed loose on the marketplace, lives will be put at risk. It is incumbent upon FÁS, as a Government body, to insist on the highest standards being applied by all trainers and that those who are not qualified and do not possess the necessary skills are not approved.

Public reassurance and confidence in health and safety in the construction industry is of great importance. The construction skills certification and safe pass schemes have been incorporated in statutory form. In line with that legislation, FÁS approves the trainers and assessors to carry out the relevant training and assessment for workers in the construction industry. In view of the circumstances surrounding the approval and delisting of the company, we need assurance that the procedures that led to this flawed approval have not been repeated with other companies. To achieve this, an independent external assessment must be carried out. I urge the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to direct FÁS to commission such an assessment immediately.

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

Táim buíoch don Teachta Ó hÓgáin as an ábhar tábhachtach seo a ardú ar an Athló anocht. FÁS and other training bodies provide a range of training programmes under the construction skills certification scheme, certified by FETAC. More than 30,000 people to date have undergone construction skills certification scheme training. The scheme provides training and certification for a range of occupations in the construction industry, including basic and advanced scaffolding, tower crane operation, slinging and signalling, telescopic handler operation, tractor and dozer operation, mobile crane operation, crawler crane operation, articulated dumper operation, site dumper operation, 180° and 360° excavator operation, roof and wall cladding and sheeting and built-up roof felting.

FÁS has set down well-defined procedures, used to regulate training organisations using FÁS training and assessment material to obtain FETAC certification. To conduct such programmes trainers must meet the training and assessment criteria as determined by FÁS. A training provider who wishes to be approved to deliver a construction skills certification programme must first apply to the services business section in FÁS to be registered as an approved training organisation. Applicants are required to specify the technical and pedagogical qualifications of the trainer in each programme for which approval is sought. The application is then brought before the FÁS-Enterprise Ireland national register of trainers committee for consideration. If the application is accepted the trainer is required to attend a construction skills certification scheme practical and theoretical assessment to determine competence to train in the specified area for which approval is sought. If the trainer successfully attains the required standard his or her organisation must then apply in writing to the manager of the curriculum and quality assurance department to become an approved assessment centre. This process came into operation on 1 January 2004. All trainers approved prior to this date are required to meet the new standards.

The curriculum and quality assurance department's approved assessment centre system is used to regulate training organisations using FÁS training and assessment material to obtain FETAC certification for the training carried out by them. To be approved as an assessment centre under the construction skills certification scheme, the applicant organisation must have a company audit undertaken by FÁS. The purpose of the audit is to ensure there are adequate arrangements in place to ensure the quality and security of the assessment process. It must nominate trainers and assessors who are technically competent in the skill areas in which they will conduct assessments and they must also have been approved by FÁS services to business units to carry out training and assessment under the CSCS. Trainers, assessors and verifiers must successfully complete an assessor-verifier training programme run by the curriculum and quality assurance department of FÁS.

In operational terms, to assure the validity of the system, FÁS has procedures in place to provide assurance that training and assessment is carried out in accordance with procedures. It is the responsibility of the services to business division and regional management, together with the curriculum and quality assurance department, to ensure that CSCS training and assessment practices are in accordance with national procedures.

The regional certification and standards officer carries out random and unannounced monitoring visits to training and assessment sites and reports to the regional finance and administration manager. When monitoring an approved training-assessment centre, the records of a particular group of candidates are checked from start to finish to allow the monitor to determine if the full procedure is correctly followed.

If non-conformance identified in the course of the monitoring visit has not been resolved during the visit, the certification and standards officer sends a letter to the approved training organisation identifying the non-conformance, the corrective action needed to prevent recurrence, and specifies a time frame for implementation of the action and requests to be informed when the corrective action is completed. When the certification and standards officer is notified that the non-conformance has been rectified the certification and standards officer will take the next available opportunity to verify that the non-conformance has been rectified.

If a FÁS region is not satisfied with the performance of an approved training organisation due to failure to rectify non-conformance, repeated breaches of procedure or a serious breach of procedure, the finance and administration manager will write to the ATO requesting an explanation for the failure to comply. If the issue is not resolved to the satisfaction of the manager, he or she will send a report containing the full details, in addition to all relevant documentation, to the central services to business unit. The matter will be dealt with under the CSCS procedures for dealing with CSCS trainer-assessor non-conformance. Ultimately, following appropriate warnings, a provider may be removed from the approved list.

The aforementioned procedures are applied to all FÁS-approved trainers and assessors and everything possible is done by FÁS to ensure compliance with these standards. I assure the House that FÁS will take appropriate action to protect the participants and the integrity of the scheme.

A number of issues arose with regard to the training practices for the construction health and safety schemes operated by FÁS. As a result of reviewing and evaluating the construction skills safety programmes in late 2002, the FÁS executive commissioned a consultant to review the programmes and to make recommendations to ensure best practice and quality assurance. The consultant produced a report in October 2003, based on which the FÁS executive set up a group to develop and implement an action programme with the purpose of ensuring best practice and quality assurance.

Extensive progress has been made in implementing the report's recommendations. Where FÁS is satisfied that the behaviour of a company warrants its removal from the register of approved training organisations, it takes action accordingly. The decision to review the schemes and any future investigation into the operation of the CSCS programme is an operational matter for FÁS. However, arising from matters raised by Deputy Hogan in regard to Omlink International and what he described as unusual circumstances there, I will pursue those specific questions with FÁS and return to him with further information. Some 28companies have been approved and two have been delisted.

Constituency Commission Report.

Mr. Morgan

Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas mór a ghabháil leis an Aire nua on the occasion of his appointment. I wish him well. He may be interested to know that a crowd of old Brits at the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body sent him good wishes as a former member of that body.

I have raised this matter on the Adjournment because the recommendations in the Constituency Commission's report take this State further down the road of diluting the proportionality of our electoral system. This is most starkly illustrated by the decision to divide County Leitrim between the two proposed new constituencies of Sligo-North Leitrim and Roscommon-South Leitrim, but it is part of a much more fundamental problem.

In this, the third consecutive commission report, the number of five-seat constituencies has been cut, while the number of three-seat constituencies grows steadily. What is most worrying about the growth of three-seat constituencies is that it seems to be the favoured option for dealing with population growth and change. I am disappointed the Minister has indicated he will accept these recommendations.

Do the people of Finglas in three-seat Dublin North-West have the same opportunity for putting their chosen party or representative into Leinster House as the people in leafy Dundrum in Dublin South, a five-seat constituency? Is it merely a coincidence that there is a proliferation of three-seat constituencies north of the Liffey whereas the larger constituencies are more common south of the Liffey? Will the people of Leitrim have any chance of ever electing another representative from the county to the Dáil? Is the legislation restricting constituency size to three, four and five-seaters a deliberate attempt by the establishment to keep the marginalised, marginalised? Perhaps this would be best described as a more subtle form of "Tullymandering", which is being implemented over a longer timeframe.

It is not too much of an exaggeration to state——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not in order to reflect on the members of an independent commission who are not Members of this House and are not in a position to defend themselves here.

Mr. Morgan

I do not intend to reflect on them, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

An independent commission drew up the proposed constituency changes.

Mr. Morgan

It operated under a particular legislative measure. It had a brief from this House and it is to that I allude. I am not attempting to reflect on the commission or its work, merely the guidelines set down by this House that restricted the commission in arriving at a conclusion. Inevitably the report will mirror the submissions coming to the commission from Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael.

Though I expect the Government to dismiss the concerns raised regarding the independent nature of the commission, this is not good enough. The essential problem is that the commission is constrained by legislation to have constituency sizes between three and five seats. The proportionality possible under the proportional representation with the single transferable vote system in place in this State has been diluted substantially through the selective redrawing of constituency boundaries and the reduction in constituency size in terms of Members elected from nine and seven-seat constituencies of the 1920s when the system was instigated to today's five, four and three-seaters.

PRSTV using multi-seat constituencies is a unique system that is not much practised outside of Ireland. It was not designed with the intention of applying it to three-seat constituencies. The number of Members returned per constituency is a crucial component of the Irish electoral system. The higher the number of Members returned per constituency, the greater the proportionality of the system.

I urge the Minister to amend section 6(2)(b) of the Electoral Act 1997 to allow for the formation of six and seven-seat constituencies. This would restore the positive attributes of the PRSTV system, in terms of locally accountable representatives and voters being able to make inter and intra-party choices. The Minister, Deputy Roche, was elected in a five-seat constituency. Would he accept that the larger constituency size adds an extra element of proportionality to the electoral system as a whole?

In view of the importance of maintaining the integrity of county boundaries, I call on the Minister to introduce the legislative changes to which I referred earlier and to reconvene the Constituency Commission to consider the possibility of establishing one six-seat constituency comprising the three counties of Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon. The Government must recognise that we risk losing people's respect for the electoral system in places such as County Leitrim when it is seen that it is unfairly applied in ways that prevent them from electing their chosen representative to Parliament.

Mr. Gallagher

I apologise for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, who cannot attend tonight due to a prior commitment.

I welcome this opportunity to put on the record of the House the continuing non-partisan approach to the constituency review first introduced by the then Fianna Fáil Government in 1977. In accordance with section 5 of the Electoral Act 1997 and following publication of the 2002 census results, a commission was established in July 2003 to report on European and Dáil constituencies. The commission reported on European constituencies in October 2003 and its recommendations were enacted for the June elections. It reported on Dáil constituencies in January and yesterday it was announced that the Government has accepted its recommendations in full and authorised the drafting of a Bill to give effect to them.

The criteria which the commission and, by extension, the Oireachtas, must apply in reviewing Dáil constituencies are set out primarily in the Constitution and in terms of reference specified in section 6 of the 1997 Act.

Article 16.2.3° of the Constitution provides:

The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.

The terms of reference for the commission as set out in the 1997 Act are:

A Constituency Commission shall, in observing the relevant provisions of the Constitution in relation to Dáil constituencies, have regard to the following:

(a) the total number of members of the Dáil, subject to Article 16.2.2° of the Constitution, shall be not less than 164 and not more than 168;

(b) each constituency shall return three, four or five members;

(c) the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable;

(d) each constituency shall be composed of contiguous areas;

(e) there shall be regard to geographic considerations including significant physical features and the extent of and the density of population in each constituency; and

(f) subject to the provisions of this section, the Commission shall endeavour to maintain continuity in relation to the arrangement of constituencies.

As I see it, Deputy Morgan raises two issues. The first is the increase, from 16 to 18, in the number of three-seat constituencies as a result of the commission's recommendations. The Constitution is silent on the specific question of the size of constituencies. As I have said, the statutory terms of reference provide that "each constituency shall return three, four or five members".

Thus, in framing recommendations that represent a reasonable balance between all the elements of its terms of reference, the commission has a degree of flexibility as to the size of constituency it considers best meets the situation on the ground. The terms of reference do not specify that one constituency size is better than another.

Deputy Morgan also raises the question of the breaching of county boundaries and the statutory provision that, in observing the relevant provisions of the Constitution, regard shall be had to avoiding such breaches as far as practicable. The 1997 Act specifically provides that the considerations listed are subordinate to the constitutional requirements. The bottom line is that, to meet the constitutional requirement in regard to equality of representation, the commission has to recommend constituencies that have average representation close to the national average, even if at times this means breaching county boundaries.

In accepting the commission's recommendations as a package, the Government is stating that the non-partisan approach to constituency revision has served the country well and should continue to be applied. We intend that the Bill will be drafted on this basis and introduced as soon as possible for debate by the Dáil and Seanad.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 21 October 2004.