I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Tom Hayes.
Commencement Matters
Targeted Agricultural Modernisation Scheme
I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for taking this Commencement matter. It relates to TAMS II and my inquiry is about the rates of inspections in that scheme. It is all about the timescale and getting work done before the winter and the spring time work.
The TAMS II scheme was launched by the Government during the summer. It is a €170 million investment, which is magnificent, and is a continuation of the support for agriculture which this Government has always shown. I refer to the dairy schemes - the dairy expansion scheme and the young farmer scheme. This is an exciting time for agriculture. It is forecast that 9,500 extra jobs will be created and there will be an extra €1.3 billion in exports. There were also changes in the budget in respect of farm partnerships and taxes which will support young farmers. We must have young people getting into the industry.
The price of liquid milk is not good at present but that is a global issue. Hopefully, matters will improve over the next year. There have been major investments by our two biggest co-operatives, Kerry Group and Glanbia, and they have created many extra jobs. They believe the industry will continue to thrive.
Since quotas have disappeared this year, it is predicted that there will be growth of between 20% and 50% in the sector. It is important that the Minister of State clarify the matter as there is a timescale in getting work done. Dairy farmers have their planning permissions in place and applied to participate in the scheme. However, if their farms have not been inspected, the work cannot commence. As it is envisaged that 2016 will be the year of major expansion, with new dairies, stock facilities and so forth, it is important that these inspections be carried out in the short term. If it continues until December, works will not happen over Christmas and calving will begin between January and March. It is important, if the Minister of State can do so, to deploy more staff to the inspection scheme to have as many farmers as possible cleared in order that their works can commence. It would also take pressure off the building contractors involved.
I thank the Senator for providing me with an opportunity to clarify the concerns in this area.
The new targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS II, measure will make €395 million available to farmers to be invested in infrastructure, facilities and equipment. The various areas targeted for support under TAMS II were identified through an extensive consultation process with all stakeholders, as well as through the SWOT, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and needs analyses. In the light of what emerged from that process, it was ultimately decided to introduce six distinct schemes: the young farmer capital investment scheme; the dairy equipment scheme; the animal welfare, safety and nutrient storage scheme; the organic capital investment scheme; the pig and poultry investment scheme; and the low emission slurry spreading scheme. Following further consultation with the sector, it is proposed to introduce a dedicated investment scheme for tillage farmers, with new options for water harvesting measures which will be made available to all farmers and the addition of sheep fencing as an eligible investment item. These proposals are under discussion with the European Commission. Once agreement in principle has been reached, a formal application to amend the rural development programme will be submitted before the end of the year.
The objective of the dairy equipment scheme is to encourage, in particular, new entrants and younger farmers into milk production by providing them with a level of support to meet the considerable capital costs associated with the establishment of their enterprise and ensuring they have the most up-to-date technology available to compete in the modern dairy sector. Support is being provided for grant aid for investment in a select range of items, including important equipment for the dairy sector such as robotic milking machines, bulk milk tanks, milking equipment and storage and cooling equipment. A total of €50 million is being made available for investments in this area over the lifetime of the programme, with a standard rate of aid of 40% available. In addition, grant aid for an even greater range of dairy equipment and facilities is available to eligible young farmers under the dedicated young farmer capital investment scheme which has a total budget of €120 million allocated to it over the lifetime of the programme. The young farmer scheme also allows for the construction of new facilities, as well as the purchase of new equipment, and offers an enhanced rate of aid of 60% of the capital costs involved.
The first tranches of both the young farmer capital investment scheme and the dairy equipment scheme are now closed and all applications received are being processed. Interest in TAMS to date has exceeded expectations. Clearly, many farmers are looking once again at the benefits of investing in their enterprises and expanding production. While the first tranches of both schemes are closed, both schemes will remain available to farmers for the entire period of the rural development programme and open regularly for applications during that period.
The first tranche of the dairy equipment scheme closed for applications on 16 October. Over 1,000 applications have been received, which was significantly in excess of expectations. Each of these applications is being examined in the Department. Approvals can only commence when all of the required checks have been undertaken. This is a complex process. As all applications for TAMS Il must be made under a tranche-based approach, we are required to evaluate, rank and assess all applications received together. In this context, it is important to note applications cannot be approved individually on a rolling basis. All applications received in a particular tranche must be assessed and ranked against each other, according to the marking system advertised in advance of the tranche. Under EU rules, not every eligible application is automatically approved in every tranche. We are required to make a qualitative assessment of each one to ensure the funding available is targeted at the best projects.
The ranking and selection process described is under way and inspections will only commence when the first results are available. However, not every application will require a pre-approval inspection. Only about 10% of applications will be subject to such inspection. At this point, there is no reason to increase the rate of inspection. In fact, to do so would only delay the approval process. I am conscious that all of the applicants who have submitted online applications are keen to establish whether they have been successful in their application under the first tranche. I am making it a priority to process all applications as soon as possible. In the meantime, it should be remembered that payments continue to issue to applicants under the existing TAMS I dairy equipment scheme, with total payments to farmers expected to reach €19 million this year.
In short, it is not actually the inspections which are causing the delays but the pre-rating process.
I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. I note his point that it is not the inspections but all of the forms that must be examined which are causing the delays. I know that he will work as closely as possible with departmental officials to ensure this is done in the short term. With the winter setting in, dairy farmers are looking to get new dairies and other buildings in place for next year. I welcome the Minister of State's reply and the fact that he is making it a priority that all applications are processed as soon as possible.
I will be working with the officials to ensure that happens.
Services for People with Disabilities
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, for coming to the House. I am raising this matter because of responses received by several families in the Cavan-Monaghan area about physical and occupational therapy assessment waiting lists. One particular letter, dated 4 November, advised that the waiting time for these assessments was 29 months. Owing to these backlogs in assessments, parents whose children need urgent assessments for therapies and treatments are being forced, at great personal cost, to go private. This is a serious financial cost just because their children cannot access services which are often abridged to other services such as resource teaching hours and special needs assistants.
The primary care services very much act as gatekeepers to those vital assessments that unlock around the resources children need to live, function and fulfil their potential. While they are the gatekeepers, parents believe they have to jump through hoops to access what are basic necessities and rights for their children. Many of the children waiting for assessments are in their formative years. It kills me to hear the desperation in the voices of mothers and fathers who just want their children to be assessed. My office is contacted weekly by parents of children who have great difficulty in getting answers from the Health Service Executive on diagnostic assessments for their children.
Unfortunately, this is fast becoming the rule rather than the exception. My office receives at least a couple of representations of on this issue every week. For example, the parents of a child was who was referred in March of this year for multidisciplinary assessment were informed by letter dated 4 November that the waiting list for joint physiotherapy and occupational therapy assessments is approximately 29 months. This means the child cannot expect to be seen until August 2017, during which month the child will be nine. In the absence of the assessment, necessary interventions and assistance may be unavailable, which might impact his ability to access other important services. Is this the Government's vision for children?
It must be remembered that many of the children referred to these services, particularly the child development teams, have complex needs, including speech and language difficulties, emotional and mental health problems, autism and other issues. For parents and their children to be told upon referral to these services that the waiting lists extend to over two years leads them to question the concept of early intervention. How is forcing a child with special needs to wait for years for even a basic assessment of his or her needs deemed early intervention?
We all know that the longer children are forced to wait, the harder it is to tackle their issues and give them the skills they need to live happy and successful lives, both at home and at school. A waiting list of 29 months is unacceptable. We, particularly the HSE, need to start providing a continuous pathway for children requiring specialist interventions to have access to assessments in an acceptable timeframe. Children who experience significant gaps between their assessment and treatment can regress. They are being disadvantaged by the current situation. I know from talking to families that delays can cause a phenomenal amount of stress for parents and children. I know of parents who have indebted themselves to get money to pay for private services but they are not complaining. Parents do not complain. They want to provide for their children and to ensure they have the best start in life. In my view, current waiting lists in this area are hindering them in that regard. Identification of need at a young age and the mapping out at that time of an appropriate care plan leads to a child having a much better chance of a quality life.
Last year a report entitled, The Case of Speech and Language Therapy, was prepared on behalf of Inclusion Ireland by researcher, Pauline Conroy, aided by Simon Noone. It uses figures from the CSO and elsewhere to highlight the shortage of services. One of its most interesting points it makes is that extensive waiting lists for treatment and assessment, coupled with the trend of parents accessing private speech and language therapy services, are indicative of a system that cannot cope with demand. This is evident across the board in terms of some of the child development teams. There is a great demand for services. A 29 month waiting list is not acceptable. We need action in this area as a matter of priority.
I thank Senator Reilly for raising this issue as it provides me with an opportunity to update the House on it. Significant additional resources have been invested over the past number of years in the State’s primary care and disability services, with a view to enhancing therapy service provision. For example, additional funding of €20 million was allocated in 2013 to strengthen primary care services and to support the recruitment of more than 260 prioritised front-line primary care team posts. This included 48 physiotherapist posts and 52.5 occupational therapist posts, all of which have now been filled. The HSE’s primary care division has commenced a national caseload capacity review in support of overall performance and optimum resource utilisation and is trialling a software system to assist in reducing the administration tasks of allied health professionals, thus increasing capacity for direct client contact time.
With particular reference to Cavan-Monaghan, all children there who require physiotherapy and occupational therapy are currently assessed in the children’s disability services, which I know the Senator is aware of. The referral rates to the paediatric physiotherapy and occupational therapy service have increased steadily over the past number of years. Between 2010 and 2014 there was a 32% increase in referrals of children to the physiotherapy and occupational therapy service in Cavan-Monaghan. In 2010, there were 221 children referred for assessment. This figure increased to 292 in 2014.
All children referred to the child development teams are prioritised based on clinical need according to an agreed prioritisation system. Where a joint physiotherapy and occupational therapy assessment is required, the child is placed on the waiting list in accordance with the agreed clinical prioritisation criteria. Cavan-Monaghan operates a group intervention programme and caseloads are validated on a monthly basis. There has been a recent review of all staffing in the children’s disability teams nationally and this will support the allocation of all therapy posts in 2016. I will explain this further later.
Cavan-Monaghan is restructuring its services in line with the national programme for progressing disability services for children and young people. An underlying principle of progressing disability services for children and young people is that children should be seen at primary care level. A child presenting with complex needs will then be referred to the children’s disability network team. The Cavan-Monaghan implementation plan for progressing disability services for children and young people proposes the establishment of network paediatric teams at primary care level as this will facilitate children with non-complex needs accessing services in primary care, as appropriate. The establishment of these teams at primary care level should ensure that therapy services for children are more accessible and available within acceptable timeframes.
The Cavan-Monaghan area divisional management team has agreed to upgrade five existing allied health professional posts to support the progressing disabilities agenda. Furthermore, a recruitment process is currently under way to ensure that this service is staffed by senior clinicians with specific paediatric training with a view to being operational before year end. Additional allied health professional posts are being considered in the context of the HSE’s national service plan for 2016 in order to address waiting lists.
Local services have also indicated that they will further review waiting times. I hope this reply has been of assistance to the Senator.
I thank the Minister of State for her reply. When will the national caseload capacity review be concluded and what actions are likely to be taken arising out of its conclusions? Also, the Minister of State mentioned that the Cavan-Monaghan implementation plan for progressing disability services for children and young people proposes to establish a network of paediatric teams at primary care level which, it is hoped, will result in therapy services being more accessible and available within acceptable timeframes. When are those networks likely to be established? Is it anticipated they will be in place by the end of this year or the end of next year?
In response to the Senator's first question, it is anticipated the review will be completed by the end of this year. On the second question, network teams will be put in place in relation to the progression of disability services. Progressing disability services is about reconfiguring the entire service in this area. Up to about two years ago, funding was provided to various organisations to deliver the service. They then delivered the service to children who had signed up to their services. In the context of progressing disability services, we are now developing network teams in the communities such that children and their parents no longer have to sign up to a particular service, although they may do so if they wish. This process will take time. We need to first identify the areas in which the gaps are greatest and to then allocate posts to areas of greatest need. The network teams will be built up over time and will be able to deliver a service at community level for all people with disabilities rather than, as was the case in the past, only those who had signed up to a particular service.
If we are serious about mainstreaming this is the way we need to go. Progressing disability services is not as advanced in some areas as it is in others. The Senator will note from my earlier reply that Cavan-Monaghan is currently building such a structure. In terms of Government policy in this area, this is the route we are going. Not only is this Government policy, there was no opposition to it when initially presented. Cavan-Monaghan is in the process of building that structure.
Where it is in operation and working well, it is working extremely well. I am very hopeful for the future.
Inland Fisheries Ireland
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, to the House.
I welcome the Minister of State. My question concerns enabling Inland Fisheries Ireland to increase its level of staff. Currently it is being asked to do so out of existing budgets which would mean it would have to have fewer resources in order to take on more staff. I am anxious to hear if there is a proposal whereby it could improve the present level of protection by increasing staff while holding on to existing resources.
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I thank the Senator for raising this question.
Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, is the national fisheries body which was established in July 2010 from an amalgamation of 17 separate organisations, including the former Central Fisheries Board and the seven regional fisheries boards as well as a number of fishery co-operatives. In the five-year period 2010-14, substantial Exchequer funding amounting to almost €130 million has been provided for IFI. In respect of this year, almost €24 million has been provided for IFI in my Department's 2015 Vote.
As the Senator will be aware from the recent budget day announcements, the 2016 Estimates provision for the inland fisheries sector, which encompasses Inland Fisheries Ireland and the Loughs Agency, is €27.021 million, an increase of almost €700,000 on the 2015 provision. IFI also generates its own resources in a number of ways including contract income, permit and licensing income, fishery rates and other activities. This income is an important element of the funding array available to IFI to supplement its Exchequer funding in the exercise of its day-to-day functions.
The establishment of IFI in 2010 has facilitated an improved national perspective in the formulation of an inland fisheries policy which is more streamlined, coherent and integrated. It also facilitates the achievement of efficiencies in the effective management of the inland fisheries resource. The Senator will also appreciate that the board and senior management of IFI have a key role in ensuring that the agency continues to meet its objectives towards the conservation, protection, promotion and development of the inland fisheries resource. In achieving its objectives, IFI is delivering on the imperative, common to all public bodies, to achieve efficiencies and to maintain a high level of service.
It is to their credit that IFI staff have embraced a range of changed work practices to improve operational efficiency. These include the increased use of technology and specialist vehicle and water craft patrols. These innovations underpin the imperative of ensuring the optimum deployment of available resources. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform announced in budget 2015 the intention to delegate greater autonomy to Departments and agencies to manage their own staffing levels. As already outlined, IFI's sanctioned number for 2015 was increased to 312. The change brought about increased flexibility for management, moving away from a particular focus on a moratorium on recruitment to one which facilitates recruitment where it is determined that this can achieve more economical service delivery.
IFI has confirmed that it is currently engaged in the recruitment process. IFI has also availed of its sanction to take on seasonal staff during the busiest time of the operational year to ensure that the key imperatives of protection, conservation, development and promotion of the valuable inland fisheries and sea angling resources are delivered. As already confirmed, in the current year, 35 seasonal staff have been recruited and for each of the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 some 32 seasonal staff were recruited to support full-time field staff.
I would also advise that earlier this year I announced the upgrade by IFI of 36 existing staff to the grade of fisheries officer. These officers were previously general operatives, a legacy of the old fisheries boards system. The new fisheries officers received training in the skills and competencies to allow them to enforce fisheries legislation, thereby protecting and conserving Ireland’s valuable inland fisheries and sea-angling resources. This initiative resulted in an 18% increase in the total number of warranted IFI officers to 231, or 77% of IFI permanent personnel.
I am keenly aware of the value of the inland fisheries resource, estimated to contribute over €830 million to the economy mainly in rural and peripheral regions, and the need to protect and conserve it. I appreciate the challenges for enforcement staff in patrolling the 74,000 km of rivers and streams, 128,000 ha of lakes and also the coast line out to the 12 mile maritime limit for recreational sea-angling, all of which fall under the jurisdiction of IFI. I also welcome the excellent job they do in protecting fish stocks and habitats for the enjoyment of all.
IFI has, since its establishment, been innovative in terms of how protection, conservation and enforcement are carried out and how staff resources are deployed. IFI staff have, as I already indicated, embraced a range of changed work practices to improve operational efficiency. In that regard the agency has employed greater and smarter use of technology such as covert CCTV cameras, body cameras, night scopes and other surveillance technologies to significantly augment coverage and increase time spent by officers on surveillance techniques which are more resource efficient.
IFI has increased the use of bicycle, quad vehicle and all-terrain vehicle patrols and of water-based patrols by kayak and personal water craft, which facilitate a significantly increased patrol range as against land-based foot patrolling within the same timeframe. The agency also, based on intelligence gathered and detailed profiling, continues to focus on known poaching hot spots. Additionally, IFI piloted a dog protection unit in 2014 and is now rolling out the programme following successful trials. Trained dogs have been used to locate illegally caught and hidden fish and nets.
The introduction of a 24-hour reporting hotline enables anglers and other members of the public to report suspicious incidents and events, facilitating IFI in quickly deploying an appropriate response. This initiative has also augmented "eyes and ears" on inland waterways. These innovations underpin the imperative of ensuring the optimum deployment of resources.
Rationalisation and efficiency building at IFI, since its establishment, has not been confined to operations in the field. On its establishment, IFI had accommodation at three locations in Swords, including leasing a headquarters building which included IFI’s research and development operations, a laboratory and a warehouse. In addition, IFI had premises in Glasnevin and Blackrock. As part of this rationalisation, and in keeping with Government policy to exit from expensive leases wherever possible, IFI exercised the break clause on the Swords headquarters when it arose and has disposed of the Glasnevin and Blackrock premises.
Inland Fisheries Ireland moved into its new headquarters in Citywest in April 2014, for which it was allocated €3 million additional once-off capital funding in 2013 to address rationalisation of its property portfolio. This will generate savings of some €700,000 per annum on rent and running costs. It is anticipated that the outlay will be recovered in a relatively short period.
IFI recently identified suitable premises near its headquarters in Citywest to house its warehousing, laboratory and archiving facilities. The cost of this facility has been met from Inland Fisheries Ireland’s own resources and this project continues with the policy of exiting from expensive long-term leases and the rationalisation of operations. Aside from the strategy benefit of co-locating this facility with the new headquarters from a response capability perspective, further savings are anticipated both in financial terms and in staff time.
I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply and for taking the time to come to the House. I had a number of queries on this matter. It is curious that, while we were being lambasted for decentralisation, Citywest was chosen as the headquarters for Inland Fisheries Ireland. I am sure County Donegal or County Kerry would have been a more suitable location for a headquarters, and possibly a lot cheaper. Maybe the next time a body is thinking about where to locate the headquarters for an organisation that is, in the main, rural, somewhere other than an industrial estate in Citywest might be considered.
Sitting suspended at 11.10 a.m. until 11.30 a.m.