Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jun 2018

Vol. 970 No. 8

Topical Issue Debate

Water Supply

I thank the Ceann Comhairle's office for selecting this Topical Issue matter. Its primary purpose is to give effect to the potential for additional conservation measures such as a so-called hosepipe ban, but also restrictions on the use of commercial car washing facilities, whether formal or informal. I want to state very clearly that I am not very interested in draconian measures, but we must look at communities such as Skerries in north County Dublin. Only two weeks ago in this Chamber the Minister of State responded to all Members representing Dublin Fingal across all parties on the chronic shortage of water affecting a part of that particular community. People there had no water for 48 hours in some instances. It is appropriate for us to look at the implementation of hosepipe bans, administered either through Irish Water or through the local authority. I believe the latter would be the more appropriate. This is a serious issue that will need to be addressed until such time as the capital and, indeed, other parts of the country have a water supply capable of withstanding more than a few days of sunshine. Today is a beautiful day. The temperature is in the high twenties in Dublin. I am sure it is higher elsewhere in the country. However, so far as I am aware, there are six locations in the State that are without water at the moment, including one location in my constituency and another in County Longford.

I got a text message this morning from a constituent who was advising me that there was a queue for the car wash at a service station in an area of north County Dublin affected by water throttling. I am sure that there will be people who will, perhaps unknowingly, be watering their gardens, potted plants or whatever it might be. We have to take responsibility for the chronic underfunding of water infrastructure in this State not just in the last few years or the last decade, but over generations. We know of the problems. We have identified them through the work programme Irish Water has worked out and through work which local authorities have done for generations.

It is also appropriate for us to recognise that it will be some time before we have the sort of headroom that other European nations have. Many of these operate at between 80% and 90% of capacity whereas Dublin operates at 97%. To put some figures on it, the production capacity for the greater Dublin area is 610 million litres per day. At the height of last summer our usage was 566 million litres per day. On Monday our usage was 609 million litres. The headroom figure for the entire area was 1 million litres. We have to have a real conversation not just with ourselves, but with our neighbours. A Newstalk journalist carried out a straw poll online yesterday. It was not very scientific. There were three questions. It asked what one would do if one saw someone wasting water or watering his or her garden during a period of drought when there were water restrictions in place. More than 60% of respondents said that they would do nothing. We really need to do something rather than saying nothing and not even approaching the person to ask if he or she is aware that a water restriction is in place.

Until such time as we can resolve our supply and leakage issues, among other things, this particular measure, which is contained in the Water Services Act 2007, should be implemented and its administration should be delegated to local authorities.

I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy. I thank Deputy Farrell for raising this very timely and important issue. As we speak, large parts of the country are experiencing temperatures above 30°. While this issue is affecting several local authority areas at present, it has the potential to expand into other areas. This debate provides an opportunity to outline and discuss the legislative and administrative arrangements in place to promote water conservation in response to anticipated prolonged periods of excessively hot weather such as that we are currently experiencing.

I agree with Deputy Farrell on the need to promote water conservation. The suggestion of a hosepipe ban is one possible measure, but there are many other measures too and I hope that we can all encourage water conservation at this time. In addressing the specific proposed hosepipe ban measure raised by Deputy Farrell it is important to point out that sections 56(16) to 56(25) of the Water Services Act 2007 already make statutory provision for the introduction of a such a ban and other restrictions designed to conserve water supplies during times of drought. It also provides for the application of a fixed payment notice or, in plain terms, a fine of €125 for breach of such restrictions to facilitate enforcement. These arrangements can come into force when a water services authority, which effectively means Irish Water since legal responsibility for the public water system transferred from local authorities to Irish Water with effect from 1 January 2014, is of the opinion that a serious shortage of water supplies exists or is imminent in an area. This would typically be during or following a prolonged period of dry weather but, in any event, it is possible for Irish Water to make such an order where demand is expected to exceed supply and it becomes necessary to restrict the use of water supplies including restricting certain activities involving the use of water.

Specified activities which may be restricted include watering a garden, watering of recreational parks or sports grounds, irrigating or spraying crops, washing vehicles, the provision of commercial washing services for a vehicle or trailer, or filling or replenishing a swimming pool or an artificial pond or lake. In practice the restrictions may apply to specified activities for all or specified parts of the day. Before making an order the water services authority must give public notice of its intention to make such order and the period for which the order will remain in force through advertising in the public press or broadcast announcements on television or local or national radio. Such provisions are well established in other European and international jurisdictions.

While the option of a hosepipe ban is there, we need to look to other conservation measures and the management of our water supplies. Irish Water’s drought management group has been meeting to assess the risk to drinking water supplies in areas that include the midlands, particularly Athlone and Mullingar; parts of Offaly; Longford; Kilkenny; parts of Donegal; and the greater Dublin area, where the demand for treated water almost meets available supply. The Dublin region is currently using approximately 600 million litres of water a day, which is close to the maximum amount of water that can be treated on a daily basis. Irish Water believes that current storage in the raw water reservoirs in the greater Dublin area, at Roundwood and Pollaphuca are reasonable and they do not see water shortages at present. However, if the summer and autumn continue dry and hot, these reservoirs will come under pressure later in the year.

The main pressures arise from the capacity to produce treated water and Irish Water has seen significant increases of the order of 20 million to 30 million litres per day, which occasionally exceeds production capacity. This is not sustainable for more than a few weeks without the need for some management action to conserve water. Irish Water is considering all measures that might be used to encourage people to conserve water. In the meantime it is asking the public to be mindful of their water usage and to take every measure possible to conserve water. Water usage in the home, garden or business has a direct impact not only on the water user, but on their neighbours, their families and the wider community.

Water supply, particularly in some areas of the State, is on a knife edge. The prevalence of good weather and the lack of rain will only add to that. I fully understand the Minister of State's remark that Irish Water believes the two main facilities for the storage of water for the Dublin area, including Poulaphouca, contain reasonable levels of water. I do not want to become parochial but I obviously know a lot about the Skerries area. The issue is that if the Skerries problem is to recur in the near future because of these issues or if the Skerries reservoir drops below a reasonable level without the pump that we discussed in the House the week before last, we will have restrictions within the county of Dublin. There will be throttling and a potential loss of supply in certain areas on the periphery of the network. As such, even though not all parts of the city or country are affected, there will be water restrictions. Thus, the conservation of water, up to and including the banning of commercial car washes from operating and, potentially, community bans on hoses, should take place. If ever there were reason for Irish Water to utilise section 56 of the Water Services Act, this would be it. As citizens, we should get used to this until such time as our supply issues are resolved.

I appreciate the Minister of State's lengthy reply in which he outlined in detail the measures being taken by Irish Water. It is of little comfort to the individuals all around the country whom he mentioned - in Longford, Offaly, Kilkenny and other places - and who are suffering from water restrictions. It is inevitable that the problem will arise in Dublin over the coming days.

I assure Deputy Alan Farrell that Irish Water is prepared to use section 56 of the 2007 legislation. It has the capability under law to act when it finds treated water is at an unacceptably low level.

The Deputy's overall point is absolutely correct. The national development plan puts aside €8.5 billion to improve the public drinking water and wastewater systems over the next ten years. We have had gross underinvestment for an awfully long time. There is so little headroom considering the volumes of water produced and consumed daily. This will be a strategic problem for the country in the future. Irish Water and the Government, through its funding and the development plan, are committed to addressing it.

The substantial point is that we should be encouraging everybody, not just Irish Water but also members of the Government and Members of the Houses, to promote the appropriate use of a scarce resource at a time when the forecast is for dry weather for the foreseeable future. The Deputy spoke about the possibility of a long, dry summer. The prevalence of extreme weather conditions presents unique problems for the country's water infrastructure. It behoves all authorities of the State, in addition to citizens, to recognise that their use of water will have a direct impact on their neighbours and communities if they do not act responsibly. Most people recognise that in times of scarcity, such as this, it is up to them to be responsible in their use of water.

Medicinal Products Reimbursement

I welcome the opportunity to raise this issue. I thank the Office of the Ceann Comhairle for allowing it. Will the Minister for Health intervene to sanction a pilot scheme for a new system of drug reimbursement for Ocrevus, which is for primary progressive multiple sclerosis, PPMS. Ocrevus is the first medicine approved to treat PPMS. The drug has been approved to reduce the progression of physical multiple sclerosis or physical disability for PPMS patients. The manufacturer, Roche, has outlined a system of reimbursement whereby the HSE would match the price currently paid in Germany with a view to reducing the price once all 14 western European countries have negotiated a wholesale factory price. Once this is done, the average price across the 14 countries would be taken as the standard, and the company would then reimburse any overpayment made in the intervening period.

The Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, asked in this House in September 2017 whether, if we believed the current system was broken, we could start hearing what people wanted to replace it with. He said he believed it is broken also and said the conundrum is how to come up with a better model. What I am offering to the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Daly, and the Minister is a better model, something that we need to consider. Given the Minister's acceptance that the current model is broken, we need to come up with innovative ways of reimbursing orphan drugs.

In trials, people treated with Ocrevus had a 46% reduction in the risk of progressing to a wheelchair by comparison with a placebo group. For a person living with PPMS and for whom disability accumulates twice as fast as with relapsing MS, seven more years without the need for a wheelchair could extend the time he or she could live independently, live in the home or continue working and looking after his or her family. Therefore, it has very real benefits. We are talking about a population of MS sufferers in Ireland of approximately 9,000. Some 10% of this figure is 900. That is the patient population.

We have an opportunity to examine the 2013 Act to do something that is novel. Last week, the Minister was very enthused about signing an agreement with the Benelux countries. The product is available in Holland. I would quite happily accept the price currently being paid in Holland and going back to the original proposal to average out the price once the 14 western countries have approved of it. Either way, it is a novel proposal. The drug has been proven to be effective. For the 900 people with a very debilitating condition who are looking for hope, I really hope the Government will consider the proposal seriously. I hope the Minister of State will not give me the standard Department reply. I await what he has to say with interest.

I thank Deputy Brassil for raising this issue. Securing access to new and innovative medicines in a timely manner is a key objective of the Minister for Health and the HSE. These new products are often very expensive, however, with a significant potential impact on the health service budget. The Oireachtas has put in place a robust legal framework in the Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Act 2013, which gives full statutory powers to the HSE to assess and make decisions on the reimbursement of medicines, taking account of a range of objective factors and expert opinion, as appropriate.

The Act specifies the criteria to be applied in the making of reimbursement decisions. They include the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the product, the opportunity cost and the impact on resources that are available to the HSE.

In line with the 2013 Act, if a company would like a medicine to be reimbursed by the HSE, pursuant to the community drugs scheme, the company must first submit an application to the HSE to have the new medicine added to the reimbursement list. The HSE’s decisions on which medicines are reimbursed by the taxpayer are made on objective, scientific and economic grounds from the advice of the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, NCPE. The NCPE conducts health technology assessments for the HSE and makes recommendations on reimbursement to assist reimbursement decisions. The NCPE uses a decision framework to assess systematically whether a drug is cost-effective as a health intervention.

I have been informed that ocrelizumab, used for the treatment of adult patients with early primary progressive multiple sclerosis and for the treatment of adult patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, is currently undergoing a full pharmacoeconomic assessment by the NCPE. The HSE strives to reach a decision in as timely a manner as possible. However, because of the significant moneys involved, it must ensure the best price is achieved, as these commitments are often multimillion euro investments on an ongoing basis. This can lead to a protracted deliberation process.

The Minister is keen to engage with the industry to explore ways in which new medicines might be more easily introduced. However, any innovative approaches which may be tabled must be compatible with the statutory provisions in place and must also recognise the context of finite Exchequer resources. The HSE is the decision-making body on the reimbursement of medicines under the Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Act 2013. It is the HSE alone which will make the final decision whether ocrelizumab will be reimbursed taking into consideration the statutory criteria as specified under the 2013 Act. This Act does not give the Minister for Health any powers in the reimbursement process. The HSE does not require approval or consent from the Minister or the Government when making a reimbursement decision.

I know and accept the way the process works. I hope the Minister has the ability to input a proposal such as this to know that it should be considered. I have a Bill to amend the 2013 Act which is waiting in the lottery system for several weeks now. I am not looking for the HSE to reimburse any medicine which it does not believe is good value for the State. However, I must impress on the Minister of State that this particular drug is approved in over 60 countries and it is under review in 20 more. I suggest it is probably a matter of time before it is approved in Ireland. What we are looking for is quick access. The proposal the company has made is fair and allows for reimbursement.

I do not like making proposals because I am aware of value for money and finite budgets. In the past, I have raised the argument for using biosimilar medical products. In my opinion, there is a low-water figure of €50 million to be saved if we used available biosimilar products which are just as effective as the original brand. For some reason, we are stalling. The money is there but it is in another pot. What could we do with a saving of €50 million? The costs of Ocrevus, Respreeza and Kuvan - the phenylketonuria, PKU, sufferers will be here tomorrow looking for its approval – could be met with this saving.

Will the Minister of State impress on the Minister, Deputy Harris, this particular point? It makes sound economic sense like the case for generic medicines. The industry argued that if we started using generic brands, the sky would fall in. We did and the sky did not fall in. The same will apply to biosimilar medical products.

I bow to the Deputy’s better and professional knowledge of this subject. It is understood, appreciated and well-regarded. In addition, he brings sincerity to these debates on which I have had the pleasure of engaging with him.

I will take back to the Minister, Deputy Harris, as well as to the Department, the Deputy’s principal plea for expediency in the decision-making process in the HSE. He believes the merits of this case stand on its own two feet when one looks at the number of countries which have approved it, as well as those waiting to do so. I will relay this back to the HSE through the Department and the Minister for Health.

I note the potential biosimilar medical products offer to the health system and the need to engage more proactively on that front.

These two points are duly noted.

Student Grant Scheme Administration

A significant number of people have contacted me about the failure of Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, to fund to completion those pursuing doctoral studies in various disciplines. These postgraduate students are eligible to grant aid under SUSI’s criteria. However, it is cut off due to time limits. Some have indicated SUSI is an indiscriminate guillotine for Irish research. The Department of Education and Skills is responsible for this unfortunate outcome. It is impossible for some students to complete a doctoral degree because of course programming. A four-year undergraduate degree is a requirement for many students. This can be followed by a two-year masters. This leaves a two-year funding window to achieve a PhD, which is next to impossible. There are students not affected by this if their degree path is three years followed by a year long masters. SUSI will allow them to complete their PhD.

The facts are that SUSI funds some PhD students and cuts off others during their research. This is a significant anomaly affecting many of our ambitious students who are eager to complete their doctorate studies and contribute in various proactive research ways to the economy. Cutting off the grant aid is crucial. It is solely to do with the way courses have been designed. This is not the fault of any student. The blame lies with the Department of Education and Skills which has supported these decisions. It is unfair, unjust and wrong. Those in most need of financial support are victimised because of programming decisions made by third level institutions.

The Department reinforces this trajectory of senselessness, incomprehension and bias. There is no lateral thinking, communication or connectivity between SUSI, third level institutions and the Department to resolve this. Many researchers across various disciplines are affected by this but it is particularly prejudicial to fine arts students whose third level programmes are mainly four years followed by a two-year masters format. These students are not as exposed to employment-based funding as others and have very little funding available to them. Accordingly, many are solely dependent on SUSI. A substantial number of artists have an annual income well below the SUSI threshold, yet these policies ensure they are not supported because of lack of consideration in policy-making. Students should not be discriminated against because of course duration which has nothing to do with them.

The Government has the audacity to call this country the republic of opportunity. It should tell that to researchers who are having their research stopped by SUSI. There are many areas of inquiry being undertaken which focus on rural life, the environment, inclusion, diversity and the arts. Unfortunately, the Department does not have any vision. It cannot appreciate that our communities need these fact-finding investigations. It cannot see this research as an investment in our universities. This research has the very best of Ireland’s academics working alongside these PhD students in supervisory roles. There are two supervisors assigned to every investigation. The findings are then analytically scrutinised by an external examiner. These dissertations are comprehensively leading analysis and all for the price of a SUSI grant.

The Department, however, terminates prematurely the funding. One such researcher told me the Department’s lack of awareness and respect is really distressing. Researchers have appealed decisions that have cancelled their funding. SUSI is, however, completely indifferent to their situation or the importance of the research because it always upholds its decision to terminate and claims it is following policy. This is cruel and insane. It has the potential to be the ultimate win-win situation for the Department, our universities and our communities. Instead, it oversees a waste of public money, a waste of time for the universities and researchers and wasted opportunities of exploration of which we are in desperate need.

I hope the Minister of State can address this situation. I have no doubt but that she is acutely aware of the point I raise.

I thank Deputy Penrose for raising this important matter.

In 2017, the Department of Education and Skills allocated more than €400 million in access measures to assist students from under-represented groups to participate in and complete higher education. It is anticipated that the student grant scheme will benefit circa 80,000 students in 2017-18. The principal support provided by the Department in financial terms is the student grant scheme, or SUSI grant, which makes available means-tested financial assistance to students in further and higher education. Financial supports are currently available for those postgraduate students who meet the eligibility criteria of the student grant scheme, including those relating to nationality, residency, previous academic attainment and means.

The Deputy will be aware of the programme for Government commitment to increase financial supports for postgraduate students, with a particular focus on those from low-income households. In response to this commitment, the Government approved additional funding of €4 million in budget 2017 to facilitate the reinstatement of full maintenance grants from September 2017 for the must disadvantaged postgraduate students. A further €3 million was secured in budget 2018. Postgraduate students who meet the qualifying conditions for the special rate of grant under the student grant scheme for the 2018-19 academic year are eligible for a maintenance grant of up to €5,915. The income threshold for this grant is €23,500. Qualifying postgraduate students may also be eligible to have their tuition fees paid up to a maximum fee limit of €6,270. Alternatively, a postgraduate student may qualify to have a €2,000 contribution made towards the cost of his or her fees. The income threshold for this payment is €31,500. The student grant scheme does not extend to postgraduate courses pursued outside of Ireland.

I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I am acutely aware of what the Government has committed and I welcome the additional allocation in budget 2018.

However, none of this deals with the issue I have raised, namely, the failure to ensure payment to students who qualify under the terms of the income liability criteria for the full duration of their doctoral studies. They could have spent four years on their basic degree and two years on their master's - six years in total - and then they are only allowed two more years. That could be cut off at eight years, and they may well take the extra year or year and a half to complete their studies. I know two students who do not have a penny. It is no use talking about tax relief when they do not have any money. These are excellent students. This is a discrimination that the Minister of State needs to rectify in the next budget. Researchers should not be penalised because of course programming. The ruthless decision by SUSI to conclude research while it is still in progress must stop, but SUSI is only implementing policies laid down by the Government. SUSI is just an administrative body; the Department of Education and Skills has control of the purse strings and the policy decision. PhD students do not down tools in June and start back in September; they work right throughout the year. PhD funding should be paid across 12 months. There are researchers in my constituency who do not have the finance to access university facilities during the summer months.

The attitude of the Department of Education and Skills to the financially vulnerable must be rectified immediately because it is the Department that is at fault here and is failing to address this issue. The Minister of State's reply does nothing to address this issue. I acknowledge that she has a great commitment to this and I admire some of the work she is doing. Researchers and their supervisors should be supported, not vetoed, cut off midstream and told, "Tally-ho. See what you get and do what you can yourself to try to finish." They do not have any outside support, bursaries or anything else. The Department needs to cease the current discrimination and fund all research equally. In three short words, stop terminating research. It should be funded for the full duration while people complete their doctorates.

The Department also provides funding for the student assistance fund. This fund is available in various publicly funded higher education institutions. The student assistance fund provides financial assistance to students experiencing financial difficulties while attending third level. Students can be assisted towards their rent, childcare costs, transport costs and books and class materials. The student assistance fund is open to full-time registered students on courses of not less than one year's duration leading to a postgraduate qualification. Information on the fund is available through the access office in the third level institution attended. The fund is administered on a confidential, discretionary basis. Tax relief at the standard rate of tax may also be claimed in respect of tuition fees paid for approved courses at approved colleges of higher education. Further information is available on www.revenue.ie.

Special Educational Needs Service Provision

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this issue because this is probably the last week for something like this to be raised. It concerns a situation in a school, the new general data protection regulation, GDPR, and application form 3 for assistive technology. Because of the new rules introduced by the GDPR, the form has been taken off the website of the Department of Education and Skills. The form needs to be signed by a principal to be valid. Obviously, as we are coming into the school summer holidays on Friday, principals will not be available to sign the forms. There is the added difficulty that one needs an occupational therapist's report stating that the child needs the assistive technology to get access to this. However, the report will not be accepted without the form and now the application form seems to be unavailable. Perhaps this is an oversight in a technical area. I ask the Minister of State and the Department to accept the older form, perhaps until December, in order that parents are not in this situation. Some schools are saying to parents that they will have to purchase books for the first few weeks until the forms are processed. As this can take six to eight weeks, they are telling parents they must purchase books to be used in September and October. At that stage, they hope to have the forms processed and then the child will revert to using assistive technology. However, this seems absolutely ridiculous because they are putting a cost on parents for books the children will only need for a certain number of weeks. Clearly, this is just an issue with the GDPR. Surely some compromise could be found - for example, accepting the older form while everything else is updated. It is a very specific issue but I hope that makes sense.

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. Under the assistive technology scheme, as set out in my Department's circular on the matter, funding is provided to schools towards the cost of computers and specialist equipment that are required for educational purposes. As the Deputy will be aware, equipment is provided under this scheme for children with more complex disabilities who, to access the school curriculum, require essential specialist equipment that they do not already have or which cannot be provided to them through the school's existing IT provision. The type of equipment provided under the assistive technology scheme is varied and includes audiological supports for students with hearing impairment, Braille equipment for children with visual impairment and computer equipment with associated modified software for students with physical or severe communicative disabilities.

The National Council for Special Education, NCSE, through its network of special education needs organisers, SENOs, is responsible for processing applications from schools for assistive technology support.

Schools make applications directly to the SENO, providing details of the student’s special educational needs or disability, including details of the approach taken by the school in making relevant interventions.

Professional reports from psychologists or occupational therapists, for example, must be submitted by the school along with the application. These reports must have a recent and comprehensive professional assessment of the nature and extent of disability, and outline that the equipment is essential for the pupil to access the curriculum.

SENOs will review the application and professional reports, in order to establish whether the criteria of the scheme have been met. They will then make a recommendation to the Department as to whether assistive technology is required. Based on this recommendation, the Department’s officials will decide on the level of grant. The NCSE operates within my Department’s criteria in making such recommendations.

Due to obligations under the GDPR, a temporary pause was applied to the processing of assistive technology applications. This pause was necessitated by the sensitive nature of personal data submitted by schools along with applications, and the requirement for a joint data controller agreement between the NCSE and the Department. Pending the agreement, the application form has been unavailable on the NCSE’s website. Department officials advise that the joint data controller agreement will be finalised today and that arrangements are being made for the application form to be placed on the NCSE website. Once available, all applications can and will be processed by the Department in time for the commencement of the next school year in September.

I thank the Minister of State. I am glad to hear that there has been some resolution to this issue and it is planned to place the form on the NCSE website. However, I am very conscious that it is Wednesday and schools are finishing on Friday with most of them taking a half-day.

The form needs to be signed by a school principal before it is processed at the next stage. I am looking for some commitment that allowance will be made. Some students are being told they will have to buy books until their forms are processed, which is crazy because it is incurring an unnecessary expense when they will only use the books for six to eight weeks. As they clearly need the assistive technology, the books will be redundant in the first place.

It is great if it is on the website today but that only gives people a day and a half to get their applications signed by a principal and submitted. If students cannot get the form signed until September the schools should not make them buy books. The Department can advise schools not to operate that system. We are looking for a commitment that that will not happen. I do not see how all these forms can be printed off and signed in a day and a half. The timeframe is very tight for primary school students.

I absolutely hear what the Deputy is saying. I was a principal for 16 or 17 years and I do not know any principal who would leave the school at the end of this week and go off until September. I know hundreds of principals around the country and they work during the summer holidays. I thank the principals for the work.

I do not foresee the issue the Deputy mentioned. I believe people will apply. Principals always think of the children first. I am sorry it was not on the website until today. There is a day and a half and I bet that principals will be in their schools for the next week, the next two weeks and indeed throughout the summer. I am sure they will do the very best for the pupils under their care.

Top
Share