Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 2012

Vol. 771 No. 2

Topical Issue Debate

School Transport

I appreciate the opportunity to raise this important issue. The changes to the post-primary school transport scheme due to take effect in September stem from the ending of the catchment boundary system and the new requirement of attendance at a student's nearest school. I understand the changes stem from the value for money review carried out of school transport which was initiated following a substantial increase in the cost of school transport. This new requirement of attendance at a student's nearest school must be reviewed and changed.

Any change to the school transport system can cause serious difficulties in a particular area and have an impact on many families. I have an example in my county. Students at second level from Kingscourt, County Cavan have traditionally attended schools in either Carrickmacross, Balieborough or Nobber. That pattern of attendance has been established between the three post-primary centres. Last week a large number of parents in Kingscourt received their first communication from Bus Éireann stating their children would not be eligible for transport to a certain school. The correspondence I saw referred to children enrolled in Carrickmacross. In the case of some families, older siblings have attended school in Carrickmacross and a younger sibling is due to attend for the first time in September. The student has been enrolled and the parents have purchased the uniform and books. Such parents have now received a communication from Bus Éireann stating the nearest school is Nobber, County Meath and that transport will only be provided to Carrickmacross on a concessionary basis if a seat is available on the bus. There are substantial costs involved for families, whether they have a medical card.

The Minister of State, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I represent rural constituencies and are very cognisant of the difficulties when changes are made to school transport systems. Where a pattern of attendance has been established over a period of years, the nearest school requirement should not be given effect. The Minister of State is aware of the school transport system which operates in his constituency and I ask him to ensure the Department review this issue as a matter of urgency.

I also have serious concerns about the impact of the changes to the post-primary school transport scheme. Schools in rural areas or smaller towns in County Tipperary such as Borrisoleigh, Templemore, Killenaule, Ballingarry and others are concerned that the changes will drastically affect their viability, as they will radically limit the number of children who can avail of subsidised transport. This is pertinent, given the severe financial pressure to which many families are subject. The difference between paying for a bus service and securing subsidised transport may be large enough to swing the decision to enrol a child in one school over another. As a result of this revised transport scheme, parents are faced with an impossible situation whereby they may already have children enrolled in a secondary school but have now discovered that younger children who wish to enroll in that school will not be entitled to subsidised transport. In these difficult times, the burden of paying €350 for school transport is often too much to bear and a parent must consider the possibility of sending a child to a different school from the school attended by his siblings. Separating family members is clearly not desirable and will only result in families being placed under additional pressure with different pick-up points and collection times.

I have several specific concerns with the operation of the scheme. Several discrepancies in County Tipperary have been brought to my attention. Specifically I have been contacted regarding bus routes to secondary schools that serve more than one school. Several schools in my constituency are facing a situation whereby numerous pupils have been informed that they are not entitled to subsidised transport to a given school because there is another school closer to the child's home. This is despite the fact that the school bus serves the school and that, geographically, it is further from the child's house when the bus travels on to a second school which is closer to the child's home. Essentially, this means pupils will be subsidised for a longer journey and will not be subsided to the closest school according to the bus route although there are places on the bus and that bus passes the school of their choice. This is a particular issue in the Killenaule area. This is an illogical decision and it has angered many families. I have been contacted by parents who have been informed that their child only qualifies for subsidised transport to the second school as it is the closest school having regard to a walking route. The walking route referred to in this instance is 10 km long through boreens not fit for vehicles. The decisions to refuse someone on these grounds is devoid of common sense.

I would appreciate if the Minister could provide clarification on what is deemed to be an appropriate school. I have spoken to several parents who, having made an application, were refused subsidised transport for a chosen school based solely on the grounds of distance. I call on the Minister of State to provide clarification on whether a child is entitled to subsidised transport to travel marginally further to a school that matches the ethos and beliefs of the family. Will the Minister of State provide information on exactly how the closest appropriate school is decided? I call on the Minster to ensure that any application decided solely on the basis of distance grounds should be reviewed along with the issue of buses serving several schools.

I thank the Deputies for raising this matter. School transport is a significant operation managed by Bus Éireann on the Department's behalf and more than 82 million km are covered annually. In the region of 113,000 children, including more than 8,000 children with special needs, are transported in approximately 4,000 vehicles on a daily basis to primary and post-primary schools throughout the country.

The current system for determining eligibility for school transport at post-primary level has been in place for more than 40 years. When the Government announced the introduction of free post-primary education in 1966, the country was divided for planning purposes into geographic districts, also referred to as catchment areas. Each area had several primary schools feeding into a post-primary centre with one or more post-primary schools. Post-primary pupils are eligible for transport if they reside 4.8 km or more from their local post-primary education centre, that is, the centre serving the catchment area in which they live. The definition of school transport catchment boundaries has been the cause of many submissions and representations to the Department over the years. It is widely considered by many that the current catchment boundary areas do not reflect changed demographics. Changes in the post-primary school transport scheme were announced in the 2011 budget. This was passed in December 2010 under a different mandate.

One of the changes to take effect from the commencement of the 2012-13 school year means that the use of the catchment area system as a means of determining eligibility will cease for all pupils newly entering a post-primary school. From this date, school transport eligibility for all new pupils entering a post-primary school will be determined by reference to the distance they reside from their nearest post-primary education centre, having regard to ethos and language. This will applied equitably on a national basis. In general, eligible pupils, who are currently availing of school transport and who meet the distance criterion of 4.8 km, will retain their eligibility for the duration of their post-primary education, provided there is no change in their current circumstances. Pupils who are not eligible for school transport may apply for transport on a concessionary basis subject to a number of conditions which are detailed in the scheme. The general approach of the Department in respect of the planning of school infrastructure is to plan on the basis of attendance of pupils at their nearest primary schools and that those primary schools then feed into attendance at the nearest post-primary schools or the nearest post-primary centre generally. The changes announced in post-primary school transport services are in line with this approach and will result in a more efficient and cost-effective system.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. However, it is not a more cost effective scheme for many parents who must share substantial additional costs. In the reply to a parliamentary question the Department was only able to estimate the proposed savings from the introduction of this measure. Therefore, there must only be minimal savings. The implementation of this new regulation will impose undue hardship on many families. We will see ridiculous situations such as older siblings attending one school in a post-primary centre and their younger siblings attending a different post-primary centre. Some pupils have been enrolled in certain schools already and parents have bought uniforms and books. These children are ready to start in their new school next September. I believe that the new regulation will be inoperable in some cases where there has been a pattern of attendance at particular post-primary centres established over the years.

I appeal to the Minister of State and the Department to review this issue because it will not bring about substantial savings. In many cases the scheme will be inoperable and there is a need for flexibility to provide an important school transport service especially for rural Ireland. The Department should consider localising the provision of school transport. Over the years the introduction of the devolved building grants scheme has been successful. More has been achieved with less expenditure. The same could be achieved in the provision of school transport. I call on the Minister to ask his officials to take an urgent look at this case.

I call on the Minister of State to discuss another matter with the building unit in the Department. We are awaiting the provision of a new second level school in Kingscourt. The provision of the new school was approved in March 2009. Much preparatory work has been done with regard to design and a site has been purchased.

That is a separate Topical Issue.

The patronage issue has been resolved. I call on the Minister of State to ensure that building project is advanced. If that were the case I would not have transport problems to bring to his attention involving where children go to post-primary centres.

I was wondering where that was going. Deputy Lowry has one minute to speak on the issue of schools transport only.

The difficulty with the new scheme as it has been put in place is that the people who make the decisions about the routes have no geographical knowledge whatsoever. These decisions are made by bureaucrats. If one knew the areas concerned one would realise that the decisions are ridiculous. There are considerable anomalies in this scheme. I have no doubt that school principals will be angry and aggrieved because they will lose students as a result of this revised system. Parents will be frustrated and angry because they will have to pay €350. Students will be annoyed in many cases because they will be unable to attend the schools that their siblings attend. The problem with the scheme is that it is too rigid and there is no flexibility with the decision-making structure. I call on the Minister of State to take local knowledge into account and to allow for some of the decision making processes to take place locally and to involve the local transport authorities in the areas.

Deputy Smith takes an innovative view of how the Topical Issues debate should be utilised in respect of lobbying for the new school.

I am trying to resolve a transport issue in doing so.

That is a lateral and imaginative view. I respectfully suggest that the Deputy should table a parliamentary question or discuss the issue with the Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn. It has been noted on the record of the House. There may be individual vagaries relating to counties Tipperary and Cavan. The Minister of State, Deputy Ciarán Cannon, has specific responsibility for this area. He is not averse to hearing the individual views of the Deputies in respect of the vagaries of the system as they work out in the two constituencies.

However, we must emphasise that, to allow parents ample time to consider the school options, a 20-month gap was allowed between the announcement of this measure and the time when parents needed to apply for school transport. Children who wish to attend the same school as their older siblings but who are not eligible for school transport to the school may apply for transport to the school on a concessionary basis in accordance with the terms of the scheme. These changes were posted on the Department's website in October 2011 and the updated scheme was made available on 1 February 2012. The Department contacted post-primary schools directly on two occasions in addition to the relevant education partners formally advising them of the changes.

With regard to the impact of the changes, the Deputy may be aware that, as part of the value for money review, an examination was conducted of selections of school transport catchment boundaries which tested the application of an arrangement where the transport is available to the nearest post-primary centre. This concluded that 82% of the pupils are attending their nearest post-primary school.

In general, existing eligible children will retain their eligibility for the remainder of their post-primary education provided their circumstances do not change. The revised eligibility criteria are confined to those families who have children newly entering post-primary school. This change in eligibility is being applied equitably on a national basis and, in some cases, pupils in the same area or family may be eligible for transport to different schools during the transitional period of five years. In these cases, transport and the concessionary basis may be an option.

Industrial Relations

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock, for attending. I wish to bring to his attention the issue of the takeover of The Fáilte Bar in Dublin Airport earlier this year and the impact on the ten former members of staff. I am very conscious that this is an ongoing issue and is somewhat sensitive. There are already proceedings under way with the Labour Relations Commission. Therefore, I wish to focus on the role of the Dublin Airport Authority in this matter. I am mainly concerned for the workers, many of whom I have met and live in my constituency. There is also a bigger issue, namely, the Dublin Airport Authority's involvement in contracts in the airport.

The Minister of State may be aware that the operation of the bar was taken over earlier this year by a company called SSP and that it subsequently closed. The bar then reopened under a new name, The Angel's Share, with expanded food service. Essentially, the former staff were told to apply for new positions in the new bar. Those who successfully completed an assessment were to be given new job titles, with significantly changed terms and conditions. Not all were offered new jobs and there are currently redundancy proceedings under way. Three workers out of the ten are on a month's trial on their old pay rates. However, it is not yet clear what rates they will be offered when the trial period ends later this month. The pay per hour for the new positions in the bar is €9.60, whereas some of the bar staff in the old bar, The Fáilte Bar, were earning €17 and over per hour. This is a significant change in the pay rate offered for the same job.

I fear that what happened to the workers in the airport, where a large number of service sector staff work, could happen elsewhere if a similar changeover took place. I appreciate that passenger numbers have declined and that businesses are adjusting to this, but I do not believe a change of operator and new job titles should essentially mean these kinds of changes to pay rates.

There is a possibility that what happened to the ten workers will happen to other airport workers if the responsibility for the operation of other bars or services is transferred. This is an issue the Dublin Airport Authority needs to consider seriously. It is not enough for the authority simply to handle tenders and not have an interest in the rights of workers in the airport. I ask the Minister of State to raise this with the Dublin Airport Authority and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, in particular. Workers in the service sector already have precarious job conditions and many must work unsociable hours, as we know. At the very least, the workers deserve respect, but they also deserve the support of the Dublin Airport Authority when circumstances such as those in question arise.

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I understand the issues involved concern the outcome of a tendering process for the running of a bar in Terminal 1 of Dublin Airport. The Dublin Airport Authority has confirmed that the tender process for the outlets in question was conducted through the Official Journal of the European Union's system for public procurement and was fully compliant with all guidelines. The tender documentation for the outlets in question stated that transfer of undertakings legislation may apply and advised potential tenderers to seek advice on such legislation.

The restructuring currently under way at a number of outlets is a matter for the operators in question. I am not privy to the details of transfer or the parties involved. One cannot but have sympathy for those involved in this dispute. Without fudging the issue and in seeking to give an honest answer to the Deputy, I must suggest firmly that industrial relations machinery needs to come into play on this issue. I hope both sides will agree to a process in which such machinery can be utilised to come to a resolution that is satisfactory to both.

I have to hand a very detailed response on the rights of employees in regard to transfers of undertakings but I do not believe it is necessary to read it out. However, I strongly support the idea that labour relations machinery should be utilised in this instance. I would be very surprised if there has not already been a move in that regard.

I appreciate the Minister of State's honesty and his not reading the extended response he was asked to read to me. Both he and I understand the circumstances at hand. No laws have been broken, which we respect. Every i has been dotted and every t crossed but a sense of natural justice has gone completely out the window. This issue needs to be monitored. Dublin Airport is a significant employer in north Dublin; it is one of the largest. There are many in the neighbourhood who rely on income from it. The staff to whom I refer have worked most unsociable hours so we can get aeroplanes when we want to get them. Essentially, they have been told through a legitimate process that they can work for the bar but at half the pay they received previously. This matter needs to be addressed.

I understand we are constrained by the legislation and that there are processes to deal with this matter. However, no law has been broken. I ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, who has responsibility for the Dublin Airport Authority, and the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, to raise this matter with the Dublin Airport Authority in order that it will, at least, acknowledge that there is a system in the airport, albeit a very transparent one, that has resulted in a very unfavourable outcome for workers who have given years of service, ten in some cases. To be told one's pay is to be reduced from €17 to €9.60 is just not fair, especially when one has a family.

I am very sensitive to the fact there are ongoing discussions. That said, that seven out of the ten workers who were working for the company in question before the transfer did not pass the test to do pretty much the same job is telling. Coincidentally, the staff happened to be at the higher end of the pay scale before the transfer. This says something about the morality of the company. It is using the legislation in place as a type of smokescreen. While it has broken no laws, it has used the legislation to create a sense that it has made a fair decision.

As far as I know, these jobs for which staff were told to reapply were also advertised in the public domain, quoting that no experience was necessary. There is something not right.

I reiterate that I respect the Minister of State's response. I appreciate that he did not read out the response given to him.

I urge the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, who has responsibility for the DAA, to raise this directly with the DAA because this may open the valve for what could become a €9.60 job for everybody who works in the airport in the foreseeable future.

I agree with everything Deputy Lyons has said. Let us be frank and honest about it. The issue at hand here is one of corporate social responsibility, a term we bandy around from time to time and can use quite easily. If there is a transfer of undertakings here, as Deputy Lyons stated, it says something about the morality of the company. There is a strong sense here of an obligation on the part of SPP, where it has taken over a facility in what is, effectively, a State entity, to ensure the rights of the workers are vindicated or at least that there is a recognition of the experience of the existing staff who go into the new undertakings.

In this instance, though we recognise that no law has been broken, there is a certain corporate social responsibility. I hope that common sense will prevail and that the extensive machinery of the State in labour relations could be applied in this instance.

It is important that these issues are raised on the floor of this House also. It sends a signal back to these entities that these matters are being looked at by Government and that there is a consciousness in this House of the issues Deputy Lyons raises.

Crime Prevention

I very much appreciate the opportunity to raise this rather technical issue. I regret that the line Minister, Deputy Shatter, cannot be here but I appreciate he is in committee this afternoon. I am grateful to the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, for taking this issue.

The Minister, were he here, would be aware that alarms have in recent years worked on a dual-communication regime of a telephone line in conjunction with GPS. The reason GPS is used is that it is the standard laid down in regulation in SI 307 of 2009 which governs alarm systems which are required by those keeping firearms on the premises, whether for private or commercial use.

These GPS backed systems are now used widely in all State buildings, post offices, banks, armoured security cars and businesses and, indeed, in thousands of private homes. It was a good standard. In fact, GPS is a wonderful technology that we all use on our mobile telephones and elsewhere. It worked well for this purpose as well until it was overtaken by the ingenuity of the criminal mind which eventually caught up with the technology.

There is now a jamming system, a little mobile device available on the Internet, which has been successfully imported into Ireland and is being used by the criminal fraternity. The way it works is that, by using a little hand-held device no bigger than a mobile phone, they can jam the signal outside the premises and break in, secure in the knowledge that for the time that they are present there is no signal going to the local Garda station. They know that they have all the time in the world to get on with whatever they are at.

The Minister will be aware that there was a welcome drop in all crime levels, except burglaries, announced only last week. I am not saying that there is a causal effect between the increase in the number of burglaries and the increased use of these jammers, but I can say that the jammers are being imported and they are being used by criminals.

My request to the Minister is that he would consider not replacing GPS systems as the standard but allowing an alternative so there is an officially sanctioned choice available to those who must secure their firearms by an alarm system and, consequently, intimate to all alarm users, including ATMs, security cars and post offices, that there are other systems which cannot be jammed and are now maybe better than the GPS that has been in use. Long-range radio telemetry offers an alternative to cellular technology and it is almost impossible to jam because the repeater technology makes it almost impossible to track from where the waves are coming.

I ask, if the Minister is agreeable, that he ask the Garda Commissioner not to take my word for it but to seek the views of the Garda communications unit on this issue. There are many in the force who are aware of this, understand the problem and are genuinely concerned. I ask that the Commissioner seek the expert advice of those who are in a position in the force to give it and communicate his advice back to the Minister.

I thank Deputy Mitchell for raising the issue. As she has already pointed out, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, is in committee. He apologises for not being able to take this topic himself.

The Minister thanks the Deputy for raising this matter. In fact, he answered a parliamentary question on 22 May last put down by the Deputy on this same issue. He mentioned to the Deputy, in the reply, that if she provided him with any specific instances of the theft of firearms which she wished him to look into he would gladly raise the matter with the Garda Commissioner. I understand that he did not receive any such information and his Department has not received any similar queries in this regard from anyone else, but he fully accepts that there is an issue in relation to it.

As the Deputy will be aware, the Firearms (Secure Accommodation) Regulations, which came into force in August 2009, are the regulations governing the secure storage of firearms in the home. These regulations set out the minimum security standards outlined on the provision of secure accommodation for those firearms. In general terms, it stipulates that the greater the number of firearms a person has licensed, the higher the requirements of security that must be complied with. These requirements range from a trigger lock being required for one non-restricted shotgun to a monitored alarm service operated by a person licensed by the Private Security Authority and supported by a GSM mobile phone back-up facility for three or more restricted firearms or six or more firearms of any type, kept in the same place, to which the Deputy referred. The Minister has asked me to point out that the use of an apparatus in order to block or interfere with a mobile phone signal is an offence under Irish law. The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 provides that a person may be prosecuted summarily or on indictment for the offence of using any apparatus for the purpose of interfering with any wireless telegraphy.

All wireless telegraphy apparatus used in the State must be licensed under section 5 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 unless it is specifically subject to an exemption order, for example, GSM and 3G mobile phones. Section 3(2) of the Act provides that it is an offence for a person licensed under the Act to use the apparatus otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions subject to which such licence is expressly, or is by virtue of this Act deemed to have been, granted. As provided for in the secure accommodation regulations, the Garda Commissioner is in a position to approve an equivalent standard for alarms, including any alternatives to the current approved standard. Therefore, any changes in this area will be considered following advice from the Garda Commissioner. As the Minister stated recently, the increase in the number of burglaries over the past 12 months is a cause of great concern. He considers that it is too early to see the full impact of the concerted and intelligence-led measures An Garda Síochána have put in place under Operation Fiacla and he knows these are a top priority for the Commissioner and are proactively targeting prolific offenders. Together with good crime prevention and community policing, he feels these measures represent a focused and strategic approach to challenging those involved in this type of criminality and should be reflected in future crime figures. As the Minister stated in reply to the Deputy earlier, he has asked the Garda Commissioner to keep the matter under review. He is acutely aware of the dangers associated with the theft of licensed firearms. As Minister, he is determined to ensure that in the operation of all aspects of the firearms licensing system, the question of public safety is paramount. I will ensure the Deputy's concerns are placed on the Minister's desk.

The Minister of State may have misunderstood my concern. While the theft of firearms is a worry, my main concern is that the standard for securing firearms laid down by the Minister is the standard accepted throughout the country by all businesses, including banks, armoured car providers and State businesses such as post offices. Everyone is vulnerable because they are all using a system that can be sabotaged. That is my point.

I am pleased to note the Minister will take the advice of the Garda Commissioner. My simple request is that he ask the Commissioner whether this is a cause of concern among members of the force and, if so, request that action is taken. Thousands of businesses are using the alternative radio technology alarm network which has been rolled out. Incidentally, it may be a matter of interest to the Minister that the technology is supplied by an Israeli firm. He need not have any fears regarding whether the technology is accepted or state-of-the-art.

While I understand the reluctance to change regulations that have been laid down, we must also move with advances in technology. On an issue of this nature, where the protection of businesses and persons is crucial, the Minister should keep an open mind rather than erring on the side of caution. I fully understand that the precautionary principle applies when considering changing regulations that have worked in the past, but the current regulations no longer work. For this reason, I ask that the Minister request the Garda Commissioner to seek advice on this issue from the Garda communications unit.

I apologise if the reply provided placed undue emphasis on firearms. The Deputy's contribution clearly indicates that the issue is a wider one. While the Government cannot make demands of private individuals in respect of how they secure their premises, it is obvious the recommendation on regulation will be considered to be the optimum available and that people will buy into it. My view on technology is that it becomes obsolete when one finds one understands it or must explain it. One must keep ahead of the posse on technology. While Ministers are always reluctant to change regulations which have not been in place for a long time - the relevant regulations were introduced in 2009 - it is essential to keep up to date. I will raise the Deputy's concerns with the Minister.

I appreciate that.

Mental Health Services

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, for coming to the House for this debate. It is great to have in the House the Minister with direct responsibility for this matter. I raise this issue alongside my colleagues, Deputies Robert Troy and Maureen O'Sullivan, two co-convenors of the cross-party Oireachtas group on mental health. Deputy Ó Caoláin, whose name is also associated with this Topical Issue matter, has asked us to place on record his regret that he cannot be present as he is attending an all-day meeting at Stormont. He wishes to be strongly associated with the matter raised. The other convenor of the cross-party group is Senator Susan O'Keeffe, who is, obviously, a Member of the other House.

That members of all political groupings in both Houses have come together on this issue demonstrates the importance parliamentarians attach to mental health. We are unique in being the only cross-party group with representatives of all political groupings in the Oireachtas which has drawn up and presented to Government a pre-budget submission. The group is pleased with the Government's commitment to provide €35 million in the previous budget for community mental health services.

The cross-party group seeks to achieve three outcomes from this Topical Debate. First, we wish to obtain an update on the status of the €35 million committed in the budget for community mental health services. Second, we wish to obtain from the Minister of State an update on the appointment of a director of mental health. Third, we seek a commitment on the ring-fencing of staff for community mental health teams.

All those involved in politics and society generally are used to mental health being treated as the poor relation of the health service. In the past, money allocated to mental health was siphoned off into different areas of the health service as the year proceeded. While this is clearly not the intention of the Minister, Government or House, we need an assurance that this practice will not occur this year and the commitments provided will be met.

Community-based mental health services are at the core of A Vision of Change. This strategy recommends shifting care from mental health institutions to the community and envisaged specialist services operated by staff with particular expertise in supporting a person's mental health. It seeks to bring together a holistic range of support and staff from a range of specialist disciplines, including clinical psychology, mental health nursing, occupational therapy, psychiatry and social work. There is no doubt that community-based mental health services are the correct approach. There is now a political consensus and compelling economic argument for this model. The Health Service Executive, for example, recently launched a report which showed that the community model of mental health services is the best way to achieve a good quality and cost-effective service. In addition to being the right approach, it is also cost effective.

I add my voice to the sentiments expressed by Deputy Simon Harris. I acknowledge the work done by the previous Government in this regard. The Minister of State's predecessor launched the document, A Vision for Change, and I am pleased the strategy has been adopted and is being acted on.

In the past decade, the number of people resident in psychiatric units has declined by 33%. The special allocation of €35 million towards community mental health services in the 2012 budget was a welcome development. As Deputy Harris noted, we are seeking clarity on precisely where and how the €35 million has been or will be spent. While I do not doubt the Minister of State's commitment to mental health, action is required, including on the recruitment of the 414 professionals promised for community health services, none of whom had been employed as of several weeks ago. This is disappointing considering we are halfway through 2012.

At a time when many people under financial and emotional strain are presenting at general practitioners, it is necessary to have in place appropriate services to which GPs may refer people who are suffering and allow them to receive a proper diagnosis. Many people are engaging in deliberate self-harm, which is an issue that requires a more holistic approach. We must ensure proper professionals such as social workers and psychologists are available in communities to ensure those who require care receive it. I look forward to the Minister of State's reply.

Reading the programme for Government, I was struck by the following commitment: "We will ring fence €35m annually from within the health budget to develop community mental health teams and services as outlined in A Vision for Change to ensure early access to more appropriate services for adults and children and improved integration with primary care services." Speaking during an excellent debate on a Private Members' motion when many Members spoke from their hearts, the Minister of State noted strong similarities between A Vision for Change and a previous document, Planning for the Future, which was produced in 1984 when Mr. Barry Desmond was the Minister with responsibility for health. It is time to move beyond similarities and implement the programme set out in A Vision for Change.

At the time, the Minister of State herself noted it is not as though we do not know what needs to be done because we do. This is the point behind this Topical Issue. It is from all parties and none because I represent the Technical Group and Independent Members. Its purpose is to ascertain what is happening regarding the €35 million, the director - who will be vital to direct the service - and the ring-fencing of the staff for the community mental health teams. It remains the case that one in four people will have a mental health issue but this is not represented by the budget for mental health, which is still just over 5% of the total. Another interesting statistic is that 50% of adults diagnosed with a mental health disorder may have developed that disorder by the age of 14 and 75% of those so diagnosed will have developed it by the age of 24. The entire point is for early intervention, if for no other reason than from an economic point of view, much more will be saved. Moreover, so doing would prevent those families and individuals from experiencing the distress through which they are going.

I thank the four Deputies who added their names to this Topical Issue matter and the three who spoke on it. I am reluctant to read the prepared answer because if I do not know about mental health and what is being done with the aforementioned €35 million by now, I should not be here at all.

To take up Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan's final point, the gap between the publication of Barry Desmond's Planning for the Future report in 1984 and the appearance of the A Vision for Change framework in 2006 is unforgivable. It is a gap through which many people have fallen and is unforgivable. I will revert to this point later because I do not intend for such a gap ever again to exist, which is important. To a great extent, the A Vision for Change framework is a chart or table showing what is needed in community care and one must ensure it is fulfilled and carried forward. The Government's job concerns those posts and teams, as well as deciding what the present Administration will do with the money. In addition, the Government must begin to put in place a particular element to take us into the future beyond A Vision for Change. If the teams are in place, what will they be expected to deliver? I acknowledge I am jumping the gun slightly in this regard but Members must keep this point in mind. The Members who spoke have a particular interest in this subject and I reiterate this must be done.

Heretofore, on foot of a vote for a health budget in this Chamber and the putting in place of such a budget, it was divided up depending on the demographics and the population base and sent down to the four health regions. In the main, it was spent wisely. It was not the job of the Government to do this and those with responsibility to so do took it on and discharged it. However, an entirely different approach was taken in respect of the €35 million. As soon as it was announced, the usual e-mails were received in which people asked for their usual portion of the funds to be sent to them to enable them to decide what to do with it. However, they were informed this was not what was intended. Instead, a gap analysis was sought from them that would indicate where were the needed posts, how many psychologists, social workers and psychiatrists were required, as well as the location of the nursing posts that were required. This process has only been completed in recent weeks and it was only then that I signed off on what was to be delivered.

I listened to Deputy Troy asking where was the €35 million and metaphorically, it is in my back pocket. I still have the money, it still exists and it remains within the Department. However, the aforementioned personnel are now being recruited from existing panels that had been put together over the years and people now are being drawn from them. A difficulty arose in respect of psychologists because as Members will be aware, some panels were not sufficient and ran out of candidates. Consequently, it will be necessary to begin to re-interview in this respect. However, this will not be an issue because there is a sufficient number of qualified people operating in the private sector to do this and they can come over and work for the Government. A particular issue arose in respect of the Dublin mid-Leinster region, where those responsible did exactly what the A Vision for Change framework specified they should do in respect of beds and teams. However, the region then fell below the bar because of the exodus in February and March and it was necessary to convert some of the posts there to nursing staff because nurses are crucial in all this. The HSE has now managed to do that and I am about to sign off on the agreement in that area. Consequently, the four regions will have their teams, of which there will be 90 and the population-base will be 50,000 people per team. The teams will be put in place and this is being done as I speak. I would have loved for it to have been possible to do this last February but as I stated, this would simply have entailed splitting up the budget and sending it out to the regions and this was not considered to be appropriate. The Government is being extremely careful in this regard and this is how it is implementing this process.

There are obvious gaps in respect of things that were not done this year. I have been speaking to those involved and they are happy that these areas will be a matter of priority next year. I refer to old age psychiatry, intellectual disability and forensics. These are the areas that must be prioritised next year but this is not to suggest posts will not be made available next year to increase the size of teams in certain areas. This year, for instance, the Department is establishing 150 new posts in the child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, because it was known that a deficit existed in that regard. Those concerned informed the Department of the size of the deficit and of the requirements. As a result, 150 new posts were established and they are very happy with that. Similarly, 250 new posts have been established in respect of adult psychiatry and ten additional posts have been allocated to the national counselling service, which also was a commitment in the programme for Government.

I am very conscious that the budget for mental health services is never what one would wish it to be. However, I am equally convinced that if one spends one's budget well in a directed and particular way, one will get a greater service. I acknowledge I have gone slightly over time and did not mean to so do but I make the point that the gap between Planning for the Future and A Vision for Change must never be allowed to happen again. Consequently, we must start putting in place a group now that will look beyond the A Vision for Change strategy. Now the teams are in place, such a group should consider what they are expected to deliver and what is the service. The A Vision for Change framework was really about the table of requirements. I do not know what will happen next as I simply will be the person who will put in place the team. Hopefully, depending on its expertise and vision regarding what lies beyond A Vision for Change, that team will take it forward. Moreover, the Government is seriously contemplating putting into legislation the obligation to have such ongoing reviews and development.

The Deputies who raised the matter now have one minute each for supplementary questions.

I thank the Minister of State. Her ability to speak without a script and at such length about her brief demonstrates the passion she has for the area, which is greatly appreciated. I now am much happier that the money is in the Minister of State's metaphorical back pocket, rather than siphoned off to God knows where within the HSE, which is reassuring. The commitment was to spend it in 2012 and if it is spent in that year, the commitment will have been met. I also am happy the reply circulated to Members refers to the legislative plans for the establishment of the directorate of mental health, which will be an important development.

While the Minister of State is in the Chamber, I wish to make one point in respect of the issue of community and education, because I have raised it in another Topical Issue debate previously and the cross-party group has done a lot on it. Moreover, the group had the Oireachtas Library and Research Service produce a report on how mental health is taught in schools. If mental health services are being brought into the community, which is a welcome step, one must tackle the ignorance within our school and education systems when it comes to teaching mental health and adopting a whole-school approach to mental health. There are much better examples but when I have raised this issue with the Minister for Education and Skills and the Ministers of State in that Department, the standard response is everything is all right because the SPHE programme is in place. However, this is not the case. Children are taught from the age of four in junior infants classes about dental health. They are taught about brushing one's teeth daily and not being embarrassed if one has toothache. However, pupils are not spoken to about mental health until they are 15 and then it is done in a highly wishy-washy fashion. Having made that point, I thank the Minister of State for her reply.

I thank the Minister of State for her reply. As she quite correctly stated, the time for talking is over. The A Vision for Change document has been available since 2006 and it is appropriate that action should be taken on it as six years have elapsed. Much work has been done and I cited figures earlier on the number of people who have moved out of institutional care into the community. Nevertheless, while I do not doubt the Minister of State's commitment to the mental health brief, six months have passed since the last budget. While the €35 million is welcome, I note it remains within the Minister of State's back pocket. I would much rather see it being spent in the community.

Many people who are suffering from mental health issues are presenting themselves every day to their local GPs and many others do not know where to go to get the appropriate action. The board of the HSE was abolished with great fanfare last year and still we wait on the direct position to be established for mental health. There is too much of a delay, and while that is not always the responsibility of the Minister of State as things can be tied up in bureaucracy, I urge her to push ahead to deliver the 414 professional places to the community mental health services and to get the money out of her back pocket and into the community.

There is absolutely no doubting the Minister of State's long-standing commitment to and support for mental health, but it is time we stopped using the future tense on what we will do and use the past tense on what we have done. Would it not make more sense to appoint the director to manage all of these new initiatives? I would also like to call for the nursing course on intellectual disability to be retained. There is a need for those very specific skills required to work with people with intellectual disabilities. I understand there are talks about merging these courses which I think would be harmful.

We cannot talk about mental health without mentioning our late good friend, John McCarthy. When he spoke about the normality of madness, I think we have to push for the normality of the services. If I fall down and break my leg, it is quite normal and I can go to an accident and emergency department. If I have suicidal tendencies, if I feel I am having a breakdown or suffering depression, there is nothing normal about where I will go. Apart from not knowing where to go, there is also a stigma about it. That is a major objective that we must realise.

We are developing a whole-school approach for the emotional well-being of young children and how they feel about themselves. It is a different approach and we have to be very careful about it, because we do not want to emphasise that it is a negative thing. It must always be about something very positive and how one feels about oneself and about others. Mr. Tony Bates is developing that for us for secondary schools, but I would rather we started earlier. Children are quite capable of articulating their emotional feelings from a very young age.

In answer to Deputy Troy, we could have spent the money very early on in the year, but my fear was that it would get lost in the usual abyss. We were very careful about that. We would have loved to spend it earlier. We are now spending it in a much more targeted and better way. We will have to change our thinking about how we do things in the future and this is one area in which we have been very careful. There were no problems with the bureaucrats. In fact, they were very helpful in this case.

Deputy O'Sullivan is quite right. The normalisation of mental health as part of the overall health structure is the ultimate aim. We will be able to say next year what we have done, but we also need to ensure we are constantly progressing. We would never say we are finished dealing with cancer or cardiac care and that there will be no more progress. We cannot afford to say that about mental health either. We must be always progressing our thinking, our delivery and how people access services. That kind of focused attention is what will provide us a service that will be as normal as the service provided when somebody breaks a leg.

Top
Share