I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte.
Nithe i dtosach suíonna - Commencement Matters
Care of the Elderly
I also welcome the Minister of State. I thank her for taking the time to come in and deal with this issue. For the record, the question is to ask the Minister of State whether the rate of pay for those who use their homes for the HSE boarding out scheme for elderly people under the boarding out regulations of 1993 could be increased in light of the increasing cost of living and associated costs of running this type of accommodation. It is pretty self-explanatory from the conversation we have on a daily basis in every sector of society with the increased cost of living.
I ask this question this morning specifically on behalf of Lisa and John Corroon in Ballinagore, who have a boarding out home that facilitates six residents. Their residence is somewhat rural and would be five miles from the nearest town. The cost of ferrying their residents to chiropody, physiotherapy and medical and dental appointments has, with the increase in diesel alone, not to mention increases relating to food, heating the residence, etc., gone through the roof. This is something of which we are all very much aware.
The regulations were reviewed in 1993. While they have been reviewed since, there has been no change to them. The Corroons' rate of pay from the HSE went nine years ago from €90 per week to €110 and then three quarters of the pension. They are getting somewhere in the region of €270 to €280 per person per week. That is one night in an average hotel with breakfast and none of the facilities they are covering. They are unable to survive and continue. That is evident from the fact that very limited numbers of people have availed of the boarding out scheme in recent years. The numbers have dropped off. These people take the maximum six residents, but some very quick and simple sums will tell the Minister of State that the saving by having those six people in this environment as opposed to in a nursing home is approximately one eighth of the cost, depending on what calculations one does. We are looking at a difference of somewhere between €8,000 or €9,000 and €50,000-odd per annum. When you go to look this up, and when I was doing my research this morning, you find there is either very limited or very little information on the HSE website. It is as if it is a secret. It is almost as if it is not wanted because one must go trawling and scratching way below the surface to even find out the basic information. It is as if it is not being promoted or literally not wanted.
Another issue I encountered when I was doing my research is the fact that different community healthcare organisations, CHOs, have different policies and different payment rates. This can cause a major issue for people who are on the borderline and maybe have residents who fall under the jurisdiction of two different CHOs. They will actually be on different rates in the one residence or house.
The kernel of the issue and the key question concerns a review of the payment structure. As I said, there is a saving to the State. It is very beneficial to elderly people to be in the kind of environment in question, which is a smaller facility with a maximum of six residents. The people who approached me in the case I am using as an example are just one example of this kind of well-run, tight ship. Their residents remain Covid-free. That has been the acid test in all such environments over the last couple of years. They are doing their very best. As I said, they actually kept Covid-19 out of their residence. That is how tight a ship they run. For less than €300 per week, however, they are finding it very hard to survive. They are not making any money out of this; some of their own money is actually going in to keep the show on the road. The matter needs to be reviewed. I hope the Minister of State can look on my request favourably.
I am taking this Commencement matter on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, who sends her apologies for not being here this morning. I would like to thank the Senator for raising this issue, which is a key priority for the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, and for the Government. It will allow more people to engage in services that will allow them to remain independent and to live in their own homes with dignity and independence for as long as possible. Where this is not feasible, the health service supports access to quality long-term residential care, where this is appropriate. We will continue to develop and improve health services in all regions of the country to meet this objective and to ensure both quality and patient safety.
The 1993 regulation provided a framework for the operation of a boarding out scheme. The regulation included specific conditions relating to maintenance, care and welfare of an older person in a private home. The intention of the scheme was to provide social and personal care to older people who did not want to or who were not able to live on their own but who wanted to remain living in their community. The phrase that is important here is “local community”.
Under the regulations, the HSE must be satisfied that the house is suitable and that the householder is fit to look after the person who is being boarded out. The householder must provide suitable and sufficient care, nutritious and varied food and adequate attendance, having regard to the needs of the person. The householder must also respect the privacy of the person who is being boarded out. Not more than six people can be boarded out in one house. The regulation also sets out standards as to the suitability of the accommodation, including cleanliness, safety and other related matters. I am reading all this into the record because perhaps not too many people know about this. I genuinely believe that this, until I read it before the House morning, was one of the best-kept secrets. I personally also thank the Senator for raising this issue.
The regulations provide that the HSE may pay to the householder an amount not exceeding half the weekly rate of the non-contributory State pension which is payable at the time in respect of each person being boarded out. In addition, the person who is being boarded out must pay to the householder an amount which is agreed between the HSE, the householder and the person who is being boarded out.
The boarding out scheme has diminished over time. It is now only available in a limited number of areas across the country. At present, it is understood that there are only 17 boarding-out facilities across three community healthcare organisations. The HSE completed a review of the scheme in 2017 that concluded that an expansion of the scheme was warranted. While the use of the boarding out scheme by the HSE has traditionally been small, there is value in exploring it further. I would go so far as to say that this is relevant not just for older persons because we could also consider it within the area of disability.
The pandemic has highlighted the continuing importance of the need to support older people living in our community who wish to remain in their communities where they may otherwise be accommodated in residential care. I am pleased to advise the House that my colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for mental health and older persons, Deputy Butler, has requested that officials in the Department consider this model of care and the regulation for the scheme, as well as the rate of pay and implications of the rising costs associated with running these accommodations in the context of our overall commitment to enhancing opportunities for older people to stay in their homes and in their communities for longer.
What the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, has committed to doing is very welcome. I thank the Senator for raising this issue.
I thank the Minister of State. I appreciate that she is here on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Butler. I welcome in her statement the commitment by the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, to review this. However, my specific question was about pay rates, which should be addressed sooner rather than later. The regulations were introduced in 1993. In her statement, the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, said that is now being recommended that we would look at enhancing this model. The numbers are dropping off. She mentioned that there are only 17 registered care homes at the moment. Why is this so? It is because people are not able to financially to maintain them.
In theory, we might be saying that this is a brilliant model that we would love to expand but if we are not rewarding the people who are providing these fantastic facilities, there will be more and more dropping off. If the pricing model alone is not dealt with immediately, the next time we are back before the House having this conversation, I can guarantee the Minister of State that the figure of 17 that she quoted will have decreased and not increased, irrespective of how the Department or the HSE may value the model or think that it needs expanding.
I thank the Senator again. It is important to say the Government is committed to trying to establish schemes which are focused on prevention and early intervention in respect of appropriate care settings. The point that the Senator has just made is fair. The cost of this scheme is one eighth of the cost of going into a nursing home. It is also keeping people in their community. What the Senator described to me is a family network. However, at the end of the day, costs are rising. I will discuss it further with the Minister of State, Deputy Butler. There is also the fact that within the gift of the HSE locally we do not need to stand behind legislation. There is a word called “discretion”. If there is a need to support that particular house or any of the 17 houses, it should be looked at in the light that we look at all other providers in the areas of disability and older persons. We treat all equally.
The HSE is on record as saying that this needs to be done through legislation.
Okay.
Disability Services
At the outset I thank the Minister of State most sincerely for her recent visit to Monaghan, which was very well received. The feedback has been extremely positive. I wish to take this opportunity to thank her for her ongoing work within her portfolio.
This morning, I am urging the Minister of State to get the HSE to reconsider the transport charge that is being levelled at several juniors who are attending HSE day services in the community healthcare organisation, CHO, 1 area, which includes the counties of Monaghan, Cavan, Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim.
As the Minister of State will know, disability is unfortunately strongly associated with poverty in this country. Among people who are unable to work due to long-standing illness, one in three live on an income below the poverty line. Among those who are able to work, many people with a disability are unemployed. This is a classification where more than four in ten people live in poverty. People with a disability are twice as likely to be unable to afford to heat their home. Much help is needed in that regard with rising inflation costs.
In fact, a study that has recently been compiled by Indecon on behalf of the Department of Social Protection has found that the cost of having a disability is between €9,482 and €11,734 extra per year, on top of everyday expenses. As the Minister of State will be aware, disabled people and the households that include people with a disability have to spend more on items such as fuel and light, transport, therapeutic equipment, medical expenses, domestic services, equipment aids and appliances, mobility and communications, daily living costs and care and assistance.
It therefore seems inexplicable that a transport charge has been applied to service users who are attending HSE day services at €4 per trip or €20 per week, particularly when this levy is being applied exclusively to the CHO 1 area, which includes the counties that I mentioned earlier. These five counties are arguably the most isolated counties with regard to transport infrastructure in the entire country.
The daily charge of €4 amounts to a total of €960 per annum for a person with a disability. Naturally, there is now a genuine fear in families that their loved ones may not be able to avail of the service simply because of the cost. That would be heartbreaking. I am aware of one case locally where there are two attendees in a family. That will cost them almost €2,000 per annum, which is a huge amount of money. On top of that is the aforementioned cost of living with disability. I feel that this charge is very unfair. Apparently, the charge has been levied because the routes are deemed to be closed routes or exclusive routes. People who are using an open route can use their free travel pass, for example, on Bus Éireann. Unfortunately, this does not apply to this particular service. The problem with the CHO 1 area is that the routes are deemed to be closed.
The simple answer would appear to be to extend the free travel pass to include these particular routes. Maybe that is too simple. I await the Minister of State’s response on that. There is no issue with the service. The service is top class but unfortunately it is now getting to the stage where many families simply cannot afford it. I acknowledge that since the Minister of State has come into office, she has been a champion for people with disabilities. I now ask her to champion this cause on behalf of the service users of Monaghan, Cavan, Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal.
I thank the Senator for raising this important issue. There is no pressure attached. It is important to state that the HSE has no statutory responsibility for providing transport to day services and that transport to day services is not usually provided for service users. At the same time I would preface that by saying that the HSE, under disability, spends in excess of €40 million every year on transport, while it provides no transport. I am trying to work that out myself and that is why I have taken ownership of the chair of the transport committee, where I have put everybody around the table to look at all available routes. It is not only that but it is also to look at the primary medical certificates, the blue badge and everything.
There is an inequality in CHO 1. It charges €4 per day and the Senator is right that it is a closed route option. It is not part of the open routes and if it was part of that, there would be no charge whatsoever on it. On the other hand I have to compliment CHO 1 for doing this. It meant that no service user lost a day service. In other CHOs they have paid for the transport and reduced the service users' attendance at the day services whereas in Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Cavan and Monaghan they came up with the €4 per day charge in order that people would not lose access to their day services, which was a balancing measure. I do not think that was right and transport is being provided for people attending day services in other CHOs, so why would it not be provided equally and on the same basis in all CHOs? It is the only CHO in the country where you have to pay €4.
In Leitrim, the Local Link has been running a pilot, which has been positive, and we need to see that expanded. We need to move away from closed routes to open routes, and those open routes have a benefit for the climate and the locality. Such a HSE open routes model could be used for older persons as well as for persons with a disability. It could also possibly be used for people who need to access a medical appointment. They could all be accommodated within the same running time as opposed to running the bus first thing in the morning just for the disability service, then running it later on in the day to go to the day centre with older persons and perhaps running it later on in the day for people who need hospital appointments. A little bit more collaboration and joined-up thinking is what is required in order that we can have open routes, which would be funded through the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport needs to do that because there needs to be equitable access to all routes, regardless of location. To be fair to the Department of Transport, it has done phenomenal work since I have come into office in expanding its Local Link service and in making its fleet far more accessible and better integrated. Perhaps this is something I will take further. One of the reasons I have had these conversations is to see how we can address the inequality of the €4 charge in CHO 1 versus the other eight CHOs that do not have a charge.
I thank the Minister of State for her response. I join the Minister of State in complimenting all those involved in the Local Link service. It is a fantastic service and there is serious potential to expand that even further, as the Minister of State outlined, and I look forward to that. I am heartened by the Minister of State's comments on her input into having a look at the charge being applied in CHO 1 only. It is unfair to the service users involved, and I would welcome it if on their behalf the Minister of State did all in her power to ensure citizens living in CHO 1 are treated no differently than citizens elsewhere and that this unfair charge is removed as soon as possible.
It is important to say that the reason that charge is in place is to ensure that there is a service. That was the decision that was taken at an executive level and within the HSE at a local level a number of years ago. The Senator clearly outlined the challenge this is putting before families that have more than one family member who needs to attend a day service. It is on my agenda, I chair that committee and I work closely with Edel Quinn, with whom I have had those conversations. I compliment the local HSE as it did not remove the service for the service users and it did not find other ways of trying to pay the bill. It was totally upfront and it has been transparent but at the same time it is allowing people to have their full five-day service, as opposed to giving a five-day service where only four days can really be provided because the fifth day is being used to pay for the bus. As that goes on too, it is important to have an open conversation on this but I do not like the fact that we pay for it in one CHO and we do not in others. That is an inequality and the solution is to have more open routes. By having more open routes we have more accessibility for the inclusion of other people, not just disabled people, to access the service. Older people and people who need to go to appointments could access these routes as well.
Qualifications Recognition
I thank the Minister of State for taking the time to come in to respond to this issue. I am proud of Ireland's response to the crisis in Ukraine and to the invasion by Russia. We can also be pleased that there has been a cross-continental and global response to that and as members of the European Union, we can be proud of how our political Union has responded. In Ireland the Government deserves credit but so do communities and at the local level people deserve credit for how they have welcomed Ukrainians into this country and done whatever they can to assist them. There is still a lot of work to be done on that front and there are a number of actions that need to be taken.
I am conscious of Resolution 2436 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and what it has set out as a checklist of things we should be doing. First is legislating for the crime of aggression, something that is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and something that was part of the Kampala amendments to the convention in 2010, led by Liechtenstein and which Ireland signed up to in 2018. That followed the UN General Assembly resolution which stated that aggression includes, for example, the bombing of another country, invasion and the blockading of ports, all of which we see happening in Ukraine. It would be appropriate for Ireland, therefore, to legislate for that crime as well. Other measures would include a universal civil jurisdiction that would allow us to freeze and confiscate foreign assets, particularly Russian assets in Europe and Ireland, to allow them to be put towards the reconstruction of Ukraine after the invasion concludes. Now that Russia has essentially been put out of the Council of Europe, we have a limited window within which we can bring a suit against Russia for breaches of the convention under Article 33. That window closes on 16 September and Ireland should be looking at that as something to do in order to put down a clear marker. I am also conscious that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, and the Government have earmarked €4 million in support for the International Criminal Court, ICC, which I support. Some €1 million of that has been delivered and €3 million is yet to be delivered. I wonder if consideration should be given to that remaining €3 million going to the Ukrainian prosecutor on the ground. As counsel before the ICC but also as somebody who has spoken to the prosecutor in Ukraine, I believe they have a greater ability to affect that on the ground.
In following the recommendation of the European Commission on the recognition of professional qualifications, this is a key area where Ireland can deliver for Ukrainian professionals who have come here and to any other European state. It covers education, healthcare, engineering and law and includes people who come here with a particular qualification or skill set. In accordance with the 2001 directive on the minimum standards for people enjoying temporary protection, for example, we must facilitate them in working here, either in an employed context or in a self-employed context. Although the recommendation may not be legally binding, it sets out a clear statement and in the first instance I would like Ireland to confirm if we are totally in accordance with that recommendation. What are we doing as a State to say to professional regulatory bodies that we must implement this recommendation, facilitate Ukrainians coming here and ensure that they can work and be part of the community for as long as is needed? They should be able to integrate into a professional environment here with the greatest possible ease and the least possible bureaucratic resistance.
What this is about is facilitating people who do not particularly want to be in Ireland. They are here because a conflict has exploded in their home country. When they come here, they should be facilitated in continuing their lives in as normal a way as possible, however perverse that might be in the current circumstances. That involves the Government putting pressure on those regulatory bodies to ensure that the recommendation of the Commission is followed.
Before the Minister of State responds, I am under strict instructions from Senator Clifford-Lee to give a warm welcome to very important guests in the Visitors Gallery, the students from Ardgillan Community College in Balbriggan and their teachers, Mr. Walsh and Ms McGuinness. You are very welcome.
I, too, welcome our guests from Ardgillan Community College.
I thank the Senator for raising this matter. The Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy Harris, and his Department are committed to providing every support possible for Ukrainian citizens who are seeking the recognition of their qualifications in Ireland, be it to further their education, to pursue employment opportunities or to practise a profession that is regulated. Through the National Academic Recognition Information Centre, NARIC, Ireland, a service hosted and operated by Quality and Qualifications Ireland, QQI, advice can be readily obtained, free of charge, on the academic recognition of foreign qualifications. This service compares foreign qualifications to major award types and levels on the Irish national framework of qualifications, NFQ, which sets these foreign qualifications clearly into an Irish context. QQI's NARIC database currently lists 18 Ukrainian qualifications, comparable to levels 3 to 10 on the NFQ, which includes general professional, further and higher education qualifications. NARIC Ireland is working with the wider NARIC network across Europe to continue building the list of Ukrainian qualifications, and this is a current priority.
Any Ukrainian citizen who wishes to practise a regulated profession in Ireland is advised to engage with the relevant competent authority with responsibility for that profession to seek the recognition of his or her professional qualifications. This is crucial to ensure Ukrainian people can pursue opportunities in their profession of choice. Indeed, many of these authorities have already reached out to engage with the Ukrainian community in Ireland and have published dedicated material on their websites to assist Ukrainian applicants. The Department has been providing critical support to the work of these competent authorities by sharing best-practice material supplied by the European Commission on the recognition of Ukrainian professional qualifications. This includes working with and supporting these authorities as they implement the recently published Commission recommendation on the recognition of qualifications for people fleeing Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This Commission recommendation was published last month and provides competent authorities with guidance and practical advice to ensure a quick, fair and flexible recognition process for Ukrainian refugees. In addition, these competent authorities have been advised of further information resources from NARIC Ireland that will assist in their work, alongside toolkits and resources developed by the EU and UNESCO to assist in dealing with cases of where refugees do not have complete evidence or documentation of their qualifications.
The Minister and the Department are continuing to work with our national competent authorities, their parent Departments, the European Commission and other member states on the recognition of professional qualifications of Ukrainian people and the implementation of the Commission recommendation to ensure an appropriate EU-wide response. I will bring the Senator's points regarding the Council of Europe and the International Criminal Court to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, as well.
I appreciate what the Minister of State said about what Ireland is doing. I welcome the fact that progress is being made in this area. I also welcome the fact that some professions are specifically moving in this direction to facilitate Ukrainian refugees. Others are not, however, and I am aware of specific individuals in Ireland who are having difficulty having their Ukrainian professional qualifications recognised here. The Minister of State is quite right to say that each professional regulatory body has to deal with that in the way that is appropriate. That is included in the recommendation from the Commission. However, it is also important for the Government to send out a clear message to all professional regulatory bodies that this is important and is something that must be pursued and advanced in a concrete way in the coming weeks and months. It is not something they can wait for many months to implement. Let us implement the recommendation from the Commission and ensure that Ukrainian nurses, doctors, lawyers and engineers who come to Ireland can make use of their professional qualifications and skills, work here and contribute here in the way we know they want to.
I thank the Senator for his contribution on this issue. As I said, the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science is committed to providing every support possible for Ukrainian citizens who are seeking the recognition of their qualifications in Ireland, be it to further their education, to pursue employment opportunities or to practise a profession that is regulated. The Department is committed to continuing to work with the national competent authorities, their parent Departments, the European Commission and other member states on the recognition of professional qualifications of Ukrainian people and the implementation of the Commission recommendation to ensure an appropriate EU-wide response. I will speak to the Minister directly about any professional regulatory bodies that are tardy in their response to the need that exists.
Wildlife Protection
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I am raising the issue of rodenticide poisoning of raptors, particularly barn owls. Our bird populations are collapsing due to habitat loss but also as a result of deliberate and accidental poisoning. There is no need to tell the Minister of State that our native birds of prey are key indicator species of the health of our ecosystems and they are a critical part of our natural heritage.
The recording and addressing persecution and threats to our raptors, RAPTOR, protocol, which was introduced in 2011, was welcome. It set in place a formal procedure for investigations of bird of prey deaths and it has allowed us to build up a database of information on the causes of death of raptors through the collection and handling of carcases and evidence, toxicological testing, post mortems and X-rays. The most recently available report I could find is from 2019. What is very worrying about that report is that it shows the highest number of deaths of birds of prey. Rodenticide poisons were the most prevalent poisons found in birds of prey. The RAPTOR protocol 2019 report clearly states that the protocol includes the monitoring of incidents of poisoning in species vulnerable to secondary poisoning by rodenticides. There is particular concern about the barn owl, the kestrel, the buzzard, the red kite and the long-eared owl.
The reason I raise this today is that those who are involved in wildlife rehabilitation and the Barn Owl Project are concerned that testing for secondary poisoning is not happening or is not happening at a consistent rate. In Britain, where monitoring for secondary poisoning is taking place, it has been found that 88% of barn owls are likely to have been affected by rodenticide poisoning. Ireland has a much higher rate of use of rodenticide so if it is 88% in our nearest neighbour, it is more than likely much higher in Ireland. Can the Minister of State confirm that the RAPTOR protocol is being fully implemented in terms of testing for secondary poisoning? Could he consult with his colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on the broader issue of the use of rodenticides?
We have dealt with this general issue previously. I have spoken in the House about metaldehyde in slug pellets.
The real issue is that members of the public can get their hands on very dangerous chemicals. I do not doubt for a second that people are doing this deliberately. In the vast majority of cases, people put out poison to kill slugs because they love their garden plants or to reduce the number of rodents about the place. However, these poisons have serious implications for wildlife. Can the Government arrange a public awareness campaign about the damage that can be done by using these poisons? For example, one cannot buy a box of cigarettes without an image on the box that shows the damage that cigarettes do to one's health. When people walk into a hardware store, we need them to know full well the possible implications of using these chemicals and offer alternatives. We know that barn owls can eat up to 1,000 rodents a year, so it would be far better for farmers to have one on their land than use rodenticide. Of course, there are inconsistencies in terms of the use of rodenticide and farmers' obligations under the Common Agricultural Policy. I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister of State.
I thank the Senator for her Commencement matter. It is always good to talk about biodiversity in the Seanad even if it is a negative issue. It is important to highlight important points, particularly the poisoning of raptors. I take on board the specific points she made about testing and a public awareness campaign, which I will address in a follow-up response.
Ireland is home to more than 14 species of breeding raptors. Some species are largely resident, for example, the kestrel and the barn owl, with others visiting Ireland largely in winter, such as the snowy owl, or on passage in early spring and late summer, such as the hobby or osprey.
Various natural, environmental and anthropogenic factors lead to mortality incidents within the populations of Ireland's raptor species and can affect their conservation status. These include sub-optimal prey availability and habitat suitability that is compounded by prolonged periods of inclement weather; collisions with traffic on road and rail networks, wind turbines, etc.; disease, including avian influenza; persecution via direct shooting or deliberate poisoning; and environmental pollution, for example, by their feeding on dead or moribund rodents that have ingested rodenticide, which is the issue being discussed here today. This particular factor can lead to what is known as secondary poisoning as the bird does not feed on the poison itself directly.
Since 2011, my staff have worked collaboratively with the regional veterinary laboratory service of the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine, and the State Laboratory, to determine the cause of death of raptor carcasses that have been recovered from around the country under the RAPTOR protocol, which is the Recording and Addressing Persecution and Threats to Our Raptors protocol. The protocol already includes testing for secondary poisoning in raptors.
As part of the protocol, liver and stomach samples are routinely taken from each viable carcass. The samples are subjected to a range of toxicological testing to identify and quantify, where possible, the concentrations of particular analytes or components in the samples. These analyses allow for the detection of substances that are used to deliberately target raptors and also substances that may be prevalent in the wider countryside such as second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, SGARs, that are used to control rodents. As the Senator mentioned, rodents constitute part of the diet of many raptor species, such as barn owl. The suite of substances that are routinely tested for include those used to deliberately target raptors, such as carbofuran, alphachloralose and methiocarb, as well as a whole suite of SGARs, including brodifacoum, flucomafen and difenacoum. It should be noted that raptors are the most effective way to control rodents. The Senator rightly said that many farmers are now seeing the benefit of having barn owls on their farms in terms of bringing a balance both to nature and habitats.
With relevant stakeholders, my staff are looking at the breadth of potential testing concerning the current monitoring of contaminants in raptors. Furthermore, my staff are working to update the existing service level agreement with the State Laboratory and the regional veterinary laboratory service. This will allow the current RAPTOR protocol to continue to operate, and allows us to effectively detect and monitor a range of environmental contaminants, including rodenticides, which are prevalent in the organs and tissues of these top predators. It is vital to have this information not just for national purposes, so that we understand the impact of such poisoning on our raptor populations, but also in the European-wide context, with the aim of reducing chemical risks to raptors, to the wider environment and to human health. Reports on the protocol are prepared annually and made available on the website of the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. I welcome the confirmation that the protocol will continue and that the service level agreement is being updated. I ask him to confirm a timeline for the completion of that process. I ask him to confirm also whether testing will be expanded so that we can have a complete picture of the current state of the raptor population and thus address the issue of poisoning. I ask him to touch on my idea of the Government arranging a public awareness campaign that informs people who may be unaware of the damage that is done to wildlife due to people having access to these very dangerous chemicals.
The Senator's idea to have a public awareness campaign is a good one. I must advise that any such campaign would need to be led by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.
The Senator mentioned that these toxins are available on the shelves of garden centres and other stores. Another issue is the storage of carbofuran and other toxins that have been banned because they may still be available on farms. Perhaps a call for people to deposit these products at a secure facility would be a really useful way to address the amount of toxins that are out there. We will raise the issue of a public awareness campaign with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and I will get back to the Senator about a timeline for the service level agreement.
Finally, I reiterate that it is illegal to persecute or poison a raptor either directly or indirectly. My Department takes wildlife crime very seriously and in a number of instances there has been a successful outcome to cases that were brought to court over the direct poisoning of raptors. We take the issue very seriously and I welcome the fact that the Senator raised this issue today.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 11.17 a.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 11.32 a.m.
Sitting suspended at 11.17 a.m. and resumed at 11.32 a.m.