Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Feb 2015

Vol. 868 No. 2

Topical Issue Debate

Special Protection Areas Designation

Deputy Áine Collins

I thank the Minister for attending to hear my points. This is an issue about which I am very concerned. The question of the hen harrier is one that affects my part of the world in Cork North-West and in particular the areas of Rockchapel, Newmarket, Ballydesmond, east Limerick, and up to Clare and Galway. The issue has lingered since the previous Administration was in office in 2007 when it was agreed that the hen harrier would become a protected species. Since then, 80,000 ha of land has been designated for the protection of the hen harrier. There are 3,854 families affected and the farmers involved can only farm their land to a certain capacity. They cannot build wind farms and they cannot develop forestry. Their land is of pretty much no value today. Of the 3,054 farmers, approximately 400 received compensation while the rest currently receive none. There is a possibility that this issue will be considered under GLAS, but the farmers believe that is not acceptable. I agree with them as their land now has no value. I wonder if it is constitutionally correct for this to happen without payments being made to these families.

One of the issues about which I ask the Minister today is the establishment of a new steering group for the formulation of a threat response plan for hen harriers. It is the Minister's intention to place a member of the SPA on the group. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to putting a member of the IFDL group on the steering committee to represent farmers whose lands have been designated for the protection of hen harriers. It is very important to include the IFDL in the threat response plan and to give its members a say at the steering group. Right now, they feel very let down, not particularly by our Government, but certainly the previous one. They are asking us to listen to their concerns. Farmers spend 95% of their money in local communities which has a huge impact on rural Ireland.

The farmers have told me that the hen harrier originated in Waterford yet there are no designated lands in Kilkenny, the Golden Vale, or eastern Cork which are some of the areas with better land. Farmers with designated lands are taking the burden for all the other farmers in Ireland to deal with the issue in regard to the hen harrier. They deserve compensation over a 15 year period in lieu of growing forestry. A constituent approached me recently who has land in Rockchapel. He wanted to sell 5 acres to help his son buy a house in Cork but found when he went to sell the land that it was hen harrier designated and had no value. Even though there was forestry on both sides of him owned by two different farmers, he could not grow forestry on his land. This is a decision he did not want. He is quite happy for his land to be redesignated if that is possible, but in the alternative he believes farmers need compensation. In order to at least give them a hearing, I ask the Minister, who is very close to this and has had questions from many other representatives, to appoint to the steering group a representative from the IFDL group so that they feel their voice is being listened to.

Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Deputy Heather Humphreys)

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. The hen harrier is an endangered species protected under EU nature directives. The objective of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht is to ensure that important species are protected while ensuring in parallel that the work of farmers and other landowners in managing the habitats which support these species is recognised. Hen harrier protection was a major issue in the judgment of the European Court of Justice of the EU in 2007 against Ireland in what is known as the "birds case" for failure to provide adequate protection for wild birds. As a result of the judgment, Ireland designated six special protection areas, or SPAs, for the conservation of this species. The case remains open with the continuing possibility of reputational damage and substantial fines being imposed on Ireland if we are not seen to be in compliance with the judgment. Hen harrier SPAs are at risk due to a number of factors, including the reclamation of upland open habitats for agriculture, the development of wind farms and the maturing of large-scale forests planted in upland areas. These activities have a serious impact on breeding populations of birds. According to the most recent survey in 2010, there are between 128 to 172 hen harrier breeding pairs. Agricultural reclamation of heath or bog is restricted in these SPAs as it removes nesting and foraging habitat for the species.

The Government is working hard in the wake of the birds case to develop a threat response plan for hen harriers. An inter-departmental steering group has been established to draw up the plan and it comprises representatives from my own Department, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. The steering group will examine all of the issues at hand, including forestry consents, planning permissions for wind farms and financial supports for farmers with a view to determining the appropriate course of further action. The steering group has met on two occasions to date and will continue its important work over the next number of months.

The members of the steering group were asked to nominate relevant stakeholders to form part of a consultative committee to include broader representation from sectors likely to be affected by the plan. Through the consultative committee, the views of those affected will be sought and incorporated into the work of the steering group. The composition of the consultative committee is still under consideration and my Department has had a number of further requests in relation to its composition. It is my intention that the committee will include a farmer or farmers with lands designated as a special protection area for the hen harrier. It is expected that the first meeting of the consultative committee will be convened soon.

Deputy Áine Collins

I thank the Minister for her reply in regard to the birds being recognised as an endangered species. Nobody has a problem with that. The farmers' issue is that if their land is designated as protected, they should be compensated.

I am glad to hear the threat response steering group has already met twice and that the Minister has agreed to appoint somebody from a SPA to it. Would she ensure the appointee is a member of the group that is representing the hen harriers, such as the one I mentioned, the IFLD group? This group has come together in the past 12 months to work diligently on the hen harrier issue and they are seriously affected. I know a young farmer in his 30s with 100 acres of land, which he wanted to sell to buy farmland in a better area, that is now worthless to him. There is an issue under contract law, given the State has rendered farmers' land worthless.

I appreciate that the issue is not of the Minister's making but was brought in under the previous Administration in 2007. Although compensation was offered at the time, it is no longer available. We are left with a legacy which affects 3,800 families and the future of those farms. Unfortunately, some of the other farming groups feel this land is of no value because sometimes it is in upland areas, which might be wet. However, many good families have come from these lands and have farmed them very well to the best of their abilities and survived and grown, and they now want to expand. All I ask is for a commitment that the member appointed to the consultants' group will be a member of IFDL. I would appreciate it very much. I thank the Minister for taking this matter.

Deputy Heather Humphreys

I am very aware of the situation because among the areas designated for the hen harrier across the country there is one in my county. The role of farmers in effectively managing important conservation sites has always been recognised and this is evident through the frequent contact between my officials and farmers and their representative groups. Unfortunately, under the last RDP it was too late to include specific measures for the hen harrier, however my Department included a small-scale farm plan to support farmers in adopting appropriate management practices in the hen harrier SPAs and the Department has paid out some €14 million for the scheme to date. Due to budgetary constraints, the scheme was closed to new applicants in 2010 and not all the farmers were able to avail of the scheme at the time.

It was always envisaged that the support would ultimately fall under the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine's remit as part of its future agri-environment schemes. Future payment schemes, including that for the hen harrier, will be implemented by that Department, primarily through the GLAS scheme. The Department is still in the process of finalising the details of GLAS. The consultative committee will be only one conduit for input into the development of the threat response plan and it is expected that a broader public and stakeholder consultation process will be undertaken with input being sought from all interested parties. Submissions from the public will also be sought at the time of publication of the first draft of the threat response plan and all these actions combined will help bring the necessary clarity and appropriate supports to farmers operating in these unique landscapes.

Road Projects

Deputy Brian Walsh

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this item and the Minister for attending to hear my contribution. I have been a public representative for ten years and since my time on Galway City Council I have been an ardent advocate of the need for an outer bypass in Galway. The Minister recently visited our city and saw the traffic gridlock we Galwegians experience on a daily basis. Journeys that should take 15 minutes, such as travelling from the east to the west of the city and on to Connemara, take an hour and a half or two hours. The Minister’s predecessor, Deputy Varadkar, carried out an assessment of all the roads infrastructure projects proposed and the Galway city outer bypass was ranked as the top road project in terms of cost-benefit ratio. The need for a city outer bypass is well established and I support it.

Planning permission was granted for the original part of a route and an appellant brought it to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred it to the European Court of Justice, ECJ, because the appellant argued that it compromised the integrity of an SAC. After receiving the ECJ’s response, the Supreme Court refused permission. Like so many, I awaited the publication of the new proposed route with great hope that it would, finally, address traffic gridlock in our city and lift constraints that are hampering business and economic development in our city and the quality of life of its residents. However, the routes chosen and put before the public are complete and utter madness. They are not feasible alternatives to the original plan for an outer bypass, for a number of legitimate reasons.

The first reason is the cost. The original budget, prepared at the height of the economic boom, was approximately €320 million. The new proposal will cost up to €750 million. It will result in the destruction of up to 130 homes in the city, family homes, some of which are among the most valuable properties in the city, hence the increased cost. It will cause the destruction of a number of businesses in the city and will have a very negative impact on some institutions in the city such as NUI Galway as new buildings recently developed there would have to be demolished. Most significantly, it will have a very negative impact on the world famous Galway racing festival. It is an area in which the Minister has an interest, with his tourism hat on. The Galway Races are the jewel in the crown of the Galway tourism product and digging up the racecourse, as required under these plans, would be akin to draining the canals of Venice or boarding up the Colosseum in Rome for a week during the peak tourism season. The plans for this project were supposed to enhance Galway's economic growth, not cripple it. The Galway Races are worth more than €60 million per year to the local economy and these plans would have a detrimental effect on it.

The refusal of permission for the original route was due to the presence of bog cotton and the impact the road would have on a small area of limestone paving. While we all have great respect and affection for our environmental heritage, I have a problem with the prioritisation of bog cotton or limestone paving over people's lives. We must put people before plants and paving. The elephant in the room is that the new routes also go through ecological sites of international importance. If we pursue this course of action, there is no doubt that it will come before the courts again. The plan must be halted and I ask the Minister to use his offices to review the proposals before the public for their consideration and come back with something that will deliver the much needed infrastructure sooner and at a fraction of the cost envisaged.

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Paschal Donohoe)

I thank Deputy Walsh for the opportunity to address this issue. I acknowledge the Deputy's concern and interest in the matter. Since the latest development of the project, Deputy Walsh has raised the project with me and articulated his concerns about it and I am glad to have the opportunity to publicly respond. I have responsibility for overall policy on and funding of the national roads programme. The construction, improvement and maintenance of individual national roads is a matter for the National Roads Authority, NRA, in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. Within its capital budget, the assessment and prioritisation of individual national road projects is a matter for the NRA in accordance with section 19 of the Roads Act.

I am aware that Galway County Council, on its own behalf and on behalf of Galway City Council, is focused on addressing existing transportation issues in Galway city and surrounding areas. As part of this process I understand that the council initiated a public consultation to inform the public of the transportation options which have been developed to address the problems identified, the constraints identified to date, the implications of the EU Habitats Directive and the project programme. These options cover public transport, smarter travel and road elements.

As indicated in the public consultation documents, the position of Galway city, between Lough Corrib and Galway Bay, together with the presence of designated sites, presents significant constraints for developing new infrastructure and the council has, therefore, focused on considering all alternatives in order to minimise the impact on designated sites. The stated objective of this phase of the council's work is to identify a suitable study area for the examination of alternative routes and transportation solutions, to identify key constraints within this study area, to develop feasible route options and transportation solutions and to carry out a systematic assessment of these options leading to the selection of a preferred route corridor or transportation solution, which will form the basis for the detailed design. Road options to connect the R336 on the west of the city to the existing N6 on the east have been identified in respect of the possible road component of the transport solution. Six such options have been included in the public consultation process and the Council has indicated that these are draft options and subject to change in light of more detailed assessments. In this context I understand that the purpose of the recent second consultation is threefold: first, to update the public on the work to date, second, to obtain input from the public on any additional significant constraints and third, to offer the public an opportunity to propose further alternative options, which had not previously been considered.

The design team will examine the feasibility of such options and determine whether they merit inclusion in the final appraisal of options. I have also been informed that the design team is currently engaged in individual meetings with directly affected landowners and the general public to provide more detail on the various options under consideration. Submissions in respect of the route options can be submitted to the project office until the end of February 2015. The information received will be collated by the design team and used in the assessment of the route options. I understand the assessment process is due to be completed by the end of March 2015 and an emerging preferred route option will be identified. This emerging route corridor will be subsequently put on public display.

Deputy Brian Walsh

The new routes before the public for consultation also compromise the integrity of ecological sites of international importance. That is precisely why the Supreme Court refused the first plan, having considered the advice of the European Court of Justice. The new rules will end up before the courts again. We need a solution to the gridlock in the city and for the brakes to be put on this process. The study area should be extended and other options should be considered outside the study area that do not have such a negative impact on people’s lives and will result in something to be delivered sooner and at a fraction of the cost to the Exchequer.

We expected that the National Roads Authority and local authorities would consider a variation on the original route and that an application would be made under the little used structure - imperative reasons of overriding public interest, IROPI. It is clear that there is an imperative reason of overriding public interest here, a well-established traffic gridlock in the city. Unfortunately, those adjudicating on the new plans decided otherwise and have considered routes closer to the city that can deliver an option but at huge cost to the State.

The Minister has been very good to Galway in recent months but I shudder to think what his reaction might be when I approach him and ask for €0.75 billion to construct 16 km of a ring-road around Galway. Would he accept that the funding is available to do this? He must accept that this will end up again in the High Court, Supreme Court and before the European Court of Justice. We need to put a halt to this. I ask the Minister to use his offices to get the NRA and the local authorities around the table to examine alternative routes.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I thank Deputy Walsh for the points he has made. I understand the concerns he has raised and acknowledge the huge progress being made by the Department in many areas in Galway. Whether in respect of transport or tourism, the Department has worked hard to support the good work under way in Galway city and County.

There is support for the objective described, to find a way to alleviate congestion that is growing increasingly severe. There is a process under way that allows for the public and other stakeholders to make submissions until the end of February in respect of route options. That process will afford the Deputy the opportunity to make an input if he believes that is appropriate. By raising this in the Dáil he is putting down a clear marker of his concerns about this matter and the negative effect he believes the project could have on the people he represents and the wider city and county.

This process is being led by the local authority. I have outlined my role, which is responsibility for all road policy in the country and working to deliver funding for projects prioritised by the NRA. I have to wait until the process in Galway city and county reaches a conclusion but I acknowledge the Deputy’s concerns about the matter and hope the process can be used to respond to matters of legitimate concern to many within the city and beyond.

Aer Lingus Sale

Deputy Joe Costello

The CEO of the International Airlines Group, IAG, came before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications last week. At the committee meeting and in public utterances he gave a cast iron guarantee that he would commit to certain undertakings for five years, particularly in respect of the Heathrow slots. He indicated that in the event of a takeover of Aer Lingus it would continue as a separate entity in its entirety.

What would be the situation of the board of directors of Aer Lingus in such an event? It has certain responsibilities in respect of commercial strategy, the operating budget and the present role of Aer Lingus. To what extent will that all remain in place if it is a separate entity? There are 12 members on the board, which could have 13 members. The former CEO, Christoph Mueller, was recently replaced by Stephen Kavanagh and I wish him well. The chief financial officer is Andrew McFarlane.

They are the new executive directors, whereas I understand all of the others are non-executive directors. Did the Minister appoint any member of the existing board and, if so, whom? Will he tell me why, although three appointments can be made by the relevant Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, only two of them have been filled? Does he have plans to make the third appointment within his remit? Will he further tell me what is the term of office of each of the members of the board of directors? On examining the available information, it appears as though most of the appointments were made in 2009 or 2010 and that, therefore, most of the appointees are in their second term of office. The Minister should confirm whether that will be the end of their tenure and indicate what his intentions might be at the end of that period.

If a takeover takes place, what will happen to the existing board? Will it continue as before, with all of the powers it has at present as laid out in statute? Will there be a change to the board's current powers? How long will the existing board be allowed to stay in place and how will this operate? Will it stay in place for a period of three or five years or until its current term expires? Thereafter, will board members be obliged to seek renewal or otherwise? Who will appoint the new board if the takeover takes place? What will be the board's duties and functions? Will they be as comprehensive as the current set of functions? How will the new Aer Lingus and its board be integrated into the proposed new entity if a statement has been made to the effect that Aer Lingus will remain a separate entity in its entirety? My main concern is what will happen after the five years have passed. What say will the board then have on the future of the company?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I thank the Deputy for raising these important matters to which I will respond. As he has pointed out, some additional details have emerged of the proposal by International Consolidated Airlines Group, IAG, to make an offer for Aer Lingus since it was first announced in December 2014. Some of them emerged during the meetings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications to which the Deputy has referred. However, it is important to note that this remains a proposal to make an offer and that no formal offer has yet been made. There is still only a limited amount of detail of the terms of the potential offer. While a formal offer has not been made, Aer Lingus is in a takeover period and the strict Irish Takeover Panel rules on public communications still apply. Clearly, the future of Aer Lingus is an important matter in which there is a great deal of public interest. I have outlined the Government's policy on the proposed bid many times. I also addressed a Topical Issue tabled by the Deputy on a related matter on 4 February. The Joint Committee on Transport and Communications heard the views of a wide range of stakeholders on the matter, most recently from the chairman and chief executive officer-designate of Aer Lingus, as well as from IAG. The Government has made clear the various issues that will be examined before decisions are made on the future of Aer Lingus.

As for the board of the company, about which the Deputy has asked me specific questions, I can only outline the position as it stands. The State's combined shareholding of 25.1% of the issued share capital in Aer Lingus entitles the Minister, acting through the Minister for Finance in his capacity as shareholder, to nominate up to three persons as Minister's nominees on the board of the company. The State has two such nominees on the board. Mr. William Slattery was appointed on 12 July 2013 and Mr. Frank O'Connor on 14 March 2014, both for three-year terms. The board has ten other executive and non-executive directors. The mechanism for the appointment of the Minister's nominees on the board of Aer Lingus is set out in Article 93 of the memorandum and articles of association of the company. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, acting through the Minister for Finance in his capacity as shareholder, writes to the chairman to nominate formally the person concerned. The board then ratifies the appointment of the Minister's nominee as a director of the company. Under Article 93, should the State's shareholding fall to between 5% and 25.1%, the number of Minister's nominees on the board would fall to two. Were the shareholding to fall to between 1% and 5%, the number would be one, which relates to some of the questions put to me by the Deputy. Were the State's shareholding to fall below 1%, it would not have an automatic right to nominate any director under the current arrangements. Like all company directors, the duties of the Minister's nominees as directors derive from the Companies Acts and all such directors are obliged to pursue the best interests of the company, not those of individual shareholders.

Article 93(g) of the company's articles provides for the Minister to enter into an agreement and arrangements with the Minister's nominees. This letter of mandate requests the Minister's nominees to seek to ensure those decisions of the company which have significant implications for wider Government policies are considered at board level. As I indicated, the State's right to nominate up to three directors is based on its current shareholding. Should the State dispose of its shareholding in its entirety to IAG or any other entity, it would no longer have such rights. It is simply not possible for me to state what arrangements would apply for the appointment, role and tenure of any future Aer Lingus board in a scenario in which the State no longer had a shareholding in the company. I reiterate that no decision has yet been taken on the Government's position on the proposal made by IAG. As I have reiterated previously, in the event of a decision being taken to dispose of the State's shareholding, it would be necessary for the House to approve the principles of any such disposal in accordance with the provisions of the Aer Lingus Act 2004.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank the Minister for the clarification. He has observed that this is only in the form of a proposal as yet and that no firm formal offer is on the table. Nevertheless, if a deal was done with IAG, it appears that this would mean that it would no longer be possible for the Minister to make appointments, that the three nominees the State is entitled to appoint simply would fall as members. This raises questions about the guarantees. If cast-iron guarantees have been given with regard to a number of undertakings up to five years, who would be able to oversee this on the part of the State? This raises a serious question as to what legal commitments can be made. If there is nobody on the board of directors to put the State's view of the matter, it will have moved entirely out of the hands of the State, which will have no recourse in ensuring the guarantees given are fulfilled. A question is raised as to whether there is anybody on the board of directors who has the State's interests at heart. This is not to say there is no one on the board of directors who does not have the best interests of the company at heart. My understanding is that six of the current board members are perceived to be independent, but it would mean that there would be no one with a foot under the table to speak for the State. The State would have conditionally delivered its 25.1% stake on so-called cast-iron guarantees. There is a serious matter to be addressed by IAG in this respect if it intends to take away the three directors the State has the opportunity and entitlement to appoint at present.

Second, it is my understanding that at present there are only two State directors, whereas there is an entitlement to appoint three.

Does the Minister have any proposals to appoint a third director? Mr. David Begg was in the past a director. Will someone of that stature be appointed to the Aer Lingus board in these interesting times?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

No decision has been made on the bid for Aer Lingus. It is a proposed bid that the Government is considering. The matters raised by Deputy Costello are the issues the Government has to consider. The Deputy asked how any guarantee would be overseen and implemented. IAG has indicated it would need to have legal standing, be objective, and could be verified. It has put forward a case for this. The Government will have to consider all these matters. The core issue for me in any decision will be more than just the price of a share. We have to look at the impact on access and the ability of our country to grow in the medium to long term. As for the future of the Aer Lingus board, I cannot forecast what IAG might do were it to acquire the company. The ability to appoint a director to a board is directly related to how much one owns of the company. Accordingly, the number of directors the State can appoint to the Aer Lingus board is directly related to the size of the shareholding the State has in the company. That is why we can appoint up to three directors. We currently have two appointees on the board of directors. Mr David Begg resigned from the board several weeks ago. That is a matter to which I am giving consideration.

National Centre for Medical Genetics

Deputy Billy Kelleher

The National Centre for Medical Genetics was established in 1994 and is the only publicly funded genetics service in Ireland. There have been two external reviews of the service, most recently an external review undertaken by Professors Donnai and Newman which reported in May 2014 - a report that is still unpublished - which made 19 recommendations. From this the HSE and Crumlin hospital released a plan which had 56 recommendations. Of these 40 were agreed with clinical staff, 11 actions need to be clarified.

Five action points, however, have led to significant disagreement between the clinical staff and the HSE hospital administrators. It was proposed to change of name of centre which was not recommended by any external report. The genetics staff been told that the name-change will cost €10,000 and moneys for it will be deducted from the genetics budget. The other proposals are a review of scope of service, a review of the use of family-based clinical records, no action point for additional full-time locum consultant posts and a proposal to merge genetics labs with the hospital's genetics labs.

Staff are supported by patient groups which maintain the staff are being treated unfairly for highlighting shortcomings in genetic services over the years. There has been a lack of public information on what is happening with no adequate consultation with patient groups and service-users around the current changes and future planning. A steering group to progress the development of a national genetic and genomic medicine network has been established but patient groups were not consulted about the patient representative appointed to the steering group. Nor has the Genetic and Rare Disorders Organisation seen the May 2014 report, despite being part of the process.

Crumlin hospital's chief executive sent a letter to staff in which he stated:

It will no longer be appropriate to refer to the service as the National Centre for Medical Genetics. I appreciate this will represent a difficult change for many but it is necessary if the governance is to be clear and unambiguous.

Senior staff wrote to the Minister for Health, Deputy Varadkar, last November outlining their concerns, especially the proposal to change the status of the centre. They pointed out that 60% of patients seen by the centre are adults and almost half are seen outside Crumlin hospital. There are questions as how these patients will be dealt with when the centre becomes a department of the children's hospital in Crumlin. The change means other genetic centres could be developed in a fragmented way with no integration of family records nationally.

There are also concerns because the genetic service was already a grossly underfunded and understaffed one. As the senior staff told the Minister:

A dismantling of this integrated service runs a huge clinical risk and it incurs unnecessary financial costs as other hospitals will have to resource an independent genetic IT system and genetic charts. This excess workload on an already understaffed unit will also increase risk of clinical errors.

I have been told by someone with knowledge of the situation that it appears that genetics staff, instead of being supported through this change, are in fact feeling under extreme pressure as they fear contravention of best clinical guidelines for their patients and clients. There are also other issues arising as the 2015 HSE service plan did not contain any mention of the national rare disease plan for Ireland 2014-18. Will the Minister indicate what funding will be provided for this plan in 2015?

We are also given to understand that self-referrals will also now not be allowed. This means they will now have to go through a general practitioner, incurring an extra cost for individuals and their families. Relative to UK guidelines, Ireland should have 14 genetic consultants and 47 genetic counsellors. Currently, there are four consultants - one has indicated they may leave as a result of the current situation - and only nine counsellors. Ireland is quite far down the list when it comes to good practice with regards to staffing levels as outlined in the National Centre for Medical Genetics five-year report 2007-11. Will the Minister commit to protecting this service? Will he do it in a way that protects its autonomy, integrity, efficiency and best practice?

Minister for Health (Deputy Leo Varadkar)

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue and for giving me an opportunity to address the House on the matter.

The National Centre for Medical Genetics is the service for medical genetics at Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Crumlin. It provides services for patients and families affected by or are at risk of a genetic disorder. It has three integrated units, namely a genetics service, a cytogenetic laboratory and a molecular genetics laboratory. The University College Dublin department of medical genetics is based in the centre too. Approximately half of the work done in the centre relates to children.

There have been two recent reviews of the service. One was a review commissioned by the HSE, undertaken by Professor Dian Donnai, professor of medical genetics at the University of Manchester, and Professor Bill Newman, professor of translational genomic medicine at the same university.

A separate internal review was also commissioned by Crumlin hospital. Following this internal review, Crumlin hospital made a decision to discontinue the separate identification of the service as the National Centre for Medical Genetics. This was done in the interest of clarity on governance arrangements. It is important we are clear the genetics service is and has always been under the governance of the hospital. It was never a separate entity in its own right. Staff are employees of the hospital and the service has always been accountable to the hospital’s chief executive officer and under the governance of the hospital's board in the same manner as other clinical departments. This change does not affect the service itself and the HSE confirms there has been no reduction in the scope of the service.

The Donnai report, submitted to the HSE in May 2014, made 20 recommendations. The majority of these focused on the internal team working and clinical governance issues. The HSE advises that staff at the centre have accepted these internal recommendations. The report also recommended that a steering group should be established to develop a national genetic and genomic medicine network that reflects best international practice. This group will meet for the first time on 3 March next. Its first focus is to develop a plan for the national network. When complete, the plan will be submitted to the HSE for approval and will be considered in the context of the Estimates process for next year.

Genetics and genomic medicine have developed rapidly over the past five years and continue to do so. We must ensure these services develop in a planned way with best international practice. The work now being embarked on by the steering group is the first step in achieving this.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

If the reports were published and the recommendations acted upon, at least we would have a start to ensuring that we have a proper genetic service in this country. The important issue is that genetics and genomic medicine have developed rapidly over the last five years and will continue to do so. We need to have a foundation laid as medical science and technologies advance in the whole area of genetics. We need to resource that to ensure there is confidence, particularly in the area of rare diseases, and that patients and service users will have access to the best genetic centre possible. That is something we need to move very quickly on.

There is a feeling among the staff that the concerns of clinicians and staff are not being listened to, that the centre is being ignored and not being adequately resourced, that it is being undermined by the fact that the reports and recommendations have not been acted upon, and that it is being starved of funding. Could the Minister at some stage commit to the genetic centre and to ensuring that it has adequate resources based on international best practice in comparable other countries where they have made far more resources available? That would be a welcome start and would, in some way, give confidence to clinicians and staff that we are serious about funding a genetic centre and about using the advances in medical science and technologies to ensure people can have a better quality of life in this country.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I am no expert in this area and have not been particularly involved with it in any personal way but there are a few points that I would make. I think it is inappropriate for any section or department within a hospital to declare itself a national centre. If there are national centres, they should be designated either by the HSE or the Department of Health, or by some other body. It is inappropriate in general that any department or subsection of any body should declare itself to be a national centre. I hope Deputy Kelleher would agree with me on that.

Regarding the rare diseases plan, it is not specifically mentioned in the 2015 service plan but it is mentioned in one of the operational plans which flows from the service plan. I will be very keen to see the office established this year if that is possible. Of course, that is ultimately a decision for the director general of the HSE.

When it comes to all matters, frankly, I think GP referral is appropriate. If people self-refer to specialists we will have huge numbers of people referring themselves inappropriately, thereby creating waiting lists to see people who do not need to be seen. The whole point of going to a GP first is that the GP operates as a gatekeeper and ensures that only appropriate people are referred to specialist centres. That is the way it works across the public health service and it is a good system in my view.

Clearly, there is a dispute here between some of the staff in Crumlin on the one hand and the CEO and the board of Crumlin on the other. I do not think disputes within a workplace or institution should be resolved in Parliament. That is not our role. It is important that, if there is a dispute in a workplace or hospital, it is resolved using the appropriate mechanisms within that hospital.