Vol. 561 No. 1
100 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Health and Children if he has received the report of the task force on medical staffing; if it is intended to publish the report; if the report recommends the doubling of the number of hospital consultants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3402/03]
The national task force on medical staffing is completing its report. I will consider the report in detail when I receive it and will then bring proposals to Government. I understand that the task force will make recommendations regarding the number of consultants and NCHDs required to achieve a consultant-provided service and a 48 hour working week for NCHDs. These and other recommendations are being finalised. I propose to seek the Government's approval to publish the report.
The Minister has read the report. How many hospital consultants are needed? Given the report is long awaited, has preparation been made in terms of funding? There is no commitment to funding and resources to meet its recommendations. What is the Minister doing in terms of allocating funding? It is reported two pilot projects will be up and running relatively quickly, which will require funding. What is the timeframe for implementation of the report? Given that the task force has taken so long to reach conclusions, there will be major financial implications, particularly in light of the changes in NCHD working hours.
The report will endeavour to illustrate the funding implications of the proposals. The entire process has taken considerable time, with the first part being the manpower forum. The forum's recommendations led to the establishment of the task force. This is a key report because its proposals have the potential to transform the way we do things in our hospitals, as they essentially move from a consultant-led service, which is too dependent on doctors in training currently, to a consultant-provided service. That will mean an increase in the number of con sultants. I do not have an exact figure for the Deputy but as the number of consultants increases there will have to be a consequential reduction in the number of NCHDs.
The report is much more complex than the simplistic notion of only increasing consultant numbers because that has an implication for all layers of staff within hospitals. That is what the work has been about over the past 12 months. The Hanly group held 300 consultative meetings and it received comprehensive written submissions from people in the pilot areas, which are the Mid-Western Health Board and the east coast health board area.
The Minister must accept a jaundiced view is developing in regard to reports emanating from his Department. There have been many reports but no significant changes in terms of the delivery of health services. I would like practical answers to practical questions, particularly in regard to funding for the pilot schemes. Will the embargo on public sector employment affect the proposals? Will the Government make a commitment to deliver the money to meet the costings?
It is important—
The Minister always gets his figures wrong anyway.
The Minister, without interruption, please.
If the deal with NCHDs in 2000, for example, is examined, it represented a substantial improvement in terms of overtime, conditions and so on for junior doctors and the pay bill that resulted was significant. Moving to a consultant provided service may not be as huge a cost as it would have been prior to 2000. There will obviously be costs attached but we are proposing to await publication of the report, perhaps in March, and obtain Government approval of it. The recommendations will have a significant impact in terms of consultants' contracts, practices, rostering and around-the-clock cover. In essence we are looking at a renegotiation—
We should not hold our breath.
If we are going to do something as fundamental as this, there will obviously be negotiations in terms of consultants' contracts.
This could go on for years.
