Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 May 2014

Vol. 840 No. 2

Topical Issue Debate

Respite Care Services

I welcome the opportunity to raise the issue of disability services, residential and respite care services in particular. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, for attending in person to respond.

All the talk is about medical cards but qualification for residential respite care has never depended on a medical card. It has never been the constraint. There have been constraints, but they have been funding constraints rather than constraints associated with an income threshold. I believe the Minister made this point recently. One reason I raise this issue is that a constituent of mine who was recently seeking residential care for her son was informed by the HSE that a policy decision had been made to no longer offer residential care to children with an intellectual disability. Is this an actual policy decision? Most accept that it is preferable to care for disabled children at home, but sometimes this is not feasible. Sometimes there are family breakdowns that preclude it. There are children whose intellectual disabilities are so complex and whose behaviour is so challenging that it is almost impossible for their parents to manage. Caring for them can be much more challenging in some cases than caring for a child with a physical disability. Financial constraints aside, I would like to be sure there has been no policy decision to preclude children whose behaviour or family circumstances are such that their parents cannot cope, irrespective of the budgetary position. That is one problem I would like the Minister of State to address.

Another aspect concerns the fact that there have been cutbacks during the years, obviously since the recession. Circumstances have become more acute. In recent years one has been able to say virtually no new residential places have been made available. This, in turn, has put pressure on respite care places. Emergency beds that were kept for respite care use are now being taken by those in need of long-term care, perhaps owing to a death in the family, marriage breakdown or a variety of other reasons. As all of the respite care places have been taken, there is virtually no respite care service available. It is almost non-existent and certainly does not meet the demand. This is coupled with the absence of other supports in the community. The Minister has spoken about the need for more support in the community, but the very concept of respite care is to help parents to cope. This can work only if parents see that their children are making some progress as a result of other interventions available to them to ensure they can meet their potential. I refer to physiotherapy, speech therapy to enhance communication skills and occupational therapy to help individuals function socially in the family and the community. Nothing I am saying is a mystery to the Minister of State because I am sure he is aware that there is a chronic shortage of therapists and services in this area. This is putting considerable pressure on families and, ultimately, driving up the demand for residential care.

For years we have been talking about providing care in the community. The HSE is talking about introducing new implementation networks to try to provide a more seamless service and easier access to services for parents. It is a nightmare trying to gain access to services or even to learn what services are available. Eighty new therapy places have been sanctioned, but I do not know how many therapists have been recruited. To be honest, there are thousands of children awaiting a needs assessment in addition to thousands who have been assessed but who are not receiving a service. It is clear that this must be a priority in the upcoming budget. It is early in the year to be raising this issue, but the problem is acute. Bearing in mind that funding is not available for respite care and residential services, we must try to prioritise in the upcoming budget the provision of services in the community for children with intellectual disabilities.

I am thankful for the opportunity to outline to the Deputy the position on the matters raised by her.

Specialist disability services are provided in a variety of community and residential settings to enable children and adults to achieve their full potential, including living as independently as possible. Traditionally, the provision of a residential placement would follow a detailed assessment to establish other means of addressing needs rather than admission to residential care. There would be considerable communication between the HSE, the family or guardian of a service user, the service provider and the service user.

The number of children and adults benefiting from residential services in 2013 was 8,880. The target for 2014 is 8,884. Respite care occurs in a variety of settings, depending on the family's needs and available resources. It can be provided as out-of-home care, in-home care, home-to-home care, home support or family support. Respite care helps to prevent out-of-home placements, preserves the family unit and supports family stability.

There has been continued expansion of the availability of residential support, particularly planned or emergency centre-based respite services. A total of 5,798 people availed of a total of 243,260 bed nights from residential centre-based respite services in 2013. In 2014, 5,890 people are expected to benefit. In addition, between 2,000 and 2,500 people availed of non-centre-based respite care services, including holiday placement, host family respite care, overnight respite care in the home and summer camps.

In 2010 a working group carried out an overview of models of respite and residential care with host families in community settings to determine the viability of these models of service delivery for future development. The HSE is aware of the challenge in maintaining existing service levels. By working together, we can identity innovative ways to maximise resources to protect front-line services appropriately.

In 2013 we commenced a major reform programme implementing the recommendations made in the value for money and policy review and the move to a person-centred support model. Key steps this year include an additional investment of €14 million and 130 additional staff. Some €7 million of the moneys allocated are to provide places for approximately 1,200 young people leaving school or rehabilitative training. Some €3 million is to provide emergency placements, while a €4 million investment and 80 additional therapy staff will facilitate the rolling out of a new model of assessment and intervention to provide one clear referral pathway for all children, irrespective of their disability, where they live or the school they attend. There is a reconfiguration of existing resources and efficiencies valued at €5 million are being achieved.

Disability service provision is moving towards a community-based and inclusive model, rather than being institutional and segregated. The conclusions and recommendations made in the report on adult day services entitled, New Directions, and the report, Time to Move on from Congregated Settings - A Strategy for Community Inclusion, alongside the value for money and policy review, are helping us to achieve a more effective, person-centred disability service in line with international best practice. The radical change involves collaborative responsibility shared between the affected persons, their families and carers, a multiplicity of agencies, the Government and society as a whole.

I have listened carefully to what the Deputy has said and agree entirely with the points she raised. As to whether there is a specific catch-all policy in place against providing a residential place, I would be very surprised if that were so. I will certainly raise the matter with my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, just to be absolutely clear on the specific point the Deputy fairly raises. The Deputy has correctly pointed out that there are gaps, particularly in the community. I am very conscious of the position on primary care services also because the topic raised is related to it. The gaps in services in the community comprise a priority we have to address. The Deputy is correct to say it should be addressed in the context of the budget to be introduced later in the year.

I appreciate that it is realised major and radical change is needed in services, including the referral service. Ultimately, there must be services to which people can be referred. It is important to prioritise this issue.

Just to highlight the extent of how challenging and difficult it can be for families, in one case that was reported to me, the mother of a very disturbed teenage boy with an intellectual disability actually reported herself to the Child and Family Agency as a potential risk to her child. It highlights the measure of despair and desperation that any parent could feel that she felt she had to do this in search of services to help her and her family to cope.

We have all suffered in the recession - some more than others - and, hopefully, things will get better. For many of us, there will be a second chance and many people will recover, but for children with a disability, there will be no second chance. There is only a small window in their young lives where they will actually benefit from the therapies that could be made available to them. It is very important, even in these difficult times, that we prioritise this particular sector.

I again endorse what the Deputy has said. I believe we have achieved some positive change, even in the context of the financial constraints that exist. We are in a period of reform in terms of the structures and the configuration of these services but there are gaps that remain. The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, has done a very good job in terms of maintaining resources as best we can and, in fact, increasing the resources in this area, including the recruitment of new staff. It is an area to which we need to pay constant attention. Deputy Mitchell's contribution reminds us of its importance as an area of our health service which we need to continually prioritise and better resource in line with the improvements that undoubtedly have been made generally in the country in respect of the possibility for revenue. This is an area we would all agree is a priority.

Hospital Services

On most occasions that I speak in the House, I am addressing a problem but, today, I am addressing an opportunity. The Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, has stated on a number of occasions that he supports changing the way health care services are configured to improve delivery to patients who need the services. I believe there is a big opportunity presenting in regard to the provision of insulin pump therapy to those who need it in the north west. Type 1 diabetes mellitus is an autoimmune condition characterised by the destruction of beta cells in the pancreas, leading to an inability to produce insulin, resulting in raised blood glucose levels in children. Conventional treatment involves giving insulin injections anything from two to five times per day using an insulin pen device. Alternatively, it can be delivered using an insulin pump.

It is accepted worldwide that the pump therapy is the best treatment option for many children with type 1 diabetes. Insulin pump therapy can provide a child with a much improved quality of life, reduces the number of injections to be endured daily and can reduce the incidence of long-term complications arising, such as blindness, kidney failure and nerve damage. These long-term complications of current diabetic treatments are extremely difficult and expensive to deal with. International studies have shown that improved control of diabetes in children and adults can reduce the incidence of severe and costly complications arising by as much as 76%. There is also an immediate cost saving to our health services in that, if a child with type 1 diabetes has an illness, it tends to be more manageable at home if a child is using an insulin pump.

In summary, from a health and well-being perspective as well as from a short-term and long-term economic perspective, it is clear that insulin pump therapy is the way to go. This was recognised in the HSE expert advisory group report on diabetes. What is happening at present, however? At present, children in the north west who were referred for insulin pump treatment must go on a waiting list and eventually travel to Dublin for the treatment. This causes absenteeism from school, financial cost to their parents and disruption to the lives of the children and their parents, and they are the lucky ones. Because of the numbers seeking such treatment, many are never taken from the waiting list. This is not equity of access; this is discrimination based on location.

We do, however, have a big opportunity in the north west because Sligo Regional Hospital has a consultant paediatrician with a special interest and training in endocrinology who is willing to support insulin pump therapy, and there is a part-time paediatric diabetes nurse qualified to support pump therapy. The elements are all in place. All it needs is the political will of the Minister and the Government and a modest resource allocation, which would in time be saved many times over, to make it happen. Will this be done and, if not, why not?

I thank Deputy Colreavy for raising the issue of the appropriate provision of specialised therapies for patients with type 1 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes mellitus is a complex condition that has a profound impact on the quality of life of people living with the condition and on the health services as a whole. Those with chronic, non-communicable diseases, such as diabetes, are heavy users of the health services. It is estimated that three-quarters of Irish health care expenditure relates to such diseases. In practical terms, this translates to 80% of general practitioner consultations and 60% of hospital bed days. Non-communicable diseases also account for two-thirds of emergency medical admissions to hospitals.

The pressures placed on the Irish health care system by this burden cannot be sustained from a cost or hospital capacity perspective under current structures. The national clinical programmes, with their models of structured integrated care, are gradually shifting our health systems away from an "illness" model of health care and encouraging patients to actively participate in the management of their condition, by seeking to provide treatment at the lowest level of complexity that is safe, timely, effective and as close to home as possible. In this way, we can deliver better health outcomes, enhanced clinical decision making and more effective use of resources.

The implementation of the national integrated care diabetes programme on a phased basis is a key development in the management of diabetes care. I am sure the Deputy is very aware of the recent appointments of an integrated diabetes clinical nurse specialist, operating from Letterkenny General Hospital, and the recruitment of a paediatric diabetes nurse specialist at this site also, as well as the recent appointment of a consultant paediatrician with a special interest in endocrinology at Sligo Regional Hospital. However, not all patient care can be managed locally. The national clinical programme for diabetes states that people with type 1 diabetes or complex genetic or secondary causes of diabetes will have their diabetes-related care provided under the governance of the consultant-led diabetes multidisciplinary team in a secondary or tertiary care centre.

With specific reference to insulin pump therapy, I acknowledge that such therapy is the "gold standard" as it is less invasive, less painful and more accurate, particularly in the management of type 1 diabetes in children. I acknowledge also that the current requirement on children and their families to travel to Dublin from the north west for device monitoring and adjustment is onerous. However, the extension of this specialist therapy to other hospitals must be considered in the context of the recommendations of the clinical programme for diabetes, the expert advisory group report on diabetes, and the additional staffing and supporting resources which the establishment of additional insulin pump therapy centres would demand.

I am sure the Deputy will be pleased to note that these matters are under consideration by the Department of Health and the HSE in the context of considering the most appropriate service developments for the children of the north west and west, and that these ongoing considerations will also take into account potential appropriate cross-Border collaboration.

I thank the Minister of State but I am disappointed. I thought we would be able to say that, yes, this is something good and that we will work to achieve it. I am disappointed because, like many people in the west and the north west, when I hear words like "the matters are under consideration", it tends to scare me. This is because previous considerations of services to Sligo Regional Hospital resulted in reductions in the number of beds, failure to employ a mammographer, the removal of the mammography equipment, with no word about its replacement, reductions in front-line staff, reductions in and withdrawal of day services and non-replacement of critical front-line staff when they are on holidays, maternity leave or are sick. The most recent and frightening aspect is the leaked report that consideration is being given to the very future of maternity services at Sligo Regional Hospital.

I am not pleased to note that these matters are under consideration because if the outcome of these considerations had the same impact on Sligo Regional Hospital as previous HSE and Department of Health considerations of services at the hospital did, we will lose again.

I have made a strong case that this service should be provided and based in Sligo Regional Hospital and I am disappointed that the Minister of State has not said that it can and will be done.

I know the frustration Deputies often feel, which I often share, when they hear about something being under consideration but it is not always a cover for inactivity. In fact, it is something we are considering very carefully because the approach our health services take, particularly to chronic illnesses such as diabetes, will shape how we configure our health services more generally in the future because we simply will not be able to manage 21st-century illnesses like diabetes under the structures we have had to date.

It is more complex than the issue of what we do in our hospitals although I acknowledge that, as the Deputy said, well-equipped and properly configured hospitals are critical. However, they are not the full story. We must emphasise the importance of primary care, care in the community and very often self-care, particularly in respect of chronic illnesses. The Government and I have been doing so. Based on his contribution, I know the Deputy would agree with that. I understand what he says about Sligo General Hospital and I hope to be there next week and also at Letterkenny General Hospital.

Sligo Regional Hospital.

I am very aware of the importance of our hospitals, including our regional and teaching hospitals, but I also urge the Deputy and House to agree that our hospital-centred model of care, particularly in respect of chronic illnesses, must change. We will not be able to manage and sustain our health service unless it changes. I have listened carefully to what the Deputy said and he makes some good points. The issue is not whether insulin pump therapy is a good thing or idea because it clearly is. The issue is how we configure those services and facilities around our hospital services across the country and, most important, how we ensure we manage these major threats to our health and, ultimately, the funding possibilities for the health service in the community and primary care. They are all issues we must address.

Student Grant Scheme Administration

I appreciate the opportunity to raise the issue of what I consider to be a glaring flaw in our student grant system, namely, the omission of illness benefit from the list of qualifying payments for the special rate student grant. As the Minister for Education and Skills is aware, this issue came to my attention through the case of Robert Kells who is currently enrolled in second year in IT Carlow. He was refused the special rate grant.

I will quickly remind the Minister of State of the details of Robert's case and the difficulties he faces. The family income for 2012 was well under the qualifying limit. SUSI rejected the application on the grounds that the reckonable income of Michael Kells, Robert's father, did not include an eligible social welfare payment as of 31 December 2012. He was on a qualifying payment and was on a community employment scheme up until November 2012 when due to an accident, he had to go on illness benefit. Illness benefit is not on the qualifying list of payments as it currently stands. Every other payment is on the list but not illness benefit. When this was initially queried, I was told that illness benefit was a short-term payment and hence could not be included on this list. Michael Kells has been on this payment since 2012. The most recent reply to me from the Department of Education and Skills again insisted that illness benefit was a short-term payment but it seems particularly perverse when one paragraph later in that particular piece of correspondence, it was confirmed to me in the same letter that Mr. Kells had been on the payment for a period of 18 months. I think it fair to say that 18 months is not short-term in anyone's language.

That particular letter then suggested that Mr. Kells should apply for disability allowance or invalidity pension but it is not good enough to say that this is a matter for the Department of Social Protection, as appears to be the view of the Department of Education and Skills. Mr. Kells cannot apply for disability allowance until his PRSI credits run out. He is effectively being penalised for having gone to work, which is indefensible. If he had never worked a day in his life, he would be fine and his son would qualify without any question for the further education grant. Equally, as I am sure the Minister is aware, it has become increasingly difficult to secure an invalidity pension as the criteria are now quite rigidly and strictly enforced. That, of course, should be the case. To obtain a pension, Mr. Kells would have to seek a medical diagnosis which rules him out of the workforce for the rest of his working life. He does not want and should not be encouraged to do this. Nobody should be written off in that way.

There is a blatant flaw in the system. The Kells family are the victims of a very clear lacuna which must be corrected. I am sure that the Department has prepared the Minister of State with quite a detailed explanation of the rules and regulations as they apply in this particular instance. I already know what the rules are. We already know what the rules are. The problem is that the rules are inherently flawed. Nobody would suggest that two weeks on illness benefit should entitle anybody to a full rate third-level grant. That is not what I am saying but to dismiss the patently obvious fact that illness benefit is sometimes a much longer-term payment than anyone would countenance when they originally acquire an illness or problem is quite frankly ludicrous and an example of officiousness and red tape at its worst. A grave injustice has been done to the Kells family. If the Department does not act, this injustice will undoubtedly be repeated for other families. I will be very disappointed if the Minister of State and his Department cannot find a way to remedy this for the Kells family and the small number of families across the country who may be affected as a result of this flaw.

I thank Deputy Nash for raising this important matter. As the Deputy will be aware, the Minister for Education and Skills provided him with a detailed response on 19 February 2014 in respect of the application by the student referred to by the Deputy for support under the student grant scheme. I understand that the Deputy has submitted more recent correspondence and the Minister will respond to this.

The student in question qualified for the standard rate of maintenance grant plus a grant of €2,500 for the student contribution charge. The special rate of grant is a targeted access measure to provide specific interventions for the most disadvantaged students recognising their ongoing long-term dependence on welfare support. Under the student grant scheme, the qualifying criteria for the special rate of grant must include one of the listed eligible long-term payments by the Department of Social Protection or a long-term payment for a designated programme.

Illness benefit is considered to be a short-term social welfare payment and, therefore, it is not included as an eligible payment for the purposes of the special rate of maintenance grant. Where a person is incapacitated on a long-term basis, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Deputy when he describes 18 months as long-term because it certainly is, it is a matter for the Department of Social Protection to adjudicate on whether the person should be moved to a long-term payment. Eligibility for the special rate can be reviewed during the academic year if there is a permanent change in circumstances such as when an individual is awarded one of the eligible long-term payments for the special rate by the Department of Social Protection. Should the Department of Social Protection make a backdated award, this date is taken into account for the review. While a student may not be eligible for the special rate of maintenance grant in his or her first year of study, he or she may apply for the special rate in subsequent years of their study if that change in circumstances occurs.

I am aware of the all of the information provided by the Minister of State on the floor of the House this afternoon. While it addresses some issues and puts on record the situation as it applies in respect of illness benefit and its consideration in terms of the qualification criteria for the special rate grant, it is completely unsatisfactory. I am always reluctant to mention individual cases on the floor of this House but I do so with the express permission of the family because it illustrates a wider problem in terms of the operation of the SUSI system and the lack of discretion that is often applied by it. I know the Minister and Minister of State are fair men.

They have both displayed commitments to fairness during their political life. I am sure that, cutting through the density of the bureaucratic system and the administrative impediments, the Minister of State can see how the system as it is currently constituted lets down families such as the Kells family in this case, but if it is beyond the system's capacity to adapt and take into account the vagaries of this case then I would argue, hopefully convincingly, that SUSI should instead apply some common sense and imagination in dealing with difficult cases like this. I would imagine there are few other cases that bear the hallmarks of this case and, therefore, SUSI really should be encouraged to ensure that some discretion or flexibility is applied.

My warning is that for some young students, if changes are not made to the system for situations such as this that are not necessarily black and white, it could well mean the difference between staying in third level education and dropping out. I want to ensure that students have the kinds of opportunities to which we all should have access. That is my fundamental concern. I make a plea to the Minister to have this case reviewed and appeal to the better nature of the Minister of State and those of officials in the Department of Education and Skills and SUSI to review this and to make provision for Robert Kells to ensure he is permitted to finish his education. That is his ambition and we should be supporting him in it.

The report of the action group on access to third level education, which forensically analysed all of the routes to third level education and made detailed recommendations concerning the introduction of special rates of maintenance grant for disadvantaged students, concluded that the target group of those most in need was defined in terms of dependants of persons receiving long-term welfare payments. At present, illness benefit is considered to be a short-term social welfare payment and, as the Deputy mentioned, persons can be on that payment for a period as short as a couple of weeks. Therefore, it is not included as an eligible payment for the purpose of the special rate of maintenance grant.

It is not an issue of SUSI somehow being inflexible in how it applies the conditions of the scheme in the case of this particular family. It is an issue of how exactly the Department of Social Protection deals with those who find themselves moving long beyond that short-term illness benefit period, as the Deputy described, for up to 18 months, and how an individual can easily transition from illness benefit to a more long-term payment which automatically entitles him or her to this extra support from SUSI and the Department of Education and Skills. That is where the issue lies and perhaps the Deputy might engage with the Department of Social Protection to see how that conundrum can be resolved. As it stands, because the illness benefit is considered by this Department to be a short-term payment and not eligible for that special support, it is not proposed to depart from the existing arrangements for the determination of eligibility for the special rate of maintenance grant.

National Concert Hall

I am glad this matter was selected and I thank the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan, for coming in to deal with it.

As I understand it, differences of opinion on governance and board focus led to five members quitting the board of the National Concert Hall in early April. Mr. John McGrane, a senior figure at Ulster Bank and a member of the board, stated at the end of April that there was a disagreement on the board and some members chose to leave, saying:

It is as simple as that. That is their right and I respect them. Business will carry on.

The five members quit at the National Concert Hall's annual meeting in Dublin on 9 April following the circulation of a note to members of the board which was critical of the position of some unnamed members. The resignations are the culmination of a split in the board that has been evident throughout the past year. The note, drafted by Mr. McGrane, stated that there were "professional differences" with some on the board. A copy was also sent to Minister, Deputy Deenihan, who attended the annual meeting but who did not address Mr. McGrane's note, although he may wish to say otherwise now.

Those who resigned are Mr. Pat Heneghan, Mr. Bruce Arnold, Mr. Artemis Kent and Ms Patricia Slavin. The National Concert Hall board chairman, Ms Margaret Ryan, who had previously indicated her intention to stand down, also formally resigned at the meeting. The board is ordinarily comprised of 15 members, including the chairman. The board is understood to be split on the running of the National Concert Hall in general and on strategies for the future. The differences "were on board governance and board focus", Mr. McGrane stated. These were not related specifically to financial or artistic concerns. He stated, "They were purely about the focus of the board", and "It is my belief that the focus of the board should be on being positive and proactive in the best interests of the hall."

Those who resigned were appointed to five-year terms on the board in July 2011 by the Minister, with Ms Ryan being appointed to the chair last year. I note Ms Ryan was also appointed a director with Fáilte Ireland, while Mr. McGrane was appointed to the board of the concert hall by the Minister in 2011.

In a statement, the Department confirmed that the four ordinary members of the board who stepped down on 9 April had done so "due to differences on the board". The statement added:

The matters that were raised are matters for resolution by the board. The main purpose of the Minister's address to the board on April 9th was to inform the board that the Government has decided to place the National Concert Hall on a statutory footing.

It also confirmed a number of new appointments to the board, including new chairman, Mr. Gerry Kearney, a retired Secretary General of the then Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Mr. Kearney will take the position as chairman on an interim basis until the new legislation has been enacted. This development will trigger the establishment of a new board. Others appointments include Ms Maura McGrath, who has over 20 years' experience working at senior management and executive levels in the private and public sectors; Mr. Barney Whelan, director of communications and corporate affairs at An Post; Professor Mícheál Ó Súilleabháin, a pianist, composer and academic who holds the professorship of music at the Irish World Academy of Music and Dance at the University of Limerick; and Ms Rebecca Gageby, head of programmes and administration at the Royal Irish Academy.

The taxpayer, as the principal funder of the National Concert Hall, has a right to know what issues currently divide the board at the National Concert Hall, what strategies are in dispute, what opinion the Minister has on this dispute and whether taxpayers' best interests are served by this dispute.

I am conscious that the board and management of the concert hall have done a superb job over the years. The most recent annual report available suggests that approximately €2.4 million of subvention was available to the hall in 2012 and it returned a modest surplus of just over €100,000. It is deeply distressing to see an institution of State that has so much positive achievement to its credit be undermined as a result of board conflict at this time, and I suppose what we are doing today is providing the Minister with an opportunity to assure the country that efforts are afoot to ensure that whatever conflict exists can be resolved speedily.

I am happy to avail of this opportunity to address the House on the governance and future of the National Concert Hall. The National Concert Hall is one of our most important cultural institutions and one dearly beloved by both the Irish public and international visitors to Ireland. Over the course of 2013, more than 300,000 people attended almost 950 events at the National Concert Hall. This underlines the importance of the National Concert Hall as the most important venue in the State for musical performance of the highest standard.

As part of the process of reform at a range of institutions, including the national cultural institutions, the Government recently considered the governance position at the National Concert Hall. Since establishment in 1981, the National Concert Hall has operated as a company limited by guarantee. On 25 February 2014 the Government approved my proposal to place the National Concert Hall on a statutory footing, similar to other national cultural institutions. I informed the board of the National Concert Hall of this development when I addressed the board on Wednesday, 9 April.

Since then, the Government has also approved the draft heads of a Bill to place the National Concert Hall on this statutory basis, and legislative drafting work in relation to this will be prioritised. The draft heads of Bill on this proposal will shortly be submitted to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht for parliamentary scrutiny.

The decision to place the National Concert Hall on a statutory footing mirrors similar decisions taken by the Government last year in respect of the Irish Museum of Modern Art, IMMA, which also operated as a company limited by guarantee since establishment.

This legislation is very important for a number of reasons, chief among them being that the next board of the National Concert Hall will have absolute clarity in respect of the position on all governance and operational issues at the National Concert Hall.

As a statutory body, and in line with good governance, the NCH will be required to prepare and adopt a statement of strategy, submit progress reports, and will also be required to prepare an annual business plan, to be submitted as appropriate to the Minister and the Oireachtas. This is in common with the changes being proposed for other national cultural institutions.

As a statutory body, the National Concert Hall will have enhanced capacity to engage in fund-raising. This again is common to other national cultural institutions which are already established as statutory bodies and which have strong fund-raising programmes.

To prepare for the change in governance arrangements at the National Concert Hall, I have made a number of changes to the board. Mr. Kieran Tobin was chair until April 2013, at which point he stepped down from the role at that time for personal reasons. He has decided not to resume the position of chair, but will remain on the board to help in the development of the National Concert Hall in the period ahead.

Ms Margaret Ryan took on the role of chair in April 2013 to replace Mr. Tobin. This was always intended to be for a short term. She has stepped down from the board of the National Concert Hall to focus entirely on her role with Fáilte Ireland. The Government has since approved my proposal to appoint a new chair to the board of the National Concert Hall.

This new chair is Mr. Gerry Kearney, who is the retired Secretary General of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Mr. Kearney will take the position as chair, with no fee payable, on an interim basis until the new legislation has been enacted.

I have also appointed four new board members to replace the board members who stepped down on 9 April: Ms Maura McGrath has over 20 years' experience working at senior management and executive levels in the private and public sectors, and also not-for-profit organisations in Ireland and abroad; Mr. Barney Whelan is director of communications and corporate affairs at An Post; Mr. Mícheál Ó Súilleabháin is a pianist, composer, recording artist and academic, who holds the professorship of music at the Irish World Music Academy of Music and Dance based at the University of Limerick; and, Ms Rebecca Gageby is head of programmes and administration at the Royal Irish Academy.

The coming period will be one of change at the National Concert Hall. The legislative reforms that we have planned for this institution will greatly enhance it for performers, staff and the public who visit the National Concert Hall each year. I am very positive about the future of this institution. I want to take this opportunity to thank the board of the National Concert Hall for its help and support in making this Ireland's leading venue for the highest standards in musical performance.

The Minister and I have both put on record our admiration for the management and board of the National Concert Hall, and we recognise their achievements over the years. However, in his response the Minister has not addressed the reason for the resignation of the five board members. It is not every day of the week that five members of the board of a national institution resign. Are they resigning because of the legislation the Minister is proposing? Do they disagree fundamentally with that or are there other reasons? Are there other factors in terms of the governance of the National Concert Hall? Do they concern the focus of the board? That is what we have been given to believe by a resigning member of the board who has spoken out to give the public some information on what has been going on.

With all due respect, the Minister has given us no new information on the dispute and the problem that exists. He simply told us who is there and who will replace those who have left. We want to know what has been the problem with this institution which, in 2012, received €2.4 million of public money. It has a record of serious achievement in the performances it has mounted over the years. It is an institution that has the respect of the Irish people, as well as many international performers, and overseas visitors who have come here to attend performances in the National Concert Hall.

Now, however, we see there is a level of disarray among the board members. Why is that happening? The Minister should tell us because the Irish people want to know.

At this moment in time, there is certainly no disarray among the board members. I have full confidence that they will fulfil their duties. These people are doing the work pro bono, as did the previous directors, so there is no cost to the taxpayer. The new chairman is also doing the job pro bono. The National Concert Hall is operating very successfully.

At this stage, the reason for the disagreement has been outlined in various Sunday and weekday newspapers, so it is fairly well known. There were disagreements among members which focused primarily on a fund-raising initiative in America at that particular time which, I understand, could have cost the National Concert Hall €1.5 million. What was thought to be a philanthropic arrangement resulted in a commercial arrangement. That just could not be allowed to happen, and it was not allowed to happen either by myself or by the board. Members were not happy with that arrangement and as a result they stepped down because of it. That will not happen now.

I am providing for new legislation that will come before this House shortly and which will clarify the position. Hopefully, the Deputy will facilitate that legislation when it comes before us so that we can get it through the House quite quickly. In that way, we can clarify the role and function of the board and put it on a statutory basis like other boards.

The new board is taking on this responsibility and will move it on to a statutory basis. The National Concert Hall will continue to function successfully in future, as it has done in the past. The contribution by the taxpayer is about 37% of its total funding.

Barr
Roinn