Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Feb 2006

Vol. 613 No. 5

Adjournment Debate.

The first matter is in the name of Deputy Costello, who has five minutes.

Something very wrong was accepted by the court and I hope the Minister will investigate the case.

I ask Deputy Cowley to resume his seat.

Deputy Cowley may continue because the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has not yet arrived.

I know the Dáil has adjourned but I received a reply today which stated that the scene was not preserved because the accident was not considered serious. The matter cries out for some sort of investigation with reference to Garda competence and I ask the Minister to examine the case.

Deputy Cowley should resume his seat. Question Time has concluded.

Hospitals Building Programme.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to the House. I wish to share time with my colleague, Deputy Seán Ryan.

The Minister of State may have heard about the latest saga concerning Temple Street hospital. Plans have been ongoing for at least the past 20 years to do something about the dilapidated buildings and the poor conditions under which staff are working and to transfer the hospital to a new campus within the grounds of the Mater hospital. Five acres of land have been earmarked for this and everything was prepared. The money was earmarked in the national development plan — originally a sum of €400 million was earmarked, although estimates have since risen to €500 million. The lion's share of the money has been earmarked for a number of years.

Temple Street hospital and the Mater hospital were told they could go to tender on the project, which they did. They received tenders but then a bolt came out of the blue and they were told they could not open the tenders because a review of tertiary paediatric services was being instituted and that nothing could be done until that review was complete. They were further informed that this review would require an amount of consultation down the line and, inevitably, the project was long-fingered and there is a possibility that it will not go ahead.

Now we are hearing rumours and suggestions that a new greenfield site will be acquired in the Tánaiste's constituency, which would house all paediatric services in the country. It is an absolute scandal that €46 million has been spent in preparation for the development and that money may be totally lost. It is also a scandal that Temple Street hospital should be allowed to remain in the condition it has been in for such a long time. It is not good for patients, parents or staff. It is a further scandal that at the 11th hour, when everything and everybody was prepared, the Minister should pull the plug. This issue is as big as the PPARS scandal and far more money is involved. The money that has already been spent could be totally lost. It is unacceptable and unconscionable that business would be done in this manner. I ask, in support of the staff and parents, who have had a number of meetings and put a number of statements and letters into the public domain, that the project proceed and that the decision that was made some time ago be progressed.

A letter was sent to the Minister for Health and Children, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Taoiseach by Dr. Timothy Lynch, chair of the division of medicine, consultant neurologist and chair of the Irish Consultant Neurologists Association, on behalf of the staff of the Mater hospital, seeking a site in the Mountjoy complex when that becomes available for rehabilitation facilities, a stroke unit and accident and emergency facilities. He argued that the existing facilities in the Mater hospital are inadequate and extra land is needed. I ask that Dr. Lynch's request be treated sympathetically.

The children from north Dublin, north county Dublin and the rest of the country are being treated in Victorian conditions in Temple Street hospital. The existing facilities are totally inadequate, leading to major queuing, discomfort and lack of privacy. The proposed new hospital, which has been on the agenda for approximately 25 years, will resolve these problems and must be commenced immediately. Our children are being used as pawns in an internal debate within the Health Service Executive as to the preferred location for tertiary paediatric services and this must cease immediately.

Parents are fortunate that the staff at the hospital, notwithstanding the conditions, are continuing to carry out their professional duties in such a caring and dedicated manner, in the interests of the children. Parents, staff, consultants and doctors at the hospital are totally opposed to the delaying of the project, seeing it merely as a stalling tactic to allow the HSE to examine alternative sites. Families throughout north Dublin, as the Acting Chairman, Deputy Glennon, will know well, are suffering. We must proceed immediately and I call on the public and the Minister of State to ensure that we do so as a matter of urgency. I know that Deputy Sargent will join me in trying to ensure that parents in north Dublin get the services for their children to which they are entitled. I urge the Minister of State to act, we must see action.

Hear, hear.

I join in the Deputies' tributes to all the staff at the Children's University Hospital in Temple Street. We are all agreed that a tremendous service has been provided there for many years. I am taking the matters on the adjournment on behalf of my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney.

The Mater and children's hospital development is the largest single capital development project in the HSE capital programme. It involves the redevelopment of the Mater campus to include considerably expanded and improved facilities for the Mater itself and the construction of new, purpose-built accommodation which will replace the Children's University Hospital, Temple Street.

The tender documentation for the main scheme is complete and the project is ready to go to tender. In the context of the decision——

The project is about to go to tender?

It has already gone to tender, the tenders have been received.

In the context of the decision to be taken on the possible relocation of the facilities at Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, the Tánaiste asked the Health Service Executive to undertake a review of tertiary paediatric services to ensure that such services are provided in the most efficient and effective manner. As Deputies will be aware, these are the highly specialised paediatric services. The HSE engaged——

Irrespective of any decision on Crumlin, those services can be provided by Temple Street.

The Minister of State, without interruption, please.

The HSE engaged a team of management consultants to provide a report on the strategic organisation of tertiary paediatric services in Ireland.

I understand that the consultants' report was furnished to the HSE yesterday and was to be considered by the HSE board today, so the Deputies' request on the adjournment is very timely.

I ask the Minister of State to give us the news.

The HSE has advised that it would await consideration of the report before giving approval for the project to proceed to tender.

The Department will now have discussions with the HSE in light of the report to determine how the development project is to be advanced. The primary concern is to ensure that the solution arrived at is in the best interests of the children of this country.

Yes, indeed. That is why it is being delayed.

With regard to the separate matter raised by Deputy Costello on the future of the Mountjoy Prison site and the possible use of the site for hospital services, I understand that the Office of Public Works is undertaking a site examination on the land that will become available when the prison facilities are relocated.

There is an alternative for the prison in the Minister of State's constituency.

It will be my constituency in the next general election, please God. I suggest the Deputy advise the relevant parties——

There is nothing like having a prison in one's constituency.

——to contact the Office of Public Works in that regard.

The OPW has all the answers.

Financial Services Regulation.

Can I take it that the Minister for Finance has sent the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to deal with this matter or should I wait for the Minister?

I will be dealing with the matter.

Deputy Brian Lenihan is now the acting Minister for Finance.

He is a man of many talents.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing this matter to be raised. I wish to deal with three issues pertaining to a particular credit union but which are of interest to every member of a credit union, including myself. Whistle-blowers may wish to report a matter that is not in accordance with the code of ethics for credit unions. That code for directors of a credit union board and the effectiveness of the regulator charged with overseeing the proper implementation of the legislation governing the running of credit unions must also be addressed. The Minister should take on board this matter and outline the mechanisms open to any member or members of any credit union board who become aware of a possible conflict of interest for any other member or members.

The Minister should examine the reported failure of arbitration at St. Joseph's Aviation Credit Union and ensure the issue is urgently investigated and resolved in the interests of the credit union itself and the good names of the whistle-blowers who are frustrated with the lack of progress in this matter.

This is not a new matter, as the Minister of State knows. In October 2005The Sunday Business Post reported:

The former president of a credit union that is being investigated for improper practices had resigned because he could no longer continue "defending the indefensible".

[This individual] resigned from the board of St. Joseph's Aviation Credit Union in June.

The credit union — which has 18,000 members in branches in Dublin, Cork and Shannon Airports — was last week instructed to stop selling insurance products after the Financial Regulator became concerned about management practices.

The credit union has €120 million in assets.

[This individual] said he could no longer associate himself with the running of the credit union. "I have to hold my hands and say I defended the indefensible . . . It took me five years, but I just could not stand over it anymore".

He said he was "disappointed and upset" with the regulator and Registrar of Credit Unions, whom he accused of failing to act on information he had provided about improper practices at the credit union.

"The majority of people on the board are decent people," he said.

The majority of the board members are frustrated to the point of despair and wonder if the State has any concern for their plight. The issues they are bringing to my attention, with reports of attempted fraud, misuse of members' funds and using the position of credit union director in a conflict of interest, need urgent resolution for the continuing normal operation of the credit union.

The whistle-blowers in question should be protected. This is a matter being debated worldwide. Sharon Watkins, the former vice president of Enron and the world's best known whistle-blower, was chosen by the World Council of Credit Unions as its keynote speaker on the subject of identifying wrongdoing and fraud in financial institutions such as credit unions. She strongly argues that the credit union movement must be vigilant in this area.

Credit union board members in their work life must have a more comprehensive code of ethics with which they must comply. The Minister for Finance must take note of this and I ask him to address it in line with other reform being considered for the 1997 Act. The Irish League of Credit Unions is also seeking reform of that Act. The example highlights the need for reform of the code of ethics and the need to enforce it to control the minority who flout it.

The regulator visited the St. Joseph's Aviation Credit Union and has all the relevant documentation. Instead of interviewing each of the 15 board members and the three supervisors, however, he set up an arbitration board. The Fingal Independent has reported that this process is likely to fail. In the event of failure, the Minister must ask the regulator to carry out the direct interviews with each board member so the credit union can return to working on behalf of its 18,000 members and have this cloud lifted.

I am responding on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Finance. A number of specific legal provisions are in place under section 69 of the Credit Union Act 1997 to address issues of a conflict of interest that might arise in credit unions. Under section 69(3) of the Act, individual board members of a credit union are obliged to declare any possible conflict of interest to the board of directors of the relevant credit union. It is open to any member of a credit union who is concerned at a possible conflict of interest in a credit union to bring that issue to the attention of the board.

As for the arbitration process undertaken in the dispute at board level in the credit union referred to by the Deputy, the Registrar of Credit Unions is responsible within the financial regulator for the regulation of credit unions. He met the board of the credit union in November of last year and proposed the appointment of an arbitrator to undertake a formal process of arbitration on the issues dividing the board. The registrar's proposal was accepted by the board and a senior counsel was appointed to undertake the arbitration process.

Unfortunately, the arbitration process has not been successful. The Department has been informed by the Registrar of Credit Unions that the arbitrator will shortly withdraw from the process. Following the completion of the arbitration process, the registrar will undertake a full investigation of the affairs of the relevant credit union. On foot of the outcome of that investigation, the registrar will take any steps that are necessary to resolve the issue using the regulatory powers available to him under the Credit Union Act 1997.

Social Welfare Benefits.

This is a sad issue. The person in question is a migrant worker who was working here until September 2005. Owing to personal circumstances she had to change employment and is now seeking further employment. She would be an ideal client for an employment scheme while in receipt of family income supplement at some stage in the future. This person has at least one child and is living on charity at present.

It is sad that someone who has worked here and paid contributions and whose circumstances change is no longer wanted by us and must go back home. I do not blame the Minister of State but it is a shame his colleague, the Minister with responsibility for the area, did not reply to this matter. I would be interested in hearing his reply. We all deal with countless cases of this nature, some of them heart-rending, involving people who are very vulnerable, in a difficult situation and in need of a helping hand. We pride ourselves on our charity and our economy but this case deserves the personal attention of the Minister.

The woman applied on 7 November for one-parent family allowance and, two months later, on 16 January, she received a reply to her application. The letter stated that it had been decided that she did not satisfy the condition of being habitually resident in the State because she had not resided in the State or part of the common travel area continuously for the past two years. She did for 18 months. The letter further stated she had no stable pattern of employment in the State. That is not true. She has been employed since she has been in the State. The letter continues that she has resided outside the State all her life. Given that this applies to many people currently in the State, I have serious doubts about the validity of this response. The letter further states that she has retained links abroad by way of retention of a financial account. If all those Irish people who went abroad and retained financial accounts here were treated in such a fashion, we would be very upset. I ask the Minister to consider this.

The letter further states that the future intentions of the woman in question with regard to the length of her stay here are short term. That is debatable. I know people can be inspired and the Minister of State, the Chair and I will have met many of them but I do not believe inspiration would be sufficient to make such a determination given that one does not know what will be a person's circumstances in future.

The letter then states that, from the evidence provided, there is nothing to substantiate that the woman in question is habitually resident in the State. Based on the statements made in this letter one would wonder whether the person truly exists. I would have asked that question if I had not had the woman introduced to me by another individual who was aware of her circumstances and pleaded with me to find out if anything could be done to secure a social welfare payment for her to tide her over the immediate problem until efforts could be made to secure a place for her on a community employment scheme.

As Deputy Durkan pointed out, I make this reply on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan. The habitual residence condition was introduced on 1 May 2004. There is a requirement on all applicants for certain social assistance schemes, including one parent family payment and child benefit, to satisfy the habitual residence condition to access the payments. The objective of the condition is to restrict access to social assistance and child benefit in the case of persons newly arrived in Ireland, who have little or no connection to this country.

The Government introduced a habitual residence condition for access to social assistance payments with effect from 1 May 2004. All applicants, regardless of nationality, are required from that date to be habitually resident in the State to qualify for these payments. The term "habitually resident" is intended to convey a degree of permanence and to refer to a regular physical presence enduring for some time, usually but not always beginning at a date in the past and intended to continue for a period into the foreseeable future. It implies a close connection between the applicant and the country from which payment is claimed and relies heavily on that fact. The most important factors for habitual residence are the length, continuity and general nature of actual residence, rather than intention.

Any applicant, regardless of nationality, who has spent most or all of his or her life in Ireland should satisfy the habitual residency condition. Generally an applicant who has been present here for two years or more, works here and has a settled intention to remain in Ireland and make it his or her permanent home will also satisfy the habitual residence condition. An applicant who satisfies the habitual residence condition must also satisfy the other conditions of entitlement to receive the payment claimed.

Section 208A inserted by section 17 of Schedule 1 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004 provides that: "it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that a person is not habitually resident in the State at the date of the making of the application concerned unless he has been present in the State or any other part of the Common Travel Area for a continuous period of 2 years ending on that date".

There is a presumption that an applicant for any of the relevant payments is not habitually resident in the State at the time of the making of the application until the contrary is shown by him or her. The onus is on the applicant to prove that he or she is habitually resident in the State. If it is proven that he or she has been present in Ireland for two years or more, an applicant does not attract the presumption of not being habitually resident. This does not mean an applicant is automatically considered to be habitually resident in the State because he or she has been in Ireland or another part of the common travel area for two years or more.

Depending on the facts, it may still be necessary to investigate further before deciding that a person is habitually resident. However, it is likely that most applicants who have been in Ireland for more than two years prior to the application for one of the specified payments will be habitually resident here in the absence of indications to the contrary. Persons who are not habitually resident at the time of the application for one of the specified payments may become habitually resident by the time they make a later claim for the same payment or another of the specified payments.

While the legislation requires a person to be continuously present in Ireland or elsewhere in the common travel area for two years, a short holiday of, say, two to three weeks is accepted as not breaching the requirement to be continuously present in Ireland or the common travel area. Residence is more a settled state than mere physical presence. A person must be present in Ireland at the time of making an application for the payments concerned.

The European Court of Justice has set down a number of factors to be considered when considering whether someone is habitually resident. The Deputy touched on these in his analysis of the form. The court determined that five factors are relevant in determining whether a person is habitually resident. It also stressed that the following list of factors is not exhaustive and should not be used as a means of scoring points for and against a person satisfying the condition. No single aspect is consistently likely to be the deciding factor but some may be more persuasive in certain circumstances than in others.

The five factors are: applicants' main centre of interest; the length and continuity of residence in a particular country; the length and purpose of absence from a country; the nature and pattern of employment in a country; and the future intention of applicant concerned as it appears from all the circumstances. The checklist of questions or factors which needs to be considered is not exhaustive and further inquiries may be needed. The circumstances of each case will dictate what information is needed and it is vital that all relevant factors are taken into account. The evidential weight to be attributed to each factor will depend on the circumstances of each case.

A deciding officer is appointed pursuant to statute or in the case of the supplementary welfare allowance officers of the health Service Executive who are duly authorised to determine entitlement decide whether a person satisfies the habitual residency condition. The officers have due regard to the five factors outlined and any additional information elicited by way of further inquiries. As provided for by law decisions can be appealed to the independent social welfare appeals office or, in the case of the supplementary welfare allowance, to the relevant HSE appeals officer and, if subsequently necessary, to the independent social welfare appeals office.

The person concerned made an application for one parent family payment in November 2005. Her case was referred to the habitual residence unit of the Department for a determination on her habitual residence in the State. A deciding officer has determined that the person concerned did not satisfy the habitual residence condition as she had not resided in the State or common travel area for the past two years or more, has had no stable pattern of employment in the State and does not intend to remain here in the long term. The person concerned was notified of this decision and the reasons for it on 16 January and informed of her right to have her case reviewed by the deciding officer and her right of appeal to the independent social welfare appeals office. According to that office an appeal has been registered in respect of the person concerned.

Will this debate be acceptable as a basis for an appeal and oral hearing?

Even under parliamentary privilege I cannot interfere with the workings of an independent statutory tribunal.

I assure the Minister of State that such provision exists. I would be satisfied if he were to accept this reply as the basis of an appeal to the Department.

Does the Deputy wish me to treat this debate as the application for an appeal?

I have no problem with the parliamentary record being constituted as the basis for an appeal.

Will the Minister of State agree to my proposal?

I have no objections to the parliamentary record being treated as the basis for an appeal.

A Minister who is going places should be expansive.

Water Services.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise submissions concerning water metering. As the Minister is aware, water meters are being installed on all non-domestic premises across the country. This process has been ongoing in County Sligo for some time because it was one of the original pilot counties selected. However, some issues have arisen which I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister and on which I will seek his advice.

With regard to the cost of the water meters, a decision by Sligo County Council fixed a charge of €80 per water meter. The county manager originally proposed a charge of €150 but the figure was subsequently reduced by county councillors. The legitimate question has been asked why, given that we do not pay to have ESB meters installed, we should pay the cost of having a water meter installed.

The second, perhaps most important issue to arise, concerns members of the farming community. I have been approached by many farmers in recent weeks. As I stated, water meters are being installed in all non-domestic premises. However, in the case of farmers the meters are being installed on their domestic water supply. It has been proposed that each farming household would be allowed to use 50,000 gallons of water free of charge and would be charged for any additional water used. Those of us who do not belong to the farming community may use as much water as we wish, from as little as 10,000 gallons up to 100,000 gallons. The valid point has been made forcibly to me that an allocation of 50,000 gallons is a form of discrimination, particularly for a family with more than four children. A family with more than that is being discriminated against. It would be better if the water meter were installed outside the house in the yard, where the business of farming begins.

My third point concerns farmers who have multiple holdings. In the west particularly, for historical reasons due to the Land Commission's dividing up large estates, many farmers have multiple small holdings. I met a farmer who has a total of 16 acres split into four different holdings. Farmers are charged €80 per water meter per holding, in this case a total of €320. Compare that with a farmer who has 100 acres in one holding who will be charged only €80. That is not fair and I will be guided by the Minister's advice on what we might do to rectify these anomalies.

I thank the Deputy for raising this interesting issue. Water metering has been widely abused by people who oppose logic. It is a positive thing. The national water services pricing policy framework provides for the recovery by sanitary authorities of the cost of providing water services from the users of those services, with the exception of householders, and the latter point raised by Deputy Devins is interesting in that context. This is consistent with the EU water framework directive. The Government's policy fully respects the prohibition on charging for domestic water services as provided under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1997. As far as I am concerned, that will stand while I am Minister. It also requires full recovery of the cost of providing water services to the non-domestic sector by means of a meter-based volumetric charge and the metering of this sector by December 2006. This policy is being progressively advanced and implemented by local authorities and in general there are positive results from that.

Proper metering of the non-domestic sector is important so that pricing of commercial water can be operated fairly and efficiently. Once fully implemented, the national metering programme will facilitate charging on the basis of the actual usage of water. This will be a transparent, fair and equitable method of recovering water services costs and will provide for the treatment of all non-domestic customers in an even-handed manner. The provision of meters will also support and encourage water conservation. An interesting story came from a group water scheme recently. When water metering was mooted, water consumption dramatically decreased because people were not disposed to wasting water. The provision of water meters will support and encourage water conservation. It is supported by business groups, including IBEC and the chambers of commerce generally, which support the principle of universal non-domestic metering.

Up to now, there has been a moderate level of metering of water services in Ireland with approximately one third of non-domestic customers, usually the more significant users, being charged on a metered basis. Experience in developed countries suggests that much higher coverage of metering is necessary and feasible. A recent OECD report indicated that countries in Europe with 100% metering, domestic and non-domestic, including France, Germany, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Portugal, Poland and Switzerland, had much better conservation results than Ireland.

The national water metering programme, which is at an advanced stage, has been greatly assisted by the co-operation of Sligo County Council and its significant support for the Sligo pilot metering demonstration project. That authority has shown energy and commitment in recognising the need for such a project and in advancing it, and is to be complimented. In 2002 my Department agreed the scope of the pilot demonstration project with Sligo County Council and Sligo Borough Council, with the funding of their client's representative on the project in the sum of €470,000. In the interim this design, build and operate project has developed from planning to implementation phase, which involves meter installation, an operational contract and a billing and collection module. Comprehensive guidance notes have been developed throughout the project. It is important that we have guidance we can use in other local authorities. In this regard three sets of guidance notes have been issued to sanitary authorities and a further final set is planned.

A cornerstone of the policy is that all users are charged in the same way. That is just and equitable. My Department has worked very closely with sanitary authorities in developing the charging mechanism and conditions that apply to pricing policy. Some of the points made by Deputy Devins are interesting in this regard. A mechanism for calculating charges which includes operational, marginal capital and administrative costs has been developed and rolled out to sanitary authorities.

The unit costs of water to users will vary between different local authorities because of differences in the costs of water production. Water users will rightly be sensitised to the particular unit costs operating in their areas by virtue of the more precise system of charging now to be applied. My Department's guidelines make it clear that less efficient local authorities, which do not have effective water conservation programmes in place, will not be able to pass on excess costs to consumers. Sanitary authorities are restricted to recovering a maximum of 20% of the cost of unaccounted for water where they have not developed and set a targeted water conservation programme. That is an important safeguard within the new system and is a common sense measure to ensure that local authorities prevent water wastage. The Sligo pilot metering demonstration project has been a significant driver in the implementation of the national metering programme and in the general implementation of the water services pricing policy and I commend the Sligo local authority for that.

On the final issue raised by Deputy Devins, multiple meter charges, if he gives me details on the case I will examine it. I do not say I can do something about it but the whole idea of metering is that it is just, equitable and reasonable, so if something appears to be unreasonable I will examine it.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 7 February 2006.
Barr
Roinn