I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle.
Commencement Matters
School Accommodation
I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for coming to the House to discuss this important issue. Approximately 7,000 children in Ireland have Down's syndrome. Having spoken to the family members of many children with Down's syndrome, I know those children are the life and soul of their families. They are very sociable. They certainly keep the members of their families on their toes. They are the root and the centre of their families.
Many people with Down's syndrome are born with learning disabilities. They learn much more from life experience. I would like to point out that the life expectancy of people with Down's syndrome is getting longer. This means they need lifelong learning and lifelong provision. Children with Down's syndrome do not qualify for the July provision that is available in many schools. I know a family that received a letter of refusal even though an autistic child in the same class had received approval for inclusion in the programme. The teacher who was brought in to deal with one child could have dealt with two children.
The practical things that are taught during July provision can involve taking children to the shop and giving them money. They have to purchase something and bring back the change. They are taught how to use footpaths and the green man at traffic lights. Such practical things make the life of the child more independent.
The family in the case I have mentioned was very disappointed to find that the child did not qualify for July provision. At the end of the day, he is a child like everybody else in the class. He is in mainstream school. It is most commendable that he is getting on very well in school. It is disappointing that this decision has been made. I would like to hear the Minister of State's response to what I have said.
I thank Senator Byrne for raising this matter. I apologise on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Bruton, who is unable to be present because he is answering parliamentary questions in the Dáil Chamber. It is unfortunate that the times have clashed.
I assure the House that ensuring children with special educational needs are supported and given the opportunity to reach their full potential is a key priority for the Government. Almost €1.8 billion will be invested in special education in 2018. This represents an increase of almost 43% since 2011 and amounts to almost 20% of the Department's overall budget. During the worst years of the recession, the Government not only protected supports for children with special educational needs, including children with Down's syndrome, but it increased them.
The National Council for Special Education, NCSE, published its policy advice on educational provision for children with autism spectrum disorders in July 2016. In developing this policy advice, the NCSE reviewed the Department's July provision grant scheme. The NCSE consulted widely with parents, professionals and other stakeholders and interested parties while also conducting research. The policy advice, which is available on the NCSE website, recommends that relevant stakeholders should discuss the development of a national day activity scheme that provides a structured and safe social environment for all students with complex special educational needs for one month of the summer holidays.
The Department of Education and Skills has convened an implementation group with representatives of the NCSE, the National Educational Psychological Service, the inspectorate and external representatives to ensure the recommendations in the report are fully and appropriately considered. The work of the implementation group is ongoing. Department officials will engage with officials in the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, the Department of Health and other relevant stakeholders on the implementation of the recommendations, including those regarding July provision. While that work is under way, there are no plans to extend the existing July provision to all children with special educational needs. Indeed, this was not recommended by the NCSE in its policy advice.
I am disappointed. There are two children in the one class, one of whom is on the autism spectrum. Certainly if the Down's syndrome child had any variation of autism he would be entitled to the July provision. I would like the Minister of State to relay to the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and the Department the fact that it does not add up. They bring a teacher in to work with one child who could have worked with the two children. It is not going to cost extra money. The teacher had to come in to work with one child anyhow. While I understand they are working on it, it is most disappointing to find that Down's syndrome is not going to be considered for the moment because a Down's syndrome child is no different from any other child.
I reassure the Senator that her message will be conveyed back to the Minister. I understand the point that if the Down's syndrome child in question was on the ASD spectrum, he would have been included. I have a first cousin in her 50s who has Down's syndrome, which proves that the life expectancy of such people has improved. I sometimes think she is able to read our minds and buy and sell us all anyway and they are very special people. Activity is very important in their learning skills. The NCSE has not recommended it so it is something that may have to be reviewed again in the future.
School Management
I wish to register my disappointment that the Minister, Deputy Bruton, is not here. While I understand he is taking questions in the Dáil, there is also a Minister of State in the same Department, Deputy Mitchell O'Connor, who happens to be a local Deputy and who would have great insight into the issue I am raising. For some reason, she is also unavailable and I have to debate the matter with a Minister of State from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I do not think it is good enough.
That is not a matter for the Chair.
I am just making my protest, if that is okay.
I appreciate that. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, will have the answer in any case.
The office of the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad is a constitutional office. It asked the Minister for Education and Skills to come here to discuss a matter in respect of his Department. There is a Minister of State in that Department who is also a local Deputy-----
The Cathaoirleach has no role whatsoever in deciding which Minister comes to respond. The response will be the official response of the Department, I am sure. I appreciate the Senator's protest but let us get on with it.
My protest is nothing personal against the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle. Perhaps he could convey it to the Minister for Education and Skills.
The issue at hand here is a school in Dún Laoghaire, the lands of which the patron body is determined to sell for commercial development. The board of management of the school is determined to stop that from happening. It mirrors a situation in St. Anne's Park affecting St. Paul's school, in the constituency in which I live, where the order has sold the lands to a private developer. Those lands were handed to the order by the city council for use as playing fields. A private developer now owns them and is trying to develop them. While there is major local opposition, it is spilt milk.
The issue in Clonkeen College, however, is not spilt milk. We have the bizarre situation where the patron body is now more than threatening to disband the board of management of the school, whose crime is merely defending the interests of the school and the local community. The Minister is the only person who can actually make the decision on this. That might be part of the reason we do not have a representative from the Department of Education and Skills to debate the matter with me. The Minister cannot hide behind constitutional advice, the Department or an Oireachtas committee. The decision is his and his alone. I understand from media reporting that it has to be made by tomorrow.
Will the Department of Education and Skills stand beside the patron body and, effectively, by the developer and sack the board of management? Is the Minister going to stand beside the board and the school community, many members of which are in the Gallery to watch the debate, including one of the local representatives, Councillor Deirdre Kingston? Will the Minister stand with the community and ensure that the board remains intact? It is a very simple question and a simple decision. If it was my decision, I know what I would do. I am interested to hear what has been handed to the Minister of State to read out.
I understand there was a communication between the various people who schedule the business of both Houses and that a request was made to move this particular item to facilitate the Minister to come in. I cannot say for definite how that evolved. I will read out what I was given and the best thing I can do is relate the Senator's concerns to the Minister, which I certainly will do.
I thank the Senator for giving me the opportunity to outline to the House the position in respect of Clonkeen College and a request by the school patron to dissolve the board of management. I have been informed by the Department of Education and Skills that the patron of Clonkeen College, the Edmund Rice Schools Trust, ERST, has now sought approval to dissolve the board of management of the college in accordance with section 16 of the Education Act 1998. I understand that this request is connected to a legal case taken by the board of management in respect of the sale of land. This case is due to be heard by the High Court in March 2018.
The statutory process of dissolution is under way, in which the Minister for Education and Skills must make a decision having considered the submissions made. It would not be appropriate to comment on the matters that are related to the dissolution. For me to make a public comment on the request to dissolve the board of Clonkeen College would be to pre-judge a statutory function the Minister must now discharge.
That is the note I have. I will refer any comments or observations the Senator has back to the Minister for Education and Skills.
I do not like doing this. I acknowledge the Minister of State has been sent in here to do what he was asked to do. I understand the Minister is in the Dáil at the moment and can appreciate that. As for any communications that were made to my office in respect of this debate, I have no knowledge of them because I have not seen them. There is a Minister of State in that Department - who also happens to be a local Deputy - who could be here. I have received a six-sentence reply. The only person who can make this decision is the Minister. The Minister could make his views as to whose side he is on clearly known to the local community, the board of management and the patron body. Just as I mentioned that he did not have anywhere else to hide, he has found somewhere else to hide. This is absolutely ridiculous.
This is not a constituency matter for me. It is on the far side of the county as far as I am concerned. To my mind, it is a matter of national importance in which a patron body decided to sell off land in a school in order that a developer could build on local playing pitches. If the board of management decides to defend the rights of the school, the patron body is going to sack the board. The Minister has a determination to make as to whether he is going to sack the board. He did not come in here and did not send in his Minister of State, who happens to be a local Deputy, and then he sent a six-sentence reply on the situation. We are none the wiser as to what his decision will be.
I genuinely do not think this is good enough. I do not like playing party politics when it comes to issues like this. The matter is extremely important for this individual school and probably every school across the country that has playing pitches. Local communities will be asking if this is what they are going to be up against in a couple of years. They will be wondering if their local boards of management will be sacked too if they have a problem with it. Where is the Minister on this? If I was Minister for Education and Skills or if my party held that Ministry, this would be a very simple decision.
The Senator has made his point. As somebody who has sat on boards of management of special needs schools and other schools, and whose wife has been involved in special needs education in all her 38 years of teaching, I have some knowledge of how schools work.
I have four children who went through primary and secondary school, as well as third-level education.
I cannot comment except to make a personal observation but the Senator has raised a fundamental point about, as I understand it, the legal status between a patron and a board of management and how they stand in relation to one another. In this instance, on the one hand, there is the patron, which has decided that it wants to sell, and, on the other hand, the board of management, which, ultimately, is the manager of an educational facility. I have always had great regard to the importance of boards of management but this is a fundamental legal point and the Minister has to decide if he agrees with the dissolution of the board. The Minister's note says that it is not appropriate for him to comment at this point. I will revert to the Minister with the Senator's observations and his contribution will be on the record of the House. The Minister will be made fully aware of the Senator's points.
Local Authority Funding
I welcome the Minister of State. It is always a pleasure to have him here. On the weekend of 3 January to 5 January 2014, the country experienced terrible weather conditions. The west coast of Clare was absolutely hammered on the morning of Friday, 3 January 2014. Millions of euro worth of damage was caused at the time and Ministers and others visited, including the then Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW, Mr. Brian Hayes, MEP. Homes and businesses were destroyed and serious damage was done to the streetscape in towns along the coast, particularly Lahinch. Subsequently, the Government committed €17 million to deal with the issues in Lahinch and in other parts of County Clare. To be fair to the local authority, it has done a phenomenal job. As a matter of fact, the promenade in Lahinch and the streetscape along it is of a higher quality now than what it was prior to the storm damage in 2014. It is absolutely fantastic and I encourage anyone in the area to visit the town. The reason I am highlighting the matter today, however, is that there has been a shortfall of €1.6 million from the Government for the work in Lahinch. Clare County Council has completed the work and paid for it but I understand that it is being told by the Department that the sum of €1.6 million will not be available. Is that the case? Will the shortfall be paid? If so, when? If not, why?
I thank the Senator for raising this important matter. The Government decided on 11 February 2014 to allocate funding of up to €69.5 million to local authorities in the areas worst affected by the severe weather of December 2013 and January 2014 in order to support the restoration of public infrastructure which had been damaged. It was agreed that the funding would be made available via the Votes of the appropriate Departments and offices. These were: for the repair of roads, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport; for piers and harbours other than those in the charge of local authorities, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine; for coastal protection and repairs, the Office of Public Works, OPW; for tourism-related infrastructure as well as certain piers, harbours and other facilities in the charge of local authorities, what has become the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government.
While the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government had an initial role in collating details and costs of damage in the immediate aftermath of the severe weather based on returns and estimates provided by local authorities, the aforementioned Departments and offices liaised directly with the local authorities regarding funding falling within their remit. In the case of Clare County Council, the Department of Housing, Planning arid Local Government, in its initial co-ordinating role, wrote to the council in February 2014 advising that a sum of up to €16.21 million was available to the council for the repair of damaged public infrastructure. This was broken down across relevant Departments and offices. The funding was based on the initial estimates of repairs submitted by Clare County Council. In these initial estimates, the council included a request for repairs in respect of damage caused totalling €1.64 million under the heading of other facilities. When more detailed claims for recoupment were received from the council in December 2015, this request was further clarified to be for repair to damage of various seawalls. In January 2016, Clare County Council was advised by the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government that it should refer its claim for funding of these works to the OPW as the works related to repair of coastal protection infrastructure and were deemed ineligible for funding from the Department, which has no role in this regard.
Clare County Council has recouped a total of €3.92 million in capital expenditure from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government for infrastructure damage arising from the 2013-14 storms and has been advised on a number of occasions that funding is not available from the Department for coastal protection repairs. A further notification will issue to Clare County Council confirming that position is still the case.
I know the Minister of State is delivering a script and I thank him for it but, ultimately, someone has to pay for this. It appears to be a typical Civil Service scenario of one Department blaming another. One Department is abdicating responsibility to another and the other Department is not living up to its responsibilities. Someone has to pay and someone has to state definitively who is responsible. With the Leas-Chathaoirleach's indulgence, I will now give notice of the same matter for a response from the Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW and we will see what we get back. There was a shortfall of €1.6 million and someone has to meet it. Those who are suffering as a result of this are the people of County Clare. If Clare County Council is €1.6 million short in funding, it has to come from somewhere and that will have a knock-on effect on services in County Clare. I thank the Minister of State sincerely for coming to the House but I will have to disturb the House and give notice of the matter again next week to see if I can get to the bottom of this.
When the works were assessed, it was clear which Departments and offices were to be engaged and the Votes involved and, from the outset, it was clear that the OPW was responsible for coastal protection repairs. I think it might be advisable for the Senator-----
To be fair, the Department with responsibility for the environment was appointed the lead Department at the time.
Insurance Industry
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy D'Arcy, who has responsibility for financial services and insurance. I wish to raise the issue of Setanta Insurance and Enterprise Insurance. It is now nearly four years since Setanta went into liquidation. It was regulated in Malta but, under the European passport, it was able to operate in Ireland. Many of my constituents in Limerick were motor insurance policyholders with Setanta. A large number of them would have paid motor premiums for a full year and, in effect, were shortchanged by Setanta.
Many of them still await refunds. On Tuesday last, the Minister of State and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, gave hope to Setanta Insurance and Enterprise Insurance policyholders, particularly third-party claimants, to the effect that they might receive recompense more quickly than would be expected in a liquidation process. Under the Supreme Court ruling, the insurance compensation fund, ICF, will be responsible for those payments rather than the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland, MIBI. As Members are aware, the latter pays 100% of the value of claims but the insurance compensation fund only pays 65%. Up to 22% of the outstanding 35% may be recouped during the liquidation process but that may take several years. The Government has stated that, in principle, the State will account for the outstanding 35% and will then pursue the possible collection of 22% from the liquidation.
When is it expected that discussions with the liquidator and other bodies and stakeholders will take place and when will the Government be in a position to pay third-party claimants? How many third-party claimants are involved? What is the position in terms of compensation for those who paid their insurance for a full year but were only insured for a portion thereof, thus losing the remainder of their premiums? How much does the Minister of State anticipate the compensation relating to Enterprise Insurance will cost the State? Will the payment be a cost to the State? From where will the net difference between the 35% and 22%, which is 13%, come? What contingency plans does the Government have to ensure that people will get paid, that third-party claims will be repaid quickly and that individuals may receive refunds in respect of their premiums in situations similar to this - whereby insurance companies are regulated outside the jurisdiction but selling policies here and, like Setanta, they fail and go into liquidation - in the future?
I thank Senator O’Donnell for raising this matter. It is an opportunity to put on the record of the House where things stand in this regard. He is aware that a Supreme Court ruling in May of last year overturned the Court of Appeal and High Court rulings that the MIBI was liable for such claims. The Supreme Court clarified that the ICF is liable for third-party claims, subject to a limit of whichever is the lesser of 65% or €825,000. It is expected that the balance due to claimants, 35%, will be paid from the proceeds of the distribution of assets on completion of the liquidation process. Following a request from the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, for an actuarial review, this is estimated to be in the region of 22% of the value of claims, thus leaving a shortfall of approximately 13%. However, the liquidator has made it clear that no payments can be made from the assets of Setanta to third-party claimants until the final claim is settled. That is a very important point. This creates further uncertainty for such claimants.
The Setanta insolvency and the subsequent Supreme Court ruling have highlighted an inequity between awards for third-party claimants from the MIBI in respect of uninsured or unidentified drivers, whereby personal injuries are compensated in full, compared with compensation from the ICF in the event of an insolvency. That is particularly unfair. The Senator is aware that the Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 is soon to come before the Houses and I will appear before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach for pre-legislative scrutiny in respect of it next week. As I said, the Minister for Finance requested an actuarial review of the situation. It was also necessary to obtain legal advice as any Government intervention to compensate third-party claimants beyond the 65% limit could result in the Government having a lower status in the creditor hierarchy and thus significantly reduce the amount it could recoup from the liquidator. That was a very major concern at the time. That provides the backdrop to the Minister for Finance’s intervention on Tuesday.
The next step is to give consideration as to whether there is a competition and state-aid issue associated with the final implementation of this decision. That is a very live concern. The Department of Finance is currently working with the Office of the Attorney General on the issue. The House may rest assured that the Government is prioritising this matter without delay and if a legislative approach is required, it will approve the necessary provision as soon as possible. This will most likely be addressed through the Insurance (Amendment) Bill. I hope the Bill will be passed in 2018.
It is important to remember that, in the absence of a settlement by a third-party claimant, no payment can be made by the ICF. This is a matter over which the Minister for Finance has no control. However, the Deputy can rest assured that once the detailed arrangements for facilitating the full compensation have been agreed, the Minister will give an indication of the likely timeline for payment, including the payment of the additional 35% to those who have already been paid 65%.
I thank the Minister of State. The main issue, particularly in regard to third-party claimants, of whom there are approximately 1,500, is a timeline for payment. The Minister of State has indicated that he expects a legislative approach will be required and that amendment of legislation or new legislation will be needed. In terms of the payment by the State of the 35% - with the subsequent recoupment from the liquidator of Setanta - when will the Setanta third-party claimants receive their cheques?
As stated, the Government is conscious of the need to satisfactorily conclude the full compensation to Setanta third-party claimants as soon as possible. Through its announcement on Tuesday, the Government has indicated its willingness to facilitate this issue. It is important to remember that no payment can be made in the absence of a settlement by a third-party claimant. In this regard, the current position is that the liquidator for Setanta Insurance has informed the Department that as of 31 December 2017 there were 1,577 active claims, of which 573 claimants have been paid compensation from the ICF, subject to the 65% limit. Subtracting 573 from 1,577 gives the total number of outstanding claims. The liquidator has also advised that preparatory work is under way in respect of 275 claims to the value of approximately €5.8 million with a view to the accountant to the High Court making an application before the end of March. This means that just over 700 claims will be settled, with the remainder unsettled.
The Minister for Finance and I hope that the announcement will encourage a more rapid settlement of claims as third-party claimants can now work on the basis that they will be compensated in full. Another benefit of the decision is that it should immediately take the pressure off policyholders, some of whom have been pursued for the shortfall by third-party claimants. It is a particularly unfair situation for people who correctly and legally got insurance with a correctly and legally regulated entity, met all aspects the law required and, through no fault of their own, have been pursued for an accident for which the insurance company should be paying.
I wish to briefly mention the payment schedule for third-party claimants that has been raised on several occasions by Members. The existing legislation provides that claims can only be paid every six months.
It has been asked if anything can be done to speed up this process. The answer, unfortunately, is "No", six months is in the current legislation and nothing can be done. This difficulty has, however, been recognised as under the amending legislation, which is currently being drafted, this period will be reduced to three months.
The Senator can be assured that we are doing everything we can to bring this matter to a conclusion. It is a very unsatisfactory situation that the insurance compensation fund, ICF, does not conclude in the same way as the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland, MIBI. Hopefully the Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2015, which I believe is before the finance committee next week, will help to address any future issues such as those that arose in the Setanta Insurance situation. It is, unfortunately, a slower process than we would like. There is very little we can do about that without amending the legislation.
Sitting suspended at 11.10 a.m. and resumed at 11.30 a.m.