Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Nov 2013

Vol. 822 No. 3

Topical Issues

Marine Safety

I thank the office of the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this topic and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport for his attendance. It is a measure of the seriousness of this issue that Deputy Deasy and I have both seen it in order to raise it as a Topical Issue matter. An EPIRB is an emergency position-indicating radio beacon. It is a very important safety device on maritime vessels. In times of distress, particularly when a boat sinks, the EPIRB will activate and indicate the position of the vessel and its registered owner. It is very important that we have learned over recent days that an Australian manufacturer has indicated that there are 150,000 faulty beacons available internationally, of which 700 are in this country. The significance of those EPIRBs being faulty is very distressing for coastal communities, particularly those involved in the fishing industry. This is a very difficult day and I am sure Deputy Deasy will reflect on that. Even when these devices go off accidentally, it is very distressing for communities and more often than not, it is because of faulty installation or maintenance or the lack of maintenance, but it is very disconcerting to find that there is a fault with the manufacture of EPIRBs.

We need to give some assurance to the marine industry, particularly the fishing industry, that the Department is fully on top of its brief. I note that under Marine Notice No. 13 of 2012, it is mandatory for the registered owners to declare their ownership of these EPIRBs so there is a register within the Department of all EPIRBs and their owners. The Department issued Marine Notice No. 38 of 2013 asking owners and operators of EPIRBs to check them to see they pass tests, but it was a very vague notice and it is very important the Department takes a more proactive approach in dealing with this problem. I look forward to the Minister's response. The Department has a register of EPIRB owners and knows the issue. There are issues around installation and maintenance but the industries and communities around our coast need assurance from the Department through the Marine Survey Office or whatever relevant authority to ensure these devices are in safe working order.

We are mindful that while we are dealing with the issue of defective EPIRBs or faulty marine beacons, a search is continuing for a fisherman missing off the Wexford coast. I attended the funeral of Shane, Paul and Kenny Bolger in June 2013. They were three brothers who died when their boat capsized in Tramore Bay. It is a day I will not easily forget. Their boat was equipped with an EPIRB. I spoke to a number of fishermen at the time and the suggestion back then was that the bow of the boat did not submerge and for that reason, the emergency signal did not go off. There might be some doubt about that. There are growing concerns that similar devices made by one particular manufacturer, GME, could be defective. The company has admitted that a microprocessor malfunction has been identified as the cause of a number of these EPIRBs not working properly.

There is an internal inquiry within the Department about concerns raised about EPIRBs three years ago and the actions that were taken or should have been taken at that time. I understand the Department raised concerns this year with the manufacturer and also contacted the company in 2010. Some people with whom I have spoken have questioned why the Department waited for the company to issue an alert before issuing its own.

The relevant international certifying authority is Bureau Veritas, which determines whether such products comply with the EU marine equipment directive.

To be honest, I am more interested in ensuring that everyone who is registered as having an emergency position indicating radio beacon, EPIRB, understands that there is a potential problem with the reliability of that safety beacon. I am not just referring to GME EPIRBs, but all EPIRBS. The company has issued an alert and the Department has issued a safety alert, but this matter deserves more than just an advisory. Even though EPIRBS are supposed to be tested every month, it is not done in every case. If there are doubts about EPIRB reliability, the Department should contact each registered individual and alert him or her to the potential danger while the inquiry takes its course.

I thank the Deputies for raising this important issue. As they will be aware, an EPIRB is used to alert search and rescue services in the event of an emergency. It does this by transmitting a coded message via satellite and earth stations to the Coast Guard rescue co-ordination centres. All of a vessel's radio equipment, including EPIRBs, must comply with international standards, which are set out in EU Council Directive 96/98 EC, known as the marine equipment directive or MED. The testing and placing of EPIRBs is done in accordance with this directive. The MED provides for common standards for safety equipment across the EU and allows for internationally recognised independent competent bodies to assess the compliance of equipment with testing standards. The MED also operates within the wider context of EU product certification, which places an obligation on manufacturers to place only safe products on the market. Given this, the role of member states is limited.

Manufacturers generally provide a warranty to cover the operation of the equipment under which it will be repaired or replaced in the event of faulty operation, subject to the equipment not having been tampered with. Vessel operators return faulty equipment through the local distributor to the manufacturer as part of the normal market operation. National maritime administrations - my Department in Ireland's case - are not involved directly in this process.

As part of the vessel surveying and certification process, the Department or a surveyor or organisation appointed on its behalf checks to see that an EPIRB is in place and is operating where the vessel is required by law to be fitted an EPIRB. Aside from the survey, it remains an operator's responsibility to ensure that the EPIRB remains fully functional, including undertaking periodic self-checks, usually monthly, to ensure the equipment continues to function properly. The regular testing of the smoke alarm in a home would be a comparable example of the ongoing self-testing required with EPIRBS, except that where an EPIRB battery is dead, it should not be changed by the operator. It should only be changed by a designated technician.

As part of its routine vessel survey arrangements, a radio surveyor from my Department became aware of a defective EPIRB when carrying out a survey on a passenger ship in June 2013. Subsequently, officers in my Department became aware of two further defective EPIRB units. On foot of this, my Department opened contact with Sartech Limited in the UK, the distributor for Ireland and the UK of the relevant EPIRB. My Department advised Sartech of the defective units that had come to light and had them sent to GME, the manufacturer's head office in Australia, for testing. My Department subsequently followed up with GME Australia during October 2013. My Department became aware of another unit failure, which was also sent to Australia for testing.

GME Australia advised that its initial testing had shown defective microprocessors and it was going to commission an independent analysis of its circuit design. My Department considered that a safety alert should be issued by the manufacturer. GME subsequently agreed and issued its safety alert on 4 November 2013. My Department issued a marine notice on 11 November to draw attention to this alert. Ireland was the first country in the world to do so. My Department also requested the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, MoU, the international organisation governing port state control throughout Europe, to promulgate the safety alert to the other member states and also informed the European Commission. This represented a precautionary and expeditious approach by the Marine Survey Office, MSO, as we were the only country to initiate action regarding these particular EPIRBS.

EPIRBs must be certified as meeting the relevant EU standard by an approved independent competent body. In the case of the GME EPIRBs, Bureau Veritas is the relevant organisation. It issued the appropriate certification confirming compliance with the directive.

Following recent media reports, I asked my Department to examine concerns that it was aware in 2010 of similar defects in EPIRBs.

Excuse me, but the remainder of the Minister's response can be included in the record so that we can proceed.

With the Acting Chairman's indulgence, I would be able to cover the key points in 35 seconds.

That is a large proportion, but I will make a rare exception for the Minister.

According to my Department's report, in July 2010 the Department had sent a number of queries to the manufacturer's agent on foot of concerns about EPIRB defects arising from possible tampering or improper battery replacement. In the ensuing examination, no evidence emerged that suggested a serious defect within the equipment type such as that associated with the microprocessor finding as determined recently. There is no crossover between the issue raised in 2010 and the issue that emerged in 2013.

The mandatory carrying of EPIRBs is specified for certain categories of vessels, including fishing vessels and other international and domestic operating ships. As part of the vessel surveying process, checks are undertaken to see that the EPIRB is in place and operating. Aside from the survey, it remains the operator's responsibility to ensure that the EPIRB remains fully functional, including undertaking periodic self-checks. My Department will continue to examine EPIRBs on vessels as part of its normal surveying and will continue to issue marine notices to remind vessel owners to undertake the necessary periodic self-checks in line with manufacturers' recommendations. A marine notice addressing this matter was issued by my Department on 29 July.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

I am aware that concerns have been raised recently regarding EPIRBs in the context of the tragic loss of the MFV Dean Leanne earlier this year. I can make no comment at all as the Marine Casualty Investigation Board, MCIB, is currently carrying out its investigation and I await its report.

I am acutely aware of the number of tragedies occurring around our coastline and the lives that have been devastated by the loss of loved ones. We have the highest ever allocation - €67.9 million - for the Coast Guard in 2014, which will cover critical helicopter search and rescue services. I am also developing a new maritime safety strategy, as I am keen to build greater awareness about safety and the measures we can take together to help reduce risks. The central goal of the new safety strategy will be to reduce deaths and injuries, since each life lost at sea is one too many. I plan to launch my consultation paper shortly.

Last July, my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, and I launched a new safety initiative for fishing vessels. A key element in the initiative involves making personal locator beacons, PLBs, a requirement for each crew member. Shortly, my Department will also launch an updated code of practice for safety fishing vessels of less than 15 m in length. The code is also being amended to make it a mandatory requirement that all fishing vessels of less than 12 m will be required to carry an automatic float free EPIRB. The code will also provide for enhanced safety training, which will be provided by Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM. Additionally, BIM will provide funding to fishermen to fit this new equipment.

I thank the Minister for his response. Will he address two points arising from his statement? Given last year's marine notice making it mandatory for EPIRB owners to register, the Department should contact owners directly on foot of any future concern. I note the Department's proactive response to date, but it would be helpful if each owner was contacted in the event of future concerns.

Microprocessors were returned to the manufacturer for assessment. An independent organisation such as the French company Bureau Veritas should also be involved in the microprocessors' assessment so as that EPIRB users can have an assurance of independence.

My understanding is that the company has advised the Department that it sold more than 150,000 EPIRBs between 2004 and 2012, with a failure rate of 0.11%. The reliability of these devices needs to be independently assessed. The Minister mentioned smoke alarms. If a particular brand of smoke alarm in public housing was found to be defective in any way, we would not just issue an alert. The likelihood is that we would have the brand recalled. Admittedly, this situation is a bit more complicated, but we need to determine quickly whether these safety beacons can be trusted. If we determine that there is an unreasonable risk, they need to be recalled.

We need to check to determine whether Bureau Veritas, the compliance agency, is satisfied with the company's explanation. We also need to ask about the testing methodology used by Bureau Veritas.

I agree with my colleague, Deputy Harrington, that the first step is to ensure that everyone who has an EPIRB understands that there is a potential risk. People need to be contacted by the Department individually while this situation is investigated.

The Deputies made two suggestions. First, people with EPIRBs from the batches in question or made by this manufacturer should be contacted individually to ensure that they are aware. I am happy to take that suggestion on board and to carry it out. Through the normal marine notice process and the attendant media coverage, the majority of all vessel owners should be aware of the recent marine notice concerning these EPIRBs. However, as a precautionary measure and following on the Deputies' suggestion, my Department will inform everyone on the EPIRB register of the relevant notices to ensure that people are fully informed.

I will need to take advice on the question of independent testing by someone other than the manufacturer. I am unsure as to who the independent tester would be or even if it is possible to carry out independent tests on a device that has been already opened and examined.

It is important to state that EPIRBs can fail for a number of reasons. Sometimes they do not hit the water, which means they are not activated, while on other occasions they may be faulty. In addition, the battery may not be replaced properly or may have been tampered with. If that happens obviously it is serious. People put themselves at enormous risk if they cut corners by trying to repair devices or change batteries when they are not qualified to do so.

In its revised Estimates volume, my Department has given its highest ever allocation for the coastguard service, totalling €67.9 million. That will cover the critical helicopter search and rescue services. I am also developing a new maritime safety strategy as I am keen to build greater awareness about safety and the measures we can take together to help reduce risks.

The central goal of the new safety strategy will be to reduce deaths and injuries, as each life lost at sea is one too many. I am concerned that a country such as Ireland, which has a much smaller fishing fleet than Iceland, loses many more people at sea than Iceland. That does not happen with our passenger or cargo vessels, so we have a big problem there which needs to be addressed.

I introduced that topic incorrectly, stating that it was the EPERB, whereas I should have said EPIRB. I apologise for misleading the House.

Not to be confused with the International Rugby Board.

That is the Minister's other hat.

Third Level Feeder Schools

Information on third level feeder schools has been published in almost every national newspaper today and it makes for interesting reading. The data highlight the advantages and disadvantages in terms of what is happening in second level education and the students who are continuing into third level education.

It should be acknowledged that more schools are sending their pupils to third level education, so real progress is being made in educational opportunities, despite the deep recession. Such opportunities are spread across society and families that historically could not have sent their children to third-level education, now have a greater chance of doing so. These matters deserve to be acknowledged.

There are other aspects involved in the transition from second to third level education. One can see from the league tables that students attending fee-paying schools are more likely to attend college. Private schools, of which there are more than 50 in the State, have a 100% record of moving their students on to third level education, but that is not the whole story. The report goes on to confirm that schools with higher numbers of disadvantaged students continue to send fewer pupils to college. Whatever progress has been made, we still have a situation whereby the State provides a subsidy of approximately €100 million to a small number of private schools - some 50 plus. The Government has continued to do so in the three budgets it has passed in this House.

Fairness in education is a principle worth campaigning and fighting for. Education should not be denied to people because of where they are born or because of their family circumstances. Third level education should not be a preserve of privileged people who have the money to afford it.

Students attending private schools are guaranteed that they will go to a third level college. That guarantee is not in the gift of disadvantaged families, however. Some of them get through but a greater number are left outside the third level sector. We will have to address this.

Last week, we had a debate - which is still taking place - about top-ups totalling €3 million in the health sector. All guidelines for health CEOs and managers should be adhered to. However, we cannot oppose top-ups while at the same time providing a top-up of €100 million to private schools. It is a contradiction.

I am aware that reports have been published on feeder schools for third level. Similar tables have been published by newspapers annually for more than a decade. My Department does not endorse these tables nor does it normally comment on them or encourage them in any way.

I am not in favour of the publication of these league tables based solely on rates of third level admissions in Ireland. Such tables provide an unbalanced, narrow focus and limited indication of a school's overall performance. For example, they do not take into account progression to universities in the UK or in other countries outside Ireland. Nor do they take into account progression to post leaving certificate courses.

There are also instances of inconsistencies between newspapers over what percentages of students from individual schools go on to higher education. This can be confusing for parents. The tables also fail to show how schools add value to the education of their students, often in difficult circumstances. A school in a disadvantaged area may have struggled and succeeded in getting a reasonable percentage of its students into third level, but could be placed on the list below a school that draws its students from much more advantaged backgrounds. In other words, the kind of league tables published today can inadvertently pit schools serving entirely different communities against each other in crude comparisons of academic performance alone.

The information in the tables concentrates on one aspect of school performance only and does not take into account the profile of students in the school. Experience from other countries shows that a single-minded pursuit of league table rankings by schools can greatly narrow the educational experience of students in our schools. It can reduce the pursuit of excellence and the provision of a well-rounded education that will stand to our students for further study and for life.

An overemphasis on those aspects of provision that are easily measurable can come at the expense of essential aspects of students' learning, such as their social and personal development. When choosing a school for their children, it is important for parents to consider not just the academic performance of the school but also the quality of its pastoral care, the culture of the school and, critically, how the school can meet the needs of their child.

The Minister has sought to ensure that more robust, relevant and readily accessible information is made available that provides a balanced picture of educational provision in individual post-primary schools. Inspections are now carried out on a regular basis on different aspects of provision in our post-primary schools and are published on the Departments' website.

In contrast to school league tables, I believe that school inspection reports when read in their entirety can provide balanced and well-informed information on schools. The inspection process involves an examination of all the varied activities of a school, from the quality of management and the quality of teaching and learning to the availability of extra-curricular activities and the implementation of policies in areas such as bullying, and health and safety. The inspection process also includes consultation with the school's board, parents and staff members and, at second level, with the school's students.

I am, of course, aware that transition to third level is of considerable importance. It is interesting to note that Ireland has the highest rate of transition to third level in the EU.

Today's reports are further evidence that the currency of success at senior cycle is now measured by the number of points achieved for entry into higher education. There is a significant backwash effect on teaching and learning in the senior cycle and, the junior cycle, from this narrow focus and measurement process. It is crucial that these and other factors do not lead to an education experience in senior cycle where there is more focus on rote learning and memorisation rather than on teaching students the higher order thinking skills necessary for success in life and in higher education.

The Minister has identified the reform of the transition from second level to higher education as a key priority. A high level group of education partners has made progress in agreeing commitments which will help to address concerns around the points entry system into higher education.

The Minister of State made some valid points in his reply, with which I largely agree, including that there are shortcomings in the league table system as currently set out. Similar comment has been made about it in previous years.

Despite the shortcomings of the system, what is indisputable is that those who attend private second level fee paying schools are virtually guaranteed a place in university to the disadvantage of those who do not have the financial resources to attend these schools. I believe in fairness in education. I do not, and have never, had any dispute with the existence of private schools. However, private schools in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England are not subsidised by the State. Why should Irish taxpayers have to pay for an elite collection of schools when taxpayers in our neighbouring jurisdictions do not? Essentially, this €100 million per annum in funding is a top-up to allow privileges to these schools, to which most families cannot afford to send their children.

The Minister of State and I have spoken about the democratic revolution, on which I will not comment further. While I believe in reform I believe more in fairness. There is no fairness in this system.

As I mentioned earlier, the league tables published present a very inaccurate and unhelpful view of schools in that they provide information on only one aspect of school performance. I would encourage parents to look at school inspection reports, which are available on the Department's website and provide a far fuller, accurate and holistic view of what is happening in the individual school environment.

The Minister is currently prioritising reform of the entry system to higher education in an effort to reduce the negative backwash of the current system on teaching and learning in schools. These measures, combined with the alternative sources of information about schools available to parents, will negate the need or relevance of the type of league tables published to date. The central point made by the Deputy has been addressed by the Minister, Deputy Quinn, in the past two budgets by way of a considerable increase in the pupil-teacher ratio for private schools.

Child Care Services Funding

I thank the office of the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this issue for discussion. I welcome that the Minister has secured €900,000 for allocation in 2013 to the delivery of training modules in the early child care sector. While it is a modest sum given there are 4,300 service providers throughout Ireland it is to be welcomed.

During the summer I published a discussion paper entitled Investing in Tomorrow, one of the key objectives of which is support for and professionalising of the early child care workforce by way of a professional early childhood training fund based on a needs-led targeted approach. I do not believe that the model being advanced by the Department will ensure a needs-led targeted approach is taken. The allocation being provided relates to level 5 and 6 training provision. However, it has been demonstrated by various reports and in a "Prime Time" exposé that there are gaps and deficiencies not only at level 5 and 6 but across the spectrum, including at managerial level. Can the Minister confirm this evening that the restricted criteria set out in respect of the 2013 allocation will not be repeated in respect of the 2014 allocation?

I also have grave concerns in regard to the manner in which this allocation was made. Can the Minister clarify if in relation to the €900,000 training fund public procurement procedures were followed, in particular the number of training agencies approached to tender for this work? The target in respect of the number of people who can avail of this training scheme is 630. Was any formal value for money analysis undertaken to determine if this is indeed value for money? Also, as it is a requirement in terms of eligibility for this funding that a provider deliver level 5 and 6 training what is the reason for the selection of one of the agencies, which is not accredited to deliver level 6 training?

A communication has been brought to my attention by a senior official in the Minister's Department in which it is acknowledged that an allocation has been given to two agencies. The word "given" would indicate to me that due process and procurement were not followed. This limits the options of learners and practitioners to only two agencies. It appears from that communication that no criteria has been set out in regard to how this money is to be spent and that this money will not be spent evenly across the country. It appears also that this €900,000 of taxpayers' money is being spent in a highly irregular manner, which lacks transparency and is unfair and uncompetitive. I would welcome the Minister's clarification on how the two agencies concerned were selected to provide the training.

Over the past 15 years, since the introduction of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme and its successor, the National Childcare Investment Programme, my Department and its forerunners have been supporting the development of the child care sector. This support comprised capital funding for the provision of additional child care places, funding for staffing and funding to improve quality in child care services. The support also included the provision of annual funding to a number of voluntary child care organisations, including Early Childhood Ireland, formerly the National Children's Nurseries Association and Irish Preschool Play Association; Barnardos; Irish Steiner Waldorf Early Childhood Association; Forbairt Naionraí Teoranta; Border Counties Childcare Network; St Nicholas Montessori Association and Childminding Ireland. These are voluntary organisations which provide, inter alia, training and quality supports to their members. The arrangements for funding these voluntary child care organisations have been in place for the past 15 years and have been effective in supporting development of the sector.

Similar well established arrangements are in place across many areas of the public service whereby funding is provided through grant arrangements. In the case of my own Department, a very sizeable range of organisations receive grants to support activities with children and young people or those providing services to children and young people. As well as national organisations, many local organisations receive grants in the youth, child care and community sectors. These funding arrangements are separate to the public procurement process which applies to commercial services provided on a for-profit basis.

The commitment to improve the quality of early childhood care and education has been a key priority for me since becoming Minister. In that context, my Department and I have been progressing work on a comprehensive preschool quality agenda which will seek to support and ensure higher standards in preschool services. The Deputy asked why FETAC levels 5 and 6 have been assigned as the required standards. As he knows, there has been a great deal of discussion regarding qualifications and standards in preschool services in the aftermath of the "Prime Time" programme which investigated practices in various facilities. If we want to improve standards, we have to demand certain levels of training - which is precisely what we have done. I have indicated my intention, for example, to increase the minimum requirement from FETAC level 5 to level 6 for preschool leaders delivering the preschool year. It is also my intention to require all preschool assistants and all other staff caring for children in a preschool service to hold a minimum qualification at level 5. These new requirements will apply from September 2014 for new services and from September 2015 for existing services. Staff in the sector are on modest pay. Subsidising the provision of accredited training provides an important contribution to their achievement of the new requirements in the shortest possible time. That is precisely the purpose of the funding.

In light of the timeframe for the introduction of minimum qualifications, my Department has sought to work with the child care sector to accelerate the process for training and upskilling its staff. In this context, Early Childhood Ireland, which is the largest of the voluntary child care organisations funded by my Department, and the Border Counties Childhood Network have been asked, as part of their 2013 work plans, to offer additional training to the existing workforce in relevant level 5 and level 6 training modules. My Department has asked Early Childhood Ireland to include specific elective modules that are considered particularly relevant within its training provision. These include modules entitled Children with Additional Needs and Equality and Diversity in Childcare at level 5, and Early Childhood Literacy and Numeracy and Equality and Diversity in Childcare at level 6.

I understand 13 training courses are currently being delivered and it is anticipated that up to 600 child care staff will access courses leading to the higher qualification. Additional grant funding, the amount of which is yet to be determined, will be made available to Early Childhood Ireland in 2013 to provide for this. ECI is a major national membership organisation which operates on a charitable basis. It represents 3,400 child care providers, has a proven record in delivering quality training to its members and is a registered FETAC-QQI centre with full quality assurance status. Process, policies and procedures are in place to ensure fair and consistent assessment of learners. This process is continually reviewed through self-evaluation, as monitored by FETAC-QQI. Unfortunately, the Acting Chairman has indicated that I am out of time.

I welcome the allocation of moneys for training; that is not an issue. I asked whether that funding would be restricted next year to the provision of training at FETAC levels 5 and 6. The standard of staff training in some facilities is already very high. I visited one in Kinnegad recently, for example, where every member of staff has at least a level 5 qualification and most are qualified to level 6. In such instances, staff might have a different requirement in regard to training. My concern is that under the model introduced by the Minister, those staff would be precluded from accessing it.

Will the Minister clarify that there is no public procurement requirement in respect of the €900,000 of taxpayers' money set aside to deliver this training? I have no issue with Early Childhood Ireland, a representative and voluntary body that is doing good work. However, there are other training providers, including the education and training boards. Why were they not considered as part of this programme? On the other hand, the Border Counties Childhood Network is not even accredited to deliver training at FETAC level 6. In fact, I am informed that the Department was not even aware that the BCCN was not accredited to level 6 until that body contacted the Department to inform it of same. There is an issue there. Will the Minister indicate whether public procurement procedures were followed in allocating moneys under this programme to two independently managed organisations?

The answer to the Deputy's second question is that these funding arrangements are separate to the public procurement process that applies to commercial services provided on a for profit basis. Regarding the range of training that will be offered, it is important to note that we are starting from a very low base in terms of financial support to the sector in respect of training. There is a significant amount of training required for staff and providers. As I have often said, we focused a little too much in the past on bricks and mortar and not enough on quality training. I have been allocated these additional moneys, for which Deputy Troy and others have been calling, to provide subsidised training for a sector whose members are generally low paid.

During 2014 and 2015, I will be implementing a new national training programme for the existing child care workforce for which I have secured an additional €3 million. This programme will offer training opportunities for child care staff to upskill. I will consider a range of options in terms of the types of training offered. Qualifications at FETAC levels 5 and 6 are a priority at this time because I am bringing legislation through the House to ensure workers reach that standard. I certainly do not accept the Deputy's claim that we are not responding to the need that is there. We are clearly responding to the need to upgrade staff to levels 5 and 6, which, as I said, will be the obligatory standard. Staff in the child care sector have shown great enthusiasm for participating in the training. It is expected next year and in 2015 that training will be delivered by a range of accredited training providers. I will be putting arrangements in place in the coming months to develop the programme. I do, however, take the Deputy's point that managerial training is also required.

Another important element of the preschool quality agenda that I am pursuing is the publication of the online Health Service Executive reports, which is strengthening the national inspection system. We now have more than 1,600 inspection reports online which allow parents to examine the quality of the services to which they are entrusting their children. That is an important part of improving standards, quality and training.

One of the bodies charged with delivering training is not accredited for FETAC level 6.

It can deliver level 5 training. The approach we are taking follows a well established practice of supporting voluntary charitable organisations to deliver training.

What about training for level 6? The Minister did not address that point.

Maternity Services

I understand the Health Service Executive was due to deliver a report to Government last night setting out is proposals for achieving the required saving of more than €660 million next year. I also understand that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Department of the Taoiseach will be involved in assessing those proposals. The plan comes in the wake of a recent report by the OECD, entitled Health at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators, which notes that Ireland has a low ratio of doctors to population and one of the lowest levels of gynaecologists and obstetricians per 100,000 women in the OECD area.

Ireland has a legacy of under-staffing in maternity care, with a 2008 study of staffing levels in the greater Dublin area identifying a shortfall of 221 midwives, 20 neonatal nurses and 35 theatre staff.

Hence, there was a shortage of maternity staff, even during the good economic times, but the situation has significantly worsened since the beginning of the economic crisis. Dr. Peter Boylan, clinical director of the National Maternity Hospital, has stated that Ireland is approximately 30% short of internationally recommended maternity staff levels.

Following numerous inquiries into the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar last year, including a HIQA report which noted the three vacancies at University Hospital, Galway that remained unfilled owing to the moratorium on hiring staff, it is obvious that funding cuts and recruitment embargoes in the name of austerity are having detrimental effects on people's lives. Other reports, including the report into the death of Tania McCabe, already highlighted issues in maternity staffing levels as far back as 2007. However, despite inquiries, reports and recommendations, nothing has been done. Instead, the Government's policies seem to be making the situation worse.

I note the Minister for Health has said that it is not about overall numbers but the type of staff in place. I remind the Minister that if a football team has nine players and has to deal with what comes its way, there is no point in saying they can deal as well as otherwise without the required number or if they are short. The Minister also made the point that patient safety is the responsibility of the chief executive of any hospital or hospital group. Let us suppose I put it to a restaurant manager that we are going to save some money and I am going to take away a chef and a commis chef, but I want the manager to ensure that none of the customers is waiting on their food and that they all go away happy. In fairness to the manager, it would be difficult for him to deliver if he does not have the resources to do so. It is well to say that the responsibility is with the manager to make it happen but if we cut resources and tell the manager that he can make this happen with less, then it must be challenging for that manager. Given the HIQA report in October, will the Minister of State outline whether the Department will increase the numbers of staff and consultants in maternity hospitals? Is that part of the Government's plan?

The director general of the HSE forwarded the 2014 service plan to the Department of Health late yesterday evening. In accordance with the Health Act 2004, as amended, the Minister for Health has a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of the plan to either approve the plan or to seek amendments to it in consultation with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.

The question of amending the plan might arise if, for example, the Minister was of the view that the plan did not contain the required information, did not have sufficient regard to previous directions issued or did not accord with the policies and objectives of the Minister for Health, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs or the Government. The Minister for Health must make a decision in respect of the plan by Monday,16 December next. When approved, the plan must be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas by the Minister for Health and published as soon as possible thereafter by the HSE. Until such time as the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, has had an opportunity to give detailed consideration to the plan, as he is required to do by statute, it would not be appropriate for me to publicly discuss either the broad contents of the plan or to detail any of its specific provisions. However, the HSE was made fully aware when drafting the 2014 plan that the over-riding national service plan priority is, first and foremost, patient safety and treating patients in as timely a manner as possible.

I assure the Deputy that the matter of any necessary patient-centred improvements in maternity care arising from the Health Service Executive and HIQA reports into the Savita Halappanavar tragedy will be prioritised in this regard. We are determined that as a consequence of the sad loss of this young woman our entire health system will learn profound lessons which will ensure that safer more patient-centred maternity care is provided. Naturally, the Minister has accepted the HIQA's recommendation that, as a priority, maternity services should be reviewed and that a national maternity services strategy should be developed and implemented.

I wish to inform the House that maternity services policy will be part of an overarching policy framework to be put in place for hospital groups. The maternity strategy will be developed by the Department in collaboration with the HSE and its national clinical programmes in obstetrics and gynaecology. The development of the strategy will build on the work already undertaken as part of the comprehensive review of maternity and gynaecology services in the greater Dublin area, resulting in the KPMG report, which was itself informed by an international analysis of maternity and gynaecology service configurations. The strategy will address issues, including the issue of appropriate maternity services staffing, as raised by the Deputy, and will recommend best practice models of care for maternity services in future.

I can only hope that the issue will be addressed in a positive manner. We are all wondering what sort of scheme the Government can come up with and how it can save so much money yet still provide adequate care. Perhaps there are some surprises for us. It will be interesting when we see it.

I note that the HSE national director of quality and patient safety, Dr. Philip Crowley, has said that it is well recognised that "if you have adequate staffing levels in terms of midwives and consultants we can provide a more consultant-led service" but that we do not have the numbers to do so currently. The OECD report, to which we referred, rather optimistically states "countries can make further gains in patient safety, thereby reducing costs and health burdens associated with adverse events". However, health spending continues to fall in Ireland and the reduction here was the second most dramatic of all countries in Europe since the economic crisis started. Only Greece has reduced its spending on health more than Ireland. I will not prejudge what the Government does but I hope maternity care is considered in a favourable manner by the Government.

The Deputy make the point well. He has raised this issue before. What I said in my reply stands. A maternity strategy will be developed. As I indicated in my concluding remarks, the strategy will address issues, including the issue of appropriate maternity services staffing, and recommend best practice models of care for maternity services in future. That is the position.

The service plan was only furnished to the Minister late yesterday evening. He has three weeks to deal with it. However, I take seriously the observations the Deputy has raised. I am sure the Minister will respond to him as soon as possible following his consideration of the service plan.

Top
Share