Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Oct 2005

Vol. 607 No. 3

Adjournment Debate.

Mental Health Services.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise the issue of A Better Future Now, a position statement on the psychiatric services for children and adolescents in Ireland, which was published in September by the Irish College of Psychiatrists. I congratulate the Irish College of Psychiatrists, especially its sub-group, Dr. Brendan Doody, Dr. Amanda Burke, Dr. Brenda Dowling, Dr. Finbarr O'Leary, Dr. Philip Tyndall and Dr. Sarah Buckley, for the excellent work they have done.

In excess of 200,000 children have a mental or behavioural problem at any one time. In excess of 100,000 will have a mild disorder, 80,000 will have a moderate to severe disorder and 20,000 will have a disabling disorder. According to the Irish College of Psychiatry, which drew its information from reports in the Minister's possession — this document is based on reports to the Minister — to effectively deal with this serious problem would require 236 inpatient psychiatric beds. Currently there are 20 beds in two units based in Galway and Dublin.

To effectively respond to the psychiatric needs of these children requires 150 consultant child and adolescent psychiatric posts. Currently there are 62 psychiatrists in this field of the profession. The lack of psychotherapists, family therapists, clinical psychologists, occupational therapists and other key staff seriously inhibits the internationally acknowledged best practice for the provision of child and adolescent psychiatry services through multidisciplinary teams.

There is currently no capacity in child and adolescent psychiatric services to provide for children in the 16 and 17 age group. There is an urgent need to establish a specialist outpatient team providing a regional service with an inpatient facility to specialise in eating disorders. The report points out that there is no dedicated facility for those suffering from eating disorders.

The World Health Organisation states: "The lack of attention to the mental health of children and adolescents may lead to mental disorders with lifelong consequences, undermines compliance with health regiments and reduces the capacity of societies to be safe and productive".

Given the level of mental illness in children, the provision of adequate and sufficient children's mental health services should be a priority. For children who require mental health interventions, services and supports are seriously out of step with need. There is limited availability of the appropriate range of services, including those in primary care, community care, inpatient services, day centres, rehabilitation services and outreach services to provide support in the home and school.

The frequent need for urgent responses to problems presented by adolescents leads services to deal disproportionately with adolescents at the expense of their work with young children, thereby preventing useful early intervention which has a secondary preventative value.

I am struck by the international comparisons of the ratio of the number of child and adolescent consultant psychiatrists to the child and adolescent population. Having some knowledge of the Finnish system and its pioneering work in the area of suicide prevention in the early 1990s, I note that Finland has a ratio of one child psychiatrist to 6,000 children. In Ireland, the figure is one psychiatrist to 16,150 children.

In 2003, 11,200 children and adults, mostly adolescents, presented at accident and emergency departments in our hospitals having attempted suicide. We do not know the true figures, however, and there is no information on those who were treated at general practitioner level or the many who, because of stigma, did not seek help. It was indicated to us yesterday that the figure is probably double the 11,500, approximately 20,000, as stated in the Joint Committee on Health and Children. Over 40% of suicides are preceded by a previous attempt. Suicide is nearly always related to mental and behavioural disorder and the availability of accessible mental health services is of vital importance in any suicide prevention programme.

The report outlines that the recommended service level for children up to the age of 18 years would require an extra annual expenditure of approximately €80 million and a capital investment of approximately €180 million. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the €180 million is similar to the amount spent on PPARS and the €80 million is similar to the amount spent on consultants for PPARS. What happened in that case would fund the total capital investment and the ongoing investment for one year. Since 1997, the proportion of the health budget has dropped substantially and we would like the Minister to address that in the budget.

Having closely worked with Amnesty International in drawing up its report, Mental Illness: The Neglected Quarter, I will conclude by quoting from the report. It states: "Amnesty International is concerned that Ireland does not comply with its international obligations in the treatment of children with or at risk of mental illness".

I thank Deputy Neville for raising this matter on today's Adjournment.

As the Deputy is aware, in June 2000, a working group on child and adolescent psychiatry was established to make recommendations on the way child and adolescent psychiatric services should be developed in the short, medium and long-term to meet identified needs. The working group's first report considered the development of services for the management and treatment of attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADD-ADHD. All aspects of the presentation, diagnosis, treatment and management of children suffering from ADD and ADHD were considered by the working group in the course of its deliberations.

In its report, published in March 2001, the different components of treatment required were set out and the importance of adequate linkages with other services, such as education services and the community health services, were emphasised.

The group recommended the enhancement and expansion of the overall child and adolescent psychiatric service as the most effective means of providing the required service for children with this condition. The working group found that the internationally acknowledged best practice for the provision of child and adolescent psychiatric services is through the multidisciplinary team.

The first report also recommended that a total of seven child and adolescent inpatient psychiatric units for children ranging from six to 16 years should be developed throughout the country. Project teams have been established to develop child and adolescent inpatient psychiatric units in Cork, Limerick, Galway and one in the Eastern Regional Health Authority area at St. Vincent's Hospital, Fairview. Approval was given earlier this year for the selection of project design teams for the units in Cork, Limerick and Galway. The second report of the working group, published in June 2003, contains proposals for the development of psychiatric services for people in the age group 16 to 18 years old. It recommends that, in the further development of the child and adolescent psychiatric service, priority should be given to the recruitment in each health board area of a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist with a special interest in the psychiatric disorders of later adolescence.

The working group's report further recommends that arrangements should be made with the relevant adult services for the admission to acute psychiatric units of persons aged 16 to 18 years, under the care of the consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist with a special interest in the psychiatric disorders of later adolescence, where such a consultant is available. It also recommends that consideration be given to the development of specialist adolescent units particularly in the greater Dublin area.

The report emphasises the importance of co-operation and close liaison between child and adolescent mental health services and adult mental health services and suggests that the current arrangements, whereby the adult services provide a service to the population of their catchment area, including the 16 to 18 years age cohort, should continue on an interim basis, pending the development of the specialist service referred to earlier.

The development of child and adolescent psychiatric services has been a priority in recent years. Since 1997 additional revenue funding of more than €20 million has been provided to allow for the appointment of additional consultants in child and adolescent psychiatry for the enhancement of existing consultant-led multidisciplinary teams, and towards the establishment of further teams. This has resulted in the funding of a further 23 child and adolescent consultant psychiatrists. Nationally, there are now 56 such psychiatrists employed.

An expert group on mental health policy was established in 2003 to examine all aspects of our mental health services. This group consists of 18 highly experienced people serving in their personal capacity. The membership encompasses a wide range of knowledge and a balance of views on many issues affecting the performance and delivery of care in our mental health services.

The group requested submissions from interested organisations, individuals and the general public in October 2003 and received almost 150 submissions which it is considering. It has been decided also to undertake further consultation initiatives with various stakeholders, including users of the mental health services.

The group is examining the future direction and delivery of our child and adolescent psychiatric services and is taking into account the document to which Deputy Neville refers. The expert group is on target to complete its work later this year.

Decentralisation Programme.

Is there someone here from the Department of Finance to take this question?

I am here to take it on behalf of the Minister of State at the Department of Finance.

This is most unsatisfactory. I have been in the House for long enough to know that when people are abroad or engaged in ministerial business and so on they cannot be in the Chamber. However, both the Minister for Finance and the Minister of State were in this Chamber a couple of minutes ago.

It is a calculated insult to the House, and shows disrespect to a Member of the House who has raised a matter for debate. I propose to adjourn the matter until next week when the relevant Minister is available.

I agree with Deputy Walsh. They are watching the match.

Grocery Industry.

Like Deputy Walsh I wish to know whether the Minister will take this or who will do so? Am I left also without a Minister?

I apologise. I offered to do this on behalf of the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon. I see my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Browne, coming into the House to take this matter.

I am here to take Deputy Naughten's Adjournment matter.

In that case we should take Deputy Naughten rather than adjourn the House.

On a point of order, is there any plan in place for either the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment or the Minister for Agriculture and Food to take my Adjournment matter?

That is not a matter for the Chair to decide. It is arranged between Ministers.

I detect that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is in the House.

If Deputy Sargent wishes to proceed he should do so. If he does not wish to proceed——

I will proceed but the Minister has just arrived in a hurry.

The Deputy has used up almost two minutes of his time.

The Ceann Comhairle must share my frustration. I thank the Minister for coming in a little sooner than he expected to do. He deals regularly with the groceries order and I want to bring to his attention the situation as it applies to constituents of mine who feel particularly vulnerable at the prospect of the groceries order being abolished, or changed in a way that will not take account of their situation.

I refer particularly to the dairy farmers in my constituency. They have suffered for many years and their numbers have dwindled from 200 in the 1960s to 22 in the north of the county. Their cost base has been growing throughout that time. Quota prices have been cut from €2.50 to €2. Since enactment of the legislation on veterinary prescriptions the cost of veterinary care is growing, particularly for mastitis.

I ask the Minister to examine the practice in the retail sector whereby essential items such as milk or bread become the focus of low-cost selling. These items are used as quite ruthless retail methods to bring people into a shop and so increase competition. The producer is the victim of this practice. The portion of income spent here on food continues to fall, a trend that is bad for both the economic and physical health of the country. As the Minister is a former Minister for Health and Children he no doubt has an interest in that matter too.

I ask him to take into account when considering the groceries order that the Irish Farmers Association and many others have argued strongly that the trend making it difficult for liquid milk producers to stay in business will push many over the edge. Already there is the case of imported milk being brought to Virginia to make a so-called Irish cream liqueur. The basis of our economic success is to include traceability and provide an authentic product. The Minister should note that this will be difficult to maintain, as will the livelihoods depending on it, if we do away with the groceries order.

The number of registered milk producers has dropped in the past ten years by more than 22% from 3,500 to 2,700. Due to increased productivity the volumes of milk produced remain relatively stable and that hides the reality that fewer people are able to earn their livelihood from primary food production, particularly in the liquid milk sector.

If I had more time I would discuss the other sectors such as fresh produce. The vegetable sector is suffering considerably. The number of potato growers in my constituency and around the country declined by more than 50% in the past eight years. Vegetable growers declined by 40% in the past five years. As a former Minister for Health and Children, the Minister will appreciate that we must prioritise food in the retail sector, and the livelihood of the producers. If we abolish the groceries order without taking account of the primary producers, particularly the liquid milk producers, we will become more dependent on imports that will have neither the traceability nor quality of food produced here. Neither will they have the same quality since food miles are not simply a matter of the energy consumed. The closer the food is produced to the consumer, the better its quality and dependability. I ask the Minister to take account of the salient facts that have been strongly brought to my attention by liquid milk producers in my constituency, reflecting a nationwide concern that the groceries order stands between livelihood and oblivion for many. I ask the Minister to ensure that it is maintained on that basis.

I thank Deputy Sargent for raising this matter on the Adjournment.

At the outset, I should state that I have no role regarding quota prices received by dairy farmers. Most of that area has normally been dealt with at European level regarding the various reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy. My colleagues, the former and present Ministers for Agriculture and Food, Deputies Walsh and Coughlan, have performed in an exemplary fashion in negotiations on behalf of Irish farmers.

Deputy Coughlan reduced the quota.

The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, is also in the Department of Agriculture and Food. Generally speaking, we are known throughout Europe as protectors of farmers, along with France and a few others.

The Minister should wait for the next debate.

That is the reality throughout Europe. It is equally important to point out that the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order 1987 does not cover vegetables, and when people talk about such matters, how can we blame it? If it were removed next week, it would be convenient for people to blame it for everything that has happened in recent years, which Deputy Sargent has articulated. I am aware of the importance of competition in all sections of the economy and at all levels of markets for goods and services in the State, including the supply, wholesale and retail levels of the Irish grocery market.

The Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order 1987 contains several provisions aimed at curbing anti-competitive practices such as below-cost selling, so-called hello money and boycotting. The order covers all grocery goods, as well as intoxicating liquor and other household goods ordinarily sold in grocery shops. However, it does not cover fresh fruit, vegetables, fresh or frozen meat or fish. Enforcement of the order is the responsibility of the Director of Consumer Affairs.

Since its introduction, the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order 1987 has continued to be contentious and provoke much debate. The most controversial provision in the order is the ban on below-cost selling or, more correctly, the prohibition on selling at below net invoice price, which is really what the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order 1987 is. Those who oppose the order argue that this provision prevents retailers from passing on to consumers any discounts or rebates that they receive from suppliers not shown on the invoice. In many respects, the order does not protect suppliers from the demands of retailers, since the latter can demand higher discounts from suppliers, and very often do. There is a lack of transparency in that regard. It is a myth that the order protects suppliers against the big multiples. It does not.

Members will be aware that in March 2005 the Government-appointed consumer strategy group recommended that the order be revoked in its entirety. However, the report acknowledged that there are strong arguments to be made on either side of the debate. For example, listing the arguments that it received for retaining the order, the consumer strategy group noted that suppliers considered that a fair trading environment helped them to increase production and employment in the sector. On the other hand, the group noted the report of the competition and mergers review group which in 2000 stated that "the main case against the groceries order is a simple one: it restricts price competition".

Accordingly, the Government, at its meeting on 3 May 2005, agreed with my proposal to undertake a public consultation process on the future of the order. Advertisements were placed in the national press on 18 May and interested parties were invited to submit their views on the future of the order by the end of July. There was a great response to the consultation process, with 561 submissions received from a wide range of parties, including trade groups, producers, retailers and a significant number from the public. Submissions were also received from producer interests, including the Irish Farmers Association and the ICMSA.

Those submissions have all been considered, and a comprehensive report on the consultation process is being finalised in the Department. I expect that the report will include recommendations regarding what action is appropriate on the order, and I will carefully consider its findings before making recommendations to the Government.

I appreciate that many producers and retailers have strong views on the order and many do not agree with the consumer strategy group's call for its repeal. However, I am also aware that suppliers are already under pressure to reduce costs as a consequence of competitive market forces. That is a fact of commercial life and has little or nothing to do with the operation of the groceries order. The Irish retail groceries sector has changed immensely since the order was introduced 18 years ago, with small, independent operators facing increased competition from the expanding multiples. One significant development in that regard has been the entry of the German discounters, Aldi and Lidl, which have acquired a significant foothold in the Irish market and plan to expand further.

That continued expansion by the multiples has increased competition in the sector, giving consumers more choice than ever before, and I welcome any positive measures that provide additional competition and benefits for consumers. However, I also recognise the continuing important role played by the smaller operators in the sector. I am pleased to see the way that many of the independents and non-multiple groups have responded to that increasing competition by developing their operations.

I am already on record as saying that the retention of the order in its current form is not a tenable proposition as the structure and trading practices of the groceries market have changed very considerably since the order was produced in 1987. However, I assure the House that I will obviously carefully consider my Department's report on the outcome of the public consultation process in detail before I bring any proposals to the Government on the future of the order.

Milk is on——

I call Deputy Naughten.

Animal Diseases.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise this very important issue on the Adjournment.

Last Monday there was confirmation of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the Brazilian herd. Before that, countries such as the United States, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea had already banned the importation of beef from Brazil because of the risk of importing foot and mouth disease.

I understand that earlier today the Minister for Agriculture and Food announced a proposal to ban Brazilian beef from specified regions. That does not go far enough since all Brazilian beef should be banned immediately. The reason that I call for such a ban and that the Minister's action is inadequate is that the most recent EU Food and Veterinary Office report on the Brazilian beef industry, carried out in May 2004, expressed serious concerns about such issues as animal traceability, vaccinations, animal movement systems and slaughterhouse hygiene. The office found in the case of Brazil that significant food safety issues persist. Such deficiencies are of serious concern to Ireland given that Brazil is our largest supplier of imported beef.

In early 2003, when the office previously inspected the control systems in place in Brazil from the farm to export stage, similar complaints regarding the structures in place were identified. It is of considerable concern that the inadequacies regarding hygiene and traceability systems in Brazil remain unresolved, based on the most up-to-date information available. Deficiencies identified in that report include identification and certification of animals, farm registration and movement controls. Even the central database had several inconsistencies in it. However, the two most damning comments in that report concerned the control of EU exports, the first stating that: "A number of deficiencies identified in respect of animal identification and movement control undermine the possibility to trace back to the farm of origin." The second was: "Mistakes were noted in respect of the examination of muzzles for FMD in one establishment and no strict separation between EU and non-EU eligible meat in the chilling rooms in another."

If the Minister is talking about a partial ban on the importation of beef, both those concerns raised by the EU Food and Veterinary Office are a damning indictment of the proposal and the decision by the Minister today. Those comments were made by an independent agency appointed by the EU to carry out such inspections, but the Minister is prepared to ignore that information and only ban beef from certain regions in Brazil.

I would like the Minister of State to answer two simple questions. First, why was the inspection of the Brazilian meat industry due to take place last April postponed after it had emerged that the Brazilian tagging and traceability scheme had been abandoned? How, when those systems are not in place, can the Government reassure farmers that their animals are protected from the risk of foot and mouth disease and the public that there is no real or significant threat to the Irish economy? An outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country would have a disastrous impact on the economy as the national herd and the economic survival of livestock farmers are at stake.

The Minister's piecemeal approach is entirely inappropriate. It is imperative that there is an immediate and outright ban on Brazilian beef. When the Minister decided to act on this, she should have done so with conviction by taking the only course of action that would ensure the protection of our national herd and our economy. Instead of keeping the situation under review, the Minister must take decisive action to shut down the importation of Brazilian beef.

I thank Deputy Naughten for raising this important issue. An outbreak of foot and mouth disease in cattle and pigs was confirmed on a farm in the Eldorado district of Mato Grosso do Sul in the southern part of Brazil on 8 October 2005. This development was communicated to the OIE, the World Organisation for Animal Health, on 9 October 2005. The OlE indicated that the disease virus type is currently unknown and that the Brazilian authorities have implemented controls in the district where the outbreak was detected and in contiguous districts to prevent any movement of animals and animal products.

The European Commission assessed these measures and today presented a proposal to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, on which my Department was represented, to suspend imports of de-boned and matured beef, not alone from the regions of Mato Grosso do Sul and Parana but also São Paulo. This will be effected by amendment of Council Decision 79/542/EC. The implementation of today's decision will have a significant impact on exports of beef from Brazil to the EU.

In regard to trade in agricultural products, the EU generally applies the so-called regionalisation principle which allows trade to continue from unaffected regions. In practice, this means that where there is a disease outbreak, restrictions on trade are applied to products from the affected region while trade can continue from other unaffected parts of that country or region. This principle was applied to trade here during the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001.

Detailed EU legislation lays down the conditions member states must apply to the production of and trade in products of animal origin, including meat, as well as to imports of these products from third countries. It is a requirement that animal products imported from third countries meet standards at least equivalent to those required for production in and trade between member states. All such imports must come from third countries or areas of third countries approved for export to the EU.

I am satisfied that the action agreed today is the appropriate response to the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Brazil. We will keep the position under close review in conjunction with the European Commission and other member states. Council Decision 79/542/EC establishes the sanitary conditions for the importation into the EU of certain live animals and the meat and meat products of such animals. It details the areas of third countries that are approved for the production and export of animals and meat products to the EU as well as the model health certification that must be provided by the competent authority of the exporting country.

The Commission's caution in proposing to extend the scope of the measure to include the region of São Paulo is to be commended. The Commission made this proposal on the basis of concerns in regard to the possible movement of animals from the area where the outbreak was reported. The Commission's proposal was adopted by the standing committee this afternoon. Accordingly, beef produced in the regions and from cattle slaughtered since 29 September 2005 may not now be traded.

The measures have immediate effect throughout the EU and are being applied to imports by my Department's approved border inspection posts, BIPs. Imported meat can only enter the EU through an approved BIP where it is subjected to veterinary examination and public health checks in accordance with EU requirements. Each member state is responsible for carrying out the BIP checks on its territory. The EU Food and Veterinary Office, monitors the application of import controls by BIPs throughout the EU.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 13 October 2005.
Barr
Roinn