Is the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, coming to the House for this debate?
Topical Issue Debate
Prison Committals
I understand it is being taken by the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch.
If it were to be taken by a senior Minister, it would be the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter.
He is in Geneva.
Surely the Minister who is in charge of the ESB is the appropriate one.
Why not?
As the Deputies are raising the circumstances of a person who is in jail, it is a justice matter.
The topic is the jailing of Ms Teresa Treacy.
The last I heard, the ESB cannot imprison people.
It is a justice matter.
I wish to protest. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, is responsible for the ESB. He should be here.
Tick, tock.
The Government is reverting to the approach of its predecessor, which used to get any old Minister to come in and read out a script. The topical issues format was supposed to involve a meaningful engagement.
That is not——
I will make my statement anyway.
Each of the four Deputies has just one minute.
I want my strong objection to be noted.
I thank the Deputy.
Ms Teresa Treacy is in Mountjoy Jail as we speak. She was thrown in there by order of a judge because she is not prepared to allow the ESB to destroy a swathe of trees through her forest at Clonmore, County Offaly in order to erect massive pylons and power lines. Conifers have already been cut. I have personally seen the destruction that has been done. The next tranche for the chop is a beautiful stand of native Irish broadleaf trees. The ESB has the option of putting the cable under the ground. This should be done for environmental and health reasons. The ESB is a powerful semi-State company. It is outrageous that it is oppressing a powerless citizen in this way. I call on the chief executive of the ESB, Pádraig McManus, to withdraw the injunction and thereby allow Teresa Treacy to be released immediately. All sides could proceed by agreement thereafter. I call on the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, to ensure that happens. It is his responsibility. Finally, is it not striking that the establishment can jail innocent citizens with incredible speed without imposing any such sanction on real criminals whose greed has wrecked our economy and damaged our society?
I stand in solidarity with Teresa Treacy, a 65 year old lover of the environment. What I see is a case of David and Goliath. She has been involved in a five year conflict since February 2006. Having started with 90 other landowners who were opposed to the pylons going overground, she is left on her own. The ESB has a choice. It argued initially that placing the cables underground was impossible. However, it later conceded that it could do so, but it would not for cost reasons. The life of this woman has been cut off for the past three weeks and this will continue until she purges her contempt. I ask the Minister to approach the CEO of the ESB to tell him to lift the injunction.
As someone who spent one month in the Dóchas Centre in Mountjoy Prison, I, too, express my solidarity with Teresa Treacy and condemn the decision of the ESB and EirGrid to pursue her in this manner. There is no doubt that the blame comes back to the Minister's door. To have State agencies acting in the manner of bully boys against an elderly, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen is absolutely reprehensible. It is a fact that Mrs. Treacy has offered to forfeit any compensation and have moneys offered to her by the State bodies used to have the cables placed underground and protect the trees on her property. Incidentally, the level of trees in Ireland is well below what it should be and she in, in fact, just fulfilling a civic duty. This matter lies fully at the door of the Government which has overall responsibility for semi-State companies. I ask the Minister to intervene to deal with this scandal.
It is an outrage that a 65 year old woman, Teresa Treacy, has been languishing in jail for several weeks because of the ESB's bullying and determination to run overhead power transmission lines through a farm and forest land that she has nurtured and given much of her life to developing. All she is asking, as she has made clear to the ESB for several years, is that the lines be placed underground. It can be done and has often been done in many other places throughout Europe. The lines are simply placed in a trench. There would be less damage to the environment and fewer health and safety implications for people living in the vicinity. It would solve the problem.
The only excuse being provided by EirGrid and the ESB is the cost. I have two points to make in that regard. First, Teresa Treacy has agreed to waive the compensation to which she is entitled for having the power lines run through her land. Second, why does the CEO who I believe earns about €800,000 a year not cut his salary by, say, €200,000, to cover the cost of placing the lines underground, where they should be?
This is a fully State-owned company. I ask the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, to intervene to get this women out of jail immediately. I asked the Department of Justice and Equality on Thursday last week whether members of United Left Alliance could visit Teresa Treacy in Mountjoy Prison, but we have been given the runaround for almost one week. Will the Minister assure us that we can get into the prison to visit her?
Effectively, the same issue was raised in the House last week by Deputy Charles Flanagan. The lady in question has been in jail for a few weeks and it seems Deputy Flanagan has been working on the issue. It was made clear when he raised the issue that the Minister for Justice and Equality was not in a position to comment on a particular case before the courts. The comments made then were about policy in regard to alternatives in law to imprisonment in the context of civil disputes that might arise between parties, the changes that had recently been made and, in line with the programme for Government, the examination taking place in the Department with a view to improving the operation of the law, where possible.
Deputies will appreciate that the courts are independent in their functions, subject to the Constitution and the law, and that, therefore, it would not be appropriate for anyone to comment in this House or elsewhere on a case still before the courts. They will also be aware that in a civil matter a court is asked to adjudicate on a dispute between two or more parties. Such disputes can arise in cases of recovery of debt, including maintenance debt, performance of a contract, trespass, interference with property and so on. These matters are determined by the courts on a daily basis.
The court makes its decision on the basis of the facts involved and the rights of the parties. Such rights may be constitutional, statutory or common law rights, or they may arise under the European Convention on Human Rights. The court, in deciding the matter, may order an appropriate remedy. This could involve payment of damages, restoration of the status quo or an injunction to either carry out an action or to desist from an action. Moreover, the court does not have a power in civil cases to impose a custodial sentence as part of its remedy in favour of one of the parties. However, it remains a critical feature of the legal system that court judgments should be obeyed by those at whom they are directed. If the person or persons concerned refuses or refuse to obey the order or implement the judgment of the court, the issue of a court sanction may well arise. The sanction may take the form of imprisonment. Civil contempt in the context of such a refusal may lead the judge to order the imprisonment of the party or parties involved until the contempt is purged, that is, until the party agrees to implement or abide by the order. This imprisonment is not a punishment, nor does it replace the necessity to comply with the order of the court.
The Minister for Justice and Equality has powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1960, as amended by the Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Act 2003, to order the temporary release from prison of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. He also has powers under section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1951 to commute or remit any punishment imposed by a court exercising criminal jurisdiction. However, it is important to note these powers are limited to persons who have been convicted and sentenced after a criminal trial.
I am informed by the Irish Prison Service that the person mentioned has been in custody in the Dóchas Centre, Women's Prison, Mountjoy Prison since 13 September, having been held in contempt of court. I understand a number of requests to visit the person were made to the management and staff of the Dóchas Centre last week. Visits are facilitated, subject to the approval of the Governor and the usual conditions which apply. Callers in this instance who included one of the Deputies who have spoken were informed that, in accordance with the prison rules of 2007, requests for visits had to be made in writing to the Governor who would then consider the application. I am informed that no written request has been received by the Governor at this stage.
Procedures are in place to facilitate telephone calls and, while there was a request for an interview, this was refused owing to the court proceedings involved. However, unauthorised contact was subsequently made and I understand the Irish Prison Service will be following up on this. I stress again that the Minister has no powers in cases where a person is committed to prison for contempt of court. The High Court still has seisin of such a case and it is only that court which can decide on the matter. In this case, the matter is between the parties to the case and the High Court and the Minister cannot intervene.
I take on board what the Deputies have said. I hope common sense will prevail and that mediation will take place in some form.
The Minister of State insults us, the Dáil and the people by coming to the House with that rambling and irrelevant answer. It is incredible. It was written by the Civil Service and I doubt she read it before she came to the House because, otherwise, she would not take responsibility for it. This is supposed to be the Topical Issues Debate; it is supposed to involve relevant engagement with reality. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources who is in charge of the ESB should be here to answer. He has the power, with the chief executive, to immediately have this woman released and then by agreement proceed——
I am stunned by the Deputy's ignorance. He knows that cannot happen.
Order, please. It is a matter for the Minister. I take Deputy Higgins's point and will follow it up.
The ESB could go immediately to the High Court——
That cannot happen.
——and to Teresa Treacy to discuss with her the agreement——
Go to Teresa Treacy — that is different.
——that the cables can be placed underground and then, provided there was agreement, the issue of contempt would finish — full stop. That is what should be done.
That is not what the Deputy was suggesting.
That is the engagement we seek. The five United Left Alliance Deputies are concerned about this issue. We stand in solidarity. The Minister should be here.
To add to what Deputy Higgins said, I cannot believe the Minister of State is hiding behind legal waffle. This is a fully publicly owned company under the aegis of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte.
Consequently, he can intervene and tell the ESB to put the cable underground. It is as simple as that.
He cannot.
Of course he can.
It is a commercial semi-State.
Please.
That is typical. It is a publicly owned company. Who else runs it?
The Deputy never fails to astonish me.
That is just nonsense.
The Deputy never fails to astonish me with his——
One voice, please.
The Minister of State is trying to wash her hands of it, like everything else. The Minister should intervene and tell the ESB to put underground these cables. It is as simple as that.
Incidentally, the suggestion that Members were told by Mountjoy Prison that they were obliged to submit anything in writing is not true. The deputy governor, John Quinn, told me he had contacted the Department of Justice and Equality, the matter was being forwarded to that Department's Secretary General and that it would revert to me about our request for a visit. They never got back to us. There were no telephone calls or e-mails or anything. We are getting the run-around because they do not want people to highlight the case of Teresa Treacy, even to the extent of a few public representatives visiting her. The Government should take its responsibility for this matter. It should act by putting pressure on the ESB to get Teresa Treacy out of jail and to get those lines underground.
I take on board Deputy Boyd Barrett's comments regarding the visit and I undertake to follow up on that. This is a case of contempt and I have as much sympathy as anyone for that woman, who had been in prison for several weeks before the matter came before this House. While I have every sympathy for her, it is not possible for the ESB to purge that contempt. This is now an issue between Teresa Treacy and the High Court. If the Deputy thinks I am telling him lies, he should check it out.
The ESB can commit to her——
No, it cannot.
——that it will not rampage over her land.
No, it cannot.
Of course it can.
No, it cannot. Every day I am astonished at the level of ignorance. Someone should mediate in respect of this lady because the circumstances in which she finds herself are ridiculous. This should be a matter of mediation and I will take on board Deputy Boyd Barrett's issue regarding the visit and will make inquiries thereon.
An underground cable is the solution.
Illicit Trade in Tobacco
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter, which affects the areas of health and public finances, as well as enterprise because it also affects jobs. Last Wednesday, I hosted a briefing session in the audio-visual room at which representatives from Retailers Against Smuggling, RAS, addressed Oireachtas Members on this important matter. Retailers Against Smuggling is a national group, representing Irish tobacco retailers, which was set up in 2009 to help combat the growing illicit trade in tobacco in Ireland. Its establishment in 2009 indicates this problem is not new but has been extant for quite some time. Moreover, the fact the aforementioned group has 3,000 members also demonstrates this is quite a large problem that is not confined to a small group but is nationwide and growing.
According to Retailers Against Smuggling, based on 2010 figures the illicit trade in tobacco is costing Ireland's retailers €575 million per annum and the Exchequer €460 million from the avoidance of tobacco duty each year. Although budgetary adjustments of between €3.6 billion and €4 billion each year are being contemplated at present, this figure constitutes more than 10% of the amount under discussion. An enormous amount of money is being lost to the Exchequer as a result of tobacco smuggling. Consequently, this problem must be tackled and it will take a multi-departmental approach that must involve the Departments of Justice and Equality; Health; Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation; and Finance.
At present, the maximum fine for cigarette smuggling in Ireland is just over €126,000, but the average fine imposed in the second quarter of 2011 was €1,468. This sums up the current approach to the problem, which is that it is not being taken seriously. A shocking statistic put forward by RAS is that almost one quarter, 23%, of tobacco products consumed in Ireland in 2010 were not duty paid. One in four tobacco products consumed had no duty paid, even though each tobacco product consumed will impose a cost on the taxpayer through the health service. This is not good enough. Last May, Europol reported the reason Ireland in particular was one of the centres in which cigarette smuggling is a major problem is because it has high prices for cigarettes and low penalties. This must be addressed and penalties form the key to the problem.
This problem affects retailers and distributors. It has an effect on local economies, on the national economy and, as I mentioned earlier, on the public finances in particular. Moreover, vulnerable young people under the age of 18 are also victims because they are able to buy cigarettes from those who sell them on the streets. The problem also is that it is not just regular cigarettes that are being sold but counterfeit ones, and God only knows what goes into them. According to RAS, four out of five tobacco products that are sold illegally in Ireland are counterfeit. This is both a huge problem and a triple-edged sword, so to speak, in that the Exchequer is losing revenue, the health service will not get that revenue and the products being consumed are far worse than those which are regulated and on the market. It is time to wake up to this issue and tackle it straight-on.
Members must ensure there are harsher penalties for smugglers and we must introduce a minimum fine for smuggling. Although the Customs and Excise officers are doing an excellent job in protecting the country from the importation of illegal substances, they only have two scanners in the ports. Another one is needed and European Union funding is available, under the Hercule II fund, to buy an additional scanner for the ports to make it more difficult for smugglers to bring in those products Fines for selling illicit tobacco to children are also required, and greater public awareness on the dangers of consuming illegal products is badly needed.
I thank Deputy Griffin for raising this important issue and congratulate him on the initiative he took last week in bringing together colleagues to consider the issue across Departments. As he rightly observed, it is not simply an issue for Revenue but also is an issue for the Departments of Health and Justice and Equality because of its implications.
The recent Europol EU organised crime threat assessment, OCTA 2011, reported that preferred destinations for cigarette smuggling within the EU are countries with comparatively high taxes on tobacco such as the Scandinavian countries, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and Ireland. The level of cigarette smuggling in a given country is influenced by a variety of factors, however, of which price is only one. These factors also include geographical location, population demographics, the level of cross-border trade, price differentials with neighbouring countries and general accessibility by air, sea, road and rail. All these factors contribute to Ireland being a destination country for cigarette smuggling.
The collection of tobacco products tax and tackling the illicit trade in cigarettes and other tobacco products are the responsibility of the Revenue Commissioners. The Deputy can be assured that Revenue is mindful that this illegal trade poses serious risks to the Exchequer, the tobacco industry and retail sales of tax-paid tobacco products. Moreover, it militates against the Government's anti-smoking policies. Tackling this problem is, therefore, a key priority for Revenue. The scale of the problem is illustrated by a survey commissioned by Revenue and the Office of Tobacco Control in 2009, which estimated that 20% of the cigarettes consumed in the State have not been taxed in this jurisdiction and that approximately 14% of cigarettes are illegal product. The remaining 6% were legal cross-Border purchases. A further survey in 2010 gave similar results. Based on these data, the loss to the Exchequer from the consumption of illicit cigarettes is approximately €250 million per annum, inclusive of VAT.
Revenue employs a multifaceted approach in tackling the illicit trade based on the development and sharing of intelligence on a national, EU and international basis, participation in multi-agency investigations into criminal networks and deployment of up-to-date detection technologies, including X-ray scanners, risk analysis and profiling. Enforcement resources are deployed both at point of importation and within the country to intercept contraband product and to detect and prosecute those involved in the illegal activity. Action at the post-importation stage includes intelligence-based operations and random checks at retail outlets and other premises.
A high-level internal group, chaired at commissioner level, examines the risks associated with tobacco smuggling on an ongoing basis and has promoted a number of initiatives aimed at counteracting the illicit trade, including the adoption of a comprehensive strategy and action plan. Within that framework, important new actions have included a series of nationwide blitz-type operations, seven of which have been conducted since the middle of last year.
In terms of detection equipment, a second mobile X-ray container scanner, to augment the one first deployed in 2006, was commissioned by Revenue in January 2010 and is now fully operational. Smaller baggage or parcel scanners are deployed at all major ports, airports and postal depots. In addition to the X-ray equipment, Revenue also uses a tobacco-detection dog.
One of the scanners is based in Dublin Port, while the second is located at Rosslare Ferry Port, but both scanners are available for deployment at other ports as required. Revenue intends to maintain and increase the frequency and variety of scanner deployments at various locations throughout the country.
The success of Revenue's enforcement operations is reflected in the fact that, to date in 2011, a total of 92 million cigarettes with a retail value of approximately €39 million, as well as more than 9,500 kg of tobacco with a retail value of some €3.4 million, have been seized. Revenue will ensure that every effort continues to be made to disrupt and suppress this illegal activity.
The scale of the problem is directly related to our efforts to discourage smoking through higher taxation of tobacco products. Ireland has the highest taxes on tobacco in the EU resulting in the highest prices and consequently there are enormous profits to be made by the illegal trade in untaxed cigarettes. In that regard, additional measures to combat cigarette smuggling will be considered in the context of the 2012 finance Bill. The matter is being actively considered by the Department on foot of advice from Revenue. The fact that I have now conceded to the Deputy that this matter is likely to be addressed again in the context——
I ask the Minister of State to conclude.
——of the 2012 finance Bill shows the intent on all our parts to counter this problem.
I thank the Minister of State for his response with the very welcome news that the 2012 finance Bill should include measures to address the problem. Those who are involved in this are not just people who are struggling, and trying to make a living and to make a few quid on the side; some very dark criminal elements are organising tobacco smuggling. As the Minister of State mentioned enormous profits are being made and I understand some criminal elements have moved entirely into the cigarette smuggling business from illegal drugs because of the profits to be made. So we are dealing with very serious criminals and I am grateful that measures will be taken to address the problem.
The Minister of State referred to the two existing scanners. However, unfortunately they can be monitored. The criminal organisations involved have people who can sit and watch the scanners being moved. Full-time scanners at our ports would be advantageous. I hope that matter can be revisited. The European Hercules fund could be used to reduce the cost to the Exchequer.
Those watching this debate or reading the Official Report, who might have consumed or purchased illegal tobacco products, should understand that they are not getting one over on the State.
The Deputy should conclude.
They are doing enormous damage to the State and to ordinary working people who are losing their jobs in the retail industry. We need to address this problem collectively as a society.
The Deputy's point about the responsibility of members of the general public not to buy these illegal cigarettes is well made. Not only are they effectively defrauding taxpayers in the State, they are also putting their own health at further risk because they are consuming products which have not been verified in the normal way.
The average price of a packet of cigarettes here is €8.65, whereas in Hungary it is €2.06, meaning that smokers in Ireland are paying top-dollar. Raising tax on tobacco products further would simply encourage the illicit trade to which the Deputy refers.
I must call time.
We have already used funding from the Hercules programme for one or two of the scanners — we will consider the matter again. As they cost €3 million to purchase and €320,000 a year to maintain, obviously it is a cost issue. I assure the Deputy that Revenue is on top of the problem and is doing everything it can to address it.
Job Losses
I do not want to cause any further anxiety, distress or concern to the employees of Aviva Insurance. There are concerns given some reports in newspapers of discussions that trade unions are having with Aviva management. That Aviva HR managers from throughout the world met in Spain recently to discuss restructuring rings alarm bells. The announcement by Aviva Health in May to move its European headquarters from Dublin back to London rang alarm bells that further restructuring could take place affecting its operations in Ireland. Aviva employs more than 2,000 people in Ireland. The headquarters could have job losses of up to 500 and now there are disturbing reports of possible further job losses.
We must express concern in the context of existing Aviva employees. We need to consider the broader issue of the sectoral plans that would be required by Government and the lead agency, IDA Ireland, in discussions with companies whose headquarters are located in Ireland. Primarily we are trying to promote Ireland as a place for foreign direct investment and trying to promote the International Financial Services Centre. It plays a very positive role in the economy and employs large numbers of people. However, when an internationally recognised company with a strong brand such as Aviva moves its headquarters out of the country, it could damage our reputation. We have invested much in trying to promote Ireland as a place for foreign direct investment and this issue could raise concern for other companies considering locating in Ireland.
I do not expect the Minister of State to be able to wave a magic wand, but the Government and IDA Ireland need to have stronger engagement with Aviva on its restructuring plans as opposed, as the Taoiseach said, to waiting for this review to take place and then for the company to announce that following its review it is restructuring at which point it is too late for us to embark on any meaningful engagement with the company.
Will the Minister of State confirm that there has been strong engagement by the Minister and the lead agency with the company on its international restructuring? What efforts are being made to draft sectoral plans for the insurance, hedge fund and financial services industries which are under enormous pressure because of the downturn in the broader international economy? Those perceptions that might arise following Aviva's decision to relocate its headquarters could have a damaging impact on Ireland's ability to attract high-end high-value companies such as Aviva to Ireland. This is particularly true of those involved in insurance, financial services and hedge fund management.
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. As I reported to the House on the 22 September, Aviva is undertaking a review of its operations in response to a significant reduction in demand for insurance and pensions products. Aviva has found it necessary to review its operations here to ensure its cost base is in line with domestic demand to ensure sustainability. The CEO of Aviva Ireland has assured the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation that no decisions have been taken on the final structures or potential job losses. He has also confirmed that Aviva is committed to remaining a significant player in the Irish insurance and assurance market.
As the CEO of Aviva has confirmed that the company is in ongoing contact with employee representatives, it would be premature to speculate about the outcome. To be fair, it is pertinent that the Government allow the unions to engage with Aviva to see where that process might lead. The company has given a commitment to communicate the results of the review to my Department and IDA Ireland when completed. We anticipate that the review will be completed by the end of October. In the interim, IDA Ireland is in contact with the company at both corporate and local level, with the intention of mitigating the impact of potential negative outcomes following the review. IDA Ireland is also in dialogue with the company on potential future opportunities in respect of the company's significant international business. In this context, recent media coverage does not reflect a formal announcement by the company. The review of its operations is ongoing and the company has not officially confirmed the scale of potential job losses. My Department, through IDA Ireland, is monitoring the situation closely and will engage further with the company at any stage.
Media reports are obviously not definitive on decisions a company might make on restructuring and job losses. Nonetheless, they raise concerns for the employees. Aviva will remain a dominant player in the Irish insurance market, even if it halves its workforce, as there are over 2,000 people currently employed by the company. That does not mitigate the fact, however, that there is major concern and there must be strong engagement with IDA Ireland and the Department prior to any restructuring. Waiting for restructuring means one thing only; the decision has been made at corporate level. It is then too late for active engagement with the agency and the Department.
We understand the pressures in the insurance and assurance markets, the financial services industry, as well as call centres, given recent job losses in Waterford and the concerns expressed about Rigney Dolphin in that county. The only way the anxiety and concern can be alleviated is through a definitive decision being made by the company as quickly as possible. Engagement with the Department and IDA Ireland prior to the review being completed is the obvious thing to do, as opposed to waiting until such time as the company has announced its restructuring, when it will be too late to do anything.
Let us be straight. If a global company such as Aviva decides to restructure, it is pertinent, if there is engagement with the trade unions in the organisation, that we allow such a process to proceed. I have stated IDA Ireland is in dialogue with the company on potential future opportunities. I have also stated it is in contact with the company at both corporate and local level, with a view to mitigating the impact of potential negative outcomes. I note the point made by the Deputy which I will pass on to IDA Ireland. However, it is vital that we allow the review to take place. The CEO has assured the Minister that no decisions have been taken on the final structure and potential job losses. However, it is important that we take on board what the Deputy is saying and reflect the concerns outlined and the view that IDA Ireland raise the ante in advance of the review. That is a fair point.
Accident and Emergency Services
I welcome the increased ratio of red headed Deputies in the Chamber. It is a nice change.
I raise an important issue affecting my constituency, namely, the position at the accident and emergency department of University College Hospital, Galway, which I understand, with approximately 66,000 attendances per year, is the second busiest accident and emergency department in the country after the department in Tallaght hospital. It is also a hospital with a much wider remit. Tallaght hospital is not the only major hospital in Dublin, whereas University College Hospital, Galway serves the entire western region and is a major hub of medical activity. The experiences of constituents of mine who present at the accident and emergency department are severe and are very worrying. Approximately two weeks ago on 24 September matters got to the stage where HSE West had to issue a statement asking people not to present at the department, unless it was absolutely necessary to do so, as it simply could not cope with the number of patients presenting. That is a sign that the problem is reaching crisis point.
Yesterday morning there were 42 patients on trolleys in the hospital, which was almost a record. The problem was so bad that there was an overflow into other units. The ward space required is not available to deal with patients in the accident and emergency department and that issue needs to be tackled. It is often a gruesome and an horrific experience for patients waiting endlessly in an overcrowded department, not knowing how long they will have to wait to be seen. Conditions are often cramped. I have heard one story from a constituent who had a leg injury and who had to stand while waiting to be assessed as as there was no chair available. Those presenting are vulnerable, sick and worried because they are not used to being dealt with in such circumstances.
According to figures I received today, 356 patients spent time on a trolley in the hospital in September 2010, but this figure rose to 642 in September 2011, a huge increase of 286. Clearly, the trend is deteriorating. I have a 78 year old constituent who spent four nights on a trolley in the hospital. On the afternoon of 24 September every single patient on a trolley was over 75 years old.
I met the clinical director and the registrar in the accident and emergency department on 30 August to discuss the issues involved. They talked about some of their plans such as the movement of critical functions from the hospital to other satellite hospitals in the HSE West region, the use of the medical admissions unit and the medical assessment unit. However, these initiatives on their own are not capable of solving the problem. The fair deal scheme is part of the problem. There are persons in the acute hospital system who should be in elderly care settings, but they cannot receive such care because the funding is not available.
There are also other issues such as the effectiveness of the national ambulance service. Patients are spending time in hospital beds when they should have been transferred. Owing to a lack of resources, it can take two days to have them transferred by ambulance.
It will be interesting to hear the Minister of State's reply on any actions she proposes to take.
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. There is a slight flaw emerging in the topical issues debate format. The Deputy is speaking about something of which we are all aware. Perhaps we should be concentrating on plans to resolve the issues involved. That is what Members would really like to see, but that is not what we get. I am about to repeat virtually everything the Deputy said, although I must correct one of his figures. The throughput at Galway University Hospital's accident and emergency unit last year was 68,000 as opposed to 66,000.
We all know the reason for bottlenecks in acute hospitals is the lack of step-down facilities for people who should not be in hospital but are not able to go home. Primary care will be part of the solution to the bottlenecks in acute hospitals. For instance, the leg injury of the constituent to whom the Deputy referred could have been dealt with in an upskilled minor injuries clinic or a proper primary care unit. If such facilities were in place, the only people being assessed in accident and emergency departments would be those whom general practitioners considered to be in need of an assessment by a consultant or admission to hospital. We need to address the ancillary services required around acute hospitals rather than focusing solely on acute hospitals. The Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, is battling to have primary care units and multidisciplinary teams established in the community setting. These units and teams will also form part of mental health services, for which I am responsible, and care of the elderly. The social care needs of older people, persons with a disability and those with mental health issues are identical, and there is no reason this aspect of their care cannot be delivered in the community.
If we do not start thinking outside the box the chaos we have inherited, including in Galway University Hospital, will continue. The special delivery unit is gathering all the information we need to allow us to put in place mechanisms to ensure we can avoid the type of problems Deputy Nolan has observed in overflow wards and accident and emergency departments. The Deputy's most poignant comment concerned a 75 year old man who found himself facing the indignity of being placed on a trolley. While the rest of us may have a degree of dexterity and mobility, it must be disturbing for anyone of that age profile to find himself or herself in such a position.
Before coming to the House, I attended a meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee on health at which we discussed how we would address the issues Deputy Nolan raised. We must act urgently because a long-term response would be of little benefit to the 75 year old gentleman to whom the Deputy referred. I concur with the Deputy on this issue. The Government is working very hard to resolve the problem.
I thank the Minister of State for her heartfelt response. As a member of a Government party, I support the strategy of diverting patients from acute hospitals, the most expensive facilities to treat patients, to primary care, which is more effective, efficient, local and trusted by members of the community. We are, however, a long way from achieving this objective. As such, I must raise the issue of 42 people on trolleys in Galway University Hospital who do not yet have access to the primary care service that is required.
The special delivery unit has been widely discussed. I understand from my discussions with representatives of Galway University Hospital that Dr. O'Connor visits the hospital every week and various changes are being made. What are the plans of the unit and what have been the results to date? The Minister took the initiative by asking the special delivery unit to write a report on the position in the Mid-Western Regional Hospital in Limerick. I ask the Minister of State to give a commitment on behalf of the Government that an investigation will be carried out and a report published into Galway University Hospital. Such an urgent response is warranted given that 42 patients were lying on trolleys in the hospital this morning.
I would be pleased to work with the Minister of State and Health Service Executive to facilitate the required shift from acute hospitals to primary care facilities. I will also discuss with her the local situation in Galway. This issue must be resolved urgently, especially given that the real blockage in accident and emergency departments starts in winter. It is not yet winter and already 42 people are on trolleys in Galway University Hospital. Will the Minister of State see to it that the special delivery unit produces a performance report for Galway University Hospital which will be presented to the Dáil?
I will most definitely bring the Deputy's request to the Minister. One of the significant proposals made by the special delivery unit, and which appears to be common sense to anyone who has spent any time in hospital, is that consultants make two daily ward rounds rather than one. As we all know, people can be discharged later in the day once results come back from laboratories. In such circumstances, there is no point holding on to patients until the consultant does another round the following morning. Taking such a common sense approach will have an effect.
The special delivery unit has also informed us of a significant finding, that the number of people attending accident and emergency units does not increase in the winter months we associate with chaos. What changes is the type of patient presenting in winter, specifically people with chest infections and so forth who need to be admitted to hospital. This appears to be the reason for the backlog. Having this type of information will allow us to engage in planning. I will bring the Deputy's reasonable request to the Minister.