Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 13 Nov 2012

Vol. 782 No. 3

Topical Issue Debate

Job Creation Issues

I welcome the opportunity to address this matter with the Minister. I raise it because of the low number of visits to Laois and Offaly by companies invited here by IDA Ireland. The figures are actually unbelievable and astounding. I have raised this locally and regionally with IDA Ireland. I welcome the fact that the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, is present. He will recall my raising this in his office last year with representatives of industry and commerce from Laois and Offaly, the county manager and other Deputies. The taxpayers of Laois and Offaly are wondering what is happening in regard to their contribution to the IDA Ireland's budget of €86 million, which I understand is its allocation. Given the number of visits to counties Laois and Offaly last year, one wonders how such a cost arises. If the NRA and Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport stopped funding roads in the area, the people of counties Laois and Offaly would not be expected to pay road tax.

The figures are absolutely astounding. In the past three years there have been but two IDA Ireland-organised visits to County Laois by prospective companies.

There have not been any visits so far in 2012. There were two in the entire three year period in County Laois. County Offaly has had nine visits: seven in 2010, one in 2011 and one so far in 2012, yet Laois has had only two. In the same period Dublin had 484 visits. I understand that the capital city would have more visits as it is a large population area but Laois and Offaly should have had more than two. There is a major discrepancy in that regard. I understand IDA Ireland's budget is €86 million, which is a huge amount of money, and those of us in Laois and Offaly are wondering about our part of that.

There are huge opportunities in Laois and Offaly There are enterprise centres and vacant IDA Ireland premises across the counties in Portlaoise, Mountrath, Mountmellick, Portarlington, Birr, Edenderry and Tullamore. To take Portarlington alone, there is a huge Avon factory in Portarlington mainly under the control of NAMA because of the current position. There is a huge opportunity there and I know NAMA and other interested parties would like to see that used for something more purposeful. I ask the Minister to give his attention to that.

Regarding the jobless figures in the two counties, there are 17,856 people on the live register in both counties. That is a huge number of people who are unemployed. Myself and other local representatives have tried to highlight that and to seek ways to improve the situation.

The local authorities in both counties are making substantial efforts in providing enterprise centres and other incentives to attract people to locate in the area.

Where is the accountability of IDA Ireland in this matter? The taxpayers in Laois and Offaly want to know who is responsible. I have heard all the flaky answers from IDA Ireland and others. The Minister is relatively new in the job. I want to know what is being done to get IDA Ireland to ensure there is proper regional development.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. As he rightly pointed out, Deputy Charles Flanagan organised a delegation to my office recently to discuss this very issue. We went through in some detail the challenges and where we might seek opportunities in this area.

As the Deputy acknowledged in his question, the difficulty of getting IDA Ireland activity in the counties of Laois and Offaly has been a huge challenge for many years. This problem did not arise today or yesterday. The structure of employment in Laois and Offaly is that approximately 4,000 people are employed in indigenously owned companies while 800 people are employed in IDA foreign owned companies. We need to build on our enterprise base. There is no doubt that in recent times the manufacturing base of foreign owned companies, and it has been predominantly manufacturing within Laois and Offaly, has been under severe attrition throughout the country and there have been difficulties in the manufacturing sectors whether foreign or Irish owned.

Manufacturing is a key priority within enterprise policy and one of the things I have done since taking office is to establish a manufacturing development forum to set out a strategic vision for 2020, not just for foreign owned companies but also for indigenous owned companies which, in the case of Laoighis-Offaly, are a far greater proportion of the employment base. We must recognise that there are opportunities in manufacturing. It has been too easily allowed slide from the national focus of enterprise policy.

I am taking other steps to help drive increasing activity from our industrial base and employment opportunities across the country. These include the launch of the new potential exporters division in Enterprise Ireland to support more indigenous companies trade in foreign markets; Enterprise Ireland's lean business offer which enables manufacturing clients to improve productivity; the launch of the development capital scheme aimed at indigenously owned companies which are finding it difficult to grow to scale and expand into export markets; and the improvement in the research and development scheme. There is a good deal of activity going on seeking to build our broad indigenous engine of growth.

In terms of the challenge for IDA Ireland, when I go on IDA Ireland trade missions leading corporations are seeking pools of highly qualified talent in very substantial number. That is the difficulty we face. Increasingly, they are looking at areas where there are many companies in similar sectors already established. The Deputy will be aware that increasingly the profile of IDA Ireland wins we are seeking are in areas of information technology, research and development and in the pharmaceutical sector. They are activities that tend to be drawn to magnets where there is already a substantial presence in those clusters. That is what poses the challenge for regional policy. Effective regional policy will have to rely on indigenous development as well as multinationals.

The Deputy asked where the money goes from the €86 million. It is true that the strategy is designed to create 62,000 jobs in 640 investments.

The Minister's time has concluded.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I welcome that manufacturing is getting priority, and the Minister mentioned in particular the research and development credit scheme.

Regarding the pools of qualified talent, there would not be a shortage of those in the midlands. It is easy to get to an area from a commuter point of view because of improved motorway and rail links, which was one of the reasons given in the past for holding it back. I ask the Minister to speak to the IDA Ireland about having a flexible approach to the midlands, particularly towards some of the empty units I mentioned such as the Avon factory in Portarlington, the IDA Ireland factories in Portlaoise and Birr, and the other centres and to impress on it the need for balanced regional development. Everybody would agree on that. There are pressures on water and other resources in Dublin but we do not have the same level of pressure in the Midlands. There is a good road network in place. There are good facilities which are ready to have the key turned in them. That is the key point. Smaller units can be used in clusters. On the day we met the Minister I discussed the question of companies that want to expand and start a new operation in the Midlands in that some of those smaller units could be used for that. I urge the Minister to use his good offices to keep the pressure on IDA Ireland to have that focus on balanced regional development, and particularly to ensure the midlands does not continue to be ignored by IDA Ireland.

IDA Ireland has significant property development in the midlands and it continues to press that as a location in the context of gateway development. Obviously, the midlands is part of a wider gateway network.

In addition to that specific IDA Ireland activity, there is also Connect Ireland which is developed through a private company but is essentially a link seeking to find people who will invest in Ireland and using connector fees to do that. That is a source of job creation which is likely to have a much better regional spread. We are hopeful that initiative will see a broader spread of activity.

The Deputy is right to highlight the short and good communications. A significant decision was the decision of PayPal, having originally invested in Dublin, to have its expansion in Dundalk. It moved from a Dublin location to a Border, midlands and western, BMW, location where it had the confidence, having been established, that it could get the supply it needed and it had the communication connections. Expansions of that nature present an opportunity for achieving better regional spread.

I meet IDA Ireland regularly. We are seeking to promote regional spread but it is not our Department or the IDA which ultimately decides where companies locate. They decide that against their criteria. It is not a question of Portlaoise competing with Dublin; it is a question of Ireland competing with the United Kingdom, Switzerland or Singapore. That is the competition IDA Ireland predominantly faces, and the Deputy must understand that to understand the difficulty we are facing.

We have to have a broader regional strategy rather than simply looking at IDA Ireland as being the driver. I will continue to emphasise to IDA Ireland, as the Deputy asked, the importance of seeking to meet the target of 50% of investment outside Dublin and Cork. It is a core part of the agency’s mandate but one that is increasingly difficult to achieve.

Regulatory Bodies

Last week a committee of the Oireachtas was subject to what I can best describe as a show of disdain and arrogance by the chairperson of the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg, in his refusal to answer questions or provide any sense of being responsible to anyone but himself in the exercise of the functions of his public office. ComReg has since come into increasing conflict with An Post and I can best describe their relationship as dysfunctional. The financial health of An Post hangs in the balance. Workers, their unions and the management of An Post are working together to secure the financial health of the company. ComReg, however, is pursuing a policy that will result in damage to An Post's financial standing and threaten service provision across communities. It is pursuing what appears to be a pro-privatisation agenda towards An Post and has done so in a manner that has played fast and loose with the public interest.

ComReg pursued a legal action against An Post which it subsequently lost in the High Court. An Post opposed ComReg's original decision on the grounds that it amounted to an unacceptable form of micromanagement of its postal delivery service by the regulator. An Post must bear the cost of the High Court case, as well as the cost of a Supreme Court appeal. Worse still, it will also be picking up the legal bill for ComReg. This action by ComReg will be responsible for financially damaging a valued and necessary public utility and the only winners will be the lawyers, certainly not consumers.

ComReg recently fined An Post €12 million for its quality of service levels. This seems to be an outrageous amount of money and I question the metric used to arrive at this levy. There is little point in comparing the efficiencies achieved by An Post with those of other universal service operators in other countries, given our low population density and spread. Will the Minister establish the impact of this fine on An Post? Will he ask ComReg to forward to us the metric used in arriving at this fine?

An Post is forced to pay for two sets of private consultants to measure the quality of service in dispute. Why not only one? The additional cost imposed by ComReg by the requirement to have two consultants is racking up millions of euro for An Post and impacting on the service provided for consumers. While the independence of the regulator from ministerial or political interference is to be valued, there must be accountability to this House. The regulator should be compelled to answer questions on its role from Oireachtas committees and the Minister, not hide behind legislative shields. No officeholder in the State should be permitted to exercise the functions of his or her office, a trust given by the Oireachtas, without a degree of accountability.

ComReg’s actions threaten the interests of consumers and communities across Ireland. Is the Minister considering proposals to review the operation of the regulator, alter the focus of its office and ensure an impartial approach to how An Post’s functions are refereed?

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter in the House which I am taking on behalf of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, who is unavoidably absent.

ComReg is statutorily responsible for the regulation of the postal sector and independent in the exercise of its regulatory functions. Furthermore, the EU regulatory framework for the postal sector requires the regulatory function to be discharged separately from the shareholder function which the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources administers. The Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act, passed in August 2011, put in place the regulatory framework for the newly liberalised postal service market. The Act enshrines the universal service obligation, a legal obligation on the State, guaranteeing the collection and delivery of mail to every address in the State on every working day.

Recognising the importance of universal service, the postal Act was strengthened by the Minister, reflecting commitments given in the programme for Government, to give him a direct role in ensuring the continued delivery of a universal service obligation by An Post. In terms of the hierarchy of objectives being discharged by ComReg which was recognised by the chairman of ComReg at the meeting of the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications last week, maintenance of universal service is the most important function assigned to it. In the programme for Government the Government is committed to a universal postal service as an essential public service, with a publicly owned, commercially viable, profitable and efficient An Post critical to the long-term viability of the postal market.

I watched with interest the proceedings of the Oireachtas committee and was heartened by the interest shown by all Deputies in An Post and the nationwide services it delivered. As many Deputies acknowledged, An Post is facing many challenges, not just financially but also from the development of communications technologies. As shareholder, the Minister has a strong concern regarding the ongoing commercial position of the company. The reality is its core mail business has suffered a major fall in recent years which has impacted seriously on the company's revenue flow. The scale of the decline obliges all stakeholders to work constructively to ensure An Post's capacity to fulfil its core mission, meeting the universal service obligation, is not undermined.

Turning to the role of the Minister in this area, clearly he has no direct role in legal proceedings between ComReg and An Post, the costs incurred in legal actions or the amount of management time devoted to these issues. His preference would be a focus on the fundamental problem facing An Post - the drop in mail volumes - and, in addressing this challenge, the importance of maintaining a secure future for An Post. In his view, State bodies must service the interests of the taxpayer and pursue value for money. He has advised both parties that his preference would be to see the issue in question resolved speedily, outside the courts and in a way that did not incur inordinate and unnecessary costs. An Post has indicated it would prefer mediation. The Minister, while fully respecting the statutory independence of ComReg, agrees this would be the best option. Generally, it is the Government’s policy that State agencies ought not to become involved in unnecessary and expensive litigation.

It is clear ComReg receives its current funding from the industry it regulates. It has nothing to lose by pursuing by what can be best described as an exercise in folly in challenging An Post because An Post will pay its own costs, as well as ComReg’s. An Post’s financial position is between the red and the black. Will the Minister discover from ComReg the basis for which it arrived at a fine of €12 million? This fine will result in job losses and, invariably, the closure of rural postal services. That is a grave concern for the 400 postal workers I represent in my constituency who are very concerned about ComReg’s lack of objectivity and accountability. What advance notice did ComReg provide for An Post on how it had failed on the issue of quality of service which one would expect to receive in any professional relationship? Who established the scale of the breach? What was the metric used? Where is the independence with respect to the documentation on a breach of some standard operating procedure agreed between An Post and ComReg?

We need to have transparency. Is this some form of vendetta, the carryover from an organisation created by the former Ministers, Charlie McCreevy and Mary Harney, to pursue a neoliberal agenda and attack critically important services for rural Ireland? This will not go away; it will continue to happen week after week and we need answers. We call for accountability and documentation to be placed in the Chamber relating to the measure or metric, how the €12 million figure was reached and on what basis. How or where did An Post break some standard operating procedure on quality?

I assure the Deputy that I will bring his comments and views, which have been strongly and clearly expressed, to the attention of the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte. I appreciate what he has said but I reiterate two things. The EU regulatory framework for the postal sector requires that the regulatory function is discharged separately from the shareholder function of the Minister. That is one significant issue. The Minister absolutely respects the statutory independence of ComReg. Naturally, his preference and the preference of An Post is for this to be settled out of court. Government policy holds that State agencies ought not become involved in unnecessary and expensive litigation. I will bring the Deputy's views directly to the Minister.

Hospital Services

Great concern has been expressed in the south east about the leaked content of Professor Higgins's report on the proposed hospital network reconfiguration. I wish to put on the record that I support reform and reconfiguration in the health services as long as it is in the best interests of patients and patient care.

The regional hospital network is in danger of being dismantled and fragmented despite the fact that vast human and capital resources have been invested in these hospitals over many years to deliver a more integrated health service for the region. The hospitals serve a population of approximately 500,000 people in the south east, the optimum level required for a regional health service. If we fragment this population there is a great fear that demand for critical tertiary regional health services will become unsustainable and that eventually they will be lost. I note the Minister's recent assurances that cancer care, trauma and cardiology services will be retained in Waterford Regional Hospital in any proposed reconfiguration. However, this would require reassurance with regard to parallel budgets and governance and oversight in the region and the securing of the necessary resources for the continued viability of these services.

The vast majority of the stakeholders in the hospital services of the south east support the retention of the network in the region. I note the HSE South organisation is based in Cork and Kilkenny. It has made a strong recommendation to the Minister and Professor Higgins for retention and to exploit the full potential of the regional hospital network in the south east. The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, an independent academic organisation with strong links to hospitals in the region and throughout the country, is fully convinced that the south east hospital network is the most integrated and efficient network in the country at the moment. It has stated that the network should be used as an example for other hospital networks in the country. The vast majority of consultants in the south-east region, including those from Wexford General Hospital, South Tipperary General Hospital and Waterford Regional Hospital, are in full support of retaining the network. Those in Kilkenny have reserved judgment. Therefore, I urge the Minister to ensure full collaboration between all hospitals and to ensure health services are protected in the best interests of patients.

This case is the opposite of the case of Roscommon General Hospital. In that case critical services were centralised to Galway to provide the best medical care for the region.

However, this proposal is for the break up and fragmentation of a regional population, which could threaten the regional health services.

Deputy Coffey, you are being unfair to the other Members.

We cannot disagree with any of the sentiments, statistics or facts to which Deputy Coffey has referred. I am pleased to share time on this critical issue for Waterford and the south east. Some 15,000 people took to the streets in Waterford this weekend and I was proud to be there. I put it to the Minister of State with all sincerity that the people are very angry and concerned. We are their representatives in the Dáil and we need some assurances about what is happening in Waterford and the south east. The demonstration was organised in one week, indicating the outcry and concerns of the people there. I walked in the march with an old school friend whose father died when he was a young man. He put it to me that he does not want anyone else to have to get in a car to access services two or three hours away. This sentiment has been replicated by many public representatives throughout the south east who believe those days are done. Those days must be done. We must retain these services for our people in the south east. This is not only an issue for Waterford but for the south east.

If the Government decides to withdraw, dismantle and break up the health care framework provided in the south east on the whim of Professor Higgins then where is the region? What are we? That is the stark reality of what is being proposed. What will happen if these services are withdrawn? What would the south east become? We need assurances for the thousands of people and their families throughout the region who depend daily, weekly and monthly on the provision of jobs by the HSE in the south east and, more important, on access to and provision of adequate and top-class health care currently on offer. If it is not broken, why are we trying to fix it?

Deputy John Paul Phelan has two minutes. Please keep it tight.

I will try to keep to my two minutes, or as close as I can. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important discussion. I echo the sentiments of Deputies Conway and Coffey on the importance of the regional hospital. Much upset, anger and frustration exists in the region as a result of a partially leaked report by Professor Higgins in respect of the reconfiguration of hospital services throughout the country. Everyone understands that medical treatment regimes which have been in place perhaps for a long period should be examined. Nothing can be cast in stone forever. However, I echo the comments of Deputy Conway with regard to the south eastern region and the hospital network. The four hospitals, in Waterford, Clonmel and Wexford and St. Luke's General Hospital in Kilkenny, comprise arguably the most integrated unit in the country in terms of delivering health services.

I am in the somewhat unique position of being a Deputy for Carlow-Kilkenny while I live in and I am from the part of Kilkenny served directly by Waterford Regional Hospital. I too seek reassurances for the people I represent. I seek guarantees that the services provided in Waterford Regional Hospital will not be removed or undermined.

Nothing is more emotive than the provision of health services. Like the other Deputies I was present at the march in Waterford on Saturday. It was a well attended event held in good order and it was non-party political, but there was a clear message for all of us: the people there want to be certain that the health service and those with various expertise in the region and in Waterford Regional Hospital will continue to be in place in future. I look forward to the Minister of State's response in this regard.

Like the previous speakers, including my colleague from Waterford, Deputy Ciara Conway, I remind the Minister of State that an estimated 15,000 people came onto the streets of Waterford last Saturday to protest at what they believe to be the latest attack on the city of Waterford. The 15,000 men, women and children had one thing in mind: to send a clear message to the Minister of State and the Government that they will not tolerate an end to the south eastern hospital network that could lead to the services being transferred to Cork. We will not tolerate an erosion of our hospital services to serve a political agenda focused on severe cuts in the health system. The Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, has confirmed that no decision has been made yet on the issue.

However, the dogs in the street seem to believe the Government's expert group is recommending a break-up of the south-east hospital network. It is crucial that the full spectrum of health services remain in place, not only for those living in Waterford but for the 500,000 residents of the south east. Any change in the current system would have major health consequences, not to mention an adverse economic impact on a region already devastated by one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and the obvious lack of investment by the Government and its predecessor.

At an earlier meeting, which all of the Deputies from the south east and members of the medical profession right across the region attended, the Secretary General and the Minister gave a commitment, but we want to hear it made in the Dáil. They gave a commitment that essential and acute services such as cancer care, cardiology and severe trauma services would not be affected. What ordinary men, women and children on the streets of Waterford wanted to know on Saturday was whether that would be the case. While the Minister and the Secretary General have said this, we want to hear it from the Minister and the place to hear it is in the Dáil.

I will finish with this point. The Secretary General, Dr. Ambrose McLoughlin, stated he would be amazed and shocked and that it would be unacceptable if it were to happen that the essential services I have mentioned were affected and that, while he was Secretary General, this would not happen. We want to have this stated in the Dáil.

I thank Deputies Paudie Coffey, Ciara Conway, John Paul Phelan and John Halligan for raising this matter. I note Senator Maurice Cummins is here also. I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly.

A key stepping stone towards the introduction of universal health insurance will be the development of independent not-for-profit hospital trusts in which all hospitals will function as part of integrated groups. The rationale behind the establishment of hospital groups and trusts is to support increased operational autonomy and accountability for hospital services in a way that will drive service reforms and provide the maximum possible benefit for patients.

The work on hospital groups is not about downgrading hospitals, rather it is about bringing together groups of hospitals into single cohesive entities to allow maximum flexibility in management, budgets and service delivery. It is about ensuring hospital groups are broadly comparable in size and scope in order that they can attract high quality staff and trainees across all health care specialties and professions. It is about creating efficiencies by using common business processes and economies of scale and avoiding unnecessary duplication. Most importantly, it is about maximising the range of services available to deliver internationally comparable quality care services for patients, regardless of where they live.

Specifically with regard to Waterford, the hospital will retain its current suite of services - oncology, cardiology and emergency department. It will provide invasive cardiology and trauma services and continue to be an NCCP centre. It will retain the same population referral base for cancer patients. Joint consultant appointments such as general surgery shared with Wexford across the groups will continue to support the specialist cancer services provided. In addition, there has been significant capital investment in the provision of a new emergency department and neonatal unit which has been fully constructed and is being fitted out. As part of the project, the existing emergency department is being refurbished and will be completed in February.

To assist the Department in advising the Government on the formation of hospital groups, in June the Minister appointed Professor John Higgins to chair a strategic board on the establishment of hospital groups. The strategic board is composed of representatives with both national and international expertise in health service delivery, governance and linkages with academic institutions.

A project team was established to make recommendations on the composition of hospital groups, governance arrangements, current management frameworks and linkages with academic institutions for the consideration of the strategic board. The consultation process to inform the project team has been rigorous and comprehensive. It has included meetings with every acute hospital, including consultations on two separate occasions with each hospital in the south-east region. It has involved the receipt of a significant volume of formal submissions from hospitals, clinicians, regulatory bodies and citizens, all of which have been considered.

The Minister has also made clear to the project team and the board his determination to ensure that as many services as possible can be provided safely and appropriately in smaller, local hospitals. On this basis, the organisation of hospital services nationally, regionally and locally will be informed by the ongoing development of the HSE clinical programmes and the smaller hospitals framework which defines the role of smaller hospitals. It outlines the need for smaller and larger hospitals to operate together and, therefore, is intrinsically linked with the ongoing work on the development of hospital groups. The Minister expects to receive the report of the strategic board later this month and will be able to bring this matter to his Cabinet colleagues for decision shortly thereafter.

It should be remembered that the hospital groups are an interim, collaborative measure pending the legislation required to establish hospital trusts. Before these trusts are established, the composition and functioning of the groups will be reviewed and if changes prove necessary, they will be made with Government approval when the hospital trusts are being formed.

I remind the Deputies that they have one minute each. I ask them to keep to questions rather than anything else.

The existing network of five hospitals serves a population of 500,000 in the south east. There is a network of almost ten hospitals, with much duplication of resources, serving a population of 1.2 million to which we now want to add by sending some of the population of the south east to Dublin and Cork, into hospitals that already have capacity problems. This is a critical health care issue that needs to be deeply analysed before a Government decision is made and requires the full attention of the Minister and the Government. The Minister must listen to the public representatives who are voicing the concerns of the people of Waterford and the south-east region. They must be able to stand over any Government decision which must be justified in terms of equality of access to health care in the regions. I ask the Minister to take into account this view which I am not expressing lightly. We are working on a cross-party basis - I acknowledge the presence of Deputy John Halligan and all of the Oireachtas Members in the south east - to try to find a solution and resolve this critical issue.

I thank the Minister of State for his response. However, I question the reference to the consultation process as having been "rigorous". As I understand it, Professor Higgins met a delegation on two occasions, but I am not sure that his board has done so. The consultants from the south east have drawn together a concise and well researched evidence-based report on what a configuration in the south east would look like to best serve the needs of all its residents. I would like to know whether Professor Higgins has read this report and, if not, why. I ask the Minister of State to follow-up on this on my behalf. We must be listened to. This is democracy in action. We are representing the 15,000 people who took to the streets at the weekend and the Minister must engage on the process involved. We understand there is a need for reform. The health system is one we inherited and that has been neglected and mismanaged for many years and we want to see the reforms deliver. With this in mind, Waterford Regional Hospital has been one of the most efficient and leanest hospitals in the country, as verified by outside bodies. This also needs to be included in the mix when examining this issue.

I am sorry, I have to pull the plug on the Deputy.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Deputy John Halligan asked him to state what had been said at a meeting at which we were all present earlier and, in fairness, he has done so. My question relates to the document prepared by the consultants in the south east. I have yet to see a justification given in any quarter for the breaking up of the regional structure. Ultimately, if the four hospitals are to be dismembered and included in four separate trusts, that is what will happen.

I would like an answer but the Minister of State who is here today is not in the Department of Health and may not be able to give me one. I would certainly like him to bring a message to the Minister that we wish to see some sort of analysis of why this change would even be considered. I acknowledge that in his response he has stated the crucial tertiary services that are currently available in the region will remain intact. That is certainly very important. The south east hospital network has been integrated to an enormous extent over the last 20 to 30 years and works well. In that context, I would need to see more justification for a change. I am not one who is against change because I believe the health service must be constantly examined, in terms of its structure. However, I need to be convinced.

I am not here to criticise the Minister for Health, but when he came to power he spoke about taking a "hands-on approach" that would be different to that of the last disastrous Government, in order to improve the terrible health system he inherited. However, my understanding of a hands-on approach was that he would be in contact with and would speak to people who work on the front line, like professors, consultants, surgeons, nurses, doctors and others working on the ground. All of those people have come together and said that it is essential that Waterford Regional Hospital remains the strategic hospital in the region and keeps its status. One cannot find anybody who is more frontline than the people who met the Minister today, who perform the operations, lecture in the theatres and treat people in the accident and emergency department. They know what Waterford Regional Hospital is all about. The Minister must take on board the fact that, for the first time ever, politicians of all persuasions, as Deputy Coffey said, have come together in this House, not to score points, but united in their belief about what is the right decision for Waterford Regional Hospital. I wish to remind the Minister that 15,000 men, women and children, many of whom support the Government parties, marched on the streets of Waterford in unison to say they will not accept the downgrading of their hospital.

I thank the Deputies for their comments and acknowledge the presence of Senator Maurice Cummins in the House. All I can say is that I will make sure the Minister is made aware of the concerns raised by the Deputies and of the local feelings that were so clearly expressed. I wish to reiterate the point that, with specific regard to Waterford, the intention is that the hospital will retain its current suite of services, including invasive cardiology, as well as trauma and cancer services. That is an absolute commitment, which is underlined in the text before me. I will ensure that the Minister is made fully aware of the views of all of the Deputies.

Education and Training Provision

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this issue, on which I have been seeking a debate for some time. As we all know, we are in the midst of a severe economic downturn and large numbers of people are unemployed. The only way to get many of those people back into employment is to get them back into education. However, getting people back into education requires financial assistance. The back to education allowance provides such financial assistance but there is a serious anomaly in the scheme. Some people who have recognised qualifications are forced, through no fault of their own, to change direction and study for a new profession. This is most obviously the case with construction-related qualifications. The anomaly is that such students do not qualify for the back to education allowance because, in many cases, their chosen courses will result in a qualification which is the same, or less than, the one they currently hold. This is an enormous issue for some people, many of whom are still very young, who have reached the highest level of their profession and now find themselves unemployed. We all know of architects, quantity surveyors, engineers and a host of other construction-related workers who are unemployed. It is not long since we were crying out for these experts to service the construction industry. Their qualifications demanded a huge investment of time, energy and money and many of them thought they had a job for life.

Last week in a written reply to a parliamentary question tabled by my colleague, Deputy Creed, the Minister stated the back to education allowance is a second chance educational opportunity scheme. She qualified this by saying that the courses chosen must lead to a higher qualification than the one currently held. Most architects, for example, would have studied for between five and ten years but because of the dramatic downturn in the economy and in the construction sector in particular, many of them will never work in their chosen field again. Many of them are only in their thirties and it seems very unfair to leave them on the shelf for the next 30 or 40 years. Their continued unemployment is soul-destroying for them and an enormous burden on the State. For many unemployed professionals, their careers were so short that there was no scope for them to accumulate wealth. Very few of them can now afford to return to full-time education if it means giving up their social welfare payment. It seems crazy that if they do not go back to education they will continue to receive their jobseeker's allowance and other social welfare payments. Many highly qualified unemployed people cannot afford to re-educate themselves and may never work again. An entire generation will be lost.

I ask the Minister to reconsider the qualification criteria for the back to education allowance. Most of the conditions are reasonable but the progression requirement, as currently set out, is a major obstacle to many people who are willing and able to re-educate themselves. The Minister advised Deputy Creed in the aforementioned reply that her Department is currently reviewing a wide range of supports, including the back to education allowance. The anomaly in the criteria must be amended to suit the needs of the Ireland of today, not the Ireland of five or six years ago, when we were dependent on the building industry. We must give young people who are more than willing to go back to education a second chance.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue.

The Department estimates that expenditure on employment supports will be over €960 million in 2012. This substantial expenditure, which is against a backdrop of significant fiscal consolidation, underlines the Government's commitment to enhancing support for activation and assisting people return to employment. As outlined in the Pathways to Work document, the Department will offer 85,650 job placement, work experience and education initiatives in 2012. Included in the supports available is the back to education allowance, BTEA, scheme which is a second-chance education opportunities scheme designed to remove the barriers to participation in second and third level education.

A person wishing to qualify for the BTEA will have to satisfy a number of conditions such as being of a certain age, in receipt of a prescribed social welfare payment for a specified time period, pursuing a full-time course of study leading to a recognised qualification in a recognised college and progressing in the level of education held, with reference to the national framework of qualifications, among others. The BTEA scheme covers a large range of full-time courses of education in approved colleges spanning basic foundation courses to third-level courses across all disciplines.

The BTEA guidelines are, in the main, in line with the mechanisms in place for student support type schemes administered by the Department of Education and Skills. Progression in education is a condition which is not unique to the BTEA. Indeed State support for education purposes is grounded on a student progressing from one qualification level to a higher one. This is necessary to ensure displacement does not occur, in that courses could be offered to students who are not progressing at the cost of students progressing from a lower education level.

Resources allocated and numbers supported through the BTEA have increased steadily in recent years. It is estimated that over €200 million will be spent on the BTEA in 2012 as compared to 2008 when, for example, just over €77 million was spent on the scheme. Some 25,700 participants were supported in the 2011-12 academic year which represents a significant 120% increase compared to the 2008-09 academic year. It is expected that numbers availing of the scheme for the current academic year will be similar to last year. Persons wishing to pursue a part-time education course may be able to do so while retaining their jobseeker's payment under the part-time education option, PTEO, of the back to education programme. Examples of courses that may be pursued under the PTEO are the 6,000 part-time higher education places for unemployed people made available under the Springboard initiative announced earlier this year by the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairi Quinn. In addition, the Department also supports the provision of a wide variety of training courses through networks of private sector companies in a range of sectors and regions, supported by Skillnets Ltd., through the PTEO. It should also be noted that FÁS, as the national training authority, anticipates the needs of, and responds to, a constantly changing labour market. It strives to do this through the provision of tailored training programmes that suit various needs and access to many training programmes is not determined by a person's welfare status.

The Department is reviewing a wide range of activation supports available to Department of Social Protection customers, including the BTEA and it is intended to canvass the views of stakeholders as part of the implementation process resulting from the review.

The intention is to canvass the views of stakeholders as part of the implementation process resulting from this review.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. The real problem is progression for people who may have had level eight qualifications in, for example, architecture or quantity surveying. There are no longer jobs in these areas and they are going back to education to change career. As the courses they are now pursuing are level six or seven, they do not qualify for support even though they may currently be receiving an equivalent amount through the jobseekers' allowance. I ask the Minister of State to raise the issue with the Minister for Social Protection. Changing the regulations will not cost the State anything because the money can simply be transferred from one payment to the other. If these individuals are not given the opportunity to change career they will be left aside. Unfortunately, they may have to go elsewhere to find employment in the future.

I acknowledge the Deputy's point that qualifications at a very high level are no longer sustainable in terms of employment. If one changes one has to take a course at a lower level. The Deputy argues that this should be addressed. I will ensure the Minister for Social Protection is made aware of the issue urgently.

Barr
Roinn