Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 May 2015

Vol. 878 No. 1

Topical Issues

HIQA Reports

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on a very sad and difficult issue for everybody involved at the Midlands Regional Hospital, Portlaoise. We must primarily hold in our thoughts the five infants who are no longer with us as a result of incidents in the maternity unit in Portlaoise, and the devastation it has caused to their families. I thank the families for their courage in pursuing the matter and RTE for having highlighted in on "Prime Time". If the families had not been so strong and brave, we would not be here having this debate and HIQA would not have produced its report. While there were faults at local and regional level, the major faults were at the level of senior management, which presided over unacceptable risks for patients. Senior management in the HSE knew about it over the years and the State Claims Agency notified it about various incidents in Portlaoise hospital.

The bottom line is that the HSE senior management was aware of the problem. Not only did it do nothing about it, it actively covered it up. We saw the row over the publication of the report. I am sure some in the HSE sought to prevent it coming out.

None of that takes from the difficulties at Portlaoise hospital. Will the Minister ensure the recommendations are implemented in full and confidence is restored in the interests of patients and those who want to use the hospital in the future? This afternoon the Taoiseach made an extraordinary comment when he said there are accountability and disciplinary action procedures for doctors and nurses but not for senior management. That is where the Minister must ensure there is accountability with senior management in the HSE. Otherwise, he cannot stand over the HSE when he comes into this Chamber. HIQA says it cannot stand over Portlaoise hospital. Accordingly, the Minister cannot stand over the HSE unless he can be sure he has accountability in the service.

I concur with Deputy Sean Fleming on the tragedies that unfolded in the maternity services at Portlaoise hospital over several years. Much of this could have been avoided if the red flags that were raised on numerous occasions had been addressed. These were not red flags but alarm bells over governance issues ringing continually.

The executive summary of the report states:

This current investigation found that the HSE – as the provider of healthcare services – failed to take decisive action on defining the role of Portlaoise hospital and its model of care in the context of the findings of previous investigations. Corporately Portlaoise hospital viewed itself as a model-3 hospital and was not included in the national smaller hospitals framework. Similar to a model-3 hospital, Portlaoise provided a full range of acute services to patients presenting with all manner of injury and illness, including life support. However, at the time of this investigation, the HSE had failed to resource the hospital sufficiently and to ensure that the governance arrangements in place could safely deliver such a model of care to patients. For example, up until July 2014 the emergency department at the hospital – which was open 24 hours a day seven days a week – only had a consultant in emergency medicine on site for six hours, four days a week.

Earlier, I raised issues about accountability and who is ultimately responsible for this with the Taoiseach. I do not want to point the finger at or cast aspersions on any one individual. However, it seems there was an alarming problem with governance at local, regional and national level. The issue of accountability has to be addressed. We cannot talk consistently about systems failure. If we do not have accountability at senior management level, then we will have systems failure consistently because there will be no sanction for people who are simply not doing their job. I do not want to scapegoat any individual but there is an obligation on us to ensure accountability is part and parcel of the remunerative packages of people in charge and to ensure compliance with good governance.

Again, I extend my sympathies to the families who bravely challenged the HSE on this issue. I will have much more to say about this at the health committee over the next several weeks, as well as on the inability of the HSE to support the families and to be up front with the flow of information to families in times of bereavement and tragedy.

I welcome the opportunity to address the House on this matter. I want to begin by recognising the courage and fortitude of the patients and families who shared their stories. I want to thank them for bringing their experiences into the public domain. I hope the publication of this report brings them some small comfort. They have provided us with the opportunity to learn from the past and put things right for the future. This time I want to ensure the opportunity will not be missed.

Many aspects of the HIQA report disturb me. I am appalled that patients in the hour of their greatest need were not treated with respect, care and compassion. Patients and families were treated dreadfully and, at times, inhumanely. It is not all about resources. It costs nothing to care. Honesty costs nothing, neither does compassion. These patients and families needed to be supported. They needed to know that they mattered. They needed comfort. Instead, they got the cold shoulder. That to me is very unacceptable.

The fact that at HSE corporate level, patient safety and quality was not given the highest priority is also concerning. Patient safety and quality must be core to all we are and all we do. The report highlights an urgent need to embed a patient safety culture right through the health service. I accept the HIQA report in full and thank the investigation team for its work. The four recommendations made to my Department will be implemented. The HSE has confirmed that it too will implement the four recommendations made to it. I expect the HSE to implement an action plan to address the findings of the report without delay, certainly by the end of the year.

Improvements have been and will continue to be made at the hospital. New management and governance structures, both clinical and operational, are in place, including a new hospital manager and a director of midwifery for the first time, as well as an on-site risk manager. Since I have come into office, my priority has been to strengthen the hospital and address ongoing patient safety issues.

Appointments have been made to key posts in both the maternity and general services. This includes additional consultants in anaesthetics, surgery, emergency medicine, paediatrics and obstetrics. Up to 16 additional midwives have been appointed and approval has been given for further midwifery posts to include shift leaders and posts in diabetics and ultra-sonography. An ambulance bypass protocol is in place for serious paediatric cases.

Structural change has begun with Portlaoise now forming part of the Dublin Midlands Hospital Group. Any change to services in the hospital will be undertaken in a planned and orderly manner. This will take account of existing patient flows, demands in other hospitals and the need to develop particular services at Portlaoise in the context of overall service reorganisation within the group. Services that are viable will be safety-assured and adequately resourced. We will need to make sure services currently provided by the hospital that are not viable, due to insufficient case load or inability to recruit senior staff, are discontinued. Governance of the maternity service will transfer to the Coombe in line with the memorandum of understanding agreed already. I will also implement a national women and infants health programme modelled on the successful national cancer care programme, NCCP, to modernise our maternity services.

I will do everything in my power to ensure the recommendations in this report are implemented without delay. While we cannot undo the loss that patients and families have suffered, we can ensure lessons are learned and health services improved for all of us.

I appreciate the Minister’s reply and accept his sincerity. He will appreciate there is no issue of this being a political matter. This is about people’s and young children’s lives, as well as patient safety. That transcends everything we do in this House.

One concern I have, however, is the Minister said the action plan will be implemented immediately and certainly by the end of the year. Between now and the end of the year, there will be 1,500 to 1,700 births at Portlaoise hospital. I do not think the Minister can say to those patients that by next year there will be a safe system in place. We need greater urgency than talking about the end of the year. Whoever is needed to come from the Coombe to the hospital, needs to be brought in now, not at the end of the year.

Due to the culture of HSE senior management at national level, if there is ever a problem, it goes out to protect the organisation. Everything else is secondary. When recruiting for an operations director for the region some time ago, the Public Appointments Service specifically stated the director will be fully accountable and responsible for all services. The Taoiseach said something different here today. The terms and conditions of senior management need to have that stitched in to them. The Minister has an obligation to ensure that is done for all future recruitments into senior posts in the HSE, if it is not already the case.

The report stated: "The continued absence of a national maternity strategy as recommended by the authority in 2013 makes it difficult to assess and compare maternity services in Ireland". A national steering group was established on 30 April 2015, I assume on foot of the draft report. This indicates a lack of urgency in this particular area. As we have pointed out, there will be between 1,500 and 1,800 births between now and the end of the year at Portlaoise hospital.

The report also stated:

The pivotal appointment of a director of midwifery to a maternity department located within a general hospital is unique to Portlaoise hospital. This role has had a very positive influence in terms of assessing and improving the standard of midwifery care. However, at the time of writing, a senior obstetric lead had not been appointed to the maternity department to provide independent senior experienced obstetric clinical leadership.

Even as late as the publication of the report, some matters critically important for the delivery of safe maternity services at Portlaoise hospital had not been acted on. I would have thought at the very least an independent senior obstetric clinical leader would have been appointed forthwith.

I wish to clarify for the Deputy that actions have been taken to assure the safety of maternity services in Portlaoise. I do not think anybody waited for a report to do this. As the Deputy will be aware, actions have been ongoing for the best part of a year. The ones that may take a few months to complete include the establishment of an independent patient advocacy service which might have to be put out to tender. Legal status for the hospital groups will also take a few months to achieve.

We need greater personal accountability in the health service. It is not good enough to talk about a systems failure, which is an inadequate excuse. We need greater personal accountability. We also need to acknowledge where there are failures in the system. As things stand, two referrals have been made to the Medical Council concerning two doctors. There have been two referrals to the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland concerning two nurses. There is an internal disciplinary process for HSE managers, although what is under consideration is appointing somebody from overseas to undertake disciplinary investigations of managers in the HSE because people may not have faith in an internal HSE disciplinary procedure. The point the Taoiseach made was that there were external disciplinary procedures for nurses, midwives and doctors but only internal procedures for managers.

It is important to point out that it is certainly not all about resources. Today I looked at hospital budgets. For example, the budget for the hospital in Portlaoise is within 10% of the budget for Naas hospital which covers a much bigger catchment area. Therefore, it is not all about budgets. Services were understaffed in certain areas, but to make them safe and bring them up to specialist standard, often no amount of resources will be enough because an adequate case load is needed to ensure clinicians are not de-skilled. One also needs to be able to attract specialists and senior staff, which is sometimes difficult. Up to now, where it has not been possible to attract specialists and senior staff, we have staffed services with expensive, often transient and not always very well qualified, locums and agency staff. That is happening all over the country. In the coming months and years we will need to consider seriously whether services that cannot attract specialists and senior staff should continue, not just in Portlaoise but also in many other hospitals all over the country. We need to face up to this issue.

The national maternity strategy group has been asked to report by October or November this year. One of the actions mentioned in the HIQA report is that a director of midwifery be appointed as midwifery services leader in every maternity unit. That will be done by the HSE. Notwithstanding the enormous financial pressure the State has been under and despite tough times, the number of midwives employed in the public health service is now 1,425. When the Government took office, it was 1,178. The number of consultant obstetricians and gynaecologists is at a record high. Despite the cutbacks made in recent years, therefore, we now have record numbers of midwives and consultants, even though the birth rate is falling. This shows that the Government takes the matter much more seriously than previous Governments, but we still have a long way to go.

English Language Training Organisations

I am sure the Minister for Education and Skills is well aware of the position on English language schools which is an ongoing issue. In May last year I remember asking her predecessor, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, to appear before the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection to discuss it. To date, 14 English language schools in Dublin alone have closed their doors, placing a huge financial burden on the students involved. The most recent case involves the International Education Academy and it is estimated that the students will lose in the region of €2,000 each. They include 100 prospective students who have registered and paid their fees but who will not be able to start their courses as the college is set to close.

The Minister has proposed a three pillar solution. A task force was established and one of its recommendations was that an accommodation scheme be put in place to enable students to transfer to other colleges, including private colleges, to complete their courses at a discounted rate. This shows a lack of understanding by the Department in dealing with such students, many of whom are living in poverty and do not have the money to switch courses, even at a discounted rate. Some students have given evidence to the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection. The matter needs to be resolved and I will propose some solutions in my supplementary contribution.

There seems to be no end to this saga which has unfolded before our eyes. This morning a creditors meeting was held in the case involving the National College of Business Administration, NCBA. Astonishingly, it was revealed that the college had €5,000 in assets and €300,000 in debts at the time of its closure, this despite the fact that students had paid thousands of euro in fees in the days and weeks prior to its closure.

The students have been the main focus in this saga, but teachers and other staff have also been left out of pocket. Students chose and trusted the schools in question because they were included in the lists approved by the State. They had paid their fees, travelled to Ireland and kept their part of the deal. However, they arrived to find a sector which was entirely unregulated. When a school goes out of business, students find that, in effect, the State washes its hands of them. One student described the State's response in revealing terms, that it was like being surrounded by stone walls. Will the Government pursue this matter on behalf of the students involved? When will we see proper regulation of the sector? What protections can we expect to see in the regulations? What efforts will be made to recoup the moneys due to students, teachers and other creditors? Teaching and administrative staff in many of these schools are immensely fearful that there will be more closures.

I thank both Deputies for raising this issue and share their concern for the students affected by the closures. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien has said 14 such schools have closed, but according to my figures, there have been 16 confirmed private English language school closures since April 2014 and approximately 5,000, mainly non-EEA, students have been affected. There was a disturbing level of immigration abuse in this sector and it is clear that a number of institutions were operating a business model that was based on little more than facilitating the economic migration of those seeking to come and work in Ireland.

The first priority of my Department and the Department of Justice and Equality in response was to find reasonable accommodation for genuinely affected students. A task force was established to co-ordinate efforts to ensure the provision of alternative courses for those who wished to continue their studies. For others, assurance of their immigration status was sufficient.

On foot of the work of the task force, a number of robust regulatory reforms in the international education sector were announced jointly by me and the Minister for Justice and Equality in September 2014. The reforms included the creation of a more restricted list of eligible programmes for immigration purposes to replace the existing internationalisation register of courses. The new list of programmes, referred to as the interim list of eligible programmes, was due to come into force on 1 January 2015. However, a legal challenge by two colleges to some aspects of the reforms relating to the language sector was upheld by the High Court. As a result, while certain reforms relating to the student work concession, under which non-EEA students have access to the labour market, were introduced as planned from 1 January, implementation of the interim list was temporarily deferred pending consideration of the High Court judgment. The two Departments have now produced a package of reforms, consistent with the High Court's judgment, under the student immigration system for international education which will be brought to the Government for its approval shortly. That will occur in the very near future.

Ireland's immigration regime for non-EEA students is a generous one. It comprises the right to live and study in Ireland and provides access to the labour market.

While Ireland needs to compete internationally in this market and the immigration regime is an essential part of the package, in order to justify the granting of such permission, three essential conditions at a policy level must be satisfied. First, there must be confidence that the industry is operating to an acceptable standard and that the students are immigration-compliant. There is no room for so-called visa factories in the Irish educational sector. Second, the programmes must be of a type that reflects Ireland's strategic priorities in international education. Ireland's international education strategy and its marketing is founded on the quality of Irish higher education and our strong track record in delivering quality-assured English language programmes to overseas students. Third, the immigration regime offered to students must be consistent with both immigration policy in general and good labour market management. This package of reforms, when approved by the Government, will ensure that overarching and comprehensive immigration and quality assurance processes are in place for the delivery of international education in the State. They will significantly contribute to maintaining and enhancing Ireland's reputation as a high-quality destination for international students.

Deputy McDonald mentioned the Department's approval process. We do not approve the quality of the courses but the international register is simply a list of programmes that meet relevant immigration criteria.

That is one of the key problems in this area. Dr. Pádraig Walsh, the chief executive of Quality and Qualifications Ireland, has come out very strongly to say that many of these schools operating within the State are doing so without meeting the standards under the Accreditation and Co-ordination of English Language Services, the ACELS process. He has indicated that schools recruiting students from outside the European Economic Area, EEA, which were due to introduce these in January will introduce it shortly. The Minister touched on that in her contribution. It is clear from the contribution of Dr. Walsh and everybody else, including at the education committee and this Topical Issue matter, that those regulations must be put in place as quickly as possible. Will the Minister outline what avenues are open to students who are unable, due to financial constraints, to move courses even at a discounted rate? What recourse is open to them? Will the Minister provide us with an update on creating an insurance scheme for students when this happens?

I thank the Minister for the clarification on the listing of courses. The people I have spoken to misunderstood or perhaps were overly impressed with that listing. Nonetheless, in her response, the Minister outlines the need for full adherence to immigration regulations and law, and we all agree on that. I detected a heavier emphasis on that than on the students who have been the casualty of this unmitigated mess. One Venezuelan man, who is 23 years old, was in Leinster College and he lost €1,000 when it closed. Due to the terms of his visa, he could stay here for six months and he enrolled at the Modern Educational Centre on Harcourt Street, paid his fees at the end of February this year and attended fewer than four weeks of class before that college closed. He has been told now that in order to stay, he must enrol again with a third college. It is a complete mess and a catastrophe for this young man.

We speak much about reputational damage when we debate other issues but this is extremely damaging not just to the sector but more generally as well. Nobody would advocate playing fast and loose with the immigration system - far from it - but there must be some kind of response for the students like this young man from Venezuela, who came here in good faith. He has been ripped off and let down while here.

We certainly want to fix this and regulate the process as quickly as possible. That is why we announced the measures last year but, unfortunately, there was a court case taken and we had to address the issues raised by the decision of the court. It is important to reiterate that the vast majority of private providers of English language training in the State operate to a high standard. It is important to stress that and that we are talking about a small number. It is no consolation to the affected students that the vast majority of colleges operate to a high standard.

The organisation Marketing English in Ireland is the umbrella body that worked with the task force. It has been assisting genuine students in completing their studies by offering alternative courses at a significantly discounted rate. I acknowledge, as the Deputies noted, that those students very often just do not have the funds to even be able to accept those offers. With regard to insurance and protection, schools that are part of the Marketing English in Ireland group have arrangements in place for the protection of learners. That is something we are looking at with respect to the new provisions.

That could be expanded.

There would be a scheme in place whereby when the students pay money, it would be protected. We have not yet brought the recommendations to the Government. That is among the areas being examined, as well as what was announced in autumn last year that, unfortunately, were challenged in court. Along with my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, I want to get proposals to the Government and implemented as soon as possible. This is so we will not in future have people in countries like Venezuela or elsewhere being misinformed as to what is offered in Ireland. We are moving to correct the system as quickly as possible and provide, where we can, assistance for the students who have unfortunately been caught up in this issue.

Water Quality

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this matter relating to the removal of lead pipes from the water supply system. It has been stated that 42 public water supplies in Ireland tested in the latest Environmental Protection Agency inspections had lead levels that exceeded the safety thresholds that came into effect in December last year. Dublin city alone is known to have several thousand homes still with internal lead pipes, and that situation is replicated across the country. Ireland is not alone in this regard with having legacy issues of lead pipes, as the problem is also prevalent in England, Scotland and France.

Public health specialist Dr. Anthony Breslin has recently stated that the full impact of lead exposure was serious and could cause neurological disease. He urged householders with any doubts to have their pipes checked. He also indicated that public awareness about the dangers of lead was high when it started to be removed from paint and petrol but in the 20 to 30 years since, people may have become complacent about the presence of lead.

A constituent contacted me last week to express his concern and anxiety regarding what he described as a potentially lethal problem. He has a nine-year-old daughter and he is very worried that the lead in his water supply could cause her health issues in future. There is great concern in St. Anne's estate in Raheny in my constituency about the presence of lead pipes in the water supply network in this estate, comprising approximately 700 homes. St. Anne's estate was built by Dublin Corporation, as it was, and completed in 1954 as an estate to house families qualifying for a local authority loan to purchase a home. At that time, the people had to be either existing corporation tenants or corporation housing applicants to qualify for the loan. The design of the estate is similar to other Dublin Corporation estates of the period, and that design continued up to the 1970s. The current problem with lead water supply pipes is manifesting particularly in St. Anne's estate and it is a cause of concern to the residents.

I am told representatives of Irish Water are currently liaising with the Environmental Protection Agency to finalise a national strategy to address the issue of lead water pipes. Irish Water has also indicated that property owners are responsible for the water distribution on their own properties, including all domestic internal plumbing. In Scotland, for example, there are grants for private householders to replace pipes with plastic or other alternatives.

There are no grant incentive schemes here at present. A grant-aided scheme to remove harmful lead pipes from the drinking water infrastructure would provide jobs as well as eliminating a public health risk, which would be welcome. I call on the Minister to consider this strategy. It is now time to remove the lead.

I hope it is acceptable to Deputy Kenny that I am taking this Topical Issue matter on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government who, I have explained to him, has been called away. I thank the Deputy for the opportunity to outline the position in regard to this matter.

With effect from 1 January 2014, Irish Water is responsible for public water services. Suppliers of drinking water are required to ensure that the water supplied complies with the chemical and microbiological parameters set out in the European Union (Drinking Water) Regulations 2014, a copy of which is available in the Oireachtas Library. The maximum allowable value for lead is 10 microgrammes per litre, which limit came into effect on 25 December 2013. The Environmental Protection Agency is the supervisory authority with responsibility for monitoring Irish Water's compliance with the drinking water regulations. In the event of non-compliance with the quality standards set out in the regulations, the water supplier will investigate the cause in consultation with the EPA and, where a potential risk to human health exists, with the Health Service Executive to ensure that appropriate remedial action is taken. A case-by-case approach will be considered by Irish Water in line with its statutory responsibilities and in recognition of the statutory responsibilities of the HSE and the EPA to develop local responses to issues which arise in particular locations.

Irish Water has informed the Department of the Environment , Community and Local Government that of its estimated 60,000 km distribution system, it has identified a very small proportion - approximately 2 km of water-mains - as possibly containing lead. As such, Irish Water has commenced a programme of verification and removal that will be completed in 2015. However, there are a significant number of lead service pipes between the water mains and the customer stopcock or water meter. Irish Water is identifying the location of such lead service connections during the metering installation programme. It is currently identified that approximately 5% of houses are affected, but this is expected to be higher in town centre areas. Irish Water also estimates that there may be a further 30,000 to 40,000 houses with shared lead backyard service connections. Irish Water has informed the Department that it intends to invest in public lead pipe replacement schemes, primarily communications pipes, with a view to eliminating lead mains, including shared backyard service connections, over the next ten years. This is probably the issue that most concerns the Deputy. Irish Water is also reviewing its water treatment processes to ensure they mitigate the risk in the short term.

The Water Services Act 2007 provides that the owner of a premises is responsible for the maintenance and renewal of the internal water distribution system. Responsibility for replacing lead pipes from the mains stopcock to a house and within the house rests, therefore, with the house owner. In a joint position paper on lead published by the EPA and HSE in 2013, it was recommended that all lead pipes and plumbing in public and private ownership should be replaced over time.

With regard to the proposal for a grants scheme, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is developing a national strategy for lead which it is discussing with the Department of Health, Irish Water, the HSE and the EPA to map the scale of the problem and identify measures to mitigate any risk posed to human health by lead in drinking water. I understand that the Government was informed at the Cabinet meeting this morning that the strategy will be completed and published in the next month. I hope this information is of some value to the Deputy.

I thank the Minister of State for replying on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. I take some comfort from the fact that the strategy being developed will be completed in one month. We hope there will be positive responses in that. I note the Minister of State saying there was a 60,000 km distribution system but that only 2 km of water mains comprises of lead pipes. She also said that backyard lead piping will be dealt with by Irish Water. She said there were between 30,000 and 40,000 houses in that situation. I must, however, express the concern my constituents feel on this matter. There have been a number of media articles on this problem. It has aroused concern in particular in regard to the effect it might have on children. I hope that when the strategy report is published those issues will be addressed and that people's fears will be allayed.

I thank the Deputy for his very useful comments. When we see the strategy next month, we will have a much clearer idea of what exactly we are talking about. The mapping process will be hugely important. It is at that point the Government's considered response will come to light. Where there is an immediate concern, Irish Water, the EPA and the HSE have assured us there will be localised action in relation to prioritised areas. This is where it is being dealt with on an area-by-area, job-by-job or location-by-location basis. In fact, the mapping exercise and the strategy being developed and published next month will be the key to how we deal with this.

Beef Data Programme

I thank the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine for attending to take my matter on the beef data and genomics programmes. Farmers are receiving the forms to fill in and there is huge discontent in suckler areas. When one looks at the terms and conditions, it is clear that one has to sign up to a six-year contract. If something goes wrong within five years, one will be in trouble and have to pay back the money.

I note the 60% issue in regard to genotyping. It is costing €30 to do each one. Most farmers in the scheme will have to have a planner to deal with carbon and the grazing season, which is causing problems. One big thing that is emerging from both the breeders of bulls and the farmers themselves involves the four and five star ratings. In reality, a one or two star bull may produce as good an animal and better than a four or five star one. An animal that may have five stars after three years could be brought down to two stars by a heifer or other progeny produced out of it down the road. We have seen this in looking at the bulls that have been produced in Ireland down through the years.

There is huge concern and it is not scare-mongering. Many farmers, especially the smaller ones, are throwing the forms in the fire they are so afraid to go into the scheme. It needs to be addressed. The farming organisations are holding meetings over the next week so extensive is concern on the ground. I have had a lot of farmers into my constituency office and they have said they are walking away from the scheme. The other issue is that if one increases or decreases from the 2014 figures, one does not comply with the terms of the scheme. I ask the Minister to look at and change the terms and conditions.

I know that the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, has worked with the Minister on this scheme but there is a huge difference between what I am hearing on the ground and what is being pushed. At the moment a person can bring a bull from England, but it could take two years before the person has a five star bull. Farmers have been doing it for years and there is a course available as well. These farmers have been involved in suckler farming for years and we need to keep them up and running.

This funding is like an apple which is high up in the tree. Everyone welcomes the funding which the Minister is making available and no one is taking from that fact. However, I am expressing the genuine discontent on the ground and the genuine fear farmers have of going into the scheme. It must be rejigged and we need to work with farmers and bull breeders to get it right. I have seen the stark consequence, which is widespread, especially in the west where many suckler farmers are based. Farmers are not going into the scheme.

I thank Deputy Fitzmaurice for raising this issue. He will get a written response which will include further details but I will try to address some of the issues he is raising now. Some of the concerns are about something that is not proposed. It is true that this is quite a complex scheme. We are committing €300 million to the suckler herd. I want to give a strong statement from Government in the rural development programme that the suckler herd really matters. Tens of thousands of farm families, in every constituency and parish in the country, are deriving an income from suckler beef and we want to keep them there.

We also want to use the supports that we will be giving through this scheme to ensure that we improve the genetics and breeding performance of the herd. We also want to improve the quality of the herd so that animals grow faster, have better confirmation and improve their ease of calving and temperament and so on. We will be making a positive contribution from an emissions and climate change point of view because animals will be growing faster and producing meat more efficiently. We will also be helping farmers to become more profitable by producing better bred beef.

I am sure there are examples of a two star bull that has had a better progeny than a four star bull. However, on average, the more stars a bull has, the better the progeny that comes from that animal. That is the point of a star rating system. The same applies to suckler cows. The better the genetics, the increased likelihood of producing better animals from that herd. This is the purpose of the scheme.

There is a reason for asking people to sign up to a six year contract. This is an area based scheme under the rural development programme. Farmers are required to buy into the scheme for a certain number of years, as is the case when joining GLAS, and there are consequences if they pull out. The reason we need a six year commitment is that if we are going to collect DNA data in the first couple of years, it will only be in the second half of the scheme that we will see the genetic improvements that come from the collected data.

This is not a scheme that is simply pumping €95 per calved cow, for the first ten, and €80 per animal after that to support suckler farm income. It does that, but there are requirements and these requirements are not overly expensive. The carbon calculator that is being asked of farmers as part of the terms and conditions and the training that farmers need to undertake to understand how they can best use the genomic information that they get back from ICBF will both be paid for separately. The €30 that it costs to take a genomic sample last year is likely to be significantly cheaper this year because the numbers involved will be significantly higher, we will benefit from economies of scale and we will have a competitive process to get the price down further from where it was last year.

Farmers have nothing of which to be frightened in this scheme. If something dramatic happens on the farm and a farmer is forced out of the scheme during the six year period, the rules around force majeure will apply. If someone dies on the farm or something like that, we will take that into account. However, we need this to be a six year commitment by farmers. We are contributing more than €53 million a year into the suckler beef sector. That is €300 million in total, of which more than half is being paid by the European Union. This is being done on the basis of a climate change measure, so that we can produce suckler beef more efficiently and so that there will be a lower carbon footprint in our beef herd. It will also mean more profitable beef production.

All of the things we have designed in this scheme are concerned with helping farmers to become more efficient and profitable and to produce better herds based on better breeding programmes. We are training farmers to use the scientific genomic data that we will collect from their herds, matched with the performance data farmers will provide, to help them do that. This is a win-win situation for everyone. It is not an attempt to capture farmers or tie them into things that they do not want to do. It is about working with farmers, getting information from them and giving it back to them in a form that with training results in better breeding programmes in our suckler beef herd.

If there is one thing I know since becoming Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine it is that the difference between the top performing suckler herds and the bottom performing suckler herds is an absolute chasm at the moment. Deputies who understand agriculture will understand this fact. We must help everyone move into a more efficient way of producing beef, which is more profitable for them and which is more climate efficient for us in terms of the targets we have to meet in agriculture. This is the purpose of the scheme. We will pay people to be part of that journey.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I must ask him to conclude.

If there are any other questions, I will be happy to answer them.

I thank the Minister for his reply. We all agree on ensuring the viability of farm families. However, the reality is that a person could have a five star bull today, but if there is a problem at calving from an off-spring of that bull, the bull could be reduced to a two star rating. This would be the same as an animal the person might have had the week before. Farmers will be expected to get rid of all their bulls which are under five stars. This means many bulls will be slaughtered.

They are not required to have a five star rating until 2019.

That is fair enough, but they will be expected to do that by 2019.

Correct. They have four years to do it.

Someone who bought a bull early this year or last year will have a three or four year old bull that they will have to send to the factory because the animal will not qualify for the scheme. It is as simple as that.

If a person works a year for someone, the person's wages are based on that year's work. If farmers do it right year one, year two and year three, they should not be penalised for the back-money. Every year should stand for itself. If I work for someone and make a mistake in year two, I do not get paid year one wages if I have done everything right. Will the Minister look at that aspect? Farmers are frightened of this scheme. We have seen problems between the Department and farmers over the past few years on eligibility and so forth. Farmers are frightened that if something goes wrong in year five that they could be looking at having to pay a big bill. That is a major stumbling block. Will the Minister's Department examine this issue and look at the possibility of taking each year as it is, which will give farmers hope going into the scheme?

I wish to clarify a couple of matters on the four star and five star rating issue. At least one stock bull on the holding on 30 June 2019, which is four years from now, must be a bull that has been geno-typed four or five star on either the terminal or replacement index or a similar four or five star bull must be retained on the holding until 30 June 2020. In other words, the farmer can lease the bull. We are trying to give a signal to farmers that they need to plan to improve the bulls with which they will be breeding their animals and that they have four years to do it. That is why this is a six year commitment and not a year-on-year commitment. If someone decides to go into this scheme next year, gets the payments and then decides to pull out, it is of no value to anyone apart from the cash value to the farmer concerned.

However, if one makes a commitment for the six years, one gets payments for the full six years and is on a journey, from contributing information at the start and taking training for which one will be paid, on top of the beef genomic payment, to using the training and scientific information one has been given to have better breeding towards the end of the six years. This is so that, by the end of that period, we will have a better suckler herd, which is something from which everyone benefits.

If someone is forced out of the scheme because something dramatic happens or so on, we will consider the question of force majeure, as we do when farmers are forced out of other schemes. We understand that such things happen, but we want a medium-term, six-year commitment from farmers. This is not simply an annual cash payment for having a suckler herd. It is a programme that has some complexity to it but that farmers understand.

The six-year commitment involves generous payments throughout and will achieve exciting results for the farmer. This is why we have it. If we just have a year-on-year payment and farmers can opt in or out, those who leave early will have given all of the information but received none of the benefits. The Commission would not approve a programme that took five or six years to accrue benefits and for which we paid €300 million without getting a commitment that farmers would see it through. This is the issue. I hope that farmers understand.

I have been open and honest with farming organisations about it during the scheme's design. I hope that everyone will understand what we are doing, namely, ensuring it is a win-win for everyone by improving incomes for beef farmers while improving the quality of their breeding herds over a six-year period. We will get exciting results if the partnership between the Department and farmers works as planned.

Top
Share