Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As we have come to end of this round, I will ask a couple of questions if that is all right. If Deputies or Senators have other comments afterwards, we can take them.

In a way, Deputy Ward has stolen my thunder in that I have an example or similar case with a child whose date of birth is 2013. That child has been assessed and the services planned for the child have been indicated but the child has received none of those services. That is not unique in my constituency of Dublin South-Central, taking in CHO 7. There are widespread complaints of a complete and utter lack of services and the bases from where the services are supplied have a very high rate of staff turnover. There is a very high level of vacancies. I would appreciate some comments specifically on the CHO 7 area.

I was on the site visit to the Sheriff Street primary care centre last week. Ms O'Neill was there and it was a very productive visit involving both me and Senator McGreehan. It can be easy to demonise the HSE but not when one sits with the individuals. I see that passion here today and a commitment to children with disabilities. On the other hand, I must also sit with the parents who are devastated seeing their children fail to pass developmental milestones. These may be small differences from a neurotypical child but the milestones may appear to be missed because we are either operating with a medical model and not moving to a social model or we are not considering both aspects.

One of the elements that arose last week was the idea of communication. We were walked through how that should and how it is in Dublin North-Central versus the delivery and they are very different experiences. Perhaps the facilities are better staffed because a child can be referred by a parent and there are support services for toilet training and other particular objectives set out for parents. That was the first time I saw training courses in context and how they are intended. Maybe that vision and experience has not be communicated. I welcome any comments on that also because it is certainly the impression of parents that they are being obligated to be clinicians, which is a real challenge.

I have a problem with the recruitment panel and I acknowledge all that has been said today about the review of the panel system. I am an employment lawyer and I advocate for people to have flexible and remote working possibilities, as well as all sorts of part-time working and whatever is required from the perspective of equal access to the workplace. However, I have an issue with people being recruited to full-time jobs and not being in the role a terribly long time being permitted to go part-time. They can have part-time hours in the private sector and we would lose those from the public sector, thereby ending up with a two-tier system where if people can afford to access services for a child, that child will get them, but if they cannot, the child will lose out. They will get the letters that are obligatory under the 2005 Act telling them they will access their services in 2024 in some cases.

I acknowledge that Mr. Reid has been responsive to queries I have raised with him and I very much appreciate that. I know it infuriates and I use the term that it feels lacking in any humanity when parents get these cold letters about services that they are to access two or three years from now. I have also listened today to the witnesses talking about graduates leaving the country. What can we do practically to stop them leaving the country so that at least those in the system or pipeline to be recruited will not be lost? What can we do practically and quickly in that respect?

When I hear about supply chain issues that will cause a delay of years, I find it very chilling. I have a child who is six and if I thought it would take years for her to access services, I know I would be very radical in chaining myself to the gates outside. We want to avoid that and we want to have a cohesive plan that will not find us this time next year having a meeting similar to this and lamenting small progress. What low-hanging fruit could we go after now? Should we be going into colleges or abroad? I remember in the noughties we recruited construction workers abroad and did fairs in Florida and all over the world in order to bring in people. Could impediments be removed quickly so we could have quicker delivery of services?