Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 1 Oct 2013

Vol. 226 No. 6

Adjournment Matters

Rare Diseases Strategy Publication

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Alex White. I seek an update on the progress made by the national steering group established in 2011 to address the issue of rare diseases. I was involved when this issue was raised at the time and it is one that has been debated in the House on a number of occasions since. I understand the report of the national steering committee was to be published in 2013. What is the current position in respect of the report?

The issue of rare diseases was brought home to me in the past week when I was contacted in respect of two highly unusual cases involving two young women of 23 and 26 years of age, respectively, both of whom must travel abroad for treatment. I met one of the young women and her parents on Saturday morning. She has pacemakers implanted in her stomach and bowel and is fed intravenously because of the rare disorder from which she suffers. Her case highlighted to me the importance of making progress on this issue. The problem in the case of Ireland is that the numbers suffering from specific rare conditions are so small that a co-operation with other jurisdictions is required to address the matter. We need a detailed plan for dealing with these diseases.

I thank Senator Colm Burke for raising this important issue and providing me with an opportunity to update the House on progress in the development of the national plan for rare diseases. Rare diseases are life-threatening or chronic debilitating conditions affecting not more than five in 10,000 people. Between 5,000 and 8,000 rare diseases have been described, affecting between 6% and 8% of the population in the course of their lives. Approximately 80% of rare diseases have a genetic origin and the life expectancy of patients with such diseases is significantly reduced. Many of the relevant conditions are complex, severe and debilitating.

With regard to the plan for rare diseases, about which the Senator asked, Ireland has been supportive of European Union proposals on rare disease, which concluded with a Council recommendation in June 2009. The end point is that countries are recommended to develop plans or strategies, preferably by the end of 2013. Ireland is well advanced in this work.

In January 2011, EUROPLAN, the European Project for Rare Diseases National Plans Development, organised a national conference bringing together patients, patient organisations and health care professionals to discuss what could feed into the development of a national strategy for rare diseases. In April 2011, the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, established a national steering group to develop a policy framework for the prevention, detection and treatment of rare diseases based on the principles of high quality care, equity and the requirement to be patient centred. The policy will operate over a five year period, take account of the Council recommendation on rare diseases of 2009 and define priority actions subject to resource availability.

The national steering group is working on many areas relevant to the issue of rare diseases including the following. The identification of appropriate centres of expertise for rare diseases is a key priority. The EUROPLAN report which examined services across Europe commented that in most countries there are no designated centres of expertise and, even where they exist, there is significant variation in their organisation and how they operate. A second area being worked on is access to appropriate medication and technology in the context of transparent processes to ensure equitable access to orphan drugs as well as the issue of orphan drug development.

Research is an integral part of overall care for rare diseases, including access to clinical trials where appropriate. The national steering group is considering the most appropriate registries and databases which can be used to plan and manage services in Ireland. A fourth area being considered is the empowerment of patient organisations. The EUROPLAN report contains a great deal of practical guidance on measures that can be taken to empower patients and their families in a meaningful way.

A national consultation day for stakeholders was held in Farmleigh in June 2012. This was followed by an online consultation. The Institute of Public Health is playing an important support role in the consultation and development of the national plan, which will be published by the end of this year and will cover the period from 2013 until 2018. It is intended to publish the report on the consultation alongside the publication of the plan.

I thank the Minister of State for his detailed response. On the identification of appropriate centres of expertise, will the plan, when published, identify a list of appropriate centres of expertise or will the publication of the plan mark the beginning of such a process?

I will not hazard an answer to the Senator's question. However, I will seek to obtain the information he seeks in the next few days, at which point I will indicate to him whether a list is likely to be included in the plan or will follow thereafter. There is a commitment to publish and implement the plan and the various other components of the process. I thank Senator Burke again for the assiduous interest he has demonstrated in this issue.

Medical Card Eligibility

With the agreement of the House, I propose to share time with Senator Marie Moloney.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for agreeing to discuss on the Adjournment the need to provide cancer patients with discretionary medical cards.

This matter arises as a result of a recent visit I had to Gort Cancer Support. This is a voluntary group that operates in Gort and which carries out undoubtedly invaluable work for cancer sufferers in that area. The service supplies drivers to bring cancer sufferers to and from hospital on a daily basis if needs be and whenever they need treatment. I understand that up to 60 people in any one month could avail of the service. I was very impressed in my engagement with those on the committee and the work they have been doing. They raised several issues with me, including this issue, which I believe merits some national attention.

Cancer patients who have been diagnosed with cancer endure undue financial hardship as a consequence of their illness. We are all in agreement with that. I know several people who have been afflicted with this illness who were self-employed with children and without private health insurance yet were not eligible for a medical card. There is no doubt this situation has left them in a completely vulnerable position financially. Only for the involvement of their own family members who helped them to manage basic expenses such as heating and travel to and from hospital for treatment, they would have been left in a precarious financial situation. This is a degrading situation for anyone to find themselves in. It is bad enough to be diagnosed with this illness and having to concentrate on recovering from it, but worrying about the requisite health cover too is unfair on these people. Without the type of support from groups in my area such as Athenry Cancer Care, Gort Cancer Support, Galway Hospice Foundation and Cancer Care West, which have been known to assist sufferers with financials in the aftermath of their hospitalisation, these people would be at a loss. I believe the Irish Cancer Society financial aid scheme provides more than €1 million per year to cancer patients who need financial help in the aftermath of hospitalisation and this figure has grown in 2013.

Groups like these are overextended at present given the reduction in the number of people who are voluntarily donating to their causes as a result of the recession. People who are suffering from cancer worry a good deal about the cost of having the illness and it is a sad reflection of this situation that they must endure it. They need to focus on recuperating, that is the first priority. I realise several cancer sufferers have medical cards granted by the Government and they do not need the same level of attention. However, there are others who have fallen through the net.

When one of my constituents became aware that I was bringing up this issue today on the Adjournment, she spoke to me in respect of her husband who has Huntington's disease. I am unsure if the Minister of State is familiar with the situation with this disease but there is no cure for it and those who have it are terminally ill. She mentioned to me that several people she knows who are afflicted with the illness have been refused medical cards in the recent past.

While we need better health for everyone in every community I am compelled to ask the Minister of State to deliver on some improvements in this area to help with the medical and financial experiences of the many thousands of individuals who are availing of cancer health services every day as well as those suffering from Huntington's disease. I acknowledge the Minister of State is in a very difficult financial position as a result of the mess that we inherited from the last Government but I call on him and his Department to consider it, even if it is not something that can be granted immediately, that it would be something that would register on the radar and that may be provided within the term of this Government across the board to all cancer sufferers and people suffering from Huntington's disease. I look forward to the response of the Minister of State.

I thank Senator Higgins for allowing me to speak on this issue. As the Minister of State is aware, this was the subject of an Adjournment debate I put forward some months ago. I reiterate my call on the Minister of State today to revisit the whole situation for cancer sufferers. The Minister of State will be aware that when a person is diagnosed, the word "cancer" drives terror into the hearts of people and often they are fearful that they will be unable to be provided with the medication necessary to help them to overcome this terrible illness. It is a great concern for people.

The guidelines for medical cards are so low that people on an average industrial wage or low-income families do not qualify unless they have a mortgage to offset it. They are very concerned. This has escalated over the summer and people have found themselves terrified that they will be unable to afford the medication. In the Minister of State's reply to me at the time he stated that there were many other illnesses that would have to be considered as well if we considered cancer. However, many of the very bad illnesses are considered long term and those suffering have a long-term illness card whereas cancer sufferers do not. I call on the Minister of State to revisit this and perhaps to give a directive to the medical card office to ensure that all cancer sufferers are looked after with the medical card.

I thank Senator Higgins and Senator Moloney for their contribution on this issue. As Senators will be aware, under the provisions of the Health Act 1970, assessment for a medical card is determined primarily by reference to the means, including the income and expenditure of the applicant and his or her partner or dependants. People with specific illnesses such as cancer are not automatically entitled to medical cards. This has been the legal position since 1970. It is not possible for the Minister for Health or any Minister to issue a directive to change that position. There would have to be new legislation passed by the Oireachtas because this is the law passed by the Oireachtas in 1970. The basis for obtaining a medical card is on foot of an assessment of a person's means. That is what the law provides. I understand the point Senator Moloney made but it is not something that is amenable to being changed by ministerial directive. It could not be done by ministerial directive because the Act of 1970 would have to be amended.

Having said that, the HSE has discretion to grant a medical card where a person's income exceeds the income guidelines. The discretion must be exercised by the HSE but the fundamental provision in the 1970 Act is that a person is assessed on the basis of his means. The question asked is whether the person can provide for his own health care and treatment without undue hardship. The opportunity for the exercise of discretion is in place to deal with the types of cases raised by Senators Moloney and Higgins, that is, people who are above the income limits but who still face genuine hardship in terms of providing for themselves. It still cannot be done on the basis of someone having an illness.

I am always mindful of how harsh it sounds for a Minister to say that we do not give medical cards to people simply on the basis of an illness. It is a hard and crude way of answering the question. However, I am simply setting out for the benefit of the House what the law provides. There is no basis for extending a medical card to a citizen on the basis of his having a particular illness. That is not the current state of the law and if we were to change it, it would have to be done by legislation.

The Government has a commitment set out in the programme for Government for universal access to a free general practitioner service. I accept this is not the full General Medical Services, GMS, scheme but it is a free GP service for the entire population. This is for the entire population; whether they are well or ill we want everyone to have access to a free GP service. The aim is to develop primary care and do all the things in primary care that we need to do in this country in terms of identifying the area of health care which is closest to where a person lives and where they are. They should be treated there and should have available to them treatment in the community. We should have available all the preventative strategies that we need to have in the health service that have not been sufficiently well-developed. The idea is to involve and assist people and encourage people across the board not only when they are ill, although obviously that is the most sensitive and difficult time.

I do not take from anything that the Senators have said and what Senator Moloney said may be true in terms of the guidelines being so low. However, fully 43% of the population satisfy the guidelines. Medical cards have been extended to 43% of the entire population. That is a statement of how incomes have been affected generally as a result of the recession because so many among the population can satisfy what Senator Moloney has described as low figures. It reflects the situation in which the country finds itself.

It is nothing to be proud of.

No, absolutely not, on the contrary. In respect of medical cards extended on a discretionary basis, social and medical issues are considered when determining whether undue hardship exists for an individual accessing general practitioner or other medical services. This applies even where the person is above the income guidelines and the person can apply to be dealt with under the discretion which is available to be exercised. That discretion is applied automatically during the processing of the application where additional information has been provided which can be considered by staff or a medical officer, where appropriate.

At the request of the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, the HSE has set up a clinical panel to assist in the processing of applications for a discretionary medical card where a person exceeds income guidelines but where there are difficult personal circumstances such as an illness.

The community medical officer reviews and interprets medical information provided by the applicant on a confidential basis. He or she then liaises with general practitioners, hospital consultants and other health professionals, as appropriate, to determine the health needs of the applicant and his or her family and dependants. The community medical officer then applies discretion within the guidelines to determine if the applicant is suffering from medical hardship. It is important to stress the medical card system is founded on the undue hardship test. The Health Act 1970 provides for medical cards on the basis of means. As I have indicated, this is what the law states and no Minister can go outside the legal parameters that are set out. One could best describe the discretionary system as being an exception to the general rule that one must satisfy the income limits.

The Health Service Executive, HSE, also has a system in place for the provision of emergency medical cards for patients who are terminally ill or who are seriously ill and in urgent need of medical care they cannot afford. Emergency medical cards are issued within 24 hours of receipt of the required patient details. With the exception of terminally ill patients in palliative care, all emergency cards are issued for six months on the basis that the patient is eligible for a medical card on the basis of means or undue hardship and will follow up with a full application within a number of weeks of receiving the emergency card. Where a patient is terminally ill in palliative care, the nature of the terminal illness is not a deciding factor in the issue of an emergency medical card in these circumstances and no means test applies. Given the nature and urgency of the issue, the HSE has appropriate escalation routes to ensure the person gets the card as quickly as possible.

I thank the Minister of State for his detailed response and welcome everything he is doing in respect of the provision of discretionary medical cards to those who are in need. I also acknowledge the high percentage of people in receipt of medical cards. However, as I stated with regard to cancer patients predominantly, as well as those who are suffering from Huntington's disease, to avoid discrimination against groups, consideration might be given to an amendment to the legislation at some time in the future, when the Minister of State considers this to be possible. However, I understand that much consultation and analysis would be required for this to happen.

I again thank Senator Higgins for allowing me to contribute during her Adjournment matter debate, as well as thanking the Minister of State for his reply. Perhaps an amendment to the Act could be examined in due course. Were they to table such an amendment, Members first would enter into discussion with the Minister of State, who one would hope would agree to accept it.

I will certainly consider what the Senators have said. As have other colleagues, they have taken a close interest in the issue. Members will recall the programme for Government included a plan to extend general practitioner visiting cards to the population that was to start with people with long-term illnesses and was then to move on to those who needed high technology drugs. I should note that when considering this plan earlier this year, the Government ran into huge legal obstacles regarding the definition of illnesses. I acknowledge that sounds strange and one might ask how it could be difficult to define an illness, but I assure Members it is not as straightforward as it sounds to draft primary legislation defining a particular illness, even a long-term illness, and then the statutory regulations to be drawn up by a Minister providing diagnostic guidance as to when a person is to be deemed to have a particular illness or otherwise. While I do not try to put unnecessary obstacles in the way of the Senator's proposals, the matter is not so straightforward. While there may be a case for doing this, it would change completely the scheme of the basic legislation, which is to help people on the basis of a problem with their means rather than a particular illness. However, I understand the concern expressed by the Senators. I know where they are coming from and have thought a lot about this issue because, obviously, it is a live one in many people's minds.

Pupil-Teacher Ratio

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, to the House.

Last night, I attended a public meeting in Dungarvan, County Waterford, that was attended by approximately 500 parents and teachers from schools across Waterford city and county. I note the Irish National Teachers Organisation, INTO, has organised similar meetings throughout the State. A strong sense of solidarity was evident at the meeting, at which parents showed solidarity with teachers, and there was solidarity between small and large schools as well as between urban and rural schools. All were united in their anger towards the cuts experienced in education, not just over the past two years but over the past six years and six budgets. The figures presented to the meeting revealed one of the lowest levels of investment in education in terms of the ratio between education expenditure and gross domestic product, GDP, as well as that the State has the second highest class sizes in the European Union. Moreover, the fact that 121,353 children in the State are in class sizes of more than 30, including one in four children in schools in Waterford city and county, came as no surprise to the parents in the audience who came to voice their anger and frustration at Government policies.

It also was interesting that only one of the four Deputies representing Waterford turned up to the public meeting, namely, Deputy Ciara Conway of the Labour Party. I commended her on her courage in attending the meeting to face teachers and to listen to the pupils. However, she said a number of interesting things. She asked the teachers and the parents to lobby the Government for the introduction of a wealth tax and for the introduction of higher rates of tax on high income earners who earn more than €100,000. This is the same argument Sinn Féin will make to the Government when presenting its alternative budget. There was a strong sense in the room last night among teachers and parents that while there is no easy way to solve the economic crisis we face, there is a fairer way and asking children to pay the price through cutbacks in education is not the way to do this at a time when there are options, such as those outlined by Deputy Conway to the meeting yesterday, that could be considered by the Government and which would be supported by my party were they to be introduced.

It is appalling that in 21st century Ireland, a country that promised to cherish all the children of the nation equally, so many children are in so-called "super-classes". All the research and data show that educational outcomes are affected by class size. I spoke to many of the teachers afterwards and they spoke of the diverse range of pupils now in the classrooms, from new immigrants to people with special needs or intellectual disabilities. The teachers must manage such diversity in their classrooms in very difficult circumstances in which the school population is growing at a time when an embargo prevents the employment of new teachers. This means bigger class sizes, which is having an impact on the educational outcomes of children. The meeting heard from the parents of children with special needs, including one parent whose child has an intellectual disability and has been obliged to leave mainstream education because of the cutbacks in the school. The meeting heard simple demands from the INTO, which has proposed marrying general allocation hours with resource hours to make it easier for schools to manage. This is a simple demand made of the Government that is not being met. While it is not all about money, obviously the cutbacks are having an impact and the most frustrating points to emerge from the meeting yesterday were the lack of engagement from those Oireachtas Members who were not present and the lack of belief that the Government is listening. It is disappointing that the Minister himself is not responding to this Adjournment matter today.

All I can do is to take to the Minister of State the strong concerns and high level of anger that were articulated by both parents and teachers at last night's meeting in Waterford. I appeal to her that education would not be cut again in the forthcoming budget and that the alternative options for increased taxation that were supported by her colleague from Waterford, Deputy Conway, at last night's meeting would be considered. I appeal to the Government to put in place the fairer choices and options that are open to it and to not cut funding to education, including primary and secondary school education for children, in the forthcoming budget.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, who unfortunately cannot be present, I thank Senator Cullinane for giving me the opportunity to outline to this House the position regarding staffing in primary schools. The criteria used for the allocation of teachers to schools are published annually on the Department's website. The key factor for determining the level of staffing resources provided at individual school level is the national staffing schedule for the relevant school year and the specific pupil enrolment in the school in question on 30 September of the previous year. The staffing schedule sets out in a fair and transparent manner the pupil thresholds for the allocation of mainstream classroom posts for all schools and treats all similar types of schools equally, irrespective of location.

It currently operates on the basis of a general average of one classroom teacher for every 28 pupils, with lower thresholds for DEIS band 1 schools. These arrangements include the provision whereby schools experiencing rapid increases in enrolment can apply for additional permanent mainstream posts on developing grounds, using projected enrolment based on that for 30 September of the coming school year. The staffing schedule also includes an appeals mechanism for schools to submit an appeal under certain criteria to an independent appeals board. Details of the criteria for appeal are contained in the staffing schedule, circular 0013/2013. This Government protected front-line services in schools to the greatest extent possible in the 2013 budget and consequently there was no reduction in teacher numbers in primary schools for the 2013-14 school year. The DEIS scheme for disadvantaged schools is also fully protected with no overall changes to staffing levels or funding as a result of that budget.

The budget for education, including the number of teaching posts we can afford to fund in schools, is a matter the Minister for Education and Skills will have to consider with colleagues in Cabinet in the context of the forthcoming budget. The context for any discussion about class sizes is that the Department of Education and Skills, like all Departments, is operating within a budgetary programme that is designed to return the Government finances to a sustainable basis. The decisions in regard to such matters will be announced at budget time. The Minister's focus is on ensuring we have school places and teachers for the thousands of additional pupils entering our schools each year. There is no scope to give any consideration to the provision of additional teachers in order to reduce class sizes - anybody who suggests otherwise is not operating in the real world. While difficult choices had to be made to identify savings across the Department's budget, the Government will endeavour to protect front-line education services as best as possible. However, this must be done within the context of bringing our overall public expenditure into line with what we can afford as a country. The challenge will be to ensure that the resources which can be provided are used to maximum effect to achieve the best possible outcome for pupils.

Government decisions on reductions in resources in any area are not taken lightly nor are they taken in isolation from the likely impact. The key challenge is to do this while also improving outcomes. We all have to achieve more with less. Within the schools sector we know from international research that although class size is a factor, the quality of teaching is a far more significant factor in determining outcomes. We therefore have to focus on the drivers of good performance. We need to have the right people becoming teachers. We need the right training for them in college and we need to support them with the right professional development throughout their career. To this end we are making significant changes to both the structure and format of initial teacher education so that our colleges and teachers are comparable with the best in the world.

At school level we need to foster and develop a culture of self-evaluation. In addition to supporting school self-evaluation, our school inspection system will continue to provide robust external evaluation of schools and promote improvement in quality and standards in teaching and learning. This, along with targeted initiatives such as those for improving literacy and numeracy, will help to restore and improve our education system and improve the way it compares with our international competitors.

To reiterate, the Department of Education and Skills treats schools fairly and objectively in allocating resources to them. This is done in a transparent manner using published criteria. Teaching resources are allocated to schools on a school year basis. Unlike most other areas of the public service, teaching vacancies are being filled in accordance with published Department criteria. Within the constraints of the employment control framework schools are permitted to fill teaching vacancies that arise within their approved staffing allocations. The day-to-day management of how teaching resources are used in schools is done at local school level.

I thank the Minister of State for taking the Adjournment matter but I strongly object to the comment that those who suggest consideration be given to providing additional teachers in order to reduce class sizes do not live in the real world. That is an appalling statement. It is a just demand made by parents and teachers that we should at least meet the international average and the average across the European Union. To say that parents and teachers who simply want acceptable class sizes in this State do not live in the real world is appalling. For them, the real world seems to be where no end of money is available to put into banks to pay back the sins of developers, bankers and speculators, but putting money into education cannot happen. Raising taxation for those with the deepest pockets cannot happen. Increasing the universal social charge for higher earners cannot happen. That is the real world for those parents and teachers. It is the Government which is not living in the real world.

Those politicians who have been in these Houses for far too long, who do not understand what it is like for all the people suffering, are the ones who do not live in the real world. The real world is where those children in supersize classes, not getting the education they deserve, are being asked to pay the price for the sins of others. That is the real world I live in, along with the pupils and teachers of schools all across Waterford city and county. I ask the Minister of State to withdraw that remark. It is unacceptable for a Minister to say that those pupils and teachers who are simply looking to have the levels of class sizes reduced again to the 2010 levels are not living in the real world. I do not accept that as a proposition.

I was not talking about the pupils, teachers or parents but about people in political life who know very well the political realities whereby a deal agreed by the former Government with the troika is one to which we must adhere, at least until the end of this year, with regard to how much we cut from public expenditure. Unfortunately, we have to do that whether we like it or not. There is a growing number of children coming into the education system and we must also cater for them.

The other reality is that we spend €1 billion more per month than we take in. I accept that both the Deputy's party and mine would like to take more in taxes from people who are better off, as was also expressed by Deputy Conway last night. However, the reality is that €1 billion per month must be bridged. With a growing school population, reducing class sizes cannot be done, at least at this time. We all want to do it eventually when the country is in a better place, when we create more jobs and are back in control of our own destiny in respect of the economy. Unfortunately, that is the real world in which we live and that is the reason for that statement.

Wind Energy Guidelines

I refer to the significant step-change in the technology of wind farms throughout the country which is causing considerable anxiety and concern among communities everywhere. The development of wind farms is causing widespread public concern in rural areas, scaring communities and causing large divisions in many areas for which major proposals are being prepared. The 2006 guidelines now in place on wind farm developments are totally out of date given that the height of wind turbines at the time was 50 m to 60 m. The current proposals for turbines suggest heights of up to 180 m or more.

The adequacy of set-back distances from residential homes to safeguard against noise and shadow flicker is of particular concern to rural communities. Shortly after wind turbines began to be erected close to housing, complaints emerged of adverse effects on health. Sleep disturbance was the principal complaint. These reports were commonly dismissed as subjective and anecdotal but there is now a growing body of medical and other evidence detailing these concerns. In March 2012, for example, the British Medical Journal published a peer-reviewed editorial on wind turbine noise. The editorial is very clear about the health risks involved and calls for an independent review of existing evidence and guidance on acceptable noise levels. It also calls on governments to ensure that the public will not suffer harm from the additional ambient noise that results from the inappropriate siting of turbines. This information clearly confirms there now is a large body of evidence which suggests that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health. The governments of Canada, the UK and Denmark have undertaken, or are undertaking, major policy changes to take account of the health implications of wind turbines.

The health impacts are not the only concern as the loss of landscape character and general amenity which form the cornerstone of the tourism industry in rural Ireland, most especially in areas like my county, Donegal, is a very sensitive issue in respect of wind turbine development. The visual impact of such major developments in sensitive areas and environments can seriously undermine the local tourism product. As we all know, growth in tourism has given substantial increase in employment in the past 18 months or so and the sector is showing signs of improvement.

During the summer the Government began the process of carrying out a strategic environmental assessment nationally to identify areas suitable for the development of wind projects intended for the exporting of electricity.

These are substantial international projects. I am sure there has been collaboration between the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government on the issue. Can the Minister provide information in respect of the criteria to be used for that assessment, who will conduct the surveys, the level of public consultation to be undertaken and if communities will be involved in the process?

Rural communities have had to acquire their own independent experts to interpret and evaluate applications made by multinational millionaire developers and developments in the planning system. As a result of their efforts, many of the developments approved by local authorities, through the planning process, have fallen short when scrutinised by An Bord Pleanála. A prime example of this can be found in my constituency where the local community volunteers came together, at great cost to themselves, and objected to a planning application approved by Donegal County Council. Eventually they won, as did openness and transparency but at great financial cost to the individuals concerned. I pay tribute to those individuals.

The level of competency and assessment in these applications is seriously in question particularly in terms of how noise impact is assessed and EU directives on the environment have not been adhered to. The European Court of Justice has made a number of rulings against Ireland relating to the country's failure to implement environmental directives and the environmental impact assessment directive which governs these applications. Rural communities are entitled to expect that the Government will make provision in planning guidelines for wind farms for their protective well-being and consideration of the societal impact in terms of socio-economic factors, tourism, cohesiveness of communities and the attractiveness of the areas in which they live.

Developments such as wind farms have the potential to seriously undermine the substantive basis on which these rural communities survive and prosper. There remains a fundamental absence of transparency governing these developments. There is an absence of consultation with local residents and local communities and above all, there is an absence of a legislative framework to deal with the step-change in technology and scale of developments currently being processed and developed throughout the country by multinational and multimillionaire developers.

The Government must provide for proper public consultation for communities to have their voice heard and concerns addressed on the changes being proposed by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources through the SEA assessment. This is also a planning issue which is governed by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Given that widespread concern has been expressed throughout the country by communities in Donegal, the midlands and other parts I call on the Minister to initiate a process in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government where a moratorium would be introduced immediately banning each local authority from granting planning permission to any wind farm development until such time as new and up-to-date guidelines are in place, taking cognisance of the British Medical Journal report. The governments of Canada, the UK and Denmark have undertaken to update their legislative frameworks given the health implications for local communities. We must protect the interests of local communities over multibillionaire developers. It is time we stood up for the communities represented in the House and not international interests who come here only to reap the financial gains which they can make from such development.

I thank the Senator for raising this matter.

The development of renewables, including wind energy, is at the heart of this Government's energy policy. The availability of indigenous, sustainable power is a valuable national asset and is vital for achieving energy security, emissions reductions and economic renewal through job creation. The construction of wind farms is subject to the planning code in the same manner as other developments. Local authority development plans are required to achieve a balance in harnessing the wind energy resources of the planning authority's area in a manner that is consistent with proper planning and sustainable development. Planning authorities must have regard to my Department's wind energy development guidelines, which were published in June 2006. They provide advice to planning authorities on catering for wind energy through the development plan and development management processes. The guidelines are also intended to ensure a consistency of approach throughout the country in the identification of suitable locations for wind energy development and the treatment of planning applications for such developments.

My Department, in conjunction with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and other stakeholders, is now undertaking a targeted review of the wind energy guidelines 2006 focusing on noise, proximity and shadow flicker. As part of this process, the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland has commissioned a study to examine the significance of noise related to onshore wind farms.

I wish to clarify that it is not the Government's intention to develop a new legislative framework to govern wind farm developments. The existing wind energy guidelines have served us well and what is intended is a targeted review of aforementioned issues in order to update the guidelines. In this context and given the existing guidelines, it is not necessary nor is it proposed to suspend the granting of planning permissions for wind farm developments. The indicative timetable for the publication of the draft guidelines is quarter 4 of 2013. The draft guidelines will, like all other new or revised guidelines, go out for extensive public consultation for a period of six weeks to two months, to allow for publication of the final guidelines in 2014. Once the consultation period is closed, the submissions received on the draft guidelines will be considered and taken into account in the final form of the guidelines.

Given that many people are raising the issue of large companies exporting wind energy, etc., I wish to clarify that there are two types of wind projects currently being progressed - those for contribution to our domestic targets and those for export to the United Kingdom. The proposed export projects must await the completion of an intergovernmental agreement with the United Kingdom, the putting in place of an overall policy and planning framework underpinned by a strategic environmental assessment, SEA, to ensure only appropriate development takes place, and the obtaining of planning permission informed by this policy framework before they can progress. The framework will be prepared over the coming year and will provide an opportunity for all stakeholders including local authorities, potential project developers and local communities to be consulted and have an input into the national policy for wind export.

It is clear from what I have said that there is a long process involved in the export projects and three hoops have to be jumped through before getting into the process. I hope that is of some comfort to the Senator.

I disagree that the 2006 guidelines have served us well. Certainly they have not served us well in the past two, three and four years. They have created division within local communities, have not protected the interests of local residents and have had implications for the health of our citizens. I believe a legislative framework is needed. We cannot have a situation where local authorities, such as Donegal County Council, can have a zero set-back distance. That means that a wind turbine could be built in a person's back garden. That does not make sense. There is no legislative framework in place to deter local authorities from granting such permissions. I appeal to the Minister of State to look again at the issue. There is also a need for a national debate.

While I am a proponent and supporter of wind energy we must have a debate on the effectiveness and efficiency of wind energy. As international reports suggest that only 25% of the power capacity of a wind turbine is developed, what happens with the other 75%? We have to look at the grant aid available for the industry. From where does the money come and the EU grants which are being pumped into these developments by European and Irish taxpayers? Those questions need to be addressed as part of the public consultation process. I urge the Minister of State to ensure that is part of the overall package and not to rule out the possibility of a legislative framework instead of just guidelines.

One of the reasons we consider legislation is not appropriate is that the technology and scientific knowledge is changing so quickly. The reason the guidelines need to be reviewed is because technology has changed. Masts are higher and a lot of elements of the technology have changed. There are variations in noise levels and their effects, depending on the turbines in place. With guidelines we will be able to respond to any changes in technology.

I reassure the Senator that there will be widespread consultation on the review of the guidelines and the process undertaken by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 2 October 2013.
Barr
Roinn