I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch.
Commencement Matters
Medical Card Eligibility
I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to take this Commencement matter. Once again I am raising the issue of medical cards. I understand the task force has stated eligibility must be assessed on the basis of financial means, but I deal with the issue of discretionary medical cards every week. People who have been diagnosed with terminal or very serious illnesses are coming to me. They have never claimed from the State, have always paid their taxes and have children in college without a grant or any form of assistance from the State, yet when they are extremely ill, having been diagnosed with cancer, and look for support to cover their medical expenses, their applications are refused. I have raised the case of one family in my area. The person concerned has been diagnosed with stage 3 cancer. This person applied for a medical card earlier this year and the application was refused. Additional and pertinent information was submitted and the application was again refused.
The person concerned applied for a medical card as an individual. The application was not on behalf of an additional member of the family, a spouse or anyone else, yet when the response came back, the whole family was ruled ineligible. The point being made was that the application was not in respect of the family but rather the individual and that, please God, when the person recovered, that would be it. The medical card was wanted for the duration of the illness alone.
We should be examining the issue. There was a time when things were examined at a local level, when people knew the genuine cases and when they were looked at favourably. It is an additional source of stress for people who have been diagnosed with terminal or very serious illnesses that a medical card is not afforded to them. The circumstances as such do not matter, but it is particularly stressful for people who have worked all their lives, paid all their taxes and done everything for the State. They have never claimed anything. Several of the families concerned have pointed out to me that if they had never worked and spent their lives on the dole, they would automatically be entitled to a medical card.
Will the Minister of State re-examine the matter? Also, when medical cards are being applied for, what exactly is being applied for should be examined. This case did not involve an application for a family medical card. The application was made on behalf of an individual, yet every time that was pointed out, a letter was received stating it was family related.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue. We have the details of the particular case to which she refers, but it would be inappropriate to discuss an individual’s circumstances in public in the Seanad. I know that the Senator agrees with this. However, I understand from the HSE that this application was unsuccessful as the means were in excess of the qualifying threshold for a medical card or GP visit card. I have been advised by the HSE that additional information has been provided and that the case has been referred for a discretionary review.
The Senator will be aware that, in accordance with the Health Act 1970, as amended, full eligibility and a medical card are awarded to persons who are, in the opinion of the HSE, unable without undue hardship to arrange GP services for themselves and their dependants. That is the reason the letters received by the individual refer to dependants. In accordance with the Act, the assessment for a medical card is determined primarily by reference to the means, including the income and expenditure, of the applicant and his or her partner and dependants. Where deemed appropriate in particular circumstances, the HSE may exercise discretion and grant a medical card, even though an applicant exceeds the income guidelines but faces difficult financial circumstances such as extra costs arising from an illness.
The Senator is aware of the Keane report, to which she has referred on several occasions, on the expert panel on medical need for medical card eligibility, published in November 2014. A key recommendation made in the report was that a person’s means should remain the main qualifier for a medical card. That was the main issue of contention. It has been repeatedly stated one cannot issue medical cards or GP visit cards for condition-specific reasons alone. It also recommended that it is neither feasible nor desirable to list conditions in priority order for medical card eligibility. The rationale behind the recommendation will be clear to the Senator. On foot of the report, my Department and the HSE are undertaking a suite of measures to improve the operation and administration of the medical card scheme. A number of those are already in place and are having a positive impact on how the scheme operates.
A key element of the programme is the work of the clinical advisory group on medical card eligibility which was established by the director general of the HSE. The group has been tasked with developing a framework for assessment and measurement of the burden of disease and appropriate operational guidelines for the medical card scheme. The clinical advisory group made an interim recommendation to award medical card eligibility to all children under 18 years of age with a diagnosis of cancer. The director general of the HSE accepted that recommendation and it has been implemented since 1 July 2015. The clinical advisory group is continuing its work on the development of guidance on assessing medical card applications involving a significant burden due to an illness.
I am pleased to advise the Senator that, on foot of these reforms, the HSE is exercising greater discretion. That is evident in the number of discretionary medical cards in circulation which increased from approximately 52,000 in mid-2014 to nearly 96,000 at the beginning of November this year. Until we have universal health care and everyone has eligibility for health services, one will always have anomalies. There will always be someone who is just above the means threshold, who does not have the prescribed disease or whose condition is not sufficiently severe and, as a result, these individuals will not meet the assessment criteria. Universal health care, to which I am committed, is the only solution to address this issue. However, as the Senator can see from the reply, we are taking another look at this application.
I am pleased to hear the Minister of State will look at the matter again. The Irish Cancer Society's figures show that when a person has cancer, it can cost up to €10,000 extra a year. It has been pointed out to me that in some cases, after expenses for treatment are taken into account, some people would be better off on welfare. That should not be the case. Given the additional expenses in the case I have outlined, including for heating, transport to consultant appointments and treatment, I am very pleased with the Minister of State's response. I hope the outcome is favourable.
I understand the value of a medical card. Sometimes it is not a case of what it can provide but the security it represents in terms of a person not having to worry about medical expenses. People have enough things to worry about, but when they have a medical card that is one less thing to worry about. I read the Irish Cancer Society's report on additional costs. Most costs related to cancer treatment are met by the State, whether one has a medical card, because the treatment is provided in a hospital setting. That is right and proper, which is why we have such success in terms of treatments and outcomes. I hope the Senator's friend will have an equally good outcome. The security element of the medical card is really what it is about.
I accept that there are additional costs for transport and being out of work. That is understandable when one has an illness that impacts as much as cancer. I also understand the security of not having that particular worry is essential in terms of how one faces the illness. We are taking another look at the case. The Senator is aware that I do not promise anything. The number of discretionary cards in the system is incredible, rightly so, because there are people who do not meet the criteria and probably never will, but we must take other elements into consideration.
Harbours and Piers Maintenance
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes.
I have tabled the matter to highlight the urgent need for Howth Harbour to be dredged in order to ensure its long-term viability as a commercial fishing port, leisure harbour and tourism destination. The harbour has silted up to such an extent in recent years that the situation in Howth is bordering on being dangerous. Even medium-sized fishing trawlers cannot enter the harbour at low tide, whereas a few years ago the harbour was accessible in all but the worst of weather conditions. Now boats have to lie off before entering the harbour for fear of catching the bottom and their vessels being damaged. Also, movement around the trailer basin at strong low tides is impossible. Groundings are now more commonplace and can result in serious engine damage.
The silting has also created problems for the Dublin Bay ferry service which has found it cannot keep to its schedule because it is restricted in terms of entering the harbour at Howth. The ferry also uses Dublin Port and Dún Laoghaire Port and does not have such problems there. Leisure boats encounter difficulties, which is likely to have a seriously detrimental effect on Howth Yacht Club's ability to hold major national and international sailing events. I have also been told that it is now a regular occurrence for visiting boats, in particular, to run aground in the entrance channel and within the harbour. I have been warned that it is only a matter of time before the harbour is blocked by grounded vessels, compromising safety and potentially preventing the operation of emergency services, including the lifeboat.
I understand that, even after a decision to dredge the harbour has been made, it may take two to three years to carry out the dredging programme as the necessary permits and licences will have to be obtained. In the meantime, the crisis will get worse, with more groundings and greater risk to harbour users. The annual accumulation of silt may cause some harbour activities to completely cease within two to three years. Potential future business opportunities and proposed leisure activities and events will not be given a chance without a scheduled commitment to dredge the harbour.
For these reasons and others, it is essential that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine now commit to dredging Howth Harbour as a matter of priority and immediately set aside funding for this.
I thank the Senator for raising this important issue. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine is responsible under statute for the six fishery harbour centres located at Howth, Dunmore East, Castletownbere, Dingle, Rossaveel and Killybegs. All six fishery centres are, first and foremost, working fishery harbours, which provide essential services and facilities for the fishing industry around the coastline of Ireland. Each fishery harbour centre has unique features which facilitate a broad range of other diverse activities which are important from both an economic and social perspective. The Department is conscious of the need to facilitate and further develop the fishing and non-fishing activities at the harbours. This involves day-to-day operational support by harbour staff and management and development and repair of infrastructure subject to available financial resources.
I am happy to advise the House that, notwithstanding the prevailing economic environment in which we operate, in excess of €4.2 million has been invested in maintenance, development and upgrading works at Howth as part of the Department's annual fishery harbour and coastal infrastructure development programme from 2011 to 2014. For 2015, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, approved funding of €1.79 million for the maintenance and development of Howth Fishery Harbour Centre. Major works for 2015 include the continued upgrading of the electrical system, provision of a small craft pontoon and traffic management works.
Siltation in Howth is recognised as an issue, as the Senator rightly pointed out, and being kept under review. It has been discussed with various stakeholders and officials from the Department attending the Howth Harbour Users Forum on 29 January 2015 used the occasion to have a number of meetings with users, where the issue of dredging was discussed. A further meeting with Howth Yacht Club was held on 17 July where again the question of dredging was the main item of discussion.
As part the 2015 fishery harbour centre development programme, the Minister sanctioned €150,000 to carry out site investigation works in Howth for the west pier pontoon and the middle pier upgrade. The site investigation contractor commenced work on site in early November and that is expected to be substantially completed by the end of this year. It is anticipated that the report on the site investigation will be issued in early 2016. This report will include information on the nature of the material to be dredged and the extent of contaminated material within the dredge footprint. This information is required to prepare a dumping at sea licence application, which will be necessary for the commencement of any dredging project that is needed in the area. It will also provide the basis for an informed estimate of the cost of dredging the harbour at Howth.
As with all other developments in the six fishery harbour centres, a dredging project at Howth Fishery Harbour Centre will be considered under future capital programmes on the basis of available Exchequer funding and competing priorities. The suite of projects for inclusion in the 2016 programme is being considered and the Minister will make an announcement on these in due course taking into account what has been said here and the value of Howth Harbour, particularly given its location on the east coast. I would be confident that it would be included because it stands up as a project.
I welcome the Minister of State's confirmation that Howth Harbour stands up as a project and that dredging is needed. As I said, there is evidence to support this. The Minister of State has said the 2016 programme is still being considered; therefore, as it has not yet been finalised, there is still time for Howth Harbour to be included in it. That is essential and consideration of it should not be deferred until the investigation is complete. As the Minister of State said, the case for dredging is already clear.
With regard to the scope of the works and what exactly needs to be carried out, the investigation will be helpful in determining that, but we all know that Howth Harbour needs to be dredged. I can give the Minister of State visual evidence of trawlers that have run aground in the harbour. I have photographs of such trawlers. It is very clear that the work needs to be done. The key issue is to get a commitment to get the work started as soon as possible because things are getting worse all the time.
From the perspective of the yacht club, some major international sailing events have been held in Howth in recent years, including Etchells sailing competition which is a major international prestigious competition. As matters stand, the yacht club is concerned about pitching for future events to be held in two, three, four or five years time because until there is a commitment in place that the harbour will be dredged it does not know if it will able to host such events. Leisure boats are constantly running aground, especially when manned by people who are not familiar with the area. It is very important that a commitment be given now. I urge the Minister of State to talk to his officials and make sure Howth Harbour is given serious consideration for inclusion in the 2016 programme and that this is progressed as soon as possible.
I will bring back to the Department the points the Senator has made. I agree with her; we are at one on the need for this work to be done. It comes down to the availability of funding. Howth Harbour has very strong case. It is the only harbour in this category on the east coast and it has great potential. It would be great if they could all be done together and if we had endless resources but we do not. The case has been made for Howth Harbour and the strong case the Senator has made this morning will also help. I will relay what she said to the officials and also to the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, who is certainly very committed to dealing with this issue. It is one of the priorities and we want to have this work done as quickly as possible.
Pension Provisions
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, back to the House.
The Minister of State is welcome to the House. I am aware that this issue has been raised by colleagues on both sides of the House in other forums, but as it remains unresolved, it is necessary to again ask for a review of the issue. When speaking last summer, the Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, was quoted as saying: "Under our Constitution pensions are preserved property rights. I can no more take somebody's pension than I can arbitrarily decide to take their house." That comment was published in The Irish Times in June 2015. While this may be true, for some, it is not true. Some 80 former gardaí who, despite having the required five years minimum service, did not have their pensions preserved until the age of 60 years because they were dismissed or resigned from the service prior to 1976. The members of this group, the majority of whom are now aged over 70 years, with many of them now partners or widows of former gardaí, are naturally very aggrieved at this injustice and are seeking an immediate legislative remedy.
The background to this issue is that in 1978 the Garda Representative Association, GRA, reached an agreement with the Departments of Justice and Finance that members of Garda rank who resigned from the force on or after 1 October 1976 would have their pensions preserved to the age of 60 years. This is in the agreed report No. 218 of the Garda Conciliation Council. It was followed by agreed reports Nos. 530 and 543 which provided for the preservation of pension entitlements for members who left the force for any reason after 1 October 1976. At the heart of the injustice is the fact that the details of the agreed reports, to which I referred, only came to light when members of the pre-October 1976 group approached the age of 60 years and were informed by letter from the Department that they had been excluded without their knowledge. A group, led by councillor Pat Hynes from Galway, has since been actively engaged in seeking justice and has made innumerable representations to the Department of Justice during the years but to no avail. It is further notable that, since 1976, these agreed reports have operated on an administrative basis only and have not been incorporated into a statutory instrument or underpinned by any amendment to the primary legislation, the Police Forces Amalgamation Act 1925. It is, therefore, easy to revise them via legislation. In the opinion of Mr. Gerard Hogan, then a senior counsel, "members of the Oireachtas, ought in justice, to rectify this wrong by means of the enactment of legislation to cater for the very discrete category of pre-1976 members of An Garda Síochána".
Mr. Justice Hogan also reminded us that there was a precedent as legislation had been passed retrospectively to enable a former Minister to apply to preserve his ministerial pension entitlements, even though he had not done so on time in the past. This refers to the case of the former Minister for Education and Science Dr. Michael Woods who missed out on applying for a pension entitlement by the date provided for in the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act. It appears that where there is a political will, there is a way.
I do not believe there is a citizen in the country who would begrudge the men in question their pensions. To have their pensions restored to them would be viewed favourably by all as an indicator of a compassionate, paternalistic Government. When one considers that €7 billion was taken from the National Pension Reserve Fund to bail out two banks, the sums involved are a drop in the ocean. In terms of administration, resolution of this issue does not have to be on a case by case basis. It is more than an administrative issue; it is a constitutional right issue for which there is legal precedent. In Lovett v. Minister for Education, 1997, Mr. Justice Kelly held that the right to a statutory pension was a property right protected by the Constitution. In the past the former Minister Deputy Alan Shatter and others have defended the Government's decision to stand over the agreed reports, saying they were decisions reached through negotiations between the Garda representative body and the Department of Justice and Equalith. In the light of the Lovett case, this defence no longer holds water as the fundamental constitutional rights of citizens cannot be negotiated away through union or any representative association. The agreed reports amount to an unreasonable and unjustified interference in the rights of 80 people affected by this decision. They are seeking nothing more than the justice they deserve. They did not voluntarily agree to forfeit their pensions. Most of them were not even aware that this had occurred.
In the course of the judgment in Cox v. Ireland, 1992, Chief Justice Fennelly referred to certain property rights protected by the Constitution such as the right to a pension gratuity and other emoluments already earned. The pensions to which I refer have already been earned and it is unreasonable to withhold them any longer. I respectfully ask the Minister of State to revisit this issue as a matter of urgency. It is a matter of dignity and due respect to those who have served the State as members of An Garda Síochána for many years. The Government is to be complimented on the number of long-standing injustices that have been addressed in the past five years. Will the Minister of State give a commitment to bring legislation before the Oireachtas in the next session to deal with this as many of those affected are well over 70 years old and have waited long enough for justice? It is not only former gardaí, most of whom are men, that are missing out. Their widows are also missing out on this entitlement.
I will stick rigidly to the script because it is an issue with which I am not familiar. As the Senator is aware, I am taking this Commencement matter on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality. I will not be making any comment other than what is contained in the written reply, but I am sure the Senator's remarks will be duly noted.
On behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality who, unfortunately, cannot be here, I thank the Senator for raising this matter. The issue was addressed in this House by the Minister's predecessor in April 2012, but I am happy on her behalf to set out the position to the Senator. The terms and conditions of pension schemes have evolved over the years and continue to do so. New terms and conditions are introduced with effect from a specific date and apply to members of the scheme from that date onwards. Prior to 1 October 1976, where a member of An Garda Síochána resigned or was dismissed before reaching the age and service at which he or she could retire on pension, that member forfeited all superannuation benefits under the then Garda superannuation scheme. This situation was changed following discussions at the Garda Conciliation Council, the industrial relations machinery for members of An Garda Síochána. It was agreed at that time by both sides - the official side and the Garda representative associations - and endorsed by the then Minister for Finance that the new arrangements should apply to members of the force serving on or after 1 October 1976. By extension, these new terms did not and cannot apply to members who had left the force prior to that date. These discussions concluded in what are known as agreed reports. Generally, these agreed reports provide that a garda who resigned or was dismissed on or after 1 October 1976 can have the superannuation benefits that had accrued to the date of resignation or dismissal preserved until they reached 60 years of age. There was no provision for the preservation of superannuation benefits in the case of members who resigned or were dismissed prior to 1 October 1976.
The then Department of Finance and now Department of Public Expenditure and Reform which continues to have overall responsibility for public service pension matters agreed with the proposals for a cut-off date for eligibility for preserved benefits. This date varies depending on the particular organisation involved and the conclusion of negotiations between management and the relevant staff interests. The cut-off date for civil servants was agreed by all parties to be 1 June 1973 and the cut-off date for members of An Garda Síochána was agreed by all parties to be 1 October 1976. I must stress that this was an agreed date between all of the parties involved in the discussions and was not imposed. It is an inevitable consequence of the introduction of improvements in pension schemes that members of that scheme who had left it prior to the effective date cannot avail of that benefit.
I accept that the Minister of State is speaking on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality and can give no commitment. I know that the Minister of State to be a fair-minded person and think she will agree with me that to deny a small number of people a constitutional right is totally unacceptable. There is some cynicism on this issue in so far as the relevant parties are aware that these elderly people who are over the age of 70 years are in no position to mount a constitutional challenge to a denial of their entitlement. I would like the Minister of State to relay the matter back to the relevant Department. As pensions are something I hold very dear to my heart, I will not leave the matter alone. If I need to find somebody to raise this as a constitutional issue for the people in question, I will do it. I would much rather see it resolved than see people suffer the loss of what they paid into and what they were entitled to. Will the Minister of State relay this back to the Minister? I do not expect her to make any comment.
In the circumstances, I will ensure the Senator's argument and the passion with which it was expressed are relayed to the Minister for Justice and Equality. It appears that right now the Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform are not for turning but circumstances change.
Special Educational Needs Staff
This is a fairly straightforward Commencement matter on the need for the Minister for Education and Skills to outline the position on the provision of an SNA for Scoil Oilibhéir in Dublin 15. I have been contacted by a constituent who is a former SNA in that school. In addition to being given an idea about the situation at the school, I would be grateful for an indication of the Department's policy on SNAs and how we now stand when it comes to that issue.
I am taking this Commencement matter on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, who is somewhere else. She thanks the Senator for raising this matter and wishes to assure the House that the education of children with special educational needs remains a key priority for the Government. She welcomes the fact that, even in the constrained economic circumstances faced in recent years, we have been able to continue to meet the needs of children with special educational needs attending schools and to increase provision to address emerging needs in this area. The SNA scheme, in particular, has been a major factor in ensuring the successful integration of children with special educational needs into mainstream education and in providing support for pupils enrolled in special schools and special classes.
I hate that term. It should be changed to "specialist schools" - that is a personal view. In July last, the Minister secured Government approval for an additional 610 SNA posts to the end of 2015, in addition to the 365 SNA posts provided in 2015, to take into account increased demand and demographic growth and to ensure children could continue to have access to additional supports in school. There is now provision for 11,940 SNA posts in 2015 - the highest level of SNA provision that we have ever had - an increase of 13% on the number of posts available since 2011.
The Minister assures the House that schools which have enrolled children who qualify for support from an SNA will continue to be allocated SNA support in a manner appropriate to their needs. The National Council for Special Education, NCSE, through its network of local special educational needs organisers, SENOs, is responsible for allocating resource teachers and SNAs to schools to support children with special educational needs. The council operates within the Department's criteria in allocating such support and these criteria are set out in the Department's Circular 0030/2014. All schools were asked to apply to the NCSE for resource teaching and SNA support for the 2015-16 school year by 18 March 2015. Of course, the NCSE continued to accept applications after this date in recognition of the fact that enrolment may not have been completed or where assessments were not completed. Details of SNA allocations to schools for 2015-16 is available on the NCSE website at ncse.ie. Each school's allocation of SNA support can change from year to year and may be increased or decreased as students who qualify for SNA support enrol or leave a school. New students with care needs may enrol to replace students who have left, for example, or SNA allocations may be decreased where a child's needs have diminished over time.
The Senator's specific query relates to the allocation of support to an individual school. The Minister can confirm that the NCSE has advised the Department that the school currently has an allocation of 0.5 SNA for the 2015-16 school year. This represents no change over the SNA allocation to this school in the previous school year. The NCSE has also advised the Minister that this allocation to the school was not the subject of an appeal and it has received no new applications for additional SNA support for this school. On this basis, the council is happy that the school has the appropriate level of SNA support to meet its needs
The Minister would like to thank the Senator once again for giving her the opportunity to clarify the position. From time to time, the information the Department has is different from the information public representatives receive.
Indeed. I thank the Minister of State for her response. I have a fuller understanding of how the system operates. The school has an allocation of 0.5 SNA, which is not what I understood. That has not changed since last year and I am, therefore, satisfied with the response.
Commencement matters and Topical Issue debates in the Dáil are often important for clarification purposes because sometimes what we hear as public representatives is not always the same as the information the Department has on file. I have clarified the position.
Sitting suspended at 11.15 a.m. and resumed at 11.35 a.m.