Mr. Bernard Gloster:

I am hopeful we can find a better approach to it. To be fair to the PCRS team, it has worked so hard this year to get up to speed with the new GP visit cards that are being issued to people and also in dealing with appeals. Ms Hoey is the former head of the PCRS and I think she would agree that no one would want to write to someone with a permanent condition asking them if they still have this condition. It is just how systems get calibrated. I am really hopeful we can improve on that. We are working on it.

Similarly, I think our culture of disposition towards things like the treatment abroad scheme is good. Since the Ombudsman's report we have introduced a much more robust system of review and appeal. We picked up 100 of the 130 refusals that were left through on review so we are we are trying to refine that.

Regarding transport in the disability sector, I have probably had seven different jobs that touch off the disability sector. Every year we get allocations for what we call school leave replacements for young people with disabilities leaving school. Trying to stretch those to fund the placement of transport becomes a huge issue. I am meeting with the Minister and Minister of State from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth this afternoon because the transfer function has been brought into their Department. I know that this is something that the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, is clear on. Can we resolve it all? It is difficult.

On the point about the HSE poaching staff, the reality is that we pay better pay scales which is a deficit for section 39 agencies. That is currently the subject of industrial action. There is going to be to be strike action shortly. Our local offices are engaged with different agencies to try to mitigate the impact of this. Section 39 employers were, prior to the FEMPI period, predominantly paying salary scales similar to what we pay, in other words, Department of Health salary scales for social care. During the FEMPI period the funding was retracted, as it was across the State. When it came to pay restoration, because section 39 workers are not public servants like section 38 workers, they did not get the restoration. That is the subject and core of the dispute. To be fair, it is very active in WRC and I certainly do not want to precipitate anything here. An offer was made and is still on the table, as I understand it. At a meeting on Monday evening, the Secretary General and I were advised that it is a 5% increase with 3% backdated to last April and with a commitment to further review. That offer is still on the table and obviously I do not want to interfere with the parties' negotiations. The HSE is not the employer so it is not up to us to make the offer. However I do not want to be divisive by saying it is nothing to do with us because we are not the employer. We depend so heavily on section 39 agencies as providers, and I think we have to recognise them as providers, and I certainly do. I hope that the anomaly of our staff versus their staff will get resolved.

On the Land Development Agency and our engagements with it, I might ask Mr. Sullivan to talk about that. To be fair to Mr. Sullivan I am not going to put him on the hook regarding staff accommodation. That is some way off as the Land Development Agency has not even started building on HSE land yet but I think there is good engagement with the agency.