Adjournment Debate.

Consultancy Contracts.

Mr. Glennon

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this important issue on the Adjournment and thank the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, for agreeing to respond, having survived the previous few minutes.

This issue unfortunately arises from the nursing homes refund scheme. I say "unfortunately" because the scheme has had an unfortunate history. I have no wish to add to that other than to say that certain matters have been brought to my attention regarding the administration of that scheme and the award of contracts in that regard which are worthy of pursuit and investigation. We are aware that our health system is in no way perfect, since that can be true of no country. Equally, every Member is aware anecdotally of some difficulties on the procurement side, whether it be of a single can of paint by the lowest store man to the awarding of contracts. I do not want to deal with the PPARS system whose very mention sends something of a shudder down everyone's spine.

If the problems in health service procurement were resolved, even to a significant degree, we would have done a major service to the health system and gone a long way towards resolving the problems. My interest in this issue is on behalf of an unsuccessful party to the tender process, an operator in my constituency where jobs are at issue, as well as on behalf of some very concerned senior staff members of the Health Service Executive and the taxpayer.

We have a duty to pursue genuine issues, and in that regard, as the tendering process is now complete and the cooling-off period has expired, we should, with complete transparency, investigate the issues arising, especially those to which I referred in my request for this Adjournment debate. We must have the names of the tendering companies, their ranking by price, the HSE's policy on outsourcing work relevant to the project, particularly to the Indian subcontinent, and the advice given to tenderers relevant to such outsourcing at inception and conclusion of the tender process. Was the lowest tender accepted, and if not, why not?

I assure the House that this is by no means a witch hunt but an entirely legitimate and justified inquiry whose purpose is to ensure that fairness and equity prevailed in the process at all times. I look forward to a comprehensive response from the Minister and firmly take the view that anything less will only give rise to further questions and serve no one, least of all the clients due to benefit from the running of the scheme.

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

I am replying on behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Health, Deputy Harney. I thank Deputy Glennon for raising the matter. The Health (Repayments Scheme) Act 2006 was signed by the President on 23 June and provides a clear legal framework for a scheme to repay recoverable health charges for publicly funded long-term care.

The Health Service Executive has responsibility for administering the repayment scheme for recoverable health charges, including the recruitment of an outside company to assist in its management. Owing to the nature, volume and complexity of the repayments involved, it was decided, in line with a Government decision, to appoint an outside company with appropriate knowledge and experience of dealing with mass repayments. A procurement team was established within the HSE and a tendering process was advertised in the EU Journal and the Irish national newspapers for the selection of such a company.

The HSE has advised me that the following seven companies or consortia tendered for the repayment scheme: Capita; Northgate HR Information Solutions; Fexco Outsourcings Solutions and Mentec; Elision Group; SWS Business Process Outsourcing Limited; Care Charges Refund Scheme Limited; and KPMG McCann Fitzgerald.

Following consideration of the tenders, the HSE has selected a service provider, the consortium comprising KPMG Accounting Group and McCann Fitzgerald Solicitors, to manage the repayment scheme within the agreed parameters. The cost will be based on the total number of repayments but has been capped at €15 million, excluding VAT. The HSE is satisfied that the successful consortium met the necessary criteria and is confident of its ability to deliver all aspects of the scheme and that the consortium will plan, manage and execute the scheme in accordance with international best practice.

The tendering companies were not ranked by price alone, as the award criteria required the contract to be awarded to the most economically advantageous tender while also having regard to the criteria outlined in the advertisement placed in the EU Journal. The criteria used for the selection of the company were those outlined in the advertisement referred to above, and those related to cost, technical capacity, legal expertise and economic and financial capacity.

The HSE's policy on outsourcing is to comply with all EU procurement and trade law. The HSE has indicated that all EU guidelines and directives have been complied with in awarding the contract. It is understood from the HSE that a very small proportion, approximately 5%, of the work to be undertaken by the company will be outsourced outside the EU. That work is of a data entry nature and will not involve the operation of help lines, the provision of information or any related matters, all of which will be performed within the State. The HSE has worked directly with the Data Protection Commissioner to ensure that all necessary measures are in place to protect the confidentiality of information.

The HSE has stated that it did not offer any advice to the companies on whether to outsource elements of the repayment process. The HSE has not released the details of the cost of the other tenders as the selection process was not based on cost alone, and those costs are also commercially sensitive. The company selected to administer the repayment scheme was not the lowest tender received, but the preferred company had the highest combined score when the award criteria outlined above were considered.

The company has already commenced its preparatory work and intends to launch the scheme to the public in the middle of July. It will be initiated by a comprehensive public awareness campaign to ensure that anyone entitled can easily apply for repayment.

Pension Provisions.

Mr. Hayes

I will not need the five minutes allowed to me. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for selecting this matter for discussion on the Adjournment, since it is a very important issue for me and many of my constituents.

I would like to know the reason for a 14-week delay in pensions being issued to eligible people. Letters have been coming from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I do not criticise it, since it has been very efficient, especially at dealing with our parliamentary questions and queries, over an extended period. However, I am disturbed by the letters it is sending. The letters explain that there is a temporary delay of 14 weeks in processing pension applications and ask people not to contact the office. The letters also request that people contact their local Health Service Executive office if they are short of money in the meantime. These are people who are retiring after working very hard for a long time and paying their taxes, but find that their pensions are not in place. This is a deplorable state of affairs for people who have given considerable service to the State.

Given our buoyant economy, I cannot understand why staff cannot be assigned to these offices to alleviate the problem. Retirement represents a major change in people's lives and for them to be told that they will be left without a pension for 14 weeks after a long period of working is not good enough. What is the reason for this delay, when will it be resolved and when will normal service resume? This delay affects a considerable number of people. Over a short period, six people contacted my constituency office about this matter. If this resonates in other constituency offices, it must be a very significant issue. I expect a very clear and positive answer from the Minister of State.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I am delivering this reply on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. I must deliver a considerable amount of the reply before Deputy Hayes arrives at the reason for the delay. That said, I thank him for raising this matter on the Adjournment because I am aware of these delays.

The Department of Social and Family Affairs is committed to providing a quality service to all its customers. This includes the necessary processing of applications and ensuring that the decisions on entitlements are issued as expeditiously as possible, having regard to the eligibility conditions which apply. The challenging customer service standards are set out in the Department's statement of strategy 2005-07, backed up by its customer service charter. In the case of pension claims, customers are advised to apply for pensions at least three months before reaching pension age to ensure there is no delay in receiving their entitlements.

The Department is developing a new generation of IT systems under its service delivery modernisation, SDM, programme which will allow it to be more responsive to customer needs. The main objectives of the SDM programme are to provide customers with improved service, provide a proactive comprehensive service that takes account of related services needed by the customer, enable speedy implementation of change, ensure effective control of fraud and abuse, maximise benefits of information and communication technology, implement progressive management and work practices and develop better organisational structures and a better work environment where staff will be supported to provide an excellent service.

SDM is a multi-year programme of change which seeks to ensure more efficiency and effectiveness through the use of modern technology and redesign of existing business processes to deliver more flexible and more personalised service delivery. Phase 1 of this programme has already been successfully implemented for child benefit.

The old age contributory and retirement pensions section was hitherto supported by the PENLIVE computer application. This system is now over 20 years old and is being replaced to enable the Department to deliver the enhanced services outlined above. At the end of May 2006, the old age contributory and retirement pension payments were moved to the new IT platform and the administrative sections were reorganised to improve service to customers and achieve the full benefits of the new technology. As could be expected in a change programme of this magnitude, there was a need for intensive training for all staff involved. To date, some 220,000 customer records have been transferred to the new system.

The activity involved in achieving the change has affected the capacity of the area concerned to process claims during the transition phase and, accordingly, a backlog of work has accrued. At present, there are some 12,000 claims awaiting decision compared to a normal level of approximately 4,000 claims on hand at any one time. The situation is being monitored closely and plans are in hand to address these cases, including the deployment of additional resources to process these claims as quickly as possible. The original receipt date will be taken as the date of claim and customers will not lose out as a result of the temporary delay currently being experienced.

Customers are being advised of the reasons for the temporary delay. In the meantime, any documentation, such as birth, marriage or death certificates, submitted in support of claims is being processed and returned as quickly as possible. The staff in the Department make every effort to process claims speedily. However, the over-riding consideration in processing claims is to ensure that customers receive their correct entitlements in a timely fashion.

Looking to the future, the new SDM programme will allow the Department to be more proactive in dealing with customers. It offers the prospect of issuing reminders to people reaching pension age to apply for their pensions in advance so as to avoid delays in payments issuing to them. In respect of the child care supplement, I believe Deputy Hayes's own party focused on the fact that I was able to advise persons of their entitlements in advance using that computer system. This facility will now be extended to pensions once this new programme is introduced.

The Deputy's party was, understandably, not aware of the fact there were substantial savings in the issuing of these reminders to individuals because it discloses to us the non-existence of certain parties at specified addresses. That said, that matter is not on the Adjournment this evening but I could not resist mentioning it when I saw Deputy Stanton sitting opposite me.

The SDM programme will also allow for enhanced procedures for processing claims for related services, such as the free travel allowance and household benefits. This will also simplify the process for customers as it will remove the need to make separate applications for these services and will reduce processing times for claims. This introduction of this new technology will have a very positive impact but, unfortunately, it has caused a slight blip, as outlined by Deputy Hayes, which the Department is working very hard to resolve.

The Department is conscious of the impact of the delays on customers, particularly people claiming pensions, and is taking action to ensure that the difficulties currently being experienced are minimised. It is intended to make progress in addressing the situation over the coming weeks and to return to the normal standard of service to customers as soon as possible.

Prison Building Programme.

Mr. Stanton

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me permission to raise this very important matter on the Adjournment on behalf of the people of Cobh and I thank the Minister of State for coming here to reply. He and I held a debate on the issue during Question Time on 23 June 2005.

We all agree that new prison is badly needed to replace Cork Prison. We know about the overcrowding, inadequate facilities and the need to improve areas of work, training, education and medical services, as well as the need to provide predominantly single-cell accommodation with in-cell sanitation. A decision was made to locate this new prison complex on Spike Island without any public debate or consultation. It appears that public consultation will take place after the decision has been made. Perhaps we should appoint a commissar to run the country and forget about debate and consultation.

Other sites could have been considered, such as the old Irish Steel plant at Haulbowline, which encompasses 50 acres. Haulbowline already possesses a bridge and a security presence and is owned by the State. The site even contains room for the Naval Service to expand its base. The town of Cobh would benefit greatly if Spike Island was developed as a heritage centre. Last night in the other House, my colleague, Senator Paul Bradford, outlined the historical richness of Spike Island. Tonight I will extol the economic potential that could be lost to Cobh if Spike Island is developed as planned.

The bridge would mean that it would be cut off from Cobh and would only be accessed from the western side of the harbour and any economic benefit would be lost to Cobh. Cobh could do with the economic assistance that would be afforded by Spike Island. Other areas around the world that possess nothing like the history or heritage of Spike Island, such as Robben Island, Alcatraz and Port Arthur, are extremely popular tourist attractions. Many responsible and respectable people in Cobh who are very concerned about this development and have not been consulted will call on the Minister to re-examine the matter, visit the area and consult with and listen to them before he goes any further.

An alternative site for this prison exists. The people objecting to the siting of the prison on Spike Island are not taking the NIMBY approach. A site exists in the harbour with a bridge and a security presence. If a super prison is developed on Spike Island, the danger is that it will be lost forever. As Senator Bradford pointed out last night, there was a monastic settlement on Spike Island in the 6th century. During the previous debate on this matter, the Minister of State told me he had never visited the island. Perhaps he has visited it since.

The island contains an amazing star-shaped fort which, if developed and opened to the public, would be a wonderful tourist attraction that could be on a par with Alcatraz or Robben Island. I have visited the fort many times. The building is remarkable and there is a range of areas to explore.

John Mitchell and Thomas Francis Meagher spent some time there, as did convicts before they were shipped to Australia. During the War of Independence, there were a number of amazing escapes from the island. It is rich in heritage and history and it would be a shame to lose it. I call on the Government to reconsider the matter, as there is an alternative site. The people in the area want to help, but they do not want this island ruined and lost forever.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I am replying on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

As mentioned in Seanad Éireann yesterday, the need for a new prison to alleviate the current overcrowding at Cork Prison has been well documented, which the Deputy acknowledged in raising the matter. Recently, the Inspector of Prisons in his inspection report on Cork Prison condemned the facility and acknowledged that space at the institution is at a premium.

Having considered various options, the Minister is satisfied that the only feasible option for the replacement of the existing Cork Prison is the construction of a modern prison complex on Spike Island. Officials from the Irish Prison Service, in conjunction with the Office of Public Works and professional advisers, are developing proposals for the construction of this new complex. The facility will address the overcrowding and inadequate facilities associated with Cork Prison and will, in addition, offer significant improvements in the areas of work, training, education and medical services as well as providing predominantly single cell accommodation with in-cell sanitation facilities.

The new prison complex on Spike Island will allow the Irish Prison Service to strengthen measures to ensure drugs are not smuggled to prisoners. For example, the new complex will locate exercise yards where drugs cannot be propelled into them and new visiting facilities will eliminate the potential for passing drugs to prisoners on visits. In addition to eliminating supply routes, the new complex will provide modern medical and other facilities to allow the prison service to meet its commitment in its recently published drugs policy and strategy to deliver a broad range of high quality interventions to support drug abusers in attempting to conquer their addictions. Modern facilities support the staff delivering these interventions by providing them with the best tools and environment in which to carry out their work.

The commissioning of the bridge will facilitate the development of new prison facilities on the island to replace the existing outdated accommodation at Cork Prison. The OPW has been instructed to prepare the relevant planning procedures, including an assessment of the environmental and related issues arising to enable the construction of a bridge to the island. The Minister has been advised by the OPW that this planning process will commence by this summer. As soon as the planning requirements are complete, it is intended to commence construction of the bridge, which will take approximately 18 months to complete.

The contract for the bridge and the prison facilities will be placed following public tender and the Minister has instructed the OPW to prepare the design and other works required prior to the issue of the tender for the construction of the bridge. Deputy Stanton is amused, but I seem to recall in my constituency——

Mr. Stanton

This is the same response given in the Seanad. The question is not being answered.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The late Deputy, Mr. Jim Mitchell, opposed the construction of a prison that he subsequently opened as the Minister for Justice.

Outline plans for the island prison facilities are being developed at present and these will be finalised later this year. The Minister is not at this stage in a position to give an estimate of the amount of land required for the prison development or the costs of the project, as this will be the subject of a public competition.

The Minister does not propose to change his plans for a new prison development including a bridge at Spike Island. He does, however, note the concerns raised regarding the history and heritage aspects which arise in the context of this development. He wishes to reassure the Deputy that the implications, if any, on the heritage, archaeology or related aspects of the proposed developments will be addressed in detail in the course of the planning process, which will be undertaken in due course. At that stage, all the relevant material including properly balanced assessments of the various issues, including archaeology, will be made available as part of the public consultation process which it is hoped should commence later this year.

Local Authority Access.

Ms C. Murphy

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this item, as I hold the distinction of being the first person to receive a P45 as a consequence of the abolition of the dual mandate. While it might be thought I am joking, that is exactly how it happened. I was happy to receive it because it meant that I had been elected to the Dáil.

I supported the end of the dual mandate. For several years, I worked as a full-time county councillor. There was more than enough work in a rapidly developing area such as Kildare to justify that time and it would be difficult to imagine how one could have adequately done that job on top of the workload of an Oireachtas Member.

Recently, I have visited the public gallery of Kildare County Council a number of times. The issues of unfinished housing estates were being debated and I wanted to get a feel for how that matter was being treated. Having been in a council chamber before and after the abolition of the dual mandate, I do not doubt that a valuable link between local and national levels and a great deal of institutional memory have been lost because many Deputies and Senators had served for considerable durations on various councils.

As a Member of the Oireachtas, I deal with more county council related matters than I did when I was a councillor, particularly in respect of housing, planning, transportation, sanitary services and so on. Those issues are raised with me as a consequence of the mandate I received on 11 March 2005. Like all Members, I see this as part of our day-to-day work. Indeed, I have opened a constituency office to deal with it.

I will outline a number of difficulties that have presented. I will be absolutely and abundantly clear when I state that I am not being treated differently from the other seven Members from Kildare. Kildare County Council moved to new purpose-built offices last January. The offices are open plan with security doors at the entrance to every section operated by swipe cards. After a protest, councillors were provided with swipe cards, but five months after the move and numerous complaints later, provision for Oireachtas Members remains by way of the public counter. All of Kildare's Members served on its county council, we know individual officials and we can rely on goodwill to get work done. Staff who have known me for years have told me that they do not know whether they are allowed to let me in and that the situation is ridiculous.

On one occasion I sent an e-mail of a list of planning files I wanted to check. I stated that I intended to visit to inspect the said files, but found that I needed to take a number and join the queue at the public counter. The files began to arrive approximately 25 minutes later and 35 minutes after that I was advised the offices were closing for lunch and I would need to leave. I made a complaint on 9 May and received the following reply:

I have received your e-mail re access and services at planning department. The situation you have outlined is unsatisfactory and the appropriate staff have been so advised. Arrangements are in hand to improve access for elected members visiting the planning counter and revised arrangements for telephone access. These arrangements will be advised shortly.

Nearly three months later, I have still not been advised of any new arrangements. The next time I sent an e-mail, most of the files were available at the specified time. Last week, I telephoned the council to speak to a planner and was told that I would only be dealt with between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m.

I do not want to carve out through ongoing complaints a means of interacting with the council's officials, nor do I want to rely on goodwill because I happen to know a particular official. Some reasonable working arrangements should have been put in place. When a Green Party councillor, J. J. Power, proposed that the same arrangements put in place for councillors should be extended to Oireachtas Members, he was told that he and other councillors had no function in that regard, as it was an executive function and the manager would make the decision.

The executive has locked us out and the P45 I referred to earlier has been taken literally. I am angry about this, as I am not trying to deal with matters on my own behalf. Rather, I am trying to deal with matters that affect the county's citizens who contact me. Often they contact me as a last resort, having failed to resolve the matters themselves. I visit the council's office approximately once a week, part of the reason for which is an overdependence on voicemail. Often such mail goes unanswered.

I do not know how other local authorities operate. I have discussed the Kildare situation with other Members who are astonished. Therefore, I suspect the situation is not universal. It was not the intended outcome of abolishing the dual mandate. Will the Minister examine the executive function referred to and will the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government issue guidelines on Oireachtas Members? Will those Members be surveyed on their interactions with their local authorities so that a more appropriate arrangement is put in place between them?

Mr. B. Lenihan

I thank Deputy Catherine Murphy for raising this matter. I reply on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but I am conscious that the reply does not address the precise points raised by the Deputy. It is more general in scope but I assure Deputy Murphy that the complaints she makes are not unique to herself as a Member of the House. Irrespective of whether Members hold executive office, the difficulties to which she refers have been encountered with some local authorities, though others have established a high standard in the way they deal with the matter.

I am not in a position to comment further on that but the points the Deputy makes are highly relevant. I will transmit her views to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche. A review of the matter is under way in the Department, conducted at an official level, the findings of which will be studied by him with a view to considering what improvements can be made to regulations which he introduced.

The Local Government Act 2003 provided for a single local authority mandate. Concerns were expressed at that time about the continuing role of Members of the Oireachtas in respect of the various local authority activities, with the abolition of the dual mandate. When the single mandate for local government was introduced, arrangements were put in place to provide Oireachtas Members with a right in law to access documentation and information and to communication generally with local authorities.

Regulations, which came into operation on 1 August 2003, apply to local authority dealings with Members of the Oireachtas. As part of these arrangements, local authorities are required as a matter of course to supply or make available free of charge a range of documentation to Oireachtas Members who register their interest in receiving such information with the local authority. The range of information to be made available includes agendas, notices and minutes of local authority meetings, including committee meetings if so requested, the corporate plan, the local authority budget, draft and actual development plans, development contribution schemes, weekly lists of planning applications and decisions, draft and final by-laws and annual reports.

Most important, a local authority, in dealing with correspondence from a Member of the Oireachtas, is required to operate to equivalent systems, procedures and timeframes as apply for county, city or town councillors. Members of the Oireachtas may attend a meeting of a local authority or of its committees. In addition, managers are required to meet at least annually with local Oireachtas Members and thus provide an opportunity for an update on developments, and for any difficulties encountered to be raised and addressed. I do not have the regulations to hand but if Members are free to attend meetings by virtue of the regulations they must have access to council property and rooms, to answer one of the Deputy's specific questions.

The above is, of course, additional to normal and regular contacts between public representatives and local authority officials regarding particular problems or issues. Above all, it is an objective of local authorities to deal as expeditiously as possible with requests for access to information from Oireachtas Members. The Minister expects local authorities to facilitate parliamentary representatives, in the spirit and the letter of the regulations, in the timely provision of local authority documentation.

Officials at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government have just completed a review of the practical operation of these arrangements at local authority level. The Minister will study the findings with a view to issuing supplementary guidance to local authorities if required.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 30 June 2006.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 29 Jun 2006