Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Health debate -
Wednesday, 14 Nov 2018

Quarterly Update on Health Issues: Discussion

On behalf of the committee I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Daly, who is standing in for the Minister, Deputy Harris, in view of the extraordinary Cabinet meeting being held this morning. I thank him for standing in. I also welcome the interim director general of the HSE, Mr. John Connaghan, who is accompanied by Ms Anne O'Connor, deputy director general and chief operations officer, Mr. Stephen Mulvany, deputy director general and chief financial officer, Mr. Damien McCallion, national director of screening services and Dr. Colm Henry. We are also joined by Mr. Jim Breslin, Secretary General of the Department of Health.

I draw the attention of the witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I advise the witnesses that any opening statement they make to the committee may be published on the committee's website after the meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Daly, to make his opening statement.

I acknowledge the invitation to the Minister, Deputy Harris, to me and to the other Ministers of State to attend the meeting today. I also acknowledge the presence of Mr. Jim Breslin, the Secretary General. I also welcome Mr. John Connaghan, the acting director general of the HSE, and the accompanying HSE officials. We have been invited here to provide an update on issues affecting the Department of Health and the HSE, including expenditure to date on Vote 38. I am happy to do so and I will also outline priorities, significant developments and progress in the area of health.

I will begin with an update on the position of the Vote for 2018. As the committee is aware, the Government approved gross expenditure of just over €15.3 billion for the health services for 2018. The announcement by my colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, that he intends to allocate an additional €700 million to the health service in 2018 by way of a Supplementary Estimate is most welcome, as is the fact it has been possible to carry this additionality into the base for 2019. Consideration of the Supplementary Estimate will be before the committee very shortly so there will be an opportunity to go into further detail. The gross current budget for the health sector for 2019 is €16.36 billion. This is equivalent to an increase of €1.521 billion or 10.2% compared to the 2018 original allocation of €14.839 billion. I am also pleased to announce a capital budget of €667 million, which is an increase of €174 million on last year's capital budget. This brings the total gross health budget for 2019 to more than €17 billion.

For the immediate future, the next significant step is the agreement of the national service plan. The service plan for 2019 will set out the type and volume of services the HSE will provide in respect of the significant budget of more than €16 billion it has received for next year. The HSE must ensure the most beneficial, effective and efficient use of resources is made when planning the services to be provided in 2019. On budget day the Minister stated we are now firmly in the era of Sláintecare and, for the first time, 2019 will see the HSE's national service plan based and developed on the framework of the Sláintecare implementation strategy, which sets out the Government's plan for delivering a high quality, sustainable and equitable health and social care service over the next decade. The national service plan will set out the details on how the totality of health service resources will be made to advance Sláintecare objectives.

The HSE is now in discussion with the Department on developing the service plan for 2019 with the goal of delivering a plan that makes progress on meeting priority health and social care needs and clearly allows the executive to operate within its notified resources. The Minister expects to receive a draft service plan submitted for his approval from the HSE in the coming weeks. The focus on Sláintecare in this process is an important element of the strategic transformation of our health service but, of course, we must also focus on the here and now and the immediate challenges we face.

As we head into a period of pressure in our health service, I acknowledge the ongoing commitment, dedication and co-operation of people working in our health services. This is something of which the Minister and we in Ireland can be very proud. I know that on a daily basis our doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals make personal sacrifices in the interests of putting patients first. However, we have learned lessons from previous winter seasons. Consideration of staff management issues is just one element of a planning process to ensure that we prepare for the winter period in the best way we can. The Department is working closely with the HSE to ensure the most effective response to this winter within current capacity and resources. A total of €10 million in additional funding has been allocated in 2018, primarily for provision of supports to get patients home from hospital, where appropriate, before the end of the year, with a focus on supporting patients in the over-75 age group. The core objective of this measure is to ease congestion in hospitals as far as possible before the end of the year, to prepare for the expected peak in demand in the new year. In addition, the Minister has requested, in the context of the national service plan, that the HSE plans activity in 2019 to manage critical demand pressures, most particularly in respect of increased attendance at emergency departments. This planning will include activity in hospitals, primary care and community care to ensure the system is working at full capacity throughout busy periods. This request provides clarity to the HSE on the level of funding available in 2019 to meet winter pressures.

The challenges evident in hospital emergency departments are a symptom of broader challenges within the hospital itself and across the wider health service. Increasing capacity and efficiency throughout the hospital, improving services in the community to provide care for patients outside of the emergency departments and supporting the discharge of patients home or into other community services are all part of the solution. The national development plan provides for a major increase of 2,600 in bed capacity, as identified in the health service capacity review, and this will remain a priority in 2019. Over the past 12 months, an additional 240 beds have been opened and a further 79 additional beds are planned for the fourth quarter of 2018 and early 2019. Next year, a further €10 million will be invested to enable additional beds to be opened to alleviate pressure on emergency departments for this winter and the years ahead, on foot of the recommendations in the health service capacity review. The Department is in discussion with the HSE, in the context of the national service plan for 2019, to identify sites for investment and the associated number of beds, as part of an agreed capacity programme for 2019.

Increasing capacity and access go hand in hand with reducing waiting lists. A significant investment of €55 million was made in the National Treatment Purchase Fund, NTPF, this year and ambitious targets were set to reduce the number of patients waiting for a hospital procedure to below 70,000. I am pleased to report that as a result of the activity of the HSE and the NTPF we are on track to meet this target, with the number of patients at the end of October at 72,000, down from a peak of just over 86,000 in July 2017. The improvement has been delivered against a backdrop of increased demand for services and a very challenging start to the year that saw elective activity curtailed as a result of emergency department pressures and severe weather events. Building on this progress, in budget 2019 the Government further increased investment in this area, with funding to the NTPF rising to €75 million in 2019. The NTPF plans to reduce further the number of patients waiting to below 59,000 by year end. While significant progress has been made on inpatient and day case procedures, the number of patients waiting for their first outpatient appointment continues to be a challenge. The Minister has asked the HSE and the NTPF to bring a renewed focus to outpatient activity in 2019. Arising from the increased investment, the NTPF plans to arrange at least 40,000 first outpatient appointments in 2019.

Earlier this year, the Minister approved the establishment of a central waiting list validation function within the National Treatment Purchase Fund. Validation has many benefits, including the identification of patients on waiting lists who are ready, willing and available to proceed with hospital care, a reduction in the rate of those who do not attend and an improvement in information for managing waiting lists. It is worth noting that each year more than 500,000 patients do not attend their appointments. Validation has been under way for a number of years at a local level and the NTPF estimates that next year more than 30,000 patients who no longer require an outpatient appointment will come off the outpatient waiting list as a result of this activity.

I will now update members on matters related to CervicalCheck. In September, as committee members know, Dr. Gabriel Scally provided the final report of his scoping inquiry into issues relating to CervicalCheck. His report provided welcome reassurance about the laboratories currently contracted by CervicalCheck.

He is satisfied with the quality management processes in these labs. It is very important to say that Dr. Scally confirmed that he found no reason the existing contracts for laboratory services should not continue until the new human papillomavirus, HPV, regime is introduced.

He also stated that continuation of screening in the coming months is of crucial importance.

The Government fully agrees with this as screening saves lives. CervicalCheck has been successful in reducing cervical cancer rates in Ireland. As stated in the Scally report, the lifetime risk of a woman getting cervical cancer was one in 135 in 2015, significantly lower than the lifetime risk in 2007 of one in 96. This represents a substantial improvement. The Government has accepted all 50 of Dr. Scally's recommendations. The Minister has committed to returning to Government within three months, as recommended by Dr. Scally, with a full plan for the implementation of these recommendations.

In June 2018, the Minister established a national cervical steering committee, that is co-chaired by the chief medical officer and the assistant secretary for acute hospitals in the Department and includes senior management of the Department, the HSE, clinicians and patient advocates.

It provides oversight and assurance on managing the response to the CervicalCheck issues, and ensuring the implementation of the key decisions taken by Government. The minutes and agenda for each meeting are published on the Department’s website, to allow for full transparency and for members of the public to be updated on the committee’s activities. The Minister is updated weekly, receiving updates on the progress of the steering committee and these are also published.

The committee has had 12 meetings to date since it was established on 21 June last. The most recent meeting was on 8 November. The committee will meet twice more before the end of the year.

Separate to the work carried out by Dr. Scally, the independent clinical expert panel review, which is being led by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, RCOG, is under way. This review is examining the results of screening tests of all women who have developed cervical cancer who participated in the screening programme since it was established.

The review will provide independent clinical assurances to women about the timing of their diagnosis, and any issues relating to their treatment and outcome. The Minister would also like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for its time and engagement in recent days as they discussed the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Bill 2018. In addition, preparations are ongoing for the implementation of the service as soon as possible. The Department and the HSE are at an advanced stage of drafting contractual proposals for the provision of termination of pregnancy services in the community setting.

In parallel with service planning and expansion, clinical guidelines for medical practitioners are in preparation by the medical colleges and the Department has provided a grant to support their development.

The Minister is conscious that women are continuing to travel every day to access services abroad and in some cases to order medication over the Internet.

He wants to stress again that it is this Government’s priority to have a medically delivered, safe and regulated service for the termination of pregnancy for all those who require it, based on the huge mandate that the Irish people have given for this work.

There is also significant work being done to implement the national maternity strategy. Ireland’s national maternity strategy was published in 2016. The national women and infant’s health programme, NWIHP, has been established within the HSE and is driving the strategy’s implementation. A key aim of the strategy is to ensure that appropriate care pathways are in place so that mothers, babies and families get the right care, at the right time, by the right team and in the right place. The strategy’s three care pathways – supported, assisted and specialised – will deliver maternity care in a manner that is both appropriate and woman-centred.

A detailed implementation plan for the strategy was published in October 2017, providing a clear roadmap for the development of maternity services into the future and, in 2018, the Government provided additional development funding of €4.55 million to progress the strategy and to improve waiting times for gynaecology services.

The national women and infants health programme highlighted a number of priorities which this funding has continued to address over the course of 2018. These include the development of community midwifery teams, the development of quality and safety frameworks and the improvement of access to anomaly scanning services. This year, 2018, has seen the continued expansion of anomaly scanning services in maternity hospitals and units across the country and the development of critical quality and safety initiatives. The development of the supported care pathway and of community midwifery teams to deliver care in line with the recommendations of the strategy is also ongoing and a multidisciplinary steering group has been established by the NWIHP to oversee the implementation of the strategy’s model of care. This year has also seen the continued roll-out of the very successful maternal and newborn clinical management system, with phase 1 completed and implemented across 4 sites: Cork University Maternity Hospital, University Hospital Kerry, the Rotunda Hospital and the National Maternity Hospital.

Looking ahead, it is important to ensure that we build on developments to date and the Department will be engaging closely with the programme to ensure this progress continues into the coming year.

To conclude, planning for the weeks and months ahead now that we are in the winter period is of course the top priority. Yes, we face challenges. However, we now have a long-term plan for healthcare and as I have just outlined, we are making progress this year, and we will each and every year. I thank the committee again for the opportunity to brief it on developments. I am interested in hearing members' views and look forward to their questions.

Mr. John Connaghan

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend today's meeting. I am joined by my colleagues as previously introduced by the Chairman. In preparation for the meeting, committee members requested information and replies to a number of specific questions and they will by now have received the written response to them. I will therefore confine my opening remarks to the following issues.

First, I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Finance and Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, that it is intended to allocate an additional €700 million to the health service in 2018 by way of Supplementary Estimate, which now brings the 2018 net revenue budget of the HSE to €15.2 billion. I know that this was the subject of the Joint Committee on Health meeting of 24 October so I will confine my remarks to welcoming the fact that this will be included in the base funding of 2019.

The HSE is currently finalising an implementation delivery plan in response to the Scally review recommendations. This is a considerable piece of work ranging from procurement to open disclosure and from governance to risk management. While our focus will be on early implementation, our concern will be to ensure that plans are solid and sustainable in the future.

We are continuing to support the international expert panel RCOG review, which was commissioned by the Minister for women who were diagnosed with cervical cancer. This work will continue through 2018 and into 2019.

A key risk to enable cervical screening to continue in Ireland was the extension of the laboratory contracts. We have secured agreements to enable continuity of the service and are currently finalising contracts with service providers. The new model will ultimately see a more balanced model of public and private provision in Ireland. We are also carrying out an extensive worldwide exercise to secure additional capacity, given current demands leading to extended reporting time for women.

We are progressing plans to introduce primary HPV screening, with a focus on international best practice to ensure we have a successful deployment. At the present moment, until we complete our planning work and finalise on current laboratory provision, we are not in a position to provide a critical path or timetable for the introduction of HPV testing.

We are continuing to provide supports to the women and their families impacted by the crisis. We are also strengthening the role of patients in the CervicalCheck programme with the establishment of a public patient involvement panel and patient representation on key groups.

Turning to other matters , I advise the committee that planning for winter 2018-19 is well advanced in respect of planning and escalation, the operational management of patient flow and maintaining public health in place at hospital group and community healthcare organisation, CHO, level. There are five priorities for this winter in the following broad categories: ensuring integrated working between acute hospitals and the community; ensuring robust preparedness plans that optimise our existing resource; ensuring de-escalation pre-Christmas, maintaining demand and capacity balance between Christmas and the new year and ensuring the provision of enhanced measures for the new year surge; a focus on ambulatory patients and on older persons with emphasis on admission avoidance, enablement and community supports; and strengthened working arrangements with GPs, nursing homes and the HSE. We can provide more detail on this as we carry out this engagement with the committee.

We are grateful for the €10 million once-off funding allocated by the Department of Health for winter. It is intended to utilise this additional funding to increase the provision of community supports pre-Christmas and open additional capacity in January.

Since the last Joint Committee on Health update, we have made some progress on key performance indicators such as trolley count, with each month since the end of quarter one 2018 recording a decrease over the same period in 2017. Inpatient and day case waiting lists have decreased by over 5,000, from 78,000 in June to 72,700 in September 2018. That is down from a peak a year ago of 86,000.

In the national ambulance service, incidents responded to by patient-carrying vehicles in 18 minutes and 59 seconds or less is above target at 81%, noting a performance improvement month on month in the last quarter.

On our community services, the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, has advised the HSE that all 1,149 disability centres are now registered as of 31 October 2018 under the national standards for residential services for children and adults with disabilities. This has been a substantial achievement for the sector. It is a very positive indication regarding our investment in quality improvement through dedicated professional programmes and additional financial resources for providers.

However, notwithstanding all of the above, we still have significant pressure on acute, community and social care services. There are too many people waiting on outpatient waiting lists and there is also a significant increase in the numbers of people attending emergency departments and increasing unmet demand for home care support with over 6,000 people now awaiting home support across the nine community healthcare organisations. All of these are the subject of detailed planning in our national service plan for 2019.

As we move into 2019 we also need to prepare for the introduction of a board to the HSE. This is a welcome and necessary step for the appropriate governance of the largest organisation in Ireland. I would particularly like to welcome Mr. Ciarán Devane to the post of chairman. I know from my early discussions with Mr. Devane that a focus on patient safety and quality and culture and values will be early agenda items for the board.

Consideration of how the HSE responds to recommendations on audit, risk, governance and accountability arising from the Scally report will also be an important aspect of the early work of the board.

I take this opportunity to look forward into 2019 and highlight some of the HSE's other key strategic objectives. Sláintecare has provided a framework within which the HSE will focus on transforming healthcare services over the coming decades. New services will be progressed in line with Government policy and care closer to home will be improved through further investments in primary care services, including GP services, the extension of eligibility and reductions in prescription charges and drug payment scheme limits. The HSE will also focus on a number of key organisational objectives in 2019, including a designation of the major trauma centre and trauma units in Dublin, commencement of the nine learning sites focused on a new networked operating model for community health networks, which will lead to a full-scale national implementation, further development of maternity services and continued investment in ehealth with a specific focus on electronic health records. My colleagues and I will endeavour to answer any questions members have.

We will commence our engagement with the health spokespersons. Deputy Stephen Donnelly is first. It is proposed to have a ten minute engagement before moving on to the next speaker. I ask members to keep their questions to that time limit.

Will there be a second round?

I thank the Minister of State and the officials for their time today and for the statements made. I start with performance and accountability. In Ireland, we spend more on healthcare than almost any other country on earth. Budgets over the last number of years have been the highest in our history. Commensurately, the overruns have been the most extensive we have ever had. At the same time, we have more people waiting on trolleys than ever and while there have been improvements in some areas, the total number of men, women and children on waiting lists is higher than it has ever been. Children with special needs are waiting three years to get help, which deprives them of the future they could have. There are chronic waiting lists on multiple surgical lists and surgeries will have been cancelled across the country this morning because our hospitals are overcrowded. It is accepted that a safe and good level for hospitals is approximately 85% whereas ours are between 97% and 104%.

Certain specialties have particular problems. Children with scoliosis, for example, are waiting more than three years for operations in Crumlin and, as a result, are having their internal organs crushed by their rib cages as their spines curve to over 100%. Routine appointments for urology at St. James's involve waiting lists of over six years. As the Minister knows well, many of our mental health services have become so fractured that people are terrified of children and young persons being referred from early intervention to CAMHS where services basically do not exist. Government figures released in reply to a Parliamentary Question recently indicate that we have only one tenth of the staff we need in mental health. Diagnostics are being cut off for GPs. I had a letter this week from Navan Hospital to say that due to a shortage of radiographers, GPs can no longer refer for DEXA scanning. The list goes on and on.

In spite of the best efforts of many doctors, nurses and, I am sure, officials, and in spite of the spending of more money than ever before over many years in a row, many parts of the system are in crisis. There is a level of suffering and a lack of access that we have never seen before. Given all of that, my question goes to accountability. Has anyone lost his or her job at a political level, within the Department or anywhere across the HSE? Has anyone been fired for the catastrophic failures we are seeing across the system notwithstanding the vast amounts of money being spent?

The Deputy's diagnosis, for want of a better term, is one with which I could not agree more. Everybody in the room accepts that there are difficulties, challenges, waiting lists and unacceptable delays in front-line services and it is a case of what we are going to do about it and how we are going to approach it. There is no quick-fix answer.

I am sorry to cut across the Minister of State. My question is not about the solutions. It is whether, given what we both agree is happening, anyone has been fired.

I might finish addressing the point the Deputy made about all of those difficulties and challenges. While it is probably too late, there is at least a direction, focus and investment under the overall Sláintecare framework. This year, more than ever, one can see the alignment with Sláintecare. Into 2019, as the service plan is developed, there will be more emphasis on lowering the intervention and bringing services closer to home. The Deputy referred to scoliosis and so on in that context. His question about accountability is one I will refer to the HSE in a minute as it is not in the Minister's gift to fire anyone. That is a point made to one of my predecessors previously by the head of the HSE. It is not a hiring and firing role and a matter for any Minister to comment on. Accountability within the HSE is a matter I can pass to the Director General to answer directly, unless there is a specific question for me.

I thank the Minister of State for his answer. The question referred to the best of the Minister of State's knowledge, in light of the fact that he is standing in for the Cabinet Minister here. To the best of his knowledge, has anyone been fired over the catastrophic failures we have seen right across the system?

I do not have the figures but I will ask the Director General to answer. Does the Deputy mean in the past year?

In the past year, two years, three years, four years or five years.

There was an additional aspect of the Deputy's question which was the reference to catastrophic failures which makes it more difficult. I can provide the Deputy with an answer on whether people have been dismissed from the service in the past 12 months and the reasons for those dismissals will be manifold, individual and unique. We cannot say these people were dismissed because of catastrophic failures. I can certainly ask the director general to answer the question on the number of people who have been dismissed from the service in the past 12 months, or whatever it was.

Whichever it is. Has anyone been fired due to the catastrophic failures and the pain and suffering felt across the system? It is a straight question.

Mr. John Connaghan

I can give a straight answer albeit perhaps only for the period during which I have been interim director general, that is the last six months. I am not aware at corporate level of anyone being through the disciplinary process for poor performance in that respect. We have people leaving the service through our disciplinary procedures and that is a matter for local managers and staff and I do not consider that I am at liberty to reveal any of that today. I recognise the situation the Deputy paints. As we go forward, we need to build into the HSE something better around personal accountability. If I can take a minute, I will say a little around what the plans for that might be in 2019.

I ask that we do that afterwards. It is not to cut Mr. Connaghan off, it is just that we have very little time. I will be very happy to go into that later, but for now the answer to my question is "No". Is that fair? I do not want to put words in Mr. Connaghan's mouth, but the answer is "No". I ask the Minister of State to reflect on that at a political level. Given what is happening in the system, it does not surprise me that the answer is "No" but that is something that must be reflected on. Has any formal sanction of any kind been taken against anyone for the catastrophic failures we are seeing across the system?

I cannot answer for the system or from within the HSE. Formal sanctions are matters I will have to direct to the HSE. The Deputy's question is specifically about catastrophic failures. He is asking if anyone has been dismissed for catastrophic failures within-----

It is for the failures we are seeing across the system.

Yes, and the answer to that is "No". To the best of my knowledge, no one has been dismissed for the litany the Deputy terms catastrophic failures.

To the best of the Minister of State's knowledge, has anyone been sanctioned in any way?

Does the Deputy mean for the catastrophic failures he has just outlined, as he terms it, or is he asking about individual misdemeanours?

Not for individual things. It is for the list of issues I have raised. Has anyone ever been sanctioned in any way for any of them, to the best of the Minister of State's knowledge?

Certainly not. I do not know who would be responsible for the entire list of issues the Deputy raised there and who could be potentially sanctioned.

Mr. John Connaghan

Can I change the use of the term "sanction" to "escalation", which I think is the same thing? We have a number of services in escalation. A service is rarely provided and solely delivered by one person.

The members will understand that the delivery of healthcare these days is on a team, cross-organisational basis. We can provide details of the services in escalation, when they were escalated, and what has been happening.

Are individuals sanctioned? I understand that the director general might point to a service and say, child and adolescent mental health service is in crisis and needs to be escalated or scoliosis needs to be escalated. My question is around personal accountability for what patients are dealing with. To the best of Mr. Connaghan's knowledge, has an individual been sanctioned in any way for any of the issues we have raised?

Mr. John Connaghan

To the extent that a service is led by an individual, he or she will be part of that escalation process in terms of determining how we can improve that process.

I am asking a different question. I appreciate Mr. Connaghan saying that he is looking at issues and trying to solve them, but I am asking whether an individual has been sanctioned for any of the failures I have listed?

Mr. John Connaghan

I think it is the same answer as I have provided to the Deputy before. I am not aware of any but I would say that in the provision of services, one needs to think about the entirety of the service and the fact that it is a team-based approach.

I am happy to go into more detail about plans for 2019 in that respect.

Maybe later, if we could.

Chairman, do I have time for another question?

One question Deputy.

Will I wait and come in later as it is a long question and will take more than 60 seconds? I am happy to stop and come back in.

If the Deputy is agreeable to do that, we will do that.

I thank the witnesses. I do not mean to be disrespectful to the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Daly. I thank him for coming before the committee. It is regrettable that the Minister is not present. It is a long time since we have had a quarterly meeting and we are hoping to be able to rectify that. I fully understand the reason that he is not here this morning, but it is regrettable.

The Taoiseach recently made a statement on annual leave in the hospital service and the difficulties he alleges it creates, particularly around Christmas time. This statement was grossly offensive to men and women, many of whom will work hard right over the Christmas period. I wonder where that assertion came from. Does Mr. Connaghan know of a particular problem in January? How is it accounted for and will he shed some light as to why the Taoiseach said that? I heard a radio DJ say that he went into a hospital at Christmas and he formed the opinion that there was not much going on. I do not think that is the truth. I think a lot goes on over Christmas but perhaps Mr. Connaghan can enlighten us on that.

With regard to recruitment and retention, it is my understanding that we now have 259 fewer staff nurses than we had in December 2017. I have spoken to nurses and they are telling me that the manner in which recruitment is taking place is acting as an effective moratorium because it takes so long from the decision to recruit to actually finding oneself in employment on the wards. Is that being analysed? Is anyone looking at that and can we get an estimation of where they think the blockages are and how they are manifesting themselves and if there are any plans to tackle them will the witnesses share those plans with us?

If the allocation of €10 million for the winter plan is not spent by the end of the year is it rolled over into next year? I know it is additional funding but I wonder how it works. Winter will not be confined to 2018 and it will continue into 2019, is there a plan? We know that the NHS publishes its winter initiative in September, but we have not seen the winter initiative. I note what Mr. Connaghan has said but he is listing services that should be happening anyway. The idea that this is an extraordinary intervention because of winter is a bit much. What is on the list is the normal day to day activity that should be really happening in our health service. It would be extraordinary if it did not happen every day of the week. Will he comment on whether the money will be spent in 2019, and on the funded workforce plan? Mr. Mulvany and I have spoken about that previously. As I understand it, there is no funded workforce plan and the matter was referred to a third party for negotiations; will he share with us what stage it is at?

I have more questions, which I will save until afterward, but my final question in this round relates to CervicalCheck. We were all touched and saddened to read about the case of Ms Julie O'Reilly in The Irish Times at the weekend. She was tested four times and the diagnosis was not given to her each time. There were pre-cancerous cells present but four times they were missed. I know that Cian O'Carroll has written in the newspaper that there still has not been an on-site audit of the testing laboratories in the US. Perhaps the witnesses can comment on that and give us an update as to whether all of the laboratories - I am referring to the laboratories in Honolulu from which initially the referral was made to Texas and there was a further outsourcing of the outsourcing. I do not want to get into a debate on outsourcing because everybody knows my views on that. Has there been any on-site testing of every laboratory to which the samples were sent for testing? From my read of what was reported in the newspaper there has been no on-site testing of the laboratories where the tests were analysed. Will the witness confirm whether there has been on-site testing of laboratories engaged in the analysis of test, and share the results with members? During the course of one committee hearing we asked officials if they could give us a breakdown of the results between each laboratory, including the outsourced and re-outsourced and we were told months ago that it would be no bother to get the information to the committee, but we still have not got it. It appears every time we ask a question and it becomes more and more complex.

I thank Deputy O'Reilly. Does the Minister wish to respond?

Perhaps Mr. Connaghan will come in first; if there is anything that he wants me to answer specifically, I will be happy to do so.

Mr. John Connaghan

I will ask Ms Anne O'Connor to talk about winter planning and Mr. Damien McCallion to talk about CervicalCheck.

May I say a word or two about Christmas leave and staff rostering? I cast my mind back over the course of the past year and I think we owe a debt of gratitude to staff. Let us think of what happened over the course of the last winter, in terms of snow and storms. Many staff slept overnight and did not go home; they stayed to fill the next shift. I think we owe all the staff in the Irish health service a debt of gratitude for all that service. Staff go beyond what is in their normal day to day job description when it is needed.

I am not sure where the Taoiseach got the impression he did; one of the things we do - and perhaps it is a matter that we need to explain better - during the course of the last part of December and the early part of January, is suppress electives. That is sensible because operations rescheduled into the back end of January or into February allow for some extra capacity. Rostering in that sense takes place and that is where we need to explain things a little bit better. We also need to consider that many of the Departments we have are singlehanded, particularly in rural locations and we also need to think about how we actually roster around those staff.

The Taoiseach's comments were specifically directed at nurses, doctors and diagnostic staff and I think referred very specifically to the acute setting. I welcome Mr. Connaghan's sentiment about healthcare workers which we share. There is no difficulty with the members in this room acknowledging the hard work that is done. We were not the people pointing fingers, but there were no additional staff on leave when the trolley numbers went over 700. The question was in the context of the numbers waiting on trolleys and specifically with regard to the acute hospital setting and the accident and emergency departments.

Mr. John Connaghan

I am aware of that Deputy and electives are part of that acute service.

I will ask Ms O'Connor to deal with the winter service.

Ms Anne O'Connor

Deputy O'Reilly's statement that winter is longer than December is accurate and that is the context in which we are planning. The plan we are putting in place will run from 1 December to the end of March. Within it, we are looking at a number of options. Much of the activity that has been referenced should be normal activity but we are also taking exceptional measures. There are three key components to how we are addressing it. Our winter preparedness includes the introduction of winter-ready clinics in order to target particularly vulnerable groups such as the over 75s. One of the things we know from the data is that some people who need ambulatory care can be seen in other locations. We have known that for a few winters and we are enhancing our efforts on that front, looking at extended hours outside the-----

When Ms O'Connor says the HSE is enhancing its efforts, does that mean it is building on what was done last winter?

Ms Anne O'Connor

Yes.

Although she may not be able to do so now, I ask Ms O'Connor to provide members with------

Ms Anne O'Connor

Absolutely.

------a written identification of the areas of increased activity and those where it is intended to intensify the effort.

Ms Anne O'Connor

As part of the overall winter plan, we are particularly targeting the last two weeks in December and the first two weeks in January because evidence from and reviews of previous years indicate particular challenges in those weeks. As part of that we will make enhanced hours available within community services because there is often a perception that at that time of year hospitals are in dire straits and some community services are not open. We plan to make more services available within the community, offer enhanced supports to GPs, enhance diagnostics and, working with private providers, consider a different approach to how we bring people into hospital. A specific set of measures for that four-week period will be set out in the overall winter plan.

The plan will run from 1 December.

Ms Anne O'Connor

Yes.

Is there a recruitment plan in regard to increasing capacity in the community or will that be done using existing staff?

Ms Anne O'Connor

We will not be recruiting staff. We are examining how we use the staff we have because once one gets to mid-December the activity in community services changes. We are talking to managers and they are talking to their staff about who will be available to facilitate doing things differently. We are asking people to redefine normal activity for those four weeks in particular. Often, people do not want to attend appointments in primary care centres with children, etc., so we are looking at our range of professionals and how we can utilise our workforce differently in those four weeks. A very intensive effort is going on to examine the set of supports available across the community and acute------

When will the plan be published?

Ms Anne O'Connor

We are at the final stages in terms of working with the Department on it.

It is very much the final stages because it will soon be 1 December.

Ms Anne O'Connor

Yes. Just because the plan has not been published does not mean that we have not been working on it since September.

I acknowledge that.

Ms Anne O'Connor

We had final meetings with the hospital groups and the community healthcare organisations, CHOs, on 11 October and are now implementing how we will deliver the plan with them. We have finalised how and where the funding will be allocated. We are in discussions with the Department in those regards and the plan is very much at the final stage. It will be published. An emergency taskforce date has been set for a couple of weeks time. The work has been going on and the plan is already being implemented. We are not waiting for publication to begin its implementation.

I am confused. The HSE is not waiting for publication to implement the plan. Rather, it is currently being implemented.

Ms Anne O'Connor

We are working with the services on the plan. Part of the winter challenge is that we need to clear capacity in advance of the busy period at the end of December. If we clear that capacity too early, the system will fill up again very quickly. A significant amount of work is under way to ensure that we have many supports available to kick in from December and to clear out------

Is there a target in regard to clearing capacity?

Ms Anne O'Connor

There is a target in terms of how we can allocate home care. We have identified nine key sites of concern, predominantly in the Dublin area. We know that there is a particular homecare challenge in Dublin as we see its effect in Dublin hospitals. We are considering how we can take people out of hospital throughout December. A significant amount of work must be done with our providers to build that capacity and we are working with our homecare providers to ensure they have resources in place to take people out of hospitals. Several strands of work in that regard are set out in the plan, as the Deputy will see.

When will the plan be published?

Ms Anne O'Connor

I do not have a date for publication. It is being signed off by the HSE with the Department. We have had two meetings on it this week and, as we have reached agreement on how it is progressing, it can now be signed off very quickly.

There are 17 days until 1 December.

Ms Anne O'Connor

That is true, but we have been working with our services and they will be ready. It is not that we are starting to engage with services now. We have been engaging with them since September.

The engagement with the services has already taken place.

Ms Anne O'Connor

We have been working with services since September to look at actions and how we can implement them. A group has been meeting every week since September to address that.

Is it the same group that was meeting on this issue last year?

Ms Anne O'Connor

It is slightly different.

In what way is it different?

I ask the Deputy to move on.

I understand. In what way is it different?

Ms Anne O'Connor

It is composed of different people.

It is composed of different personnel representing the same entities.

Ms Anne O'Connor

Yes. The cross-community sector, acute hospitals, our special delivery unit colleagues and clinical colleagues are represented.

There has been communication with staff in the sites who will be delivering the services.

Ms Anne O'Connor

Absolutely. The national directors and acute and community services------

The plan is not yet ready but they have been working to the plan. Ms O'Connor can appreciate how that is somewhat confusing.

Ms Anne O'Connor

All we are saying is that we have not published the plan but we have agreed the actions within it. Some of the actions are not resource-dependent. Rather, they are process changes which are all being worked through. Only part of the plan concerns additional resources.

I ask Ms O'Connor to share the parts of the plan that are currently publishable with the committee.

Ms Anne O'Connor

We have almost agreed the plan, so I will be able to do that.

Deputy O'Reilly had queries relating to CervicalCheck. We will then move on to Deputy Murphy O'Mahony.

Mr. Damien McCallion

On the laboratories and audit visits, Dr. Scally visited all the laboratories in the programme, including historical and current laboratories. As Members are aware, on the two current laboratories he concluded that we could continue to use those laboratories and extend their contracts.

He also made recommendations. There are four specific recommendations in his report regarding quality assurance, which includes quality assurance of laboratories. One of his key observations, rather than recommendations, regarded the lack of a cytopathologist in the programme being a deficit. We advertised for candidates for that position. We advertised it before Dr Scally's report as we knew there was a gap. We have been unsuccessful in that recruitment and have extended the date. We are now in discussions with a person overseas on a particular contract in an attempt to recruit a candidate to the position, which is critical.

We have appointed a quality and risk manager to the programme who is addressing three of Dr. Scally's four recommendations on the quality assurance structures. We expect that work to be completed before the end of the year, which would mean that visits to the laboratories could begin in the new year. Under the new model, such visits would take place on an annual basis. Previously, there was a significant gap between visits. Dr. Scally made a recommendation or observation in that regard on which we have acted. Dr. Scally visited all of the laboratories. He is also carrying out follow-up work commissioned by the Department relating to one of the historical laboratories in the United States which may be the laboratory to which the Deputy referred.

The question was about an on-site audit. I will come back in on this issue.

I will allow the Deputy to come back in with supplementary questions.

I welcome the representatives to the meeting and thank them for giving us their time. I mean no disrespect to the Minister of State, Deputy Daly, who is a friend of mine, but I am very disappointed that the senior Minister, Deputy Harris, is unable to attend this morning. Obviously, Brexit and the Cabinet meeting in that regard are very important but I note that the committee's quarterly meeting with him has been postponed once already. It is important that he appear before the year is out.

In his opening statement the Minister of State acknowledged the dedication of the health service workers. I was very disappointed by the very unhelpful comments of the Taoiseach regarding health service workers and the Christmas period.

I wish to stress the importance of winter planning. It amazes me that every year it seems to be a surprise that more people need to go to hospital during the winter. It seems to be an emergency or a surprise every year, but it is quite obvious that it is going to happen. Ms O'Connor outlined the detail in that regard.

The increase in beds proposed in the national development plan seems very aspirational. I hope it happens but I do not see how the HSE thinks it can increase bed capacity by 2,600 when there is a maximum potential increase of 319 beds this year and early next year. The target seems somewhat aspirational.

On the first outpatient appointments, it is great that they will try to put a dent in the backlog but what about those who will be coming on stream seeking first-time appointments?

Are people and GPs still being written to, texted or phoned to ask if they want to attend their first appointment? This puts undue pressure on GPs and patients.

I would also like the Minister of State's view on the Ombudsman's comments this morning regarding his disappointment that the HSE has not fully implemented the recommendations in his 2015 report, Learning to Get Better. At the time, the HSE accepted the 36 of the recommendations in the report but only ten have been fully implemented, 17 have been partially implemented and nine have either not been implemented or are still being considered. After the Ombudsman went to the trouble of compiling the report, I wonder why all of the 36 recommendations have not been implemented.

As this is the Minister of State's quarterly visit to the committee, I have just a few questions for him. The first concerns the mental health services - which come under the remit of the Minister for Health - at Bantry General Hospital, which is in the constituency the Minister of State and I represent. I have submitted numerous parliamentary questions and I cannot get answers. Perhaps the Minister of State can provide answers now or else get back to me. Is there a dietician in situ to speak to people who present with eating disorders? What consultation facilities are available to those presenting with mental health issues? What are the staffing levels? As late as yesterday, I received a reply to a simple question on the staffing levels but I did not get an answer. There are either ten or 20 staff or none. I would like an answer please. Lisheens House is a facility in our constituency that does not receive any section 39 funding. Why is that? Why did the facility have to wait until October for a decision that was due in March and which turned out to be a refusal? I asked this of the Taoiseach yesterday, but he said to ask the Minister of State. I am doing so now.

I have a few more questions for the Minister because as I could not expect the Minister of State to know the answers. I will wait for our meeting with the Minister to ask those questions.

I thank the Deputy. I apologise for being such a disappointment to the members.

We know all about that.

The Minister of State will get over it.

I will do my best to live up to it.

It is always difficult being in the shade but, notwithstanding that, I will do my best to live up to what is expected of me.

It is unique for this committee to have quarterly meetings with the Minister. Not every Minister has quarterly meetings with their corresponding committee. The Minister has always tried to attend these meetings as a priority. I know that I catch the flak more often than not when he cannot make it, but it is certainly not due to lack of interest on his part. I am aware the members are not suggesting that but I just wanted to make the point that he has always tried to prioritise his attendance at these quarterly meetings.

I wish to correct what the Deputy said. The Taoiseach did not criticise front-line workers. There is a political attraction for all of us in interpreting what the Taoiseach said. To be fair, he referred to workforce planning and the availability of staff. Deputy O'Reilly touched on that issue in the context of diagnostic staff. I am not speaking for the Taoiseach; he is a very articulate man and well able to outline his views. I do not wish to interpret what he said. There is a point to be made, however, which a lot of people accept - regardless of whether we like it - that some steps can be taken to improve workflow and patient flow at different times. I refer, for example, to circumstances where a lot of people might come into an acute hospital and diagnostic services might not be available because they only operate between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If diagnostic services were available for longer, more procedures could be performed. There is merit to that and a bit of focus on it would be welcome. The Taoiseach was certainly not criticising front-line staff.

The Deputy inquired about bed capacity. The bed capacity is to be achieved over ten years. The figure of 319 is for one year. The question that arises relates to how to get to 3,200 beds over a period of ten years.

Reference was made to outpatient appointments and new people coming in. The do-not-shows constitute only one part of that. We hope that 30,000 will be eliminated from that list when it is tidied up. We are working towards the Sláintecare plan to bring the care to the lower level whereby people can be treated at primary care centres. That is probably the answer to the Deputy's question on how we intend to deal with the new clients who will come onto the list, as well as those who have been waiting a long time.

This is part of the overall reform that is very much at the heart of Sláintecare, namely, changing where certain people are treated and giving them appointments closer to home.

Deputy Murphy O'Mahony spoke about letters to patients. That is part of the central validation process whereby it is necessary to write to people to ask if they are still waiting for appointments, if they are still want them or if they no longer need them. The letters to the GPs have to be issued. This is because, having been informed of initial dates for appointments, they must be apprised of the up-to-date position.

Why is it necessary to write to them?

If we want to validate centrally and make sure of the position, we have to inform GPs of any changes. Essentially, it is trying to get to the bottom of the matter as regards those who do not attend appointments. There is a little inconvenience for everybody involved because people and their GPs are receiving additional letters. If we want to be fair, improve accessibility and get more people into the system, then we must do this.

Could the letters state that it is important the person attends his or her appointment? The letter could ask the person to refer back if he or she does not wish to attend on the date appointed. The wording currently used in the letters puts people under pressure. People are saying "Maybe I am not too bad, I will give someone else a chance." The wording could be better.

On the letter to GPs specifically, in some instances people have moved house or they are not there so it is necessary to cross-check by also writing to the GPs. I am aware that it may be an administrative pain for the GPs but it is a pain that I believe may be worthwhile. If we could bear with it to get the do-not-attends removed, we could get those lists down. If we have 500,000 people not showing up for appointments and then a number of people who are on the list who do not need to be there, we could tidy up our figures. The overall objective is approved. I appreciate what the Deputy has said about the language, and we can see that, but it is certainly not to put pressure on people; it is just to ascertain the fact that a person had looked for an appointment 18 months and if he or she is still looking for that appointment.

Perhaps changing the wording might help.

I will take on board the Deputy's point about the wording.

The Deputy also asked about Bantry General Hospital. I will come back to her with more specifics on the staffing levels at the hospital. I presume it is on the mental health side, rather than the general hospital?

The Deputy also inquired about the availability of a dietician and what consultations patients can access. I will come back to her directly with more specifics on those points. I regret that the Deputy has not been able to get that information. I will ensure it is delivered to her in a timely fashion.

I thank the Minister of State.

Deputy Murphy O'Mahony also referred to Lisheens House in Skibbereen. I am very familiar with Lisheens House and I am aware that the Deputy had raised the matter in the Dáil yesterday. I had just left the Dáil and I was not aware that the Deputy was about to raise the matter. I thought that Questions on Promised Legislation had concluded.

Last Friday, I met with the people of Lisheens House. I am well aware of and appreciative of that facility. Contrary to popular belief locally, section 39 funding is administered by the HSE, not by me. The people at Lisheens House were certainly of that view. I allocate to the HSE and it allocates to organisations. When I looked at the number of organisations that are availing of funding for mental health, the heading under which Lisheens House comes, there are 1,050 different organisations in receipt of funding from the HSE. Ultimately, that funding comes from the Department's budget. There is no question about the number of organisations - 1,050 in total - that are in receipt of this money. We have to have corporate governance and clinical governance. I have explained this to the people at Lisheens House. In order to avail of funding from the HSE, it is not just a case of simply requesting it. Organisations must comply with certain responsibilities vis-à-vis-----

How is Lisheens House not complying?

After meeting me on Friday last, the people at Lisheens House are well aware of what it is necessary for them to do. They began an engagement with the mental health side, which they did not see through. They then went over to the primary care side to seek funding in respect of counselling. Again, there was an issue regarding the amount and availability of information they were supplying to the HSE. I stand over the HSE's right to obtain a clinical evaluation of any service that is provided, be it in mental, physical or any other health area. Lisheens House accepts that in full and is now going to have its service's evaluated. It will also have the clinical side evaluated. We cannot just distribute money, regardless of whether it is in my constituency or any other. There is no facility whereby we can just distribute money to an organisation based on someone saying it is a great organisation and doing well.

Lisheens House has to comply with the same governance procedures with which 1,050 other organisations have complied.

So Lisheens House did not comply with-----

The people at Lisheens House are well aware of the position. I had a meeting with them on Friday and I made the position quite clear. They are under no illusions about what they need to do.

The Deputy referred to the length of time and the delay involved. She also spoke about this matter in the Dáil yesterday. The period in question involved waiting for information to be returned by Lisheens House. I do not want to go into any further detail. If the Deputy wants to talk to those at Lisheens House, they will outline for her what I explained to them on Friday. There is no misunderstanding on the part of those at Lisheens House.

They have to reapply and do what is requested.

They have to conduct a clinical evaluation of their services and provide this to the HSE.

I thank the Minister of State.

I thank Deputy Murphy O'Mahony. Before I go to Deputy Durkan, I have a number of questions, the first of which is directed to Mr. Breslin and Mr. Connaghan.

Invariably, the HSE service plan, which will be produced in the next several weeks, will not deliver because of budget overruns of up to €700 million like this year. What guarantee can be given that the service plan will come in on target next year? Several weeks ago, Mr. Stephen Mulvany explained to the committee the various components of the overrun, such as demographics, unforeseen events, etc. Surely these events are factored into the service plan.

I understand the planning for the winter initiative is well under way. Surely, the plan should be well advanced by, if not delivered prior to, 1 December. I take it the HSE anticipates the winter coming and the plan should be developed long before the period it will cover. Why has it taken so long this year to develop the winter initiative, as opposed to other years?

Mr. John Connaghan said the trolley numbers have been decreasing from the first quarter of this year compared to those for last year. That is not the case with the figures I have been calculating. The trolley count has gone up month on month, year on year. There is no reduction in the number of people on trolleys month on month since the beginning of this year. Is the HSE using different figures to those produced by the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, INMO, in its trolley watch?

The number of people waiting for inpatient treatment has fallen from 86,000 to 72,000. How many of those have been actual treatments as opposed to validating people who no longer require treatment?

We have discussed Sláintecare time out of number here. There seems to be a significant lack of urgency with the implementation of Sláintecare. One aspect specifically is the 2,600 beds which are to come on stream over the next ten years through the national development plan. Those beds are also identified in Sláintecare. It will be 2021 before there is any move in building new beds. There are 240 beds, plus 79 more, coming on stream in the next number of months. These will be so far down the line that it seems inconceivable that our demographics will be able to be accommodated within the current bed structure.

Mr. Jim Breslin

It is regrettable the Supplementary Estimate is the size it is this year. I would not accept, however, that it is €700 million every year. We were here last year with a Supplementary Estimate of €195 million. In fairness to the HSE, significant parts of that were due to centrally made decisions. For example, €75 million of the figure from last year's Supplementary Estimate involved bringing forward the national pay agreement. There will be times the Government makes a decision to take a policy initiative or on pay which imposes costs on the HSE. The Government then proposes to the Oireachtas that such decisions must be funded.

A Supplementary Estimate is not unique to the HSE. It happens across the public service. The HSE is the largest funded organisation in the State. When it has those issues, it involves hundreds of millions of euro when for other Departments it may involve tens of millions of euro.

That does not take away from the regret that I have about the €700 million this year. That is substantially beyond any type of margin around the Government making decisions over and above what is in the service plan. Some of that is due to subsequent decisions made by the Government. The slippage this year is beyond what we had planned for and what we expected. We are advanced in the process with the HSE of developing the service plan for next year. The objective is that we develop a service plan that is fully funded, not one that is partially funded.

I have spoken to the Chairman before about Sláintecare. From where he is sitting, it might look like a lack of urgency. From where I sit, I see people running to get Sláintecare implemented. I see the executive director for Sláintecare putting a significant focus on it. I see the teams across the Department and the HSE putting a significant focus into getting Sláintecare done. The implementation plan for next year, which will be developed next month, will show in a practical way what the milestones are. I am confident that we will have significant milestones delivered next year. One of the areas we will be able to show form on is one that the Chair has always raised when we have been before the committee, namely putting a framework in place for general practice which will start to modernise it, make it more sustainable and attract people to work in that area. I am confident that this will start to bear fruit.

The Chairman referred to the 240 and the other 79 beds. We will make decisions with the HSE on further bed capacity to be introduced in 2019-2020 over and above that. There will be further beds to be introduced. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the bed capacity report stated that without reform, we will need more than 7,000 beds. It is not a bed capacity report which is about 260 beds. It is a bed capacity report which references 2,600 beds but with significant reform as to how we are currently organised and how resources are distributed to clients.

Coming back to what Deputy Donnelly asked earlier, this is not the most effective and efficient way to organise a health service. Sláintecare shows us how we not only right-size the health service but how we change how it is organised. Significant change is required. We will have to shift our health service away from acute-focused and episodic service into one that is preventive and works with people on diseases to avoid acute presentations. If we do not get that right, we will not be able to tackle the demographic challenges we face. We will have plans for further bed capacity. Like the GP framework, we also have to strongly support and plan the shift in resources that we will need to ensure more integrated care with less focus on beds as the only part of the solution.

Mr. John Connaghan

It is important to consider that the introduction of new capacity in line with Sláintecare ambitions needs to consider not just infrastructure, which is required in terms of new physical beds, but also workforce. There is more than just one plan here. There is as much of a constraint in attracting and retaining workforce inside Ireland to be able to crew up for those additional beds and the capacity we need as there is in terms of finding the capital to actually make all of this happen. It is important we understand that it accounts for whole system planning around this.

As regards trolley counts, the INMO calculates things differently. I have the HSE figures for July, August and September to hand. In July, the HSE figures were down 2.7%, in August, down 4.6%, and in September, down 4.6%. I know the October figures are likely to be down around the same percentage but have not yet been released.

I know the numbers are counted at a different time in a different way. Are the HSE figures published? Can we see them so we can compare them to the INMO's?

Mr. John Connaghan

Yes.

The INMO figures are going up month on month, year on year, however.

Mr. John Connaghan

There is a piece of work we need to do to reconcile both sets of figures. I had that as an ambition around the emergency department task force some time ago. It is something we need to do again. We should be counting on the same basis.

How can there be such a disparity between the HSE's figures and the INMO's? People are either on a trolley or they are not.

Mr. John Connaghan

Until we do that exercise on a site-by-site basis, I would not be able to answer that in any detail. We need to do the exercise to reconcile the figures.

Mr. Jim Breslin

There is also a factor of the time period. Due to the fact there was a surge at the start of the year, performance also disimproved at the start of the year.

Mr. Connaghan is correct that, once we reached the summer, we could see that we were below last year's trends. If one looks at the year to date, we are still behind last year.

Perhaps a more meaningful figure, if it could be produced, is the time a person spends on a trolley rather than the number of people on a trolley.

Mr. John Connaghan

The Chairman is correct. Patient experience time is the number of people on trolleys for more than six hours, or in an emergency department for more than four hours or 24 hours. That is a better measure. Most other jurisdictions use the patient experience time to mark what they are doing regarding the provision of emergency care.

My final question relates to treatments versus validation. The numbers have reduced from 86,000 to 72,000. What proportion of that reduction has been validation and not treatment?

Mr. John Connaghan

It is my impression that most of those are treatments. We are at a 16% reduction overall since July 2017 with a 32% reduction in the number of those waiting for the longer periods. The purpose of the NTPF and the HSE strategy in that time period was to target those who were waiting the longest. I do not have the figures here, but my impression is that most of those were treatments rather than removals and that probably stands up because the validation exercises took place after that time.

My time is up but perhaps Ms O'Connor might come in at a later date to explain why the winter initiative is so late this year. I am conscious of other members offering, and they may ask the same question but I will come back to it, if they do not.

I welcome the Minister and the officials from the Department and the HSE.

I fully appreciate the quality of the service provided throughout the health services at all levels and the degree to which staff are dedicated to their role. I worry about the deployment of personnel, an issue I have raised on many occasions in the past.

To what extent does the deployment of staff, resources and equipment within the health services in general and in public hospitals have an impact on the delivery of services? Second, the structures for the delivery of services are wrong. I have also raised this issue on numerous occasions. This has not been addressed and I hope it will be. For example, if there are 20,000 on the waiting lists, what do we do about it? Do we start by doing a calculation of how long it will take to clear the waiting list? How many more people will have joined the waiting list in the intervening period? Do we decide on a strategy to clear the 20,000 independently of whatever else is happening and deal with the cohort of patients as they arrive on the scene? I have said many times previously that there is no need for waiting listing at all, other than minimum waiting lists. There is no basis for having a two, three, four, five or six-month waiting list. We rely on the long list and how it will take to deal with it. One can do a calculation at any time and say it will take five years before that patient will be dealt with or six years, depending on the emergency cases that come through in the meantime. That is the problem. Has an audit been done to identify the deficiencies in the system that slow down the throughflow of patients? I know the answer because I received a reply to a parliamentary question yesterday as promised. There were 102,000 staff employed in the HSE, and that has increased to 135,000.

Mr. Jim Breslin

It is 113,000

That is not what is stated in my reply. Where have the increased number of staff been deployed? Have they been deployed in the areas most in need of additional staff?

From my time in public life, there have been long periods where we have been told by experts that we needed less hospital beds. That was a mantra up to seven or eight years ago. I do not know why that was the case, but it was. The needs of people would be addressed in a different way so fewer beds were required. That did not work. In the case of crowded corridors and patients on trolleys in the reception areas of hospitals, can we be assured that there is no vacant space in decommissioned wards in the same hospitals or can we ascertain at this stage the extent to which plans are afoot to provide accommodation adjacent to those hospitals, having regard to the experience in the past number of years, particularly in regard to the winter initiative? There is no sense in moaning about it if we do not do something about it and there are ways and means of providing emergency accommodation if it has to be done in the vicinity of hospitals. If there are facilities that can be used, then that should be done.

The Chairman referred to the INMO and the HSE calculations of trolley waiting times. We should be let into the secret of who is telling the truth. Somebody is not accurate and we need to know about it, otherwise the entire health services are being damaged as a result of the inability to deal with a simple issue.

Mr. Jim Breslin

I may have confused the committee. The figure the Deputy was quoting of 135,000 staff is the number of people but many of them are part-time staff but if one measures the staff in the context a full working week, 116,000 staff are employed in the health service.

Are the part-time staff not paid?

Mr. Jim Breslin

They are paid pro rata.

Sometimes they are paid more.

Mr. Jim Breslin

The Deputy is correct. The number of people employed is 135,000 but if one counts the staff in terms of whole-time equivalents, working a full week, it is 116,000 and that is the figure we generally use.

I used to be a member of a health board once upon a time and I always foresaw confusing replies. I am confused now. I raised the question as to whether those part-time staff are being paid. We have to quantify them in terms of whole-time equivalents in the system. Do we have the numbers in the system?

Mr. Jim Breslin

Yes. We are not confusing the Deputy because the first question from Senator Colm Burke sets out both figures. If somebody is working half time, two people are employed to cover the week. If those two people leave and one person is employed to work full time, that is still one whole-time equivalent. That is the number used to express whole-time equivalents. There is also a figure for how many people have employment in the health service and that is the figure the Deputy has, which stands at 135,000.

There were 29,000 fewer people working in the health service three to four years ago. Is that true?

Mr. Jim Breslin

Again I will use whole-time equivalents to compare numbers.

We are splitting hairs. I would like to be clear. I am trying to find out exactly how many people were employed in the health services in 2014 or 2015 and to compare the number with how many people are employed now. There has been a considerable increase, ranging from 25% to 28%. That has to make a difference. That should be reflected in the delivery of the services to the public.

I went down through the list supplied in response to my parliamentary question carefully. I was much more careful than people might think. There was a good number of consultants at various levels, some to a greater extent than others. There are blanks in the system where there has been no major improvement, and we are not progressing in the way we should.

Although some deny it is the case, we pay top dollar for health services in this country. That is not a reflection on those who deliver the health services but, rather, the methodology of delivery. Unless we find what is wrong and slowing down the system, we will be doing the same thing here in five years and this situation will never be resolved.

Mr. Jim Breslin

I do not wish to argue with the Deputy, rather to clarify the figures. As stated, 103,000 whole-time equivalents were employed in 2014 and 116,000 in September 2018. The Deputy referred to the number of personnel employed, which was 121,000 in 2014 and is now 135,000. The Deputy is correct that both measures have increased significantly.

We need to focus on the number of full-time salaries being paid, which is 116,000, up from 103,000. Obviously, lifestyle is an issue and some staff choose to work half-time or part-time such that it takes two or three people to fill a whole-time equivalent post. That is the difference we are trying to highlight. We must keep control of the narrative; the figure has not increased from 103,000 to 135,000. We must ensure that there is clarity on the number of full-time weekly salaries being paid, which is 116,000. That is probably the best figure to use because people are entitled to job share and it is an option which is being increasingly availed of by staff and accommodated by the HSE. However, we do not want that to be used to distort the change.

The Deputy asked where the positions are being filled. Many of the positions must be filled in the front line where we are constantly struggling. Obviously, there is also an administrative aspect. We should note the very significant annual increases in the number of procedures being carried out by the HSE and the number of people going through the system. Those are probably the measures at which we should be looking rather than the number of people employed in the healthcare system.

There is no extra cost involved in more people filling the same number of positions.

There is no reliance on agency staff to fill those posts.

That is a separate debate. However, there is no difference in cost between 116,000 people delivering the service provided by 116,000 whole-time equivalents, which is the number of full weekly salaries, and 135,000 people doing so.

How many agency placements are there on a normal week?

I will ask the director to comment on the agency side of things.

Mr. Stephen Mulvany

I do not have a figure for that. Of our total pay cost, only approximately 4.5% to 5% goes on agency staff. It varies depending on the section of the health sector involved. That is not to diminish the fact that in many cases we would like to lower our reliance on agency staff. Approximately 95% of the overall pay bill does not go on agency staff.

Agency staff cost more.

Mr. Stephen Mulvany

They do. There is a premium for employing staff through an agency.

How much is that premium?

Mr. Stephen Mulvany

It varies depending on whether the agency staff in question are support staff or medical staff, for example. In the case of some medical staff it depends on where in the country the vacancy is and what the market is like. The premium can be from 20% and it can be significantly higher. It is in our interest and something we should pursue constantly, which is trying to limit the number of agency staff we use, get the best price for agency workers. It is not just for financial reasons. Obviously there are continuity of care reasons we would prefer to have a lower reliance on agency staff. There is always a case where agency staff may make sense for the short term. It is when we become reliant on it in the long term that it becomes problematic. It is a problem in certain areas of the service. We have been upfront about that.

Does Mr. Connaghan wish to contribute? I will then move to Deputy Kelly.

I ask Mr. Connaghan to address my question on unused accommodation.

Mr. John Connaghan

The Deputy asked about waiting list calculations and planning. These plans are based on the concept of additionality or what extra we can feasibly put into the system. That is where NTPF comes in because it is funded to create that additionality over and above what the Irish healthcare system can provide.

On the audits of the flow of patients through the system, several initiatives are under way in various parts of the country. Such work is very well supported clinically, particularly in places such as Galway, Cork and some Dublin hospitals. It might be of interest to the Deputy that in several past committees Deputies asked about how to spread best practice throughout the system, which underlies much of Deputy Durkan's question. We very recently compiled a best practice guide which takes the best of what we do in the Irish healthcare system. It is now available to all. If something is working well in Clonmel, for example, the rest of the country should be able to learn from that. We have published a directory of best practice for the first time. It contains more than 300 current examples. It surprised me that we were able to gather so many in such a short space of time. It is available on our website for all staff. In 2019 we will be considering what we can do to support the spread of such good practices using some of the additional funds we have been allocated as part of the national service plan.

I also asked about unused ward space.

I ask the Deputy to bank that question and we will return to it in the second round.

I welcome the witnesses and thank the Minister of State for standing in for the Minister, Deputy Harris. I have some questions for Mr. Connaghan and others relating to the CervicalCheck issue which could be answered by Mr. McCallion or Mr. Connaghan. This will be a quick-fire round because we only have a certain amount of time for questions.

Is Mr. Connaghan considering any structural changes of the directorates under him in the HSE? If so, what are they? My question on winter planning has been addressed so I do not wish to spend time on it except to say that the fact we do not have a plan is crazy. What is the timeline for the development of the new rapid-build units in Limerick and Clonmel?

When will the agreement be signed with the relevant drug company in regard to Respreeza? This matter has been going on for over a year. I have spoken publicly about a neighbour of mine named Marian Kelly - no relation - who died after being taken off the drug. Last week her daughter met the Minister, Deputy Harris, in Nenagh when he was opening a facility there. I understand a deal is very close. Her children wish to honour their mother by ensuring that every person who needs this drug will receive it. When will the agreement be signed? The response from the HSE on this issue has not been very good in terms of communication.

Will the HSE consider decentralising recruitment for 2019? The centralisation of recruitment up to a certain level is taking too long and is not a good idea. I have been contacted by qualified people seeking nursing jobs who want to work and stay in Ireland but cannot work for the HSE because the process takes too long. In one case of which I am aware a person who wishes to work in a region has been waiting six months for a post. I have also had this verified in other ways. Could recruitment up to a certain level be decentralised in the regions? It would work better and I ask the witnesses to consider it.

I asked Mr. McCallion some brief questions on cervical screening in another forum last week. On the 20-week wait for screening, It was confirmed to me that women triaged as requiring screening possibly within six months are in the same boat as women seeking a triennial check-up and the HSE cannot distinguish between the two groups. That could have a negative medical impact on women's lives. A person for whom a check-up within six months has been recommended and another who is seeking a three-yearly smear test will both experience a 20-week delay. The different categories should be distinguished and prioritised according to need. I raised this issue last week and received a very honest response which was one of the best I have received at a committee. However, the issue must be dealt with and I ask Mr. Connaghan to confirm that the HSE is doing so.

I seek some basic facts regarding the 221 women. How many are, unfortunately, deceased; how many are in the middle of treatment; and how many are post-cancer? I am seeking a breakdown of the total number of smears those women had and the labs in which those smears were read. The fact that we have been waiting for more than six months for this information is unacceptable and does not breed confidence. When will the audit recommence? It is not good enough that it has stopped. All the variables have stayed the same.

From 1 January onwards, with all the variables staying the same and with no audit, it means that pro rata, more women are being affected in some way. When will it commence again and how will the HSE deal with that?

I appreciate that Mr. McCallion gave me information last week and he may have an update this week on why it is taking so long. I do not want to misquote him and am open to correction but I believe he said it was 22 days on average. It turns out that many women are waiting three to four months to get their slides. There is a breakdown here somewhere. What is it and why are women waiting so long?

With regard to the impact of the Scally report, what action has Mr. Connaghan taken outside of the recommendations made by Dr. Scally? I understand the HSE will implement all the recommendations. I refer to issues concerning the burden of duty in the laboratories and note that cases are being settled by the laboratories because there was a burden of duty. I asked the State Claims Agency a question last week about how many cases involved negligence. In cases where we are aware of an issue with the laboratory, why are the laboratories not being inspected by the HSE? Under any other normal contractual relationship, in cases where there was a known issue with a laboratory, it would be inspected. Those are my questions and I thank the Chairman.

Mr. John Connaghan

As time is short, I will make "Yes" or "No" answers to this. I will start with recruitment. I agree it takes far too long. We were asked if the HSE would consider decentralisation. The answer is "Yes" and we are currently looking at that.

I was waiting to hear that.

Mr. John Connaghan

I happen to think we are doing as much as we possibly can to make a robust situation for recruitment locally as a way forward. I will also fling in the importance of making sure that clinicians are involved in decision-making around the clinical director development programme.

Respreeza has passed our leadership team meeting yesterday. We have one more meeting to go, which will take place next Tuesday, and without prejudging what that meeting's decision might be, I will give the Deputy a positive vibe that we will be coming to the right decision at that point in time. The Respreeza decision will be made next Tuesday.

Structural changes need to be considered, as with any change, by the new board and the new director general. It would not be right for me to think about any structural changes in the interim. When they are in post, they need to be comfortable with the future structure of the HSE.

I presume Mr. Connaghan will put forward his thoughts to the board and is making considerations in that area.

Mr. John Connaghan

I have already put forward my initial thoughts to the chairman about the structure of the board's committees. Bear in mind that he does not yet have an appointed board.

Mr. John Connaghan

He will want to discuss that with it.

With regard to the development of new units and the rapid-build in Limerick-----

In Limerick and Clonmel. The Minister announced it last week in Clonmel and he asked me to raise it in the committee with Mr. Connaghan and with the Secretary General in particular to make sure the money was available.

Mr. John Connaghan

I do not have the timetable in my head but I can get back to the Deputy fairly quickly on it, unless Ms Anne O'Connor or Dr. Colm Henry-----

I am joking here, but I suggest that Mr. Connaghan has a chat with Mr. Jim Breslin before he does that to make sure the money is available.

Mr. John Connaghan

He just passed an envelope to me, is that helpful?

We always have a chat with Mr. Breslin. The Chairman would like this also because it affects us in the mid-west.

Mr. John Connaghan

I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. McCallion, to address the questions on CervicalCheck.

Mr. Damien McCallion

On the slides, I mentioned last week that in some cases, there was an unacceptable delay for some people. The outermost delay was 76 days and the average was 22 days. That is not acceptable. We had subsequent requests for slides on Friday, Monday and Tuesday of this week, which comprise a further 30 or so requests. We have written to the laboratories stating we expect them to be able to turn these around in less than ten working days at a maximum. They must take the image and they must get all the logistics sorted out, including adhering to the protocol. A number of requests came in on Friday, Monday and Tuesday and that may have related to concerns of a number of individual women or families. Our objective now is to ensure the laboratories achieve that within the target.

On some of the members' other points, last week we discussed how we might triage and prioritise given the backlog. We have managed to prioritise the colposcopies because of the nature of the way the cases are identified. As I said to the committee last week, it is much more complex and is proving difficult to differentiate between out-of-cycle and in-cycle tests. If we could do that within the in-cycle, it would be a much better way to do it.

The HSE will have to.

Mr. Damien McCallion

It is complex and is not straightforward. We are still working on that with laboratories. We have managed to isolate colposcopies because of the way they are identified. This is helpful because they are crucial. At that point a woman is in diagnosis or potentially in treatment.

With regard to the 221 women and their families and next of kin who are impacted by the original audit, the audit by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, RCOG, was intended to audit the clinical status of those cases. That process was set up by the Government. It is now clear that in respect of the 221 affected women, and based on the consent rate of around 31%, that we need to do something ourselves. I have been working with our chief clinical officer to-----

For clarity, is it the case that 31% of the 221 affected women have consented to the RCOG audit? That is a serious problem.

Mr. Damien McCallion

Have consented to date, yes that is correct. Overall the consent rate is quite good at this stage and is close to 60%. It is 57% at the moment and this will continue. We still have to contact the next of kin, and there are people who will come in later and who are still contacting us. Overall the rate of consent is good, but within the 221 cases of women who were affected, it is just 31%. All of this information is being pulled together because patients are interested in it and it also has a general public interest. Primarily, however, it is patients and patient representatives who are interested in terms of planning the supports for those people. We have spoken to them and we intend to get one of our healthcare audit team members to undertake the clinical status and the factual position. The RCOG audit is a much more comprehensive audit and will look at the smear tests, the colposcopies and the treatment options. It is a much further clinical review. We will do that and we intend to have it done this side of Christmas. It will take a number of weeks to do it. The original intention, and the reason we were not doing it was because that was the purpose of the RCOG audit.

For clarity, will the HSE have all the questions and statistics by Christmas regarding the audit of the 221 women who were affected?

Mr. Damien McCallion

Yes. We can perhaps recap on all the questions in respect of specifics but our intention is to confirm the clinical position of each of the women who were part of the original audit, so we are clear. If there are particular pieces within that perhaps we can make sure but our priority is to link with the patients and with the hospitals and make sure we have a comprehensive picture. Obviously it will anonymised when feeding it back.

The Deputy's last point was about the breakdown of the figures in respect of the 221 women. I had mentioned this previously in response to an earlier question. One of the challenges for us is we have not had a cytopathologist in the programme. This issue was recognised by Dr. Scally as a deficit. We saw this ourselves and the HSE tried to recruit for that position even prior to Dr. Scally's report. We have been unsuccessful in that and we have gone twice to recruit. I am now in discussions with a person overseas about coming to Ireland and taking up a contract here. That is crucial in getting the breakdown because, for example, within the 221 women who have been impacted, many had multiple smear tests that went to multiple laboratories over different time periods. The laboratories that were used in Ireland in the earlier stages would have detected higher rates of abnormalities because they were detecting more cervical cancers in the early stage of the programme. We need a cytopathologist to do that work. While I am trying to conclude recruiting a person on a full-time basis this is an ongoing need and not just for the audit issue. I have also managed to source a person, again from outside the State, who will undertake that specific piece of work over the next four or five weeks. We intend to conclude that work separately over the next four to five weeks. We will also have that done on this side of Christmas.

I flag for the committee the fact that the recruitment around that core resource has been very challenging. This cytopathology need is crucial for a programme such as cervical screening.

I thank Mr. McCallion.

Dr. Colm Henry

Deputy Kelly asked about restarting audits. Audits of interval cancers of all three cancer screening programmes are just one component of a broad quality assurance programme. We note Dr. Scally's endorsement and his encouragement to people to partake in the programmes. They are population-based and it is very important that people continue to attend in order that the programmes can reach their stated purpose of detecting cancer earlier and reducing cancer morbidity.

We also note that Dr. Scally stated the audit where this all began was flawed in its design and implementation. It is very important for us that when we restart the process of audit, we get the design absolutely right from the outset for all three cancer screening programmes and not just for cervical screening. We have secured a chairperson and a group. The chairperson is a prominent cancer specialist who has worked in Canada and in Ireland. I expect that she will start her work in the near future. Our aim is to establish principles for audit in all three cancer screening programmes that are robust and patient-centred and which address the flaws that were shown by the cervical screening controversy and through the Scally report.

One of my questions remains to be answered; I am not asking another question. It was the question regarding the actions taken outside of the Scally report recommendations.

Mr. John Connaghan

There are two aspects to the wider implications of the Scally report and what lessons can be learned. One aspect concerns process. In many ways, that is arguably the easier step. When the implementation plan in response to the recommendations is shown, one will see how it is broken down. We have gone well beyond the basic recommendations because it involves the wider actions we need to take to support better processes in the HSE. The hardest bits concern cultures, values and behavioural change. I would be happy sometime in the future to give the committee a short paper on what we are doing around values and action, as well as how we intend to spread that to clinical staff. I am happy that we have several doctors on board with a clinical aspect to values and action. We need to work on this and it is harder than process actions.

I thank the witnesses for the presentations. I also thank the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, for attending to deal with our questions.

A new acute hospital for Cork is proposed in the national development plan. A committee was set up to help identify a site but my understanding is that it has not yet met. Even to identify a site is going to take some time. I am concerned about the growth of population in Cork. It has gone up by over 130,000 people in a short time. Even if we start a new hospital in the morning, the population increase in Cork will be between 160,000 and 170,000 people. This will put significant pressure on Cork's existing hospitals. Can we be provided with a timeline for the hospital's construction? From the initial identifying of a suitable site to the planning process thereafter could take up to two to three years. I want this to be moved on. Nothing seems to have happened on this issue so far.

On staffing numbers in the HSE, the number of nurses in real terms from December 2014 to December 2018 will have increased by 629. At the same time, the number of nurse managers has increased by 1,093, going from 6,602 to 7,695. The number of whole-time equivalent consultants has increased by 397. Is there a detailed plan as regards recruitment in the HSE and strategy? I am concerned that management and administration has gone from 15,112 to 18,131, an increase of 3,019. This is now higher than it ever was prior to the cutbacks. We do not seem to be able to get people on the front line, however.

Agency doctors have cost €110 million in the past 12 months. We could actually recruit 500 additional consultants at a higher pay than what is being offered at the moment. Using €110 million to pay 500 consultants would mean a salary of €220,000 per consultant. We have a figure where it is not attractive for people to come back, in particular to Dublin with the cost of housing. Will we review this? If so, when? When will a package be provided that will have a far better return as regards having permanent people employed rather than agency staff members who we do not know from one month to the next if they will be there or not?

Mr. Jim Breslin said we need to move away from an over-reliance on the hospital system. Part of the solution to that relates to GP services. Where are we with the GP contracts issue? It is a concern among general practitioners, particularly regarding how they do not know how to plan the development of their practice over the next three to four years. These contract negotiations have been going on for quite a long time. I pulled out one of my press releases recently, dated August 2016, in which I was looking for the contract negotiations to be fast-tracked. Two years later, we do not seem to have made progress. I am concerned that, on the one hand, we do not burden the hospitals but, on the other, when we need people on the front line, we do not encourage them to provide the service we require.

I welcome the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, to the committee. We understand his earlier absence.

I apologise for being late. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Daly, for deputising. I thought it was time to throw him in at the deep end.

(Interruptions).

I thank the Chairman for understanding my unavoidable delay.

On the Cork hospital issue, this is a local and regional issue but is also a national issue because it is a key part of the infrastructure which we need to get right. The population of Cork, as Senator Colm Burke outlined, has grown significantly but the health service has not grown in the region to meet its needs, most certainly from an acute hospital bed point of view. We have secured funding in the national development plan to deliver a new acute hospital for Cork but also elective-only hospitals for Cork, Galway and Dublin. This will have a significant transformational effect on the delivery of scheduled care and improvements to our waiting lists. The director general of the HSE recently brought me to Scotland where we looked at how its elective-only model has transformed its waiting lists. This was part of the process for developing our elective-only models here.

Once we have finalised the capital plan with the HSE in the coming weeks, I will work with the Department to put a structure in place to advance the preparatory work that the Senator identified needs to be done. I hope by year end that we could have a clear outline as to what that preparatory work looks like, who will do it, as well as what responsibility lies with the Department in terms of policy formation and with the HSE and the hospital groups in terms of delivering it on the ground.

On the issue of the GP contract, we are not talking about this as an abstract concept. Negotiations are going on every week. There are GP contract negotiations taking place in my Department with the Irish Medical Organisation, IMO. Both sides have said publicly that they want these talks to conclude by the end of this year. I expect that they will. We have a sizeable sum of money to invest in general practice on a multi-annual basis, agreed with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, myself and the Taoiseach. This is a level of investment which will enable us to make general practice sustainable. General practice has rightly said that it has suffered cuts, Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest, FEMPI, cuts and so forth, through successive Governments during the economic recession. We need to move beyond that and address it in terms of sustainability. Second, we must examine how general practitioners, if resourced to do so, can do more procedures which are currently done in hospital settings, specifically around the whole area of chronic disease management. Third, there is the whole area of access. The Oireachtas signed off on the Sláintecare plan, which wants to see many more people access GP care either for free or at low cost.

How can we do more to improve on access, chronic disease management and sustainability? I hear people misrepresent my position on this regularly, suggesting that my officials and I are only talking to general practitioners about doing more and giving them more resources to do more. People who make that argument intentionally ignore what I have just said, that a very important part of that conversation is about the sustainability of the existing services and the resources that are required to fulfil the role. I expect those discussions to conclude by the end of the year. It is a very exciting piece of work and has taken far longer anybody than would have wanted, particularly far longer than GPs would have wanted. This significant piece of work is potentially transformational for the health service and is very much in line with Sláintecare and I look forward to it concluding.

I will ask Mr. Connaghan to deal with the staff recruitment measures. Senator Colm Burke and I engage on issues regularly enough at this committee, but I need to make this point. Sometimes when our discussions on managers and administrators are reported there is a suggestion that such staff bring no added value to the health service. Of course, that is not the case. Many of the questions, such as parliamentary questions, and the issues raised in Topical Issue and Commencement matter debates are about how we manage our outpatient clinic appointment. When we put more staff into outpatient clinics, they might be counted as administrative staff but they are very much helping to play a front-line role. We should do further work on explaining the value individuals who work very hard add to our health service. I will now pass over to Mr. Connaghan.

Mr. John Connaghan

I thank the Minister. The Senator is correct that we should be prudent about spending any money that takes away from front-line services. Let me make members aware that we have a business case process for the appointment of any senior executive or manager and such appointments are the subject of a very vigorous business case and the approval process is shared with the Departments of Health and Public Expenditure and Reform. Members have commented on the growth in staff numbers in recent years. We have created delegated units in community healthcare organisations, CHOs, and in hospital groups and it is important that we staff these appropriately in terms of governance.

It is useful to refer to other countries in terms of a comparison with where we are. The experience in the NHS in England is that the senior management cohort is about 5% of senior and middle management and that compares exactly with the current Irish figure. The percentage of very senior managers in the HSE is less than 1%.

I will take up the point the Minister just raised about where administrative and clerical staff take on tasks that used to be done by clinicians. There is a scarcity in some clinical specialties and it makes sense to try to divert some of the non-direct clinical services task to the administrative and clerical function. That is a good thing because it allows clinicians to run at the top of their licence.

Let us look into the future. We have just been allocated €250 million from the European Investment Bank to bring forward our plans to create more in the way of electronic healthcare records. In order to bring that forward, we will have to add some of the specialists, the programmers, the system developers and the support staff. That might be for a transitory period but as I look into 2019 and through to 2021, I anticipate some growth in the management posts to enable that to happen.

I will ask Dr. Colm Henry to say a brief word on recruitment.

Dr. Colm Henry

Like many other European countries, we face significant challenges with medical recruitment. The European Commission has predicted that in the entire European Union, there will be a shortfall of 1 million healthcare staff by 2020. We are not alone in facing medical recruitment difficulties. One of the difficulties we face is that we have to recruit for unscheduled care in 29 sites. There can be no break in unscheduled care once we have announced we have unscheduled care, be it in obstetrics, paediatrics, medicine, surgery or anaesthetics, and there has to be staff ready to see and care for patients. That explains to some degree our dependency on agency and locums because such a service by definition is unbroken.

Deputy Durkan made a point earlier about the way people work. Sláintecare is a critical enabler. We are changing the way people work now. The deputy director general of operations and I attended a meeting earlier this week, a conference of health and social care professionals who demonstrated how innovative staff are. They are not just hardworking but they brought in initiatives in Beaumont Hospital, in Kilkenny and in the community where they are working, outside their traditional boundaries and bringing Sláintecare into practice before it is being implemented. That is happening through the innovation of our staff on the ground.

Senator Burke is offering but I ask him to bank his question because I will be coming around a second time. I invite Deputy Donnelly to come in a second time.

I welcome the Minister. I want to discuss the recruitment and retention crisis and his views on what is happening. Let me start with consultants. We know one in five consultant posts is currently vacant and that a very small number of consultants are applying for vacant posts relative to ten years ago. We know that in many hospitals it is becoming impossible to hire-in consultants particularly when more experienced consultants are needed. We know there has been an increased use of locums, which has risen by one third between May and October of this year. There are allegations that some of these locums are not as well qualified as consultants would be and obviously they can cost more money. We know that several areas are now losing specialist services. Let me give examples. Kerry University Hospital is about to lose its only histopathologist, which puts cancer screening services, including CervicalCheck and many other surgical services, at risk. My understanding is that Cork is not hiring additional resources and there is no plan in place yet to deal with this. Tralee has recently lost its rheumatologist. Patients are now being referred to Cork but at present there is a two-year waiting list with 1,500 patients already waiting to be seen. I am told that unless somebody has an extremely urgent case, there is no realistic plan to ever see them. This week the hospital in Tralee lost its urologist and we are told that in Kerry, they are now struggling to get the locums for these posts.

We have discussed the situation in Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children. Children with scoliosis are waiting more than three years for operations. In the urology department in St James's Hospital, the waiting list for a routine appointment is now more than six years. The list goes on and on. We can talk about hospitals all over the country. The scarcity of qualified consultants has now become so acute that they are beginning to shut down services for patients.

There are also serious issues when it comes to nurses and midwives. The INMO told me recently that it estimates that the services are now short approximately 175 midwives, which is a very large number. Galway University Hospital has 16 operating theatres, five of which, that is, one third of the region's entire surgical throughput capacity for the only level four hospital in the area, are permanently closed. The reason given to me for these closed surgical theatres is that they are not able to hire a relatively small number of theatre nurses. We know agencies are paying nurses on the fifth point on the scale and an additional 20% on top of that. Agencies are paying nurses 50% more, relative to a new entrant nurse in the public system. The INMO, as I am sure the witnesses are acutely aware, is balloting for strike action, to include work stoppages, on Monday. The INMO understands that a de facto moratorium on recruitment is now in place for the rest of this year due to budget constraints. It told me that 57 nurses were meant to be hired to help support patients on trolleys in the upcoming winter crisis but they are now not being hired.

Does the Minister accept there is a crisis in recruitment and retention both for consultant posts and for nurses and midwives? Does he accept that the new entrant pay equality discrepancy is a major driver of that crisis? Why have talks not started with the Irish Hospital Consultants Association, which represents more than 90% of the consultants in the system? The Irish Hospital Consultants Association says it has tried to meet the Minister and has been trying to meet officials for a year but cannot get any meaningful engagement. Nurses and midwives have not gone on strike in nearly 20 years.

In the context of us spending more money on the health service than ever before, with considerable overruns, how has it been allowed to get so bad for nurses that they have got to the point where they feel they must ballot for strike action? Will the Minister confirm whether there is a de facto moratorium on hiring for the rest of this year?

I fully accept that the recruitment environment in the health service is challenging, and that we operate within a global labour market for many of these consultancy positions but also for nursing positions. Highly educated consultants, nurses and midwives from Ireland are sought after in other countries and we operate very much in a global environment. I do not accept the comments without a degree of context, however, because if I was take them without context it would suggest fewer consultants are working in the health service but that is not true. An additional 115 consultants are working in the Irish health service compared with 12 months ago. While I take the Deputy's point about there being much more to do despite the large number of vacant posts, which is a statement of fact beyond dispute, there were 115 more consultants working in the public health service in September 2018 than in September 2017. Similarly, there are 523 more consultants working in the health service than five years ago. Nonetheless, I accept there are challenges with the number of doctors working in the health service, as there are with nurses.

The issue of new entrant pay must be examined, just as it was examined within other elements of the public service. The Public Service Pay Commission, PSPC is a structure we set up to examine the issue of recruitment and retention, and, in fairness, it was supported by the Deputy's party. It made a number of suggestions, all of which were accepted by Government but it also found a further process should be considered as to how the State and consultants could engage on the issue of new entrant pay. That decision is not one for me exclusively but rather for me with colleagues across Government, although I would like to see the issue advanced.

On the issue of consultants in Crumlin hospital which the Deputy raised, I would be happy to send some information on the matter to him and the committee. The information suggests, as the Deputy also did, that pay is an issue but not the sole issue. I recently met the Children's hospital group, which was able to tell me there has been a significant increase in the number of people who want to work as clinicians in our children's hospitals, which the group explains is partly because there will be €1 billion in infrastructure that will give our clinicians more theatre space and better, modern facilities and research capacity. When I meet consultants, as I do, they tell me that while pay is an element, being able to see their patients and ensuring their patients have beds and theatres are also elements.

The issue of non-engagement with the IHCA is not borne out by fact. My Department was represented at a ministerial level at its conference, at which I know the Deputy was also in attendance. I am familiar with its issues.

On the INMO, there is ongoing engagement. I hope we can find a way of resolving what is a brewing industrial relations dispute, but parties to the pay agreement undertook not to submit new pay claims during the duration of that agreement. I do not mean to speak for Fianna Fáil but I think it holds a similar position to the Government on the matter. Parties to the public service stability agreement signed up to it and, as a result, are subject to the terms and conditions of it. The PSPC wants to see additional resources put in the pockets of nurses, whether by allowances, resolving the new entrant pay issue or enabling them to become a senior staff nurse at an earlier point in their careers.

While much more must be done to support our nurses, such as increased financial remuneration, we asked the PSPC, rather than a bunch of politicians, to examine how recruitment and retention in nursing can be fixed and it reverted with a series of recommendations. The Government adopted them in full and wants to deliver on them in 2019. In the budget architecture, the Deputy's party and mine agreed we have funded that. I would like to engage with the INMO on other issues in the health service that could assist and support nurses in doing their jobs, as well as on many other matters that would be inappropriate for me to raise in this forum because discussions are ongoing. There are other approaches, aside from pay, that I am sure could assist our nurses working in a challenging environment.

We have covered much ground but I would like to return to the specific questions. Does the Minister accept there is a crisis in recruitment and retention, either for nurses and midwives or consultants? He accepted that new entrant pay is a driver of challenges, whether he accepts it is a crisis or not.

On the IHCA, I accept that the Minister intended to speak at its conference although the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Daly, spoke on his behalf, but I am not talking about public events. I am talking about meaningful engagement. The Minister may disagree, but the association tells me it cannot get meaningful engagement from the Minister or the Department, and it has not been able to get it for more than a year.

There is a crisis and people are suffering and dying while waiting to see doctors, but we are running out of doctors. While the overall number may have risen, it is falling relative to the need, in view of the fact that one in five posts is not filled. What does the Department propose to do as a result? It feels as though there is no action, and as though there is a clearly identifiable problem, namely, running out of specialists across a variety of areas in a variety of hospitals, but it does not appear as though those representing consultants are being engaged with in any meaningful way.

On the nurses and midwives, I agree it is about more than pay and there are many issues. Why has the situation got so bad in comparison with the past 20 years? Why have they become so frustrated and demoralised that they are balloting for strike action, which they have not considered for decades?

On the final question, my understanding from INMO press statements and commentary on the matter is that nurses are balloting for industrial action because they would like to lodge a pay claim. Regardless of the validity of that pay claim, and it is not for me to assess people's motives, the public service stability agreement is clear on pay claims during its duration. Nurses believe they have a legitimate pay claim, the State has an infrastructure to deal with these matters and I hope everyone uses the processes available to them. While there are clear mechanisms in place to resolve this, there are also measures that we want to take to help support our nurses.

I fully accept the conclusive and definitive outcome of their ballot, but I also accept that the INMO are members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and public service pay agreements are in place, to which the Deputy's party and mine are subject. We are committed to supporting these agreements and we need to operate within that infrastructure. The nurses decided to take the view that their pay should be increased in a sectoral-specific way without considering the rest of the public service and the knock-on effects thereof. That is their position and I cannot comment on why the nurses decided to take it, but I accept our nurses work in a challenging environment. I also accept the recommendations of the Public Service Pay Commission, PSPC, which would benefit many thousands of nurses, should be advanced as a priority, and that there is much more we need to do to help and support our nurses. As Minister for Health, I would like to engage on what we can do within the health service separate to the process of public service pay agreements.

Whether I used the word "crisis" or "challenge" is somewhat pedantic because whether I call it a crisis will not help or make a difference. The former Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Mary Harney, used to call things an emergency, but did that help or make a difference? There is a real challenge in recruiting consultants, as there is in the retention of nurses and midwives, which the PSPC found. As for what we should do, I suggest we adopt in full the findings of the PSPC, as we have done. It made findings and recommendations which we should get on with implementing. We committed to doing that and we are funded to do it in 2019. We must also explore how we establish the process to look at the new entrant pay issue, which is not an issue exclusively in my remit. I take an active interest in it, however, and I am partly responsible.

The Deputy asked what we will do to help, and there are other measures we can take. In addition to what I outlined, we can also increase theatre capacity, build elective-only hospitals and provide more bed capacity, because we have found that when we invest in the physical infrastructure of our health service, and when we provide doctors and nurses with the tools and resources to do their jobs, they respond in kind by wanting jobs in that health service.

We are very much seeing that now in respect of the children's hospital group and I will send information to the committee illustrating that point.

I will return to the issue of engagement with consultant representative bodies, although I will not get into a back-and-forth on it here. More than one body represents consultants. Some are members of the IMO while others are members of the Irish Hospital Consultants Association, IHCA, neither of which is a union, as they remind me, as consultants have individual contracts with our health service. My Department rightly spent a great deal of time in recent months, along with colleagues in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, resolving a major issue relating to consultants and the fulfilment of their contracts, which had in their view not been fulfilled or honoured in many years. Mary Harney was Minister for Health at the time the issue arose and it continued until we resolved it this time. That resulted in a significant cost to the State but it was the right thing to do. The notion that there has not been meaningful engagement is not correct. We took what was probably the most challenging issue being put forward by the IHCA and successfully resolved it in recent months.

I have a quick follow-up question for Mr. Connaghan as acting director general of the HSE. I cited the example of a third of GUH's operating theatres being shut because it cannot hire a handful of theatre nurses. I have other examples across the system of hospitals incurring massive fixed costs, including staffing, with detrimental effects on patients and on doctors, who are getting increasingly frustrated with coming in on a Monday to find the operating theatre closed. Patients are brought in the night before, go through pre-op and are ready to go only to be told it is not available. How is it that people like us can meet hospital staff and find this out, yet the HSE cannot identify the issues and definitively deal with them?

I have one follow-up question for the Minister on Mr. Justice Kelly's findings. The Minister and I have been going back and forth in correspondence and he has pointed out that the HSE is reviewing its own recruitment and that he would examine the individual case. I had made an additional request; I apologise if the Minister has come back to me on it but I have not seen a response yet. Mr. Justice Kelly stated that there are wholly unsuitable persons working as doctors in our system, and that medical practitioners with little knowledge of the basics of medicine have been recruited to Irish hospitals. Understandably, he is saying they pose a danger to patients. I ask that the Minister, the Department or the HSE immediately conduct an audit. If we have doctors, whether there are five or 50 of them, in the healthcare system with little knowledge of the basics of medicine, we need to find out who they are. It is not about attacking them or anything like that but there is a patient protection issue here. Given such a senior judge has said this, will the Minister undertake to commission an audit? As a matter of urgency, he needs to find out not only how it is happening but also where these doctors are, if they currently pose a danger, and if we can help them, for example, through additional training. We must protect patients if necessary from people who do not understand medicine, and it might be advisable to look back at case history to see if there are clusters of malpractice or patient safety incidents attached to doctors who may have little knowledge of the basics of medicine.

I would like Dr. Colm Henry as the chief clinical officer to respond in a moment but I undertook to examine and have personally reviewed the issue, which is something I would not normally do. In light of the significant comments of Mr. Justice Peter Kelly and Deputy Donnelly's own correspondence with me, I wrote to the director general asking for an urgent response. I received a significant volume of information, which I do not feel is appropriate to share in a public forum, about one individual. I have been provided with information and assurance of a system that is largely - I want to decouple what I am going to say here - a system that took swift action when an issue came to light. In respect of a doctor who was working in a hospital for a very short number of days under supervision at all times at a very junior level, the proper procedures were followed very quickly and we know where that case ended up in terms of the Medical Council complaint.

I want to say to people watching, to people using our health services and to doctors in our health services that almost 23,000 doctors are registered with the Medical Council. In 2017, the last year for which figures are available, there were approximately 300 complaints and three doctors were struck off the medical register. The idea that there is a widespread of issue of doctors, whom I have heard referred to as rogue doctors, wandering around our hospitals is not borne out by evidence. There is an issue, though, which Mr. Justice Kelly and the Deputy have rightly highlighted, in respect of our recruitment process and making sure there are learnings from this case. I can assure him that in respect of the composition of the interview board, references and the use of a scoring technique, all the proper procedures were followed. This doctor was placed on a panel and called to fill a post. He was supervised at all times and when it became clear that he still lacked the competencies that were required, swift action was taken.

I have taken appropriate action. I have written to the HSE and received correspondence back, which I will consider in full. I will also consider the process which the HSE might now outline and which they are undergoing in respect of reforming the recruitment model. I will also meet the Medical Council specifically on this issue. I am scheduled to meet council representatives shortly; I will confirm the date with the Deputy. The Medical Council has also highlighted its concerns to the HSE. There is an issue we need to fix here in respect of the recruitment process, not just in this matter but also in the general streamlining of our recruitment processes. I very much accept the Deputy's bona fides and do not believe it is what he wished to suggest, but to announce a widespread audit would cause undue concern and it would be disproportionate. I very much welcome the IMO's comments in this regard last weekend. The appropriate thing to do is review the case, which I have done, make sure learnings are applied across the HSE and that the recruitment model is reformed, and meet the Medical Council. If, after that, I believe further action is required, I will take it. It might be useful to hear from Dr. Colm Henry as the chief clinical officer of the HSE on this matter.

Dr. Colm Henry

I thank the Minister and the Deputy. It is important to assure members of the public who might have concerns arising from this case. Of our complement of junior doctors in the system, approximately half are in training schemes and they are recruited through training colleges. There is a solid, robust basis for that and they are generally known to our system, having come through our medical schools and worked in our hospital system, and they have references from people we know. We have a dependency on non-training doctors arising out of working time directive compliance issues some years ago. All junior doctors - and I say this from personal experience - undergo mentoring and supervision appropriate not just to their level but to their background. This case, about which we cannot go into too much detail, highlights how effective the mentoring and supervision can be. The interview is one part of a process. We cannot validate everybody's background and entire knowledge and experience based on a half-hour interview, no matter how thorough it might be. If there are concerns and the candidate has come from a medical school with which the recruitment board members are not familiar and has references from people they do not know, he or she will be monitored closely because no senior doctor or consultant can afford to take risks when it comes to patient safety. This particular case is unusual but it highlights how effective the mentoring and supervision was, in that concerns were brought to light quickly before there was any contact with patients.

I thank Dr. Henry. Perhaps Mr. Connaghan could address my question to him if time allows.

Mr. John Connaghan

I agree that if the facilities are available, then the marginal cost of bringing these on stream has to be considered. It is a rational and good thing to do. On a wider level, it is not just that we need to consider whether we have the staff. We have just had that conversation. We must also consider whether we have the beds and diagnostics to be able to back that up. It is not just about taking a look at theatres. I assure the Deputy that we have excellent oversight on this. We have a national performance oversight group that goes into the detail of this on a monthly basis. The Deputy can hear more about that if he wants from Ms O'Connor. We also have the substructure beneath that of hospital groups and hospital chief executives who know precisely where they are in terms of the facilities they can bring onstream if they have everything put together to do so.

Deputy Donnelly referred to the nurses' strikes 20 years ago, or more. The last nurses' strike in which I was involved was in 2009 in Sligo. There one in Limerick that year and an all-out national strike. I am sitting across from people who I am sure will fondly remember those times.

I love how the national wage agreement is selectively quoted, just as I did when I was a union official. There is a clause in the agreement of which the Minister will be aware because I have told him about it several times. Others will be aware of it also. It states that the parties reserve the right to return to renegotiate the agreement in the event that circumstances change. When circumstances changed several years ago, nurses, midwives, and every other worker in the health service, including those opposite, those agreements were renegotiated to facilitate a cut in pay. No agreement is immune to renegotiation as I was often told by those who wanted to do so.

I would like to get some comfort from the witnesses on home care packages. A lady named Ms Margaret O'Reilly was on the radio yesterday. She is a double amputee who is waiting on home care and home care support. She and others, some of whom work in the health service and some who have told us confidentially, assert that the budget has been spent and there is no more money for home care packages between now and the end of the year. Is this the practice? People have told us that they not being allocated sufficient hours, and we could argue all day whether we can ever have enough hours. Some of this information is anecdotal and I have put down parliamentary questions to get to the bottom of the matter but I would like confirmation on whether there has been an effective ban on additional home care packages because the money has run out.

Pay is central to recruitment and retention. When INMO general secretary, Phil Ní Sheaghdha, appeared before the committee she disputed something Deputy Donnelly said. She said:

Irish nurses are not well paid by comparison. We have international comparisons that are compiled not by us but by the International Council of Nurses, affiliated to the World Health Organization. They clearly indicate that, out of the nine main countries that are English-speaking with western medical styles, Ireland's pay is the lowest.

That is borne out by the numbers of nurses who are graduating and leaving the country. Pay must be central. Mr. Mulvany and I have spoken previously about the conversion of agency staff into directly employed staff. Are there targets for this? If so, are they being reached? Is there a money-saving target, or does it relate to personnel, that is, how is it being quantified? What is the figure for targets that have been allocated for this year? Have these been reached? What will be allocated for next year?

I refer to consultants who are not on the specialist register but are being paid as consultants, which relates to an issue raised earlier. I asked Ms Rosarii Mannion about this when she appeared before the committee on a previous occasion. How many are there? The witnesses must know. There are a certain number working as consultants who are not on the specialist register and who are getting closer to a contract of indefinite duration by the day. What is being done to ensure that they get the qualifications that mean they can be added to the specialist register?

The Taoiseach's comments about holidays were referred to earlier. There was a specific reference to nurses and doctors which was offensive to them.

On access to diagnostics, is it the case that it is an issue of staff but rather than an unwillingness of staff to work out of hours? My understanding is that there is an agreement in place going back to Towards 2016, which was in place from 2006, a section of which referred specifically to the operation of out-of-hours. That was around 13 years ago. I do not think there is a problem in getting staff to work, but with the actual staff numbers. Will the witnesses comment on that?

I refer to CervicalCheck. I may have spoken incorrectly earlier. What Mr. O’Carroll said is that no on-site audit was conducted in the outsourced laboratories. I do not know what the difference is between a visit and an on-sight audit. Mr. McCallion will know this. Can he confirm whether that audit took place or not in every place where a woman who availed of the service would have her slide examined?

I will begin with a comment on CervicalCheck and on the nursing issue. Deputy O’Reilly did not refer to this directly but she reminded of something I would like to raise. In recent weeks, I have seen an assertion that I, as Minister, should call in the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, to examine some of the situations in regard to CervicalCheck. I must remind the Oireachtas that was my initial starting point when the CervicalCheck debacle began. I proposed a HIQA statutory investigation, where HIQA would have all the powers required to investigate all these matters. The Oireachtas quite rightly said that considering the circumstances I should bring in someone external, possibly from outside the jurisdiction. It was an instance of where engagement really works. That person was Dr. Scally, and he did the work. Mr. McCallion will respond to Deputy O’Reilly’s question directly but I wanted to take the opportunity to say that.

I will bring the committee up-to-date on the nurses’ dispute as there have been developments in the last few minutes. There was engagement with the INMO today, where the employer put forward the view that the pay claim cannot be processed within the terms of the current pay agreement. Deputy O’Reilly, with her current and her former hats on has outlined that the union has a different view on this-----

The agreement says something different. It says both of the things the Minister and I are saying.

The next line might be the real closer on this. When two sides to a dispute have a different view on whether a claim can or cannot be processed, the appropriate thing to do is to refer it to the oversight body that was established to oversee that agreement. That is what we intend to do. The oversight body is the appropriate vehicle. I ask both sides to this dispute to engage fully with that but also that people reflect on the prudence of balloting on industrial action when an oversight body is to consider the matter. The appropriate thing to do would be to let the oversight body do its job and see what it has to say.

I must also make the point that in recent days the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform commented on the cost of funding the claim put forward by the INMO, which it costed at €300 million annually. We are talking about a sizable sum. If politicians wish to deviate from the public sector pay agreement, they ought to suggest how they will fund it because €300 million is a substantial sum. I hope that engagement can take place. The oversight body is the appropriate body in which to do that.

The Deputy asked the HSE to comment on home help and I am happy for it to do so. However, from a policy perspective, the development of a statutory home care scheme is acutely needed, on which we are all agreed. The Minister of State, Deputy Jim Daly, has done significant work with the Department on that. We are again increasing funding for home help and we are not waiting until budget 2019 delivers a service plan, but will do it as part of our winter plans. The Deputy is correct that in certain parts of the country there has been an acuity in recent weeks and months. I hope that we will be in a position to rectify that.

I will ask Mr. Connaghan to comment on that.

Mr. John Connaghan

I will ask Dr. Henry to speak about the consultants and the specialist register and Ms Anne O’Connor to say something on home care packages.

I refer to consultants who are not on the specialist register.

They all have different circumstances in the context of their training, seniority and previous experience. Each one needs a personal development plan to determine what will be done to support the person to get on the register eventually. That is a good thing. It recognises the previous good work the person has done in Ireland, while also recognising what we need to do in the context of personal, individually-tailored support.

Dr. Colm Henry

I thank the Deputy for the question. I divide the consultants who are not on the specialist register into two groups, namely, those before 2008, when it was not a criterion of appointment, which was before the implementation of the Medical Practitioners Act-----

My question was specifically on contracts of indefinite duration. The pre-2008 people already have it. Time was on their side with that.

Dr. Colm Henry

Yes. The reason I say it is because that particular condition did not apply at the time. There were 50 such people and they are well within the system, as the Deputy points out, and well established as practitioners. We are, therefore, choosing not to address their issues. The Deputy's question is really directed at those who came in after 2008. We have a figure of approximately 100 who are not on the specialist register, but I will get the exact figure for the Deputy. We are making site visits. There are two types of site at which these particular doctors work, namely, acutely hospital sites and community healthcare organisations where they work as psychiatrists. As the director general has just pointed out, there will be individual needs for each practitioner and individual deficits to address and we are working with the colleges to determine whether we can address those deficits through whatever training is required to allow practitioners to be adopted onto the specialist register, thereby providing the public with the assurance they need that these doctors are working and practising as bona fide consultants.

Do they all have personal development plans?

Dr. Colm Henry

Our aim is to provide a personal development plan in each case to allow the practitioners to be adopted onto the specialist register.

How many have such plans now?

Dr. Colm Henry

I cannot provide those figures yet as the site visits are ongoing. I will come back to the Deputy with a further report.

There does not seem to be much urgency in this regard, but it is an urgent matter.

Mr. John Connaghan

I can provide the Deputy with a bit more information. While it is true to say we only started to engage with personal development plans this autumn, we expect that throughout the course of 2019 we will get there. However, there will have to be an individually-tailored conversation with each member of staff to achieve that. It will not happen overnight but during the course of 2019. We are trying to do it as quickly as possible during that year.

I thank our guests.

Mr. Damien McCallion

Just to close off the question regarding the on-site audit, I suspect that what was being referred to was the quality assurance standard for the programme. It was requested that there would be a site visit every three years for audit purposes and I believe the last one took place in 2014 and that one was scheduled for 2017 but it did not take place. Dr. Scally has made site visits to all of the laboratories to review things and our intention as part of the revised quality assurance guidelines is to recommence site visits in 2019.

I asked also about diagnostic staffing.

Ms Anne O'Connor

The Deputy has rightly recognised that there are challenges on the home care front. I did not hear about the case she referenced or which part of the country it was in.

Ms Anne O'Connor

We are funded this year to deliver approximately 17.3 million hours of home care and we are on target to do so. In reality, we are overachieving on targets in all areas, albeit that is not necessarily a good thing in this case.

It depends on whether one is waiting for home care.

Ms Anne O'Connor

It is not something for which we should aim. The challenge is particularly prevalent in Dublin and we are prioritising home care to support people to come out of hospitals. As a result, there are approximately 6,000 people in the community awaiting home care. Throughout the year, we have seen an unrelenting demand for services like this. It has not abated in summer as it might have done previously. As the Minister indicated, we are looking at enhancing home care and will be providing in excess of 300 additional packages in December. We will also be putting additional packages in place in the early part of next year. We hope that will make a difference. The statutory scheme will also be welcome. When one looks at what Sláintecare advocates, home care is a critical part of how we need to deliver our health services. We are looking at that.

There is also agency nursing and diagnostics over Christmas.

Mr. Stephen Mulvany

One of my colleagues might cover diagnostics and I will cover agency nursing. The Deputy asked about conversion targets. In setting the whole-time equivalent limits to year end for each of our national entities, we have set a target or limit for agency conversion across all levels of agency. If people can convert agency provision or overtime in real net terms based on where they were in June, that is considered to be an acceptable growth in whole-time equivalents. We are trying to drive down the level of reliance on agency staff, not just for cost purposes but also for service reasons, as we said earlier. While there is a limit as to how much net additional growth we will accept where someone explains the reason for an increase in whole-time equivalents, if someone goes over that and can demonstrate that they have actually brought in more people and sustainably dropped agency use, we do not see that as an issue.

Is it done on a hospital by hospital basis or area by area?

Mr. Stephen Mulvany

We set out whole-time equivalent limits at acute operations and community operations level and they are allocated to hospital group and community healthcare operations. It will then go from hospital groups to individual hospitals. The main message is that if people can sustainably reduce agency reliance by conversion below the June level, that is regarded as a positive step which is of overall assistance.

Can the HSE share the information on the targets with the committee?

Mr. Stephen Mulvany

We can certainly see what part of that we can share with the members. I will discuss it with colleagues.

It should not be a secret.

Before I bring in the next contributor, I refer the Minister back to the comments made by Senator Colm Burke in respect of a new GP contract. We have spoken about this before. While the programme for partnership Government proposes that a new GP contract will be negotiated, this is not happening. There is a huge manpower shortage in general practice as demonstrated by the fact that GPs are now closing their lists to new patients as the only way to control the amount of work they do. There is new work coming their way, including new work being transferred from hospital services to general practice. The many vacant posts in general practice are a further illustration of the manpower crisis. There are not only vacancies in public GMS post contracts, but GPs are finding it difficult to recruit assistants and partners to their practices. GPs are emigrating because of the quality of the service they are feeding into. They cannot get access to services for their patients and have great difficulty getting access to diagnostics. For all of those reasons, there is a huge manpower crisis.

The Government has chosen not to reverse the FEMPI legislation as it relates to GPs. It has chosen instead to go down the route outlined this morning by the Minister involving sustainability, expansion of services and expansion of eligibility which might, at some future date, feed into the negotiations on a new GP contract. I contend that negotiations on a new GP contract should run parallel to what the Government is doing. I contend also that the Government should reverse the FEMPI legislation. However, it has set its direction differently. How can the Minister implement Sláintecare, which is founded on the transfer of services from hospitals to primary and community care, if the GP manpower required is not available? The only way to get the necessary GP manpower is to develop a new contract. Things can be added to the existing contract, which is the Government's current policy in adding new services and expanding eligibility, but it cannot be done without expanding the manpower in general practice. The only way to do that is a new GP contract. When is the Minister going to start negotiations on a new GP contract?

I thank the Chairman. We have discussed this a great deal. Every element of what we are engaging on with the IMO on now is pointed towards Sláintecare. Sláintecare is the singular test in all of the asks we on the State side have in the engagement with GPs. I do not wish to negotiate in public. I would be in awful trouble if I did. When I talk about sustainability measures, I am talking about making general practice sustainable so that it can deliver Sláintecare. I am talking about ensuring there will be enough GPs who feel theirs is a challenging but rewarding career in which they wish to continue. Sustainability, which is one of the three elements of the current talks, refers exactly to what the Chairman says. It is about how we ensure enough people come into and stay in general practice. It is a key element. The other elements are access at eligibility and chronic disease management and they are directly focused on delivering Sláintecare by taking services which are currently provided in hospitals and providing them in the community through general practice.

On eligibility, we must recognise that if we do not support general practice they cannot do this, but if we do not do this we will end up in a situation whereby people continue to end up in the hospital setting far too late in the development of their illness because cost might have been a barrier within primary care. We saw the recent report on primary care, the lack of universal access here and how that compares unfavourably with other countries.

While we will not have a big-bang new contract - and I accept that assertion that the Chairman is making - we will have a framework that will deliver a number of new and exciting services, but will also invest in general practice, recognising that it needs to be sustainable. The Chairman did not say this but I hear others say that all of the money that the Government wants to invest in general practice is for new services and that is not right. As a Government, we recognise that before people are asked to take on new services, which the Chairman and I know that GPs want to take on if they are supported in doing so, we have to make sure that the current service is sustainable. I accept that after years of FEMPI cuts, we have come to a position where general practice needs support to stabilise it.

I concede that there will not be a big bang contract moment by the end of the year. However, there will be significant investment in general practice and a multi-annual framework for that investment and for the roll-out of services. That framework will help us to continue to develop, evolve and modernise the GP contract. This is a period of four years that we are discussing. I cannot go too far on this in public but we are also trying to make sure that we do not conclude these talks at Christmas and say "that is it, we are done, we have delivered a GP contract or reformed it." It should be part of an evolution and there will be more issues we want to talk about and more changes we want to bring about in the future. It is about getting a framework in place and when members of the committee see what we are trying to do, subject to us getting agreement, they will see much in it that they will like.

The point I am making is that if the Minister is building upon the foundation of a contract that is 45 years old, that may make some practices sustainable and allow them to continue to operate but it will not attract any new GPs into the service because the fundamental basis on which the contract is built on is out of date. The Minister is putting structures on a contract which is itself unsustainable.

I take that point. We should remember that by the end of this framework period, that old contract will effectively have been replaced. This is an evolving period whereby we invest in sustainability and new measures. The Chairman has educated me on this from the perspective of a GP as well and many new, younger doctors want to provide new and exciting services and work in different ways and we are talking about both of those elements in the discussions. I hope to be in a position to share this with the Chairman because we have been talking about this at the committee for a long time and it is an urgent issue. I hope to have this resolved by Christmas.

I welcome the Minister. I have spent more time with him in the last week than I have with my husband so the Minister might get tongues wagging. I apologise if some of these points have been covered already but I had to go on the plinth earlier.

I ask the Minister to comment on the Ombudsman's comments this morning on the Learning to Get Better report and the recommendations not being implemented. As the Minister knows, the HSE accepted 36 recommendations, fully implemented ten, partially implemented 17 and the other nine recommendations were either not implemented or are still being considered.

Is there any update on Respreeza?

I know that FreeStyle Libre has come up many times before but I have been contacted by people a lot more in recent times on this issue than previously. If this was reimbursed it would change these people's lives. Obviously none of us would like to be pricking our finger every day. Sometimes people must do it up to ten times per day and it is causing much pain. It would make a difference to these 20,000 adults and it would not be a huge financial cost so I recommend that they be looked after. I know that four to 21 year olds are covered but when a person reaches 21 years of age will they continue to be covered into the future? That would be good because obviously then everybody would eventually be covered but at the moment many people are enduring much pain every day.

While I know this is the remit of the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, unfortunately he is not here today. I highlight the waiting list for the assessment of need and after that there is also still a large waiting list for the therapies that are recommended in the assessment. For some reason, Cork seems to be particularly badly hit. We are finding it hard to get to the cause of that but I highlight the seriousness of that to the Minister.

I will share out the questions but I will take two of them.

The Deputy is right to highlight the issue of the assessment of need waiting lists and I know she has been highlighting it for quite a period of time. Ms Anne O'Connor might add further detail but from my perspective, the fact that following negotiation and engagement with Fianna Fáil we have allocated funding for 100 additional therapy posts in 2019, along with some of the work the HSE is doing in reforming the assessment of need processes, will make a real and meaningful difference. We will obviously be cognisant of allocating them to areas of particular and specific need through the service planning process. I will not carry out the service plan here but it will obviously look at areas where there are particular acute problems and the Deputy has referenced the area of Cork. That will be factored in as we work out where to allocate those 100 additional therapy posts in 2019.

On Respreeza, I am glad the Deputy brought it up. Deputy Kelly also brought it up before I arrived and I caught a little bit of what he said. There are two issues here. There is the issue of the general reimbursement of the drug, which I will put to one side because it is a matter for the drug company to put in an application and go through the legal reimbursement process for which the HSE has responsibility. There is another issue that is more acute in my view and is also more of an ethical issue, namely, that there are about 19 patients who are on what was in my view a long-term compassionate access clinical trial-type programme. That support was pulled from them very quickly. It was not handled very well by the company and it knows my views on that. The HSE has been engaging intensively to try to provide certainty for those 19 people and I am confident that in the next few days the HSE will bring that to a conclusion and I thank the executive for the hard work it has been doing on that. It has also taken the unusual but appropriate step of providing some of the cost of administering the drug through nurses and the likes in the interim period. I am hopeful for a resolution for those 19 people in the coming days and I emphasise the word "days."

On FreeStyle Libre, as is a matter for the HSE's reimbursement process, its representatives might wish to comment but as the Deputy rightly says, it is available to children in hospitals at the moment. It is about six months of the way through a 12-month evaluation process so if we do not have the information here we may come back to the Deputy with a note. A parliamentary question tabled on it is down to be answered today as well.

On the Ombudsman, it is appropriate that the director general would respond as it was a report to the HSE. Like the Deputy, I noted that there were a number of areas where the Ombudsman welcomed significant progress and others where there is still work to do. The HSE may tell the committee where it is in that regard.

Mr. John Connaghan

I will bring in Dr. Henry to say a few words about the complaints system but before I do, I will give the Deputy some facts and figures. Over the past three years we have built up the number of complaints officers to about 500. That is quite significant and luckily that is progress. As well as pursuing some of the process issues that have been outlined in this latest report, we should also have an ambition to do something to get more upstream of complaints, that is, to stop a complaint happening before it actually turns into something more serious. I see that as a general ambition and I have some views on that which I can expand on later.

Dr. Colm Henry

It is certainly a fundamental right for anybody who uses our services to voice his or her opinion, concerns, feedback and of course, complaints. We have recently completed our national patient experience survey in our acute hospital system for the second year running. It has been our absolute hope to listen to that carefully and to respond to it.

On the Ombudsman's report, we have done much work on this which needs highlighting.

The report, Learning to Get Better, is a valuable platform on which to build the review of our current complaints process, Your Service, Your Say, which we carried out in 2017. The report will also help in developing an advocacy framework with the Department of Health, which we are doing at present, and in showing that we learn. We have developed a complaints management system online with the State Claims Agency. The Ombudsman criticised the roll-out of that and we must take that on board. Working with the Ombudsman, we developed an e-learning framework to help those who are managing complaints in our community healthcare organisations and hospital groups to manage them more effectively, supporting patients as service users and our staff who are supposed to be listening and responding to complaints. We are working with the Ombudsman and we intend to fully implement the recommendations of his report in 2019 and make our system more responsive to those who use our services wherever they may present.

Ms Anne O'Connor

Assessment of need has been a challenge for a number of years. However, there have been a couple of developments. This year to date, we have had just under 3,800 applications, which is considerably fewer than last year. We believe this is linked to the new model of resource allocation in schools. The number of applications is 700 lower than last year and we expect that figure to increase to approximately 900 by the end of the year. Having said that, we also had to undertake a significant programme of improvement. That is linked to a couple of key issues. One has been to approve a standing operating procedure for assessment of need. That has led us into considerable negotiation with staff groups. We hope to have that resolved in December and we will have a standardised approach to assessment because it has been variable around the country.

That has given rise to a number of issues.

Ms Anne O'Connor

That negotiation is nearly concluded.

The other important issue is that we have been looking to develop children's disability networks, which would significantly improve all sorts of services for children with disabilities, not only assessment of need. We concluded this process just this week and we have reached agreement through a mediated process. We will now advertise network manager posts. We will have 87 children's disability networks and network managers whose sole job will be to focus on the co-ordination of services for children with disabilities.

On CHO 4, the Cork and Kerry area has been the most challenged in terms of numbers. CHO 4 has undertaken a significant programme of improvement this year and while it is not yet out of the woods, numbers declined from in excess of 1,700 in quarter 1 to just under 1,200 now. The position is improving but there is still a way to go.

The number is still high.

Ms Anne O'Connor

There is a considerable amount of work under way.

While Ms O'Connor is metaphorically on her feet, I will put a question to her. Why has the announcement of the winter initiative been so late this year? Surely it should be announced a long time before the winter.

Ms Anne O'Connor

The planning for winter started at the end of last winter. We looked at a couple of key issues. In terms of capacity and improvement, in the first half of this year we were focused on developing a three-year plan which would look at improving capacity. As Deputy Murphy O'Mahony stated, we should not be surprised by winter because we know it is coming every year. We have to look at how we can develop our capacity in line with that and improve our services. We have an improvement initiative, the Five Fundamentals, that has been peer reviewed and piloted in the south. That work has been taking place all year and it led us into September.

Another important learning point for us this year was the papal visit. We examined that in terms of what worked in terms of our response. That has led us into a slightly different approach this year. We are working with colleagues around the country who have emergency management experience on national and local co-ordination teams and we are looking at how we can maximise what we have available to us. As I stated, we have not published the report. We are in discussions with the Department. Those discussions have pretty much concluded in terms of our approach and agreement around how we are doing this. However, that has not prevented us from starting the work. We have been engaging with services since September. We have integrated plans from all areas and we have agreed a plan. We are now finalising the areas for investment but many detailed discussions have been going on with services all around the country.

Our challenge and focus has been on ensuring an integrated pathway for people throughout winter that begins in primary care and tries to keep as many people away from emergency departments as possible. That is not to say that we will not be challenged because the numbers are high and will be higher. We have to look at maximising all of the supports available. A great deal of work has been going on since September on that.

I will follow up on some of the previous questions. I welcome the progress indicated on the carrying out of an audit to find out where the deficiencies are. Provided it is followed up, that will be bring fairly dramatic results. There is not much sense identifying where the deficiencies are unless there is something done to address them. I realise the audit is being done in the context of preparation for Sláintecare, which is to be welcomed.

Is it possible to identify emergency space that may be needed in the event of there being unforeseen demand during the winter period, for example, if we have a prolonged winter or prolonged illnesses? It is possible to do this everywhere, including in hospitals. Is it possible to provide for such an emergency plan while remaining within budget?

On the question of unqualified doctors who have been reported, surely the Medical Council has as stringent a system as other professions have for dealing with these matters and is at least as well qualified as their counterparts are in other areas. Why does the system not work? Nobody should get through. In other professions of which I am aware, the council governing the professional body does let anyone through unless he or she is fully and properly qualified. I would like some comment as to why that is not happening.

Home care packages are in considerable demand. I have stated over the years that home care does not come cheap. It does not come free either and that was never expected. An expectation has been created that it would be much less expensive than other options. It is not cheap, but it has to be done and is part of the jigsaw. If this piece is not put in place, some other part of the system will bear the brunt of the problem.

I have two other questions, one of which is parochial. I am loath to be parochial in these matters but I could not allow the issue to pass since virtually all other hospitals in the country have been mentioned already.

We missed Bantry hospital.

It is no harm, just in case the Minister and his staff and the HSE conclude that Naas Hospital is not for mention in these circumstances. I could mention it a couple of times. I raised this as a Topical Issue matter last week when I acknowledged the progress made. I emphasise, however, that the proposed new units in Naas are an urgent necessity for the operation of the hospital. It is most important for the delivery of services to the catchment area that the programme in the oncology and endoscopy units is accelerated as much as possible.

My last question, which is on the degree to which the health services generally are prepared to cater for a major emergency, has not been answered for some years, as far as I am aware. I compliment the health services on the manner in which they dealt with the circumstances that arose last winter. Sacrifices were made and staff in the various hospitals doubled up and stayed over. Tremendous work was done. More serious emergencies could occur. As is clear from international news reports, such emergencies arise daily. We do not know what kind of emergency might arise. The question is the extent to which we can now deal with a major natural or national disaster.

Mr. John Connaghan

I will deal with some of the questions and pass a few on for answer by my colleagues. On Deputy Durkan's first point on flow and audit results, if he does not mind, I will send him the results of what has been achieved so far in some of the major flow programmes. These show what was happening last year, what is happening now, whether there has been an improvement and what learning we have got from the programmes.

I will deal with the issues of emergency space and catering for a major emergency in the same answer.

The experience in Ireland is that, when we have an emergency, whether it is snow or storms, we cope tremendously well and we bounce back relatively quickly. Much of that is to do with the flexibility on the part of staff in terms of being available at all hours and, as already stated, remaining on site at times to be able to cope with the exigencies of the service. Overall, the experience is quite good. In terms of flexing up for major emergencies, members will not be surprised to know that, through the year, we have a number of major emergency exercises to prepare for events, whether a flu pandemic, terrorist attack or otherwise. Mr. McCallion, who used to be in charge of that section, can provide more colour if necessary.

During the flu pandemic in the UK some years ago - the UK is no different from Ireland in this regard - we had a contingency plan which looked at the requirement to rapidly increase the number of intensive care beds and respiratory facilities available. We did that by turning high-dependency unit beds into intensive care unit beds, and we had a backstop which was that, if push came to shove, we could use theatres and that kind of facility. Thankfully, it never came to that, but we have these kinds of plans available and laid out in a series of escalation responses for any issue that might arise.

I will hand over to Dr. Henry who will deal with the issues raised on the medical side.

Dr. Colm Henry

In the context of the Medical Council, while I am not here as a representative, I will answer as best I can the question posed by the Deputy. I met the Medical Council provisionally yesterday and we will have further engagement with it in the next week or two to address the issues raised by this case. My understanding is that we have a reciprocal agreement with other EU countries so there are no grounds for refusal of a doctor for registration based on his or her country of training as long as that country is within the EU. That said, we want to find out not just the learning from this case but any learning the Medical Council has from any other cases that-----

I apologise for interrupting. That is a departure from the manner in which new drugs are examined, where, even though we have the EU level for examining and approving new drugs, we also do it ourselves, and we raise questions at that time. I do not accept that what has been put forward is an adequate answer. While I not blaming Dr. Henry, it is a fact.

Dr. Colm Henry

I am just giving the facts rather than an opinion. I want to be careful in what I say. It has no grounds for refusing somebody based just on the country of origin of his or her training as long as that country is in the EU. That said, if there are any issues pertaining to safety, not just arising from this case but from any other cases that come to the attention of the Medical Council, clearly we have to review what is best for our healthcare system based on putting patients' interests first.

I am concerned about that. There is an inconsistency. On the one hand, we are particularly careful and we double-check in respect of drugs, as we should do in most cases, even though the same check has already been done by the European institutions, where we are also represented, incidentally. On the other hand, we do not seem to apply the same principles regarding staff and their qualifications, which are at least as important as drug verification.

Dr. Colm Henry

We have our own registration process and our own registration rules and regulations, all underpinned by law. All I am saying is that anyone who applies for registration in Ireland cannot be refused on the basis of the country of origin of registration as long as that country is in the EU - that is, not on that basis alone.

There was a question on home care packages.

I also had a question on Naas General Hospital, particularly the accommodation space to deal with possible winter emergencies.

Ms Anne O'Connor

On the use of space, we have escalation plans. Each hospital has its own escalation plan and there is a point in that plan whereby other space within the hospital would be used if it could not cope with the numbers coming through. That would result in using space that might otherwise be used for elective care, and so on, so there is obviously a balance to be struck in terms of how much of that activity is stopped. However, we are also challenged because we sometimes have a significant number of people who require isolation due to infection. We then have to consider the staffing of additional space. Given we are at times challenged to staff the space we have open all of the time, if we add more into the mix, it can create challenges.

I note the Deputy's point on home care. Our waiting lists are considerable. CHO 7, which is an area relating to Naas and Tallaght, is particularly challenged. I want to reassure the Deputy that Naas is one of the nine sites of focus for us in the winter period. It is named specifically in the winter plan, so it will be receiving significant attention as part of that.

The next phase of the development plan at Naas, which is pending, needs to come into operation as soon as possible. I raise this on the basis it affects the general delivery of services and the morale within the hospital. People can only be so long waiting for something to happen.

Ms Anne O'Connor

I will have to come back to the Deputy on that because I do not have the specific detail as to where the Naas development stands.

I think the Minister wants to answer that.

Yes. I visited Naas General Hospital and met staff. I also met representatives from the Dublin Midlands Hospital Group. I know the capital project is a priority both for the hospital and the hospital group. It will make a huge difference to endoscopy waiting lists, not just for Naas General Hospital but also for the entire Dublin Midlands Hospital Group. This was a project that was ready to proceed when the economic crash happened and it was very unfortunate, as Deputy Durkan and I will remember from visiting there, that the hospital just lost out as capital dried up during the recession. Now that we are back with a much larger capital budget of €11 billion for the next ten years, compared to just over €4.9 for the last ten, this will be a priority project. We are currently engaging with the HSE on finalising our capital plans for 2019 and it will be considered in that context.

On the winter plan, Nursing Homes Ireland has advised me that, as far back as May or June, it raised the fact that it wanted to be very much involved in working with the HSE on the winter plan. It wrote a letter on 30 September and received a reply on 31 October from the co-chair of the management team advising that its proposals and engagement would be discussed at the meeting in November. I understand that meeting is set for 26 November next. One of the issues Nursing Homes Ireland has raised with me - it says this happens every year - is that from 22 December until approximately the third week in January, it has very little engagement with the HSE as regards working with it and helping to relieve the numbers coming out of the hospitals. It is concerned that it has not been involved in the engagement to date on the winter plan and it is very anxious to be available and to work with the HSE so any issue in regard to numbers in hospitals can be dealt with in an expeditious manner. I would appreciate any comment on that. Nursing Homes Ireland certainly wants to work with the HSE in this regard.

The second issue I want to raise is the consultant contract and, in particular, trying to make it attractive for people to return to Ireland. I accept that we have discussed the consultant contract a few times today. We put in a new salary scale system in recent years but it is not working in many areas in the sense that people are not attracted to the jobs and the scales being offered. I raised a point earlier about the €110 million spent on the employment of agency consultants. Is this being reviewed from a Department point of view or HSE point of view to allow us to move forward?

An issue was raised earlier about the number who are going to retire from the health service right across Europe. My understanding is that something like one third of all medical consultants across Europe are older than 60 years. Therefore, we will be facing a challenge.

In facing that challenge, we also need to be competitive in what we are offering. How can we deal with the issues? We have not been serious about dealing with it over the past three or four years. I accept that there are other demands, but we need something attractive to bring people in. Is engagement on the matter with the consultant group likely in the next six months?

I thank the Senator for bringing the Nursing Homes Ireland issue to my attention in recent days. I have asked the Department and the HSE to engage with Nursing Homes Ireland. He is correct in stating that nursing homes have a very important role to play in winter planning. From a patient perspective, we need to keep as many older people as possible in the more comfortable environment of nursing homes rather than in emergency departments during a very busy period. I look forward to the engagement between Nursing Homes Ireland and the HSE.

There are two parts to the answer to the question on consultants. The first involves what I outlined to Deputy Donnelly earlier, namely, that the Public Service Pay Commission suggests that a process on the issue of new entrant pay should be considered at a particular point. My Department will consider how best to advance that matter with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The second point is that we also have the Sláintecare report. Donal de Buitléir's group is carrying out a major examination of decoupling private practice in public hospitals in line with Sláintecare. At a certain point, this will require contractual engagement with consultants. There is the monetary piece from the Public Service Pay Commission. There is also the issue of dealing with the job specification and how we can ensure that consultants and medics who want to deliver healthcare reform are able to do it under their contracts. Those are the two big issues we will be working on in the context of consultants.

I thank everyone present. I know it has been a long morning. My first question relates to the emerging field in general practice of online consultations. The Care Quality Commission in the UK has expressed concern about the quality of prescriptions, that opioids and antibiotics are being excessively prescribed and, obviously, that there is no physical examination with an online consultation. These practices are being heavily advertised in Ireland and there has been considerable growth. In the UK, it was discovered that four in ten were unsafe or there were fears about their safety. I raised the issue during Questions on Promised Legislation and received a reply from the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Daly, in the Minister's absence. What are the Minister's plans for regulation and guidelines to ensure safety? Is the HSE commencing a process or audit to deal with the matter? I might get an answer to that and then I will come back.

I might ask the chief clinical officer, Dr. Henry, to respond.

Dr. Colm Henry

I see online consultations enhancing rather than replacing existing practice. Nothing can replace direct contact between a medical practitioner, nurse or allied healthcare professional with a patient. However, there are some examples of how we are putting this to good use. We have a heart failure virtual clinic operating in the south east. It has replaced traditional referrals to consultants and has resulted in 80% of people who otherwise would have been sent for specialist consultations being dealt with through online consultation between GPs and consultants. We have other examples of similar online consultations, admittedly between primary practitioners and secondary care practitioners, which again replaces people who would be referred to waiting lists and to me is a much better investment in care. The Deputy's question focuses on how it pertains to direct engagement with patients. My opinion and that of clinical leads in our healthcare system is that we would see this as enhancing traditional consultation, meaning direct patient engagement, rather than replacing it, except in very defined circumstances.

Is the HSE doing anything similar to what is being done by the Care Quality Commission in the UK? My question is not whether it exists; it is whether the HSE is developing guidelines on an emerging field of general practice. I was not asking whether it was good or not. I understand the heart failure virtual clinic. However, the flip side of that is how they triage someone who has chest pain. How can that be provided through an online consultation? Is the HSE teasing that out as this emerges, as has been done in the UK? It is not a question whether-----

Dr. Colm Henry

To my knowledge, we have not established restrictive policies or procedures regarding online consultation. The Deputy referred to chest pain. In the case of chest pain, there can only be one form of engagement which is directly between the medical practitioner and the patient. We can come back to the Deputy with a full answer on how the approach of the Care Quality Commission in the UK applies to our healthcare system.

The HSE should commence a process to provide certainty. These consultations are being heavily advertised on radio and television. Does that comply with advertising regulations on the medical area in general? There are restrictions in that regard.

Dr. Colm Henry

The Medical Council has restrictions on how medical practitioners can advertise their services. If the Deputy brings the specific advertisements to my attention, we will certainly look into them.

Just listen to the radio.

We all understand the structured consultation that takes place between doctors or specific clinics - such as those which deal with heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, or whatever - and patients whereby there is a structured protocol in place. The Deputy is referring to unstructured consultations, which are extensively advertised on the airwaves and in respect of which there may be a problem.

Deputy Jack Chambers has raised an important point that we need to consider. I will ask the chief medical officer to advise me on the policy. From a delivery point of view, the chief clinical officer of the HSE, Dr. Henry, might also look at it and we can revert to the Deputy. My attention has not been drawn to the need to do more to regulate the position. Instinctively, I am of the view that the Deputy has identified an important issue. I will revert to him directly once I take advice from the chief medical officer and chief clinical officer.

We do not need the Chief Justice sending us correspondence two years from now informing us about a patient safety incident because of a prescription sent by fax or email. We need to be cognisant and deal with it in a proactive way now.

My next question is on CervicalCheck. Dr. Gabriel Scally appeared before the committee. Both he and Dr. Denton stated that the criteria for selection in arriving at the figure of 221 were unclear. Did the 221 selected all have cervical cancer?

Mr. Damien McCallion

We know now that some of them did not have cervical cancer. CervicalCheck carried out an audit. It took early notifications from hospitals of diagnoses of cervical cancer. We know that two cases ultimately did not involve cancer, which is clearly good for those patients. We know of at least two other cases whereby the patients involved did not have cervical cancer but had another form of cancer. The audit took the notification from the hospitals and carried out the comparison in the context of cytology, which is where we ended up with the difference between the original interpretation and the subsequent interpretation of the results. The process of disclosing to patients fell down later.

The second issue that emerged was that details of some cases were not notified directly to the cervical screening service but were notified to the cancer registry and were not included in the original audit. The purpose of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists review is to look at all 3,100 women who were diagnosed with cervical cancer. That is reducing in terms of approximately 1,800 people who would have had a screening history and also had cervical cancer. They will form part of that review which will give us the answers to some of the outstanding questions on that.

Is Mr. McCallion stating that four of the 221 did not have cervical cancer?

Mr. Damien McCallion

There are four we are aware of from the original work. The Deputy probably missed the earlier answer. The purpose of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists review was to come up with the facts and figures and give patients certainty over whether there was an issue with their audit results.

The second point is that it would give us facts on the nature of the cancer the individual patients had. In light of the fact that the consent rate from the group of 221 is relatively low, we are going to establish some of those facts but it will take some time to do so. We are gathering information from the cancer registry and the hospitals in order to arrive at a definitive number in respect of those who did not have cancer ultimately or had a different form of cancer. We will close that out.

The review by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was set up for that purpose. It is looking at the 3,100 cases. Of those, 1,800 would have had screening histories. It will give them clarity on their cancer and any other issues or not as the case may be. It should be borne in mind that close to 1,000 of these would have been diagnosed with cervical cancer through the programme. That is also good thing. Every two days, one woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer through the cervical cancer screening programme. We need to balance that.

On the consultants appointed without completing specialist training schemes, there are up to 50 before 2008 and 100 after 2008. I understand site-to-site visits will be carried out. Is there an issue regarding the training programme? Are there consultants who would be perceived to be specialists but who, in terms of their training, are not? Are they providing supervision to other doctors in training schemes? Is there an issue in the context of medical ethics whereby a consultant who might not have completed specialist training might be the lead clinician in a team providing the end goal of care and guidance regarding a patient plan? It is deceptive for patients in that they might believe someone is a consultant but did not know they had not completed training. There is a mismatch in respect of the perception of skill sets. For example, one would not have someone flying a plane who had not fully trained as a pilot. With specialists, however, we have allowed that.

Aside from the personal training plans being put in place, who authorised these appointments? How did general doctors end up being locum consultants and then permanent consultants? Who was responsible for that?

Dr. Colm Henry

As specialist training schemes evolved and came into play in the 1990s and the decade after, by 2008 it was a requirement that somebody would have completed a specialist training scheme in order to be certified as a specialist. Before 2008, that was not the case. It was an accrual of experience which was reflected in one's CV and references, along with the interview process which came after. Since 2008, it has been a requirement for interviewees to be on the specialist register.

As stated earlier, 50 or so of the consultants we are dealing with it are pre-2008. They would have worked since then as consultants in our healthcare system, accruing experience, knowledge and expertise and not just through training. Then there are 100 consultants after 2008, divided between psychiatrists and hospital consultants.

In answer to a question earlier, I stated we have 29 emergency departments operating 24-7, with 19 maternity units and paediatric units. All of those hospitals give unscheduled care services, be they emergency departments, obstetrics, paediatrics, anaesthesia for surgery or medicine, which require somebody available all the time. This is not an excuse. I am just stating the fact that there is an obligation for us to continue to provide those services unbroken. In my assessment, based on what our human resources department has ascertained, these appointments were made because they simply could not find anybody else with the necessary qualifications and training scheme completion to perform in the same post.

We are mapping through this and examining each of those cases, developing personal plans for each individual in order to see if his or her existing qualifications and work experience qualifies them to be on the specialist register. If it does not, we then can identify the gap to determine what additional training and supervision or mentoring is required.

What are the Minister's plans for pay equality for consultants? In light of recent reports, there is a significant mismatch between the pay for new entrants and more senior doctors. Is the Minister looking at a pathway to bridging that gap or to providing a new contract?

Hospital trusts legislation has been in the ether for a long time. There are boards of hospital trusts which have no legislative oversight and there are appointments occurring to them without any clarity. What is the update on that?

What is the process for tendering for work under the NTPF? Many public hospitals carry out NTPF work on Saturdays. What are the governance criteria for this? Does a public consultant get paid in addition to his or her public contract for NTPF work done in a public hospital? How is that audited? Could there be a perverse incentive for somebody who has a large waiting list to control those waiting lists around the NTPF process in public hospitals?

I discussed the issue regarding new entrants to consultancy posts with colleagues earlier. The view of the Public Service Pay Commission, as well as mine, is that there is an issue when it comes to recruiting consultants. It noted in its report that reductions in the pay of new entrants appointed since 2012 were particularly severe. It also pointed out that the differential had, as the Deputy implied, worsened as a result of negotiating a settlement to the consultant contract cases as we did earlier in the year. It is my preference that we would enter a process as we have done with others in the public service to look at how one addresses the issue of new entrant pay. That is a discussion I am having across the Government. The process, as outlined in the Public Service Pay Commission report, will be welcomed. I do not see that directly linked to the broader conversations we are going to have about consultants, Sláintecare or contractual reform into the future.

Is there a plan for a new contractual space?

There is but we are not there yet because it is very much tied in with Sláintecare. We will publish the first Sláintecare action plan around Christmas. I will bring it to the Cabinet in December. That will obviously outline the actions we are going to take then.

There is a significant body of work which the Sláintecare team needs to do working out the contractual implications of the report for many different healthcare professionals, of which consultants will be one group. We are not yet ready to have that conversation about what the consultant role in the future will look like.

We will depend on the Donal de Buitléir group as well, which was established to look at how to decouple private practice in public hospitals. This is a point about which I feel strongly. I do not believe it is appropriate that private practice is happening in public hospitals. I do not have an issue with private practice or an issue with people in private practice. The choice of playing golf or engaging in private practice is not my business. It is engaging private practice in public hospitals which irks me. That is what I am hoping the Donal de Buitléir group will help us with.

I am not sure what the Deputy meant about appointments happening without clarity to the boards of hospital trusts. Any appointment to a hospital group has gone through the Public Appointments Service. I populated all of those boards in recent months. All of the appointments were made via the Public Appointments Service. The Deputy is correct that they only exist in an administrative capacity and do not have a basis in law. I took the decision when Sláintecare was published not to push ahead with legislating for the hospital groups for two reasons. First, I am not sure I command a Dáil majority to do it. Second, Sláintecare has moved us to a different space because it rightly talks about these integrated care entities whereby one would have CHOs and groups effectively aligned over time and one would legislate for that.

I will bring forward proposals on geoalignment in the coming months and will then move to legislate for those bodies rather than doing so for hospital groups and having to come back and do it again.

It is something of a temporary fix.

Accepting a cross-party vision on healthcare means doing some things differently from how one planned. Legislating for hospital groups now would ignore the fact that the Sláintecare committee rightly stated that it would be better to legislate for regional structures that include community health organisations in one entity while avoiding silos. That is the direction I intend to take.

I would be happy to get the Deputy a note from the NTPF on how it ensures it complies with its procurement and governance obligations . I am satisfied that it concentrates on additionality rather than paying for something that is available elsewhere in the HSE.

I ask Deputy Jack Chambers to conclude.

Hospitals which are running over budget and not meeting the capacity and targets set by management receive additional support through the NTPF when they do not meet their output requirements. That is not a prudent way to apportion many of our resources. I do not want additional front-line allocations for ineffective, inefficient services which are not meeting their planned output.

It is an important point. I am confident that the NTPF focuses on ensuring the work for which it is paying is above and beyond what was due to be done by the HSE. We publish annual integrated waiting list plans detailing what will be done by the HSE and NTPF. I will ask the CEO of the NTPF to respond directly to the Deputy's question.

I call Senator Conway-Walsh and thank her for her patience.

In light of the service provided by Sergeant Maurice McCabe in highlighting the need for whistleblowers and giving us a clear example of what may happen to them within a system, it is important that the Minister makes a strong statement on the issue in regard to the health service. All members have first-hand anecdotal information about what happens when those within the system make a complaint on an issue such as an unsafe working environment. I know of people who were told to accept the way things were done or to leave. The "Your Service, Your Say" policy and various practices are in place in the HSE but they do not work as required, namely, to encourage people to come forward with complaints in order to make our health system safer. What can the Minister say to reassure those in the health service who are working in an unsafe environment or perceive practices that threaten the health and safety of patients or staff and are considering making a complaint?

The Senator is correct to suggest that there are learnings for the public service beyond An Garda Síochána in terms of how it responds to whistleblowers and people trying to highlight areas of wrongdoing or public concern. That was vividly depicted in the excellent documentary by Katie Hannon on Maurice and Lorraine McCabe. I would very simply say to anybody working in the health service that our laws have changed and we have protected disclosure legislation. As Minister for Health, I receive protected disclosures. The HSE has a protected disclosure policy and system. "Your Service, Your Say" is a way for people to make complaints, but whistleblowers who need to bring an issue to attention in a protected space have the law on their side. The law is working and there have been examples of important information being brought to the attention of the authorities through protected disclosures. I encourage anyone working in, or using, the health service who wishes to highlight a matter by whistleblowing to avail of the protection offered by the laws passed in recent years.

Can the Minister assure such people that if, following the making of a complaint, his or her job is made impossible, the person responsible for that will be severely reprimanded?

I assure them that the law will be complied with in terms of the protection afforded to whistleblowers.

On the number of misdiagnoses and mistakes and so on, what provision has been made this year for people seeking redress?

I do not fully understand the question. There is no redress scheme in------

I am trying to quantify the problem of misdiagnoses or mistakes by identifying the number of cases or persons referred to the State Claims Agency, for example.

Sorry, the word "redress" threw me. We made an allocation for the State Claims Agency for 2019. I ask Mr. Mulvany to locate the exact figure. That does not relate solely to misdiagnoses but, rather, to any action taken by a citizen against the State. The power for dealing with such complaints is delegated by the HSE to the agency.

Mr. Stephen Mulvany

The allocation will be in excess of €300 million by the end of this year.

In excess of €300 million.

Mr. Stephen Mulvany

We will get the exact figure.

I ask that it be circulated to the committee.

I wish to raise the case of a patient whose file noted that she needed urgent attention but that note was missed. Some 12 months later, she is terminally ill and nothing can be done for her. How long should it take for her family to be given access to her full medical file?

I will not adjudicate on the case referred to by the Senator. I do not question her bona fides. Her fundamental question regards whether a person can get his or her basic medical information from a hospital.

No. If a person requests his or her full file, how long should it take for it to be made available to the person or his or her family?

Mr. John Connaghan

Mr. McCallion or Ms O'Connor might be better placed to answer than I am, but my understanding is that there is a standard 30-day turnaround.

Mr. Damien McCallion

I have to check, but that is the approximate period for access to records of a service. If a patient requests his or her record from a hospital or health service, he or she should receive it within that timeframe. The process may be more more complex if a multitude of services, such as a hospital and a mental health service, are involved and that may be the subject of discussion with the patient or a legal representative in legal proceedings. My understanding is that there is a 30-day period for access to records. We will confirm that.

Mr. John Connaghan

Under the recommendations of Mr. Justice Meenan on redress, the period has been reduced to 21 days.

After 21 days, the family should be able to get the file.

Mr. John Connaghan

Sorry, 28 days, not 21. I just found the reference. Pardon me. Under the Mr. Justice Meenan review there is a requirement for records to be supplied within 28 days.

Mr. Damien McCallion

That is a requirement in certain specific cases. For access to hospital or health service records more broadly, it is a 30-day period. We will confirm that for the Senator this afternoon.

The file should be received within 28 to 30 days.

If a person does not get his or her file after that time, what action should be taken? If he or she has requested it from the hospital but not received it, where should he or she go to next?

Mr. Damien McCallion

In each hospital, a person is designated responsibility for dealing with such requests. I had some practical experience of this issue in a former role and note that there may be instances where a delay is caused by the nature of the records or their being moved off- site or being historical in nature. In such instances, the hospital should proactively engage with the patient or representative regarding a timeframe for delivery of the records. If a patient is unhappy regarding access to records, there is an initial escalation within the hospital.

What happens if the patient dies while waiting for his or her file?

Mr. Damien McCallion

In a tragic circumstance such as that, the patient's next of kin would be entitled to follow through on that request.

Would that happen automatically rather than the next of kin having to go through the process again?

Mr. Damien McCallion

We will confirm that for the Senator. I am not an expert in that area but, broadly speaking, that is how it operates.

Mr. Stephen Mulvany

On the Senator's previous question, the total budget available to the HSE this year to reimburse the State Claims Agency is €320 million.

That money could be spent on the health service.

Members did not receive answers to the questions we submitted until this morning, which makes it difficult because to check the accuracy of the answers we are getting. It would be helpful in our engagement and representation of those most impacted on by our questions if we could be provided the answers a couple of days before the committee meets.

On valproate, I thank the HSE representatives for the written answer provided. However, the study mentioned in its letter to the foetal anti-convulsant syndrome, FACS, Forum Ireland, of which the Organisation for Anti-Convulsant Syndrome, OACS, is a stakeholder, is like a rapid assessment report to estimate the numbers of people in Ireland who have been affected.

This is based on the Irish data combined with the international statistics. I am concerned that it will not address any of the historical issues and will just look at the effectiveness of the risk minimisation. This is why it is very important to have a proper independent inquiry into this. There are an awful lot of questions still outstanding. I can see what the Minister is trying to do by looking at the different elements but the fact is that we need to know who knew, and at what time, the impact that valproate would have on pregnant women and on the children they were going to give birth to. In 1975 the then Minister for Health, and the Irish Medical Board, IMB - which is now the Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA - licensed the medication. Why were they telling us for years that it was licensed in 1983? There is an awful lot to be cleared up there. I believe that it cannot be cleared up without an inquiry.

This issue is not particular to Ireland, as the Minister is aware, but a lot of the people who have been impacted by this are finding that they have to go to Britain to get more information on it. The Minister will know that a redress scheme was set up in France for this, so the same mistakes were being made in all of these countries. We owe it to these families who are trying to do their best for the children they are bringing up with disabilities. Will the Minister please speak to that?

I will ask Dr. Henry to follow this up in a moment. The Senator referred to the written answer. If anybody is watching these proceedings they do not have the benefit of that. There are a number of work streams under way on the issue of valproate. I had an excellent meeting with representatives from the FACS forum where they outlined the very devastating consequences of this on their own lives, on the lives of their children and on the difficulties it posed in rearing children in very difficult circumstances.

With regard to the protection now, the Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, has done a huge body of work around reviewing the information that is provided-----

I welcome that but that is off the table. I welcome it very much and it was hard fought for.

-----on patient leaflets, which is good. The Senator is correct that it took a lot of work. That information is being shared with representatives of the FACS forum.

We also have the valproate response project that is studying the numbers of those who have been affected by foetal anti-convulsant syndrome, which is the point being made by the Senator. There is also the development of the existing Irish epilepsy and pregnancy register. The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, in collaboration with the HPRA, will conduct an impact assessment project on the effectiveness of risk minimisation measures to prevent harms from such medicines, including sodium valproate. That work is under way.

The HSE is currently gathering information on sodium valproate through the patient support service. One of the issues I wanted to try to do, and on which I gave a commitment to the FACS forum when I met them, was that they would have a contact point within the health service for the many disparate needs of some of their children. They had talked to me about how they felt they were bounced from Billy to Jack - to use a colloquial phrase - when trying to identify the services. I am aware there is work ongoing with the Children's Hospital Group in that respect. To be clear, I had not ruled out an independent inquiry such as other countries have had but I remain to be convinced that it would be the best way to get some of the information they rightly need and deserve. I wanted to get all of these work streams to report first and then make that decision. I ask Dr. Henry to bring us up to date from his perspective.

Dr. Colm Henry

I thank Senator Conway-Walsh for her very apt question. It is fair to point out that valproate is a very effective drug in many circumstances.

Dr. Colm Henry

There has always been an awareness of this teratogenic effect in utero. In recent years there has been a growing awareness, not just of the impact of the drug, but also around the frequency with which children can be affected. As the information became more available to us though Europe and through other healthcare systems our priority was to address the immediate safety need in ensuring that all women of child-bearing age were made aware of the risk of the drug. Equally, we wanted to be sure that nobody stopped the drug abruptly because that could lead to harm for people who had well-controlled epilepsy, for example. As part of the work we have been doing in the summer, and I pay tribute not just to my own team but also to the patient representatives on the FACS forum who have contributed hugely to this work, we have communicated with 2,500 women of child-bearing age who have been on the drug.

I really do appreciate it and without a doubt I absolutely commend the work that has been done, and I commend the organisations that have worked with the HSE to do this, but we need to know what happened, why it happened, why it was allowed continue, and who knew. We need a redress system in place similar to what is in place in France. I am aware of the good work that has been done but I am also very conscious of the time because I have a couple of other questions.

Dr. Colm Henry

I cannot answer the question about an inquiry but I can say that as with other anti-convulsant medication there always was an awareness. What changed with the increasing evidence over the years was the impact and frequency of the effects on children this drug had.

There was not an awareness of the patient. There was no awareness for the woman who was taking the drug. That is the problem.

Dr. Colm Henry

Not officially.

Where was the awareness and why was it not put on the packages so the woman or her GP could make the decision? Maybe her GP knew. I do not know. These are the kinds of issues we need to find out. I am glad that the Minister has not ruled out an inquiry. I ask that we take the learning from France and from Britain also, get this cleared up and get full accountability for what happened. It is the least we owe to these families.

Just to let Senator Conway-Walsh know that we need to vacate the room by 1.45 p.m. at the latest.

I need to ask the HSE representatives about Translarna. I am completely up to date on that but I want to know when the decision is to be made. This drug is used for Duchenne muscular dystrophy patients.

Mr. John Connaghan

I can give a bit of information on that. We now have a new application lodged from the pharmaceutical company.

I understand that.

Mr. John Connaghan

We have a lot of historical work done through the clinical advisory group and the drug group on that. It is our intention to take a look at that on a fast-track basis.

When will the decision be made?

Mr. John Connaghan

I cannot give that detail now and I would not want to guess on that. I am assured that given all the work that has been done previously on that we intend to move this through the system very fast. I can give the Senator an indicative timescale and I will write to her on that.

Please, because as Mr. Connaghan knows we still have the five boys - and it is only the five boys - who are in a very difficult situation. I really hope that progress has been made with the second application. I welcome the fact that the legal case was taken off the table to facilitate this happening. I hope it will be a positive result. I must also ask about Spinraza. Does the Minister know that some of the spinal muscular atrophy sufferers have been hospitalised and have been in intensive care waiting for the decision on Spinraza? When can we expect that?

Yes. I am very much aware of this case. It is a matter for the HSE to follow its own reimbursement processes legally in this respect. I met the HSE on a number of issues recently and this was one issue that I raised specifically. It is important that there is real and meaningful engagement with the drugs company and with the HSE. The technology review group on rare diseases is currently working its way through the application. It will go to the HSE leadership shortly for decision also. I acknowledge it is an issue of significant concern to a number of parents in the State. It is currently with the technology review group on rare diseases and it will go from there to the HSE leadership team.

Is that review group updated on the condition of the children? Do they take into account in their decision-making process the children who are very seriously ill and have been hospitalised or put into intensive care?

They are there to assess the drug and the impact of the drug. That group was established specifically recognising that there are rare diseases that require greater consideration perhaps than a drug that can benefit a larger cohort of the population. There are more and more rare diseases in Ireland for which new drugs are coming on stream. I want to make the point, strongly, that it takes two to negotiate. It is absolutely right and proper that the Senator would apply pressure to me and to the HSE at this forum. It is the Senator's job to do that.

I would encourage similar pressure to be applied to drug companies as well, because they have the drug that parents believe can make a big difference to their children's lives. I hope the drug company and the HSE can engage in a meaningful manner on this and try to make progress.

It is important that there is proper negotiation on the price at an early stage so that we get the current price and not multiples of that price. We would then be trying to make decisions on that cost, which would be crazy.

I wish to question the Minister on the audiology failures in counties Mayo and Roscommon. I know a number of actions have been taken on that, but again we do not know who was responsible or whether the governance was put in place for it and there are further difficulties. The Minister has provided a long written reply on what has happened in respect of the Department of Health, medical cards and the Departments of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and Education and Skills. There are still shortfalls in the system. I hope this committee will have hearings in the new year to hear about the impact the audiology failure has had on the families involved. We need to get to the bottom of the matter. Why was the governance not in place and is it in place now? If so, could it ever happen again? Some 49 children were affected.

I will ask Ms Anne O'Connor to respond, outlining it from the HSE's perspective. I had an excellent meeting recently in Government Buildings with some of the parents whose children had been impacted. The chief officer of Community Healthcare West, Mr. Tony Canavan, was present from the HSE as was a senior official from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. A number of undertakings were given at that meeting to try to provide support to the children who had been impacted. I suppose what was clear at that meeting and also in the Senator's outline today is not all of the supports required were health-related and some specifically related to the education sphere. It seemed to be a particular sticking point at that meeting. There was a commitment given that officials would meet and that they would then re-engage with the parents' groups. I hope and expect that this will happen. If the Senator hears anything to the contrary, please let me know. Ms O'Connor will now comment.

Ms Anne O'Connor

A review of standards that had changed identified the errors and failures. There is now a national clinical audiology lead, so the governance has changed since that took place. Let me confirm that the meeting between the different officials happened on 5 November 2018. There is a robust governance structure in place and the learning from that incident, which happened in other parts of the country as well, has been examined. We hope that, with this audiology programme, the errors of the past will never happen again. I will let the secretariat know of the gaps in between.

On behalf of the joint committee, I thank the Minister for coming before us. We understand his delay. I thank the Secretary General, Mr. Breslin, and officials from the HSE, Mr. John Connaghan, Mr. Stephen Mulvany, Ms Anne O'Connor, Mr. Damien McCallion and Dr. Colm Henry.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.45 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 21 November 2018.
Top
Share