Deputies Willie Penrose, Maureen O'Sullivan and Clare Daly are raising this matter. They will have four minutes in total to make an initial statement and the Minister or Minister of State has four minutes to reply.
Topical Issue Debate
Defined Benefit Pension Schemes
I thought we had two minutes each.
Acting Chairman, in fairness, we should have two minutes each.
In fairness, three of us are sharing time. That allocation of time is incorrect.
I have been told the new Standing Orders were introduced today and I will have to go by those.
That is a disgrace.
In fairness, the allocation has always been two minutes when more than one Deputy raises the same issue.
The Acting Chairman can extend the time allocation.
That will have to be done for today. Did Deputy Crowe and his colleagues know that the allocation was four minutes regardless of the number of Deputies who raise the same issue?
I can see the Deputies are not very happy. I am prepared to give the Deputies two minutes each and show them good discretion today. Is that okay with the Minister of State?
The Acting Chairman is a good country man.
Thank you, Deputy Penrose.
I am glad to have an opportunity, along with my colleagues, to raise an issue concerning the impact of the decision by the Central Remedial Clinic, CRC, board to terminate the Irish Pensions Trust, IPT, pension with immediate effect for the employees of CRC. I want to state that I communicated by letter on 2 June 2016 with the chief executive officer, CEO, the chief financial officer, CFO, the chairperson of the board and the human resources, HR, manager on this issue in a comprehensive fashion on behalf of the employees. I have not even received the courtesy of an acknowledgement of or a reply to the same correspondence. That is symptomatic of the way the employees, who were and are members of this defined benefit scheme, were treated in recent weeks by their employer. I do not believe the most right wing employer would be so dismissive and uncaring and I will not tolerate any body or institution behaving in such a fashion and acting in blatant disregard of the interests of their valuable employees, past and present.
I was motivated by this glaring disregard to wonder aloud who was in place and whose responsibility it was to protect, promote and advocate for the interests of workers when they were members of the IPT scheme. As I said, the pension scheme was abruptly terminated with immediate effect as and from Wednesday, 18 May 2016 without leave or notice to the relevant staff or any appropriate consultation with the said staff, most of whom have given long years of service. It is notable that, as far as I am aware, nobody has been admitted into the scheme since 2002 and, therefore, there is a finite and definite number of people involved, with only 47 active members of staff currently in the IPT pension, and about 50 deferred and 50 retired members of the scheme, who have been impacted by this unilateral decision.
What I find disturbing is that the CRC is, for the most part, a publicly funded institution whereby employees are subject to contractual arrangements which set out their terms and conditions of employment. In any event, in any employment situation at least one month's notice should be given to the affected personnel whereby any change in their terms and conditions are contemplated.
As I understand it, this scheme has been in existence since 1975. There was not any question about its viability in 2011 but like all defined benefit, DB, schemes, it did not meet the minimum funding standard required that was introduced. However, the staff played a very significant role in ensuring its continued viability and sustainability.
I have to ask the Deputy to conclude.
In recent years they doubled their contribution from 5% to 10% of their wages, and that was accepted by the Pensions Board in February 2012. It is pushing matters to say that this decision to close the scheme was taken just prior to the staff being informed. I have no doubt there was a great deal of evaluation and assessment carried out by the professionals involved. That is why I believe the way the staff were treated is disgraceful. I trust the Minister will deal with this in a comprehensive fashion.
I thank the Deputy for his co-operation.
For me, the central issue in this matter is that employees were paying into a pension plan for many years. Initially the cost was 5% of their salary and since 2011 it has been 10% of their salary. That was paid in good faith with the belief they would have a pension when they retired. They have now been told that they will not have a pension and we can all imagine how they must be feeling. I am thinking about the human face of this. Some of these people have given 20, 30 and 40 years of faithful, loyal service to the CRC and to the very significant work that it does.
The affected staff were called to a meeting, they had no idea of the agenda and then they were given the catastrophic news about their pensions. My understanding is that there was no formal communication from the CRC or the trustee to the staff. One of the aspects is about the process. It is the complete opposite of what constitutes good practice in a wind-up; in fact, it is an example of bad practice, poor management, a very fast process and no consultation. There is also an aspect of a conflict of interest and of questions around the trustee, their fitness to practise as a trustee and whether they undertook the mandatory training and whether the staff even know who they were. It is appalling the way that the CRC staff have been kept out of the loop on this. The CRC was working away with legal advice, but the affected staff need access to that professional advice, legal and actuarial. I ask that the CRC would contribute to and support them in getting that advice.
Why did management make the decision to close the scheme? On what advice did it make that decision? Why were the staff not allowed to see that advice? It is an appalling example of very poor employer-employee relationships. All the staff have been left very much high and dry at this stage. I thought the CRC would be much more careful about this in view of the other controversies that have surrounded it in recent times.
The Deputy has finished right on time.
There is something incredibly rotten around this.
It has the potential to put other CRC controversies into the shade. Overnight, unilaterally and without warning, a pension scheme was shut down that loyal staff members had paid into all their working lives. Subsequent to that decision, those staff members have been unable to meet the members of the board of the CRC who have no problem going to a gala dinner in the Burlington tonight. It is absolutely reprehensible.
As other Deputies have said, the CRC plan in 2011, as with other defined benefits schemes, did not meet the minimum funding standard requirements. On 24 March 2014, the CRC's actuary, Mercer, declared that the funding proposal was on track to meet the minimum standard by next year. If the CRC plan was on track in 2014, why was it closed down in such a hurry by the CRC board with effect from 18 May 2016? Can the Minister answer that? What went wrong between March 2014 and May 2016? Did Mercer give poor financial advice which led to the scheme closing given that contributions increased and a de-risking strategy was put in place?
There are conflicts of interests at the heart of this. Mercer appears on all sides of the equation in this. The company provides administration, actuarial services and consultancy advice to the CRC meanwhile the so-called independent trustee of the plan is the Irish Pension Trust, which is owned by Mercer. It is an absolutely clear-cut case of a conflict of interest. Not only that, it has completely been missed that it appears an integrated, defined-benefit pension scheme with a contribution rate of 35% could not support the continuance of entitlements under the plan. How in God's name can that be? It does not add up. The scheme must be reinstated until such time as comprehensive investigations around this are held. I urge the Minister to secure that.
I thank the three Deputies for their co-operation.
I thank the three Deputies for raising this matter which I take today on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy Simon Harris. The Central Remedial Clinic, CRC, is funded by the Health Service Executive under section 38 of the Health Act 2004. Therefore, the CRC is accountable in the first instance to the HSE in relation to pay and superannuation matters. The CRC employs approximately 290 people, of whom approximately 45 are members of a privately funded pension plan operated by the trustee, the Irish Pensions Trust. It is important to explain at the outset that neither the Department of Health nor the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has any role or function in relation to the operation of this funded pension plan which was established some decades ago by the CRC.
Following an extraordinary meeting on 17 May, the board of the CRC decided to cease contributions to the private pension plan. The CRC then issued notice of termination of contributions to the trustee, Irish Pensions Trust Limited. The notice provided that with effect from 18 May 2016, the CRC was terminating its liability to contribute to the plan. Neither the Minister, Deputy Harris, nor the Department had any advance notice from the CRC of its intention to cease contributions to the pension plan. The Department of Health was informed of the CRC decision on 18 May. It is regrettable that the CRC took a decision to cease contributions to the scheme without first consulting with the employees concerned and the HSE. In fact, the Department had previously highlighted to the CRC that any proposal in relation to any pay or pension matter must first be submitted to the HSE. It was also explained to the CRC that Department of Public Expenditure and Reform sanction would be required for any CRC proposal.
Following receipt of information from the CRC on the winding up of the scheme, the CRC was requested as a matter of urgency to prepare viable alternative proposals in conjunction with the HSE. The HSE has today confirmed that it is working with the CRC to find a viable solution in relation to the employees concerned but that as yet, a detailed business case has not been submitted by the CRC. The Minister assures the House that once a detailed proposal is received by the Department, it will be examined as a matter or urgency. The proposal will be considered in conjunction with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, which is responsible for the implementation of Government policy in relation to public service pensions. The Minister and I ask the CRC to work as quickly as possible with the HSE to resolve this situation which has left the employees concerned in a most difficult position.
What makes us all very suspicious is that the scheme has €28.5 million in assets and €30.5 million in liabilities, which is a €2 million deficit. It could easily be made up. The Minister of State is no doubt aware that some schemes may have fallen into deficit due to various oscillation of equities and the bond market but these have all recovered. What is perplexing is that there was no consultation with staff to allow them to evaluate this issue and to consider whether to seek further advice by hiring their own actuary, paid for by CRC, to examine the situation and, indeed, whether they might contemplate the scheme remaining in existence by opting to either take reduced benefits or increase their contributions as they had already done to try to maintain existing benefits. It occurred within a couple of weeks of the receipt of the actuarial report. Pursuant to the Pensions Act 1990, it seems to me that the trustees would have had approximately nine months to submit a funding plan and it is clear that over a period of time, the scheme could be got back on track.
Given the section 38 funding, it is time the trustees and the management of the CRC were called before the new Joint Committee on Public Expenditure and Reform and the Committee of Public Accounts to explain why they acted in such a fast fashion. As Deputy Daly asked, why, given that an assurance was given on 24 March 2014 that the pension scheme was on track, did it collapse on 18 May 2016? I ask the Minister to reinstate the scheme as it was until those issues pertaining to the winding up of the scheme are addressed and investigated, including the roles of all the professionals involved at all levels in respect of the operation of the scheme.
Were the employer's contributions paid through HSE funding? If so, that is public funding and there is an accountability issue to address. The CRC has shown its disdain for its employees as well as for the relevant Departments and the HSE. The employees feel very much abandoned and crushed in respect of this mess which is not of their making. They are the workers who had to face the public disappointment, disdain and disgust over the other controversies involving the CRC and this is what they are left with now. The affected staff should get the full value of their pensions. I note what the Minister of State said and that it is being treated as a matter of urgency but my question is how anyone can trust the CRC given its behaviour to date on this and other issues. I seek the Minister of State's assurance that this is not going to go off the agenda now that the Topical Issue has been taken and that the CRC will be given a timeframe in which to come back to the Department.
The Minister says it is regrettable that the CRC made this decision. I call it bizarre, sinister and highly suspect. It just does not add up. If our concern is to have any meaning whatsoever, the only instruction we should be issuing to the CRC is to reinstate the scheme until comprehensive issues involving the decision to wind it up can be investigated. It does not add up. If one looks at the scheme, it was very well funded. A deficit of €2 million is very little. There were breaches of the Pensions Act. The trustees could have had and lawfully did have nine months to come up with an alternative funding plan. As such, why was a decision taken 18 days after the actuarial assessment? There are serious questions about some of the assumptions applied by Mercer in relation to the scheme. The report which was given to the staff has been redacted in many parts so that we cannot even have an accurate assessment of the actuarial advice that was given. There seems to have been bizarre and questionable behaviour and I urge the Minister to intervene to hold people to account and not just to look at alternatives now. He should halt it, get it back to where it was and hold people to account.
I thank the Deputies for co-operating with me under the new rules. I appreciate it.
I thank my colleagues for their questions. I will address each specifically. I accept that Deputy Penrose received no acknowledgement. It was a disgrace as far as I am concerned and I will follow up on the issue. Regarding Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan's points on good faith, the great service of the staff and accountability, I have also raised these issues and will discuss them again later. Deputy Clare Daly mentioned the idea of shutting down on a loyal workforce. I am familiar with the staff of the Central Remedial Clinic, CRC. I have made my views known to the board's chairperson many times. Even though this matter is not necessarily in my remit, I have met some of the staff and heard their case. Many of their views have been expressed in the Chamber.
Other issues exist. For example, this raises serious questions of financial and corporate governance. I have concerns in that regard. The majority of the staff are unaffected but I am concerned about the 47 individuals on whom this situation will impact.
I will be answering a question on an issue that I have been addressing in recent weeks, namely, the level of monitoring of this matter. Before yesterday, there was no contact with the HSE since the actuaries began their review. I am demanding answers of the HSE and the CRC as to why there was no communication from either side during this period and what level of monitoring was conducted. Both knew that the problem existed.
The CRC does not have unilateral authority to move employees onto the single public service pension scheme. This matter must be discussed with the HSE. The pension scheme had a serious and escalating gap and it is incredible that such a point was reached with so little information being passed to the HSE or the Minister. I want to see a speedy solution. I am asking the CRC to proceed with its talks with the HSE on this matter and am demanding a full report on the outcome of whatever meetings are held so that we can determine how to proceed in the best interests of the taxpayers and the 47 people affected.
Services for People with Disabilities
I congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment. His personal commitment is clear and exceptional in terms of his membership of the Oireachtas. He has continuously articulated the needs of people with disabilities and I hope that he will give a positive response to this important programme, which works effectively and efficiently in County Louth.
People with disabilities generally have lower skill and qualification levels than the population at large. Any programme, facility or involvement is important and positive in terms of the outcomes for those involved. One such initiative is the Walkinstown Association for People with an Intellectual Disability providing equal employment routes, WALK PEER, programme. It will continue operating in County Louth until July. More than 119 people covering many types of disability and a broad spectrum of diagnoses were involved, including a number with dual or multiple diagnoses. Some 49% of its participants had an intellectual disability and almost one fifth had a learning disability, for example, struggling with basic literary skills as a result of dyspraxia. Other conditions, including autism, physical or sensory disabilities, accounted for 11%, mental health problems accounted for 6% and 3% of participants had an acquired brain injury.
This programme achieved great success for those with disabilities and enriched the participants greatly. It involved their families, who strongly supported it, employers, the community and schools. The schools that were involved over a two-year period included the Drogheda Institute of Further Education, DIFE, the Dundalk Institute of Technology, the Ó Fiaich Institute of Further Education, St. Mary's College, St. Vincent's secondary school and the volunteer centre in County Louth. No programme is perfect but this one was independently assessed. Its participants, their families, schools and employers were communicated with and gave very positive responses.
The WALK PEER initiative's funding stopped in 2015 but the programme continued because of the support of private donors. By any benchmark, it is successful and is what the people what. The community is behind it but there is a problem in that bureaucracy is not continuing its funding. Initially, this was one of 14 programmes in the region. Last year, I attended meetings in Castlebellingham that were packed in support of it. We continue to receive representations from WALK PEER's participants, their families and everyone else.
Will the Minister of State meet the programme group urgently? Those involved are deeply committed and are concerned about its future. There is an integrity in their approach and support. I will be happy to respond following the Minister of State's answer.
I thank the Deputy for his-----
Brevity.
-----few words.
I thank Deputy O'Dowd for his best wishes on my new portfolio.
The PEER project was one of 14 disability activation projects, DACTs, in the Border, midlands and west region that were jointly funded by the European Social Fund, ESF, and the Department of Social Protection from the end of 2012 to April 2015. The project was delivered by WALK. The objective of the DACT programme was to explore a variety of routes towards ensuring that people with disabilities were enabled to avail of progression, education and development opportunities within the world of work.
The WALK PEER project provided an early intervention customised employment support service for its participants to access employment and economic activity. The target group was young people with disabilities aged 16 to 24 years, including those with a physical disability, sensory impairment, a mental health problem, challenging behaviours, a medical condition and-or autism.
I understand that the WALK PEER project supported a total of 119 participants over the period that it was funded by the Department and the ESF. The total number of participants on the DACT programme across the 14 projects was 2,079. In terms of progression outcomes, 49 WALK PEER participants progressed to further education and 21 took up employment. Of these, 12 individuals remained in economic activity - education or employment - after 12 months.
A key criterion applied when selecting projects was that the learning from this activity should be capable, where appropriate, of being mainstreamed in the future. Therefore, it is important to note that the projects were never intended to become ongoing service delivery organisations in their own right no matter how successful the projects might have been. It was on this basis that each of the DACT projects was awarded funding with a specified end date of 30 April 2015. In the closure phase of the programme, however, it was recognised by the Department that there would be a number of people still actively participating on some of the DACT projects, so a decision was made to provide funding to seven of the projects, including WALK PEER, for a short period to the end of July 2015. This funding was provided so as to allow projects to ensure that their participants finished their involvement in a framed manner. I understand that the WALK PEER project was subsequently successful in obtaining additional funding from a private sector organisation and that this source of support will terminate in July 2016.
Given the origin and history of the project as set out, there is no provision in the Department of Social Protection's Estimates to provide further funding to this project. The Department's mainstream work supports for people with disabilities focus on supporting people in the context of jobs in an open labour market. This is the official departmental response but I will respond in more detail to the concerns raised by Deputy O'Dowd.
It certainly is the official departmental response. As far as I am concerned, it is bureaucracy and does not make sense at all. This programme clearly works. It shines a light into to the lives of the participants, their families and their community. It has the full support of the schools, employers and everybody concerned. Why is it that something that is successful and that is wanted by everyone involved is hammered by the bureaucracy?
I want the Minister of State to meet the group. It is crucial that he do so. It is crucial that we uphold success and support the people succeeding in this area. According to the very words of the Minister of State, the programme is a success. When the Government funding stopped, funding was obtained from a private sector source to keep the programme going. It is a success and we should be replicating and supporting programmes that actually work.
I understand the actual cost per participant to the wonderful Department is approximately €5,000. There is another Minister present, Deputy Francis Fitzgerald, who spends - properly so - approximately €250,000 per individual on children who are in trouble with the law and in care. They need it. In the case of the programme I am raising, a paltry sum of €5,000 per individual is not being spent. Why is it that when a programme works, we say "No"? Why is the bureaucracy getting away with it? Why did the Department give the Minister of State that gobbledygook of an answer to give today? It is insulting to the participants and their families. I have never met a group more committed, dedicated and articulate and with more support on an issue. I ask the Minister of State to respond to and meet that group and sit down with officials from the Department. He is the person in charge; he is the Minister of State. The bureaucracy must do what it is told but it must always replicate and support success. That is absolutely critical in this day and age as part of our comprehensive employment strategy for people with disabilities. Either it means nothing or it means something. The Minister of State is the man to make the difference and I hope his reply will.
I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by Deputy O’Dowd. My view on this is that the amount of money being spent, namely, €5,000 per person per year, contrasts with the huge sums of being spent in other areas. The answer to the Deputy’s question is that I will strongly take on board the views he has raised today. Other colleagues, such as Deputy Gerry Adams, raised this matter recently also.
On the broader issue of disabilities, I strongly agree that we need to invest in the services. Disability services were severely slashed over the past six or seven years. I am trying to address that at present. Last week, I announced in the region of €31 million for school leavers and various worthwhile projects.
We have to be seen to be supporting people with disabilities and acting in regard to supported employment. Supported employment is completely different from the circumstances of somebody with an illness who can re-enter the workforce on recovery. The reality is that within the intellectual disability sector, we need supported employment. Therefore, I agree with Deputy O’Dowd on the issue of bureaucracy.
Over the past couple of weeks, I have raised this matter with my Cabinet colleagues and I told them we need to react. It is not just a matter for the Minister of State responsible for disabilities to talk about the rights of people with disability. It is a matter for every single Minister.
On the question as to whether I will meet the families, I absolutely will do so. I will be honoured to meet them. I had a few rows behind the scenes with my officials.
Good. Have more.
I do not accept their answer. I will be fighting for those concerned and I commit to doing my best. We need to ensure the Department of Social Protection faces the reality. It cannot just run away from a particular project if it is very successful. I will be fighting and arguing with my Cabinet colleagues on this project.
Last Saturday, I was at an Inclusion Ireland conference in the Gibson Hotel. I met some of those involved in the WALK PEER programme and they convinced me. I also met other people outside the project and asked them directly whether it was credible. Every one of them said “Yes”. My answer is that I will commit to doing my best on this.
Well done.
Services for People with Disabilities
I am sharing my time Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett.
One reason I submitted this topic is that I, along with other Deputies, received a number of e-mails yesterday on St. Augustine's special needs school, run by St. John of God Community Services Limited. As evident in the discussion on WALK PEER, we are seeing services being pulled from people with disabilities. In the case I wish to raise, a number of children are seeing their services go. St. John of God has decided not to continue with the service. It is saying demand for residential services has decreased. It does not say demand is gone and that the service is not needed anymore or that there is no one using it but rather it is just saying demand has decreased. Therefore, why is the provider pulling the service when there are still people using it?
The vocational education services are to be withdrawn from the school from the beginning of September 2018. The houses - five in total - adjacent to the school are to be withdrawn from the children and are to be no longer available to assist in teaching independent living skills. That is from the end of this school year, which is effectively immediately. More than 25 members of staff are to be pulled out of the school and reallocated or reassigned within the St. John of God organisation.
This must not be allowed to happen. It is up to the Minister of State to intervene, particularly in respect of the disability sector. A parents' group has been set up and it has had contact with the Minister of State. He was to get back to it yesterday, according to a letter that was sent. I was informed a meeting was to take place with the Minister of State responsible for disabilities, Deputy Finian McGrath, who it was said would be more than sympathetic to the group's plight. The group expected an update on Monday, 13 June. What has happened? Has the Minister of State replied to the group?
Whatever about St. John of God making this decision, I appeal to the Minister of State to intervene. Alternatively, the HSE should intervene to ensure the services are retained in the school.
I attended the public meeting organised by the parents of 162 children in St. Augustine's special school two weeks ago. It was an incredibly emotional, distressing and angry meeting of parents of children with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities who, incredibly, had letters put into their schoolbags by St. John of God telling them the vocational services that are the critical component of this special school are to be removed completely over the next three years, starting in the summer and in September. The services are to be phased out.
There are 27 members of staff providing services that give meaning to the commitment in the programme for Government to give support to young people with disabilities in gaining access to independent living and education and in having an equal opportunity in life. The removal of the services is unconscionable. The reason almost all the parents had sent their children to St. Augustine's is precisely because of the vocational services that were provided there, which included all sorts of training for life supports and programmes. Staff included speech and language therapists, psychologists and social workers. All of these services are to go and families are absolutely devastated. We cannot get a straight answer from St. John of God. I want to know the extent to which this is the decision of the HSE or St. John of God. Whichever it is, it is absolutely unacceptable and has to be reversed. It will damage the future prospects of a vulnerable group of children, in direct contradiction of the Government’s commitment to increase support, particularly for young people, and to give them a chance so they will not have to depend on adult services. All the parents testify to the fact that the children are flourishing in the school.
If the cuts are not reversed, the children will be knocked back and into further dependency on adult services and their life chances undermined and ruined.
I thank Deputies Joan Collins and Richard Boyd Barrett for raising this issue. I assure them the Government is committed to the provision and development of services for children with special needs and improving their access to therapy services. In recent years significant resources have been invested by the health sector in services for children with disabilities.
The Health Service Executive has recognised that early intervention services and services for school-aged children with disabilities need to be standardised. To this end, a major reconfiguration of therapy resources for children with disabilities aged up to 18 years is under way. The HSE's national programme for progressing disability services for children and young people aged up to 18 years aims to bring about equity of access to disability services and consistency of service delivery, with a clear pathway for children with disabilities and their families to services, regardless of where they live, what school the child attends or the nature of the individual child's difficulties. There is also a greater emphasis on the health and education sectors working more closely together in supporting children with special needs to achieve their potential.
Since 2014, the roll-out of the progressing disability services for children and young people programme has entailed targeted investment of €14 million and the provision of 275 additional therapy staff to increase services for children with all disabilities. Reconfiguration of disability services in line with the programme is under way in the HSE Dún Laoghaire area where St. Augustine's special school is located. This area has received a total of 13 new therapy posts to assist in implementing the new model.
St. Augustine's special school in Blackrock, County Dublin was established by the St. John of God Order in the 1930s as a traditional boarding school for boys with a mild learning disability. Students from all over Ireland boarded at the school which provided a range of educational and residential services unavailable at the time in the child's community. In recent times services have been developed which ensure children can access special education while remaining in their family home. More and more families are choosing to have their child attend a mainstream school. As a result, demand for residential services has dropped significantly in the past ten years, from 36 to two pupils recently.
The Department of Education and Skills provides the funding for St. Augustine's special school. I understand the National Council for Special Education will allocate 22 teachers for the 2016-17 school year. The number of special needs assistants, SNAs, allocated to the school for the coming school year will be 28, which means that there has been no reduction in the number of SNA posts or special school teachers. St. Augustine's special school will continue to provide education and services for its pupils. However, I understand there will be changes in the services currently funded by St. John of God community services. For historical reasons, St. John of God community services fund some additional programmes in St. Augustine's special school, including the residential service and a vocational development programme. As stated previously, demand for residential services has declined during the years and in the years before special needs assistants were available through the Department of Education and Skills. While the vocational development programme provided vital support for pupils in the school, there are now 28 special needs assistants for 162 students in the school. In addition, there are ever-increasing and competing demands on resources, including compliance with national regulations.
Against this backdrop, I am informed that the board of directors of St. John of God community services has taken the decision to reallocate resources from St. Augustine's special school to other parts of its service. This will involve phasing out funding for residential, vocational and extended day services in the next three years. I understand this type of change can be difficult for the children and families concerned. As Deputy Joan Collins stated, I recently met a group of parents who voiced their strong concerns on several matters and I raised these concerns with the HSE and my Cabinet colleagues on their behalf.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. The key issue, as he noted and the letter from St. John of God community services states, is that demand for residential services in St. Augustine's special school has decreased. Nevertheless, regardless of whether only two or three children are involved, they should be facilitated through the provision of services. It is crucial that disabled children and their families do not find themselves having to fight for services. They must feel comfortable that wraparound services are being provided in school. I urge the Minister of State to intervene with St. John of God community services to ensure it maintains residential services for current and future students. While I accept the point he makes about special needs assistants, it is important that children using residential services are able to continue using these services.
While I welcome the Minister of State's willingness to meet the affected parents, the reply is the same bureaucratic answer we are getting from St. John of God community services. Special needs assistants are not a replacement for residential services. The whole point of the school was that it provided vocational supports, which are not provided by special needs assistants who provide support with the mainstream academic curriculum. That is not the point of St. Augustine's special school. All of the parents stated in the strongest possible terms that the reason they sent their children to the school was its vocational aspect, in other words, the training for life provided by the staff employed by the Health Service Executive, as opposed to staff employed by the Department. The parents want this service retained. They have been robbed of the basis on which they sent their children to the school. All of them made it clear that their children would have been eaten up - that is how they put it - in mainstream school, whereas they were flourishing in St. Augustine's special school. It is not acceptable that all of the things that have helped them to flourish and are giving them the opportunity to participate equally in life will be lost under the plan. I hate the word "streamlining" because it is always a euphemism for cutting and scaling down rather than scaling up. Any badly needed improvement in other services in Dún Laoghaire should not be made at the expense of vulnerable children in St. Augustine's special school. New services must be additional and not result in services being taken away from young children in the school.
I thank my colleagues for their contributions. It is important that people be made aware that funding of approximately €110 million was provided for St. John of God community services in 2016. This included €67 million for services in the Dublin area, which include the services provided in Blackrock. St. John of God community services receive the second largest amount of funding of all disability service providers in the State. As I indicated, I met a group of parents with children in St. Augustine's special school and I will relay their views. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett referred to letters being given to children to take home in their schoolbags. That was an appalling decision by the service provider. The key issue is vocational support and speech and language services. While I have started communicating on this issue, I will communicate directly on the impact on the families in question. We must ensure all children with disabilities receive the services they need. The organisation in question has a responsibility to act on this matter. However, the Health Service Executive and the Minister cannot be blamed because the board of directors made the relevant decision and handled the matter very badly.
Northern Ireland
The report of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland on the Loughinisland killings outlines clearly the damning and devastating truth that the police force was guilty of engaging in significant collusion in sectarian mass murder on the fateful night of 18 June 1994. The report contains details that are deeply disturbing and expose for all of us, once again, a dark chapter in Northern Ireland's history.
The families of those six men who were ruthlessly gunned down finally have the truth but they do not have justice. We learned from the report that police officers missed investigative opportunities and destroyed evidence. It concludes that there was collusion between some police officers and loyalist paramilitaries. This report reminds us once again of the desperate and unacceptable attitudes that prevailed within elements of policing and other state forces in Northern Ireland during that era. We now have the truth. Collusion was a factor in the murder of six innocent men in Loughinisland and in the maiming and attempted murder of others in The Heights bar.
Unfortunately, today there is no real evidence that the PSNI has been actively pursuing those identified by the ombudsman report. It is essential that the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman report is referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland. A clear message must be sent by the Irish and British Governments and by the Northern Ireland Executive to the PSNI directing the service to pursue its investigations in the most rigorous manner possible to ensure that those who committed this heinous crime are brought to justice. The victims and survivors as well as their families and the wider community deserve justice.
There were many dark chapters in the history of Northern Ireland, including at Loughinisland. The depth and scale of collusion with violent gunmen is a damning indictment of the rotten culture that prevailed in parts of the security services. The establishment of the PSNI was an important step forward. Indeed, there is need for ongoing reform of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
The report of the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman found that special branch intelligence, paramilitary informants, were involved in a range of activities, including: command and control of loyalist paramilitaries; the procurement, importation and distribution of weapons; and murder and conspiracy to murder. They were not subject to any meaningful investigation. They were given a licence to kill and maim with no real likelihood of conviction.
In 1974 bombs exploded in Dublin and Monaghan killing 33 people, including an unborn child. The farm of James Mitchell, a member of the so-called Glenanne gang, was used to assemble and launch these attacks with the support, it is believed, of British intelligence services. Mitchell was in the RUC and other gang members were in the Ulster Defence Regiment. The gang is linked to over 120 deaths.
In 1988 weapons were imported from South Africa. Where did they end up? They ended up on James Mitchell's farm. Through their informants, the intelligence agencies knew where and when the weapons were arriving. Some were recovered but many more were allowed to go to loyalist death squads. One of these weapons was used in the Loughinisland massacre. At least one of those killers is suspected to be an agent. Six were killed and five were injured watching an Ireland football match, like the match many of us were watching last night. There were killed simply for being Catholics. We owe it to the victims of the Loughinisland massacre and their families, who have been waiting for 22 years, that time be set aside in the Dáil to discuss this report. I do not accept that speaking time of two or three minutes each is adequate.
You are eating into your colleague's time. I am keen to keep moving.
The report by the Police ombudsman in the North into the murders of six men in Loughinisland has confirmed once again the use by the British state of administrative collusion between its security agencies, the RUC, the UDR and Unionist paramilitary organisations. The years of conflict were brutal and vicious. The Loughinisland report is one example of this. A total of 3,500 people died and many thousands more were injured or imprisoned as a consequence of the actions of combatant groups on all sides, including the British Government. The extensive legacy of injustice and suffering has never been properly addressed. A victim-centred truth and reconciliation process to help victims is urgently needed. London has had knowledge of the involvement of its agencies and operatives for decades. This is why the British Government has undermined the Haass proposals for dealing with legacy issues. Will the Minister of State indicate whether members of the Government have talked to their counterparts in London since this report? What discussions have the Government held with the British Government to put in place either the Haass proposals or alternative proposals?
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh, as ucht seans a thabhairt dom labhairt ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo. The report by the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland on the Loughinisland murders in 1994 is a source of deep concern to the Government and all parties in this House. Our thoughts are first and foremost with the families of the six murder victims of the terrible attack at Loughinisland, Adrian Rogan, Daniel McCreanor, Eamon Byrne, Patrick O'Hare, Barney Green and Malcolm Jenkinson. As we approach the 22nd anniversary of these sectarian murders, the report is a traumatic reminder of the loss and pain endured by their families and loved ones.
The findings of the ombudsman are deeply disturbing, in particular his determination that collusion is a significant feature of the Loughinisland murders. The report also evidences shocking failures on the part of the RUC in tackling loyalist groups active in County Down at the time, dealing with informants and conducting the original investigation into the Loughinisland killings. The ombudsman report vindicates the concerns the families have raised over many years and their continuing search for justice. The hurt caused by their loved ones being murdered in such vicious circumstances is compounded by the knowledge that elements of the British security forces colluded with such callous crimes. The ombudsman's findings must now be carefully examined with a view to the question of further investigations and possible prosecutions.
The PSNI Chief Constable, George Hamilton, has made clear the PSNI commitment to apprehending those responsible for these appalling sectarian murders. It is vital that the PSNI investigation and the work of the service is given full support by all relevant authorities in order that all possible efforts can be made to bring to justice those who ordered and carried out the Loughinisland murders and those implicated by the ombudsman's finding of collusion.
The Government will be unstinting in ensuring that the Loughinisland case remains a priority on the political agenda in our engagement with the British Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. Therefore, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade will be raising the cause at his next meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Despite its disturbing findings, the report is an important reminder of the central importance of the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman in supporting public confidence in the new policing arrangements in Northern Ireland, as envisaged in the Patten report. It is important that the achievement of substantial progress on the Patten vision of a transformed policing service in Northern Ireland is recognised and continues to be supported by all sides. The Police ombudsman's report on the Loughinisland attacks is also a stark reminder of the need to agree dedicated mechanisms for dealing with the painful legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, as is the current inquest into the Kingsmill massacre of 1976 and the establishment of a new policing investigation into the so-called Stakeknife allegations.
All of these controversial cases are manifestations of the toxic legacy of the past which, if not addressed in a comprehensive way, has the capacity to destabilise the politics of the present and overwhelm the policing and justice system. The establishment of such dedicated mechanisms is a priority for the Government and is reflected in the programme for Government. The need to maintain victims and their survivors is at the core of our approach.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is actively engaged to seek and support an agreement on the establishment of the legacy institutions envisaged under the Stormont House Agreement. The Minister, Deputy Flanagan, and I believe that substantial progress can and must be achieved on this crucial issue over the coming months. Making progress on this issue would, in some measure at least, help to honour the memory of those six men who were indiscriminately murdered while watching a World Cup match in Loughinisland on 18 June 1994.
Under the new rules I am supposed to give you only two minutes, but this is a most serious issue so I will give you one minute each to say a few words.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. I do not know if it is possible for the families to find some sense of closure with the truth of how their loved ones were murdered. Again, I emphasise that the killers must be brought to justice and that there has to be answers for this mass murder.
Through parliamentary questions and various debates in this House over the years, I have highlighted the issue of collusion and the needless loss of life that resulted from such collusion. I again emphasise the need for the British Government to co-operate with investigations into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and also into bombings in my constituency, including Belturbet, where innocent decent people lost their lives. Two young teenagers died in the bombing in Belturbet.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ms Theresa Villiers, must state clearly that she accepts the findings of the Loughinisland report. She should also apologise and retract her statement of February where she referenced the RUC not pulling the trigger in Loughinisland.
I have asked successive Ministers for Justice and Equality, and Foreign Affairs and Trade, to pursue relentlessly with the British Government the need for it to honour its international commitments and provide full and proper co-operation with all investigations into these horrific crimes.
Will the Government set aside time to discuss the report in the Dáil? The Ombudsman believes there was collusion and I think he is right. Following this finding, what will the Government do? The Minister of State has said the issue is a priority for Government but what can we actually do?
The families of those killed in Loughinisland have waited for 22 years. The families of those killed in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings have waited for 42 years. Are they waiting for the families of the victims to die as well? When will the British release their files on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings? Does the Government have a strategy to get the British Government to release the files on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings? Does the Government have any plan to get the British Government to agree to a recovery mechanism?
All victims and their families and communities deserve truth and justice. That includes the families of those killed in Loughinisland. The British Government and its agencies armed, directed and then covered up the killings at Loughinisland. That is a fact and there can be no dispute about that.
Over the years, I have met many families of victims of the conflict. They include victims of the IRA, and British forces and their lethal allies within unionism. Members of my family have been killed and injured. The grief and trauma suffered by everyone is the same. The resolve of all political leaders must be to ensure no other family is bereaved. That means us working together.
The Government does not have a consistent strategic approach to dealing with legacy issues. It is not enough that the Loughinisland injustice is reduced to a Topical Issue. Will the Government encourage a joined-up, inclusive and thoughtful discussion aimed at unshackling-----
Thank you, Deputy.
Will the Government allow time in the Dáil for this and other matters relating to the North to be debated?
I thank the three Deputies for raising this matter. I know from our engagement on the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, which included Deputies Crowe and Smith, we tackled all legacy issues and I think we all know the complexities involved. I am certainly aware that time skips by and time is not a commodity that is of any use to people seeking justice. As Deputy Smith pointed out, they have the truth but they do not have the justice. We have to keep focus on that.
The fresh start agreement and the Stormont House agreement make a commitment to include an historical investigations unit. Independence has to be paramount to take forward investigations into Troubles-related deaths and we need an independent commission on information retrieval to enable victims and survivors to seek and privately receive information about Troubles-related deaths.
During our work on the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement we met all the groups. Different groups seek different things but, ultimately, it is the quest for justice and to find out as much truth as possible. It will not change things for them in terms of bringing loved ones back but with the Saville inquiry, we saw the very positive impact that truth recovery can bring.
Deputy Adams asked if the Minister would meet the Secretary for State for Northern Ireland, Ms Theresa Villiers. He will do that in the short term. Obviously, this will be a priority.
The Deputies asked if this would be debated in the Dáil. I think there is a need to debate wider legacy issues and I will certainly ask my Whip to raise it at the Whips' meeting. It is important to provide an opportunity to debate the wider issues of the past and legacy issues that so critically need to be the focus.
Different parts of the world from Afghanistan to the Knesset look to the Northern Ireland peace model, including the east-west and North-South elements. However, as legislators, we are all aware that the process is not finished. As a Donegal man and a politician, I work very closely with my colleagues across the Border. It is a process and the truth and legacy issues of the past are very much part of that. I will certainly do my best to try to convey the need for having an open and wider debate. There may be things we could look at differently.
This may be an important juncture. It is 40 years since the Kingsmills massacre and we are also discussing the Loughinisland tragedy, the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and the Pat Finucane murder. So many relatives are affected and we have to do justice to them.
I thank the Minister of State and the three Deputies for their co-operation. I also thank all Deputies who took part in the Topical Issue debate. It is much appreciated by the Chair.