Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Nov 2011

Vol. 745 No. 4

Topical Issue Debate

Cross-Border Projects

The cross-Border geopark straddles counties Cavan, Fermanagh, Leitrim and Sligo. Recognised by UNESCO, the geopark contains a fine array of geological, geomorphological and biodiversity features of international importance. Within the Marble Arch Caves Global Geopark it is possible to see some of Ireland's finest cliffs and scarps, including Cuilcagh Mountain summit ridge, the Cliffs of Magho, which overlook lower Lough Erne, and Knockmore Cliff, which reaches a height of 130 m. The Border upland project builds on the established reputation of the Marble Arch Caves Global Geopark and will greatly enhance the landscape tourism product of the region by creating much needed outdoor access, recreational and amenity infrastructure in the scenic upland areas of the four counties straddling the Border. Part of this will be an interpretive centre at Blacklion.

The overall project was approved by the INTERREG IVA steering committee on 10 February 2011. It was awarded funding of €3,183,804 and a letter of offer was expected in May or June of this year. However, on 15 June, the Special EU Programmes Body, SEUPB, stated that the letter of offer was on hold as the accountable Departments were working on agreeing the percentage splits for the matched funding amounts. The fact that a 25% outlay by the Governments of Northern Ireland and the Republic will attract 75% funding from Europe makes their acceptance vital.

We need an answer. The intergovernmental debate on the ratio of contributions needs quick resolution because the letter of offer is long overdue. It is a question of giving effect to an agreement between the two Governments on a ratio of expenditure. This infrastructure is vital for the community and the area.

I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for Public Service and Reform, Deputy Howlin.

The Border uplands project is a joint venture between Fermanagh District Council and the county councils of Cavan, Leitrim and Sligo. This project will greatly enhance the region's landscape tourism product by creating much needed outdoor access and recreational and amenity infrastructure in the scenic upland areas of the four counties concerned. It is due to be implemented under the INTERREG IVA programme, which covers the period 2007 to 2013. INTERREG is co-funded by the Irish and UK Governments and the European Regional Development Fund. The objective of the programme, which has a total value of €256 million, is to support strategic cross-Border co-operation for a more prosperous and sustainable region. It focuses on the development of a dynamic economy and the provision of support to cross-Border infrastructure that will improve access to services and thereby improve the quality of life for those living in these areas. The Irish experience of Structural Funds has been very positive. Cohesion policy has played an important role in the development of Ireland's economy and the financial transfers from the EU budget are important levers to bring about change and encourage development in the regions covered.

The INTERREG programme is managed by the Special EU Programmes Body, one of the six North-South bodies established under the Good Friday Agreement. Funding allocation is based on a comprehensive and robust application and approval process. To implement the programme, the SEUPB issues calls for project applications, assesses applications received and presents projects for final selection by a steering committee. All funding applications are subject to this process to ensure funding is allocated in an effective manner. Funding for the approved projects is then provided by the relevant Departments in Ireland, Northern Ireland and, in the case of tripartite projects, Scotland.

The INTERREG programme should take account of the overall agreed apportionment of funding from member states for the period 2007 to 2013. Ireland's ratio is 27.6%, or €70.7 million, while the ratio for the UK is 72.4%, or €185.3 million. Over the lifetime of the programme to date, however, Ireland's contribution has been in excess of the agreed rates and is currently running close to 40%. This issue was raised by the Minister, Deputy Howlin, when he and the Minister for Finance met their Northern counterpart, the Minister for Finance and Personnel, Sammy Wilson, MLA, at a sectoral meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council in July. It was agreed that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland and the SEUPB would work closely together to address this issue urgently to ensure the correct funding ratios are met by end of the programme. This will mean that remaining projects will need to be funded with relatively higher UK and relatively lower Irish contributions. However, pending a resolution it has been necessary to put all letters of offer for INTERREG projects on temporary hold.

I understand the concerns arising for Deputy O'Reilly and the project's sponsors. However, I assure them that officials in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform have been pursuing this issue with their Northern counterparts and I am hopeful we will shortly reach a resolution which will allow the letter of offer for this project to issue.

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. The last paragraph of his response was particularly helpful in that it appears to indicate that a solution is at hand. I ask him to confirm that he is confident of a favourable outcome to the intergovernmental negotiations on the ratio of financing and assure me of early issuance of the letter of offer. The delays thus far have been so lengthy that any further delay could put the project at risk.

This is a very good project and we are anxious that it will proceed as soon as possible. We are hopeful that an agreement will be reached between the North and South which will allow letters of offer, currently on hold, to be issued. If this does not happen shortly, I will ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, to see what steps can be taken to unblock projects. It has been specifically identified by officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, in discussions with their Northern colleagues, as one that needs to proceed without delay. We are anxious that this will happen.

Fuel Laundering

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for facilitating my request for a discussion on the topical issue of fuel laundering. I have tried to raise the matter on several occasions.

The criminal activity of adulterating motor fuel is a threat to public health and safety, the environment and the vehicle engines of unfortunate victims as well as the cause of a serious tax loss to the Exchequer. It is time to seek an end to the practice of fuel laundering. I will take this opportunity to explore the possibility of developing an alternative method of protecting the fuel subsidy to farmers, to assist them in their production of food, as well as the continued protection of established, legitimate users of tax rebated fuels, such as home heating oil users.

From the details already published of seizures of laundered goods and equipment this year, it is obvious that illegal tampering with marked gas oil is increasing. I urge that there be cross-Border support on this issue, as has been the case in the past. I raised this issue at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly as it is an extensive problem in the North as well. In a recent joint Garda, Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, and Customs and Excise raid on a laundering plant in co-operation with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, it was estimated that the plant was capable of supplying diesel to ten busy service stations for a full year. Any seepage of fuel residues or chemical bleaching agents from this plant into the ground would have had widespread and serious consequences for humans, animals and the environment.

At this stage we ought to be able to tackle this problem. There is agreement among the farming organisations that it is time to open a debate on this issue. The general consensus appears to be that the easiest way to tackle it is not to colour the diesel and provide a rebate to farmers.

I thank Senator Denis Landy for asking me to raise this issue. In agreeing with my colleague, Deputy Ann Phelan, it is worth pointing out that the most obvious and effective change we could make is to harmonise the duties on green diesel, which is currently at 13.5%, and auto diesel, which is at 21%. Legitimate agricultural users could reclaim the payment at the higher level. This would do a great deal to recoup the approximately €150 million we are losing due to laundered diesel. I would be grateful if the Minister would deal with that issue.

On a related although not as important issue, if there is some reason this change cannot be introduced, it would be extremely useful if each petrol station had to display in an obvious manner the supplier of its fuel. If a problem emerges, therefore, there is a definite lead to follow in finding out who the original supplier is. Can anything be done to impose responsibility on the relevant petrol stations to repair cars that have been damaged? I look forward to the Minister's response.

I thank Deputy Phelan and Deputy Dowds for their views and proposals. I will bring them to the attention of the Minister.

I am pleased to take this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Minister for Finance on the subject of fuel laundering. This form of tax evasion is a matter the Government takes very seriously, particularly given the current economic climate. I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the predominant illicit activity in the mineral oil area in Northern Ireland and the Republic is the laundering of marked diesel. In both jurisdictions the respective difference in excise rates between marked or rebated and normal diesel offers a considerable incentive for oil laundering and this illicit activity poses a serious threat to the exchequers, economies and environment on both sides of the Border.

Marked gas oil or marked diesel is subject in the Republic to mineral oil tax at the rebated rate of €88.66 per 1,000 litres, on condition that it is used for particular purposes such as home heating or as a propellant in agricultural and off-road vehicles. Its use in ordinary road vehicles is strictly prohibited and there are heavy penalties for anyone convicted of such an offence. The rate for normal auto diesel is €465.70 per 1,000 litres. In addition, marked gas oil is subject to a lower VAT rate of 13.5%. The resulting total tax differential is around 50 cent per litre, which is very significant.

The Revenue Commissioners, who are responsible in the Republic for the collection of mineral oil tax and the control of mineral oils, are very aware of the threat posed by laundered fuel and undertake a multi-faceted programme of enforcement action to counter it. It will be appreciated that it is not possible to accurately estimate the loss to national exchequers either in the Republic or in Northern Ireland from individual activities within the shadow economy but obviously it is significant. It is important to note that marked gas oil usage is not unique to farmers. It has a wide range of legitimate uses, such as in commercial and domestic heating systems, ships, fishing boats, trains, certain vehicles designed for specific off-road use, machinery used mainly in the agricultural and construction sector and electricity generators.

One of the alternative methods envisaged by the Deputies involves a move towards a system of repayment whereby certain users would be given refunds relating to non-auto use of mineral oils. However, it is not clear that this is a feasible option. It would involve the establishment of a very extensive repayment system which would give rise to a very significant administrative burden for the Revenue Commissioners, oil traders and users and would pose significant cash-flow implications for those who currently use marked gas oil. Repayment regimes are vulnerable to abuse and liable to be exploited by criminal elements, such as those currently involved in fuel laundering. A repayment scheme would not eliminate the incentive to divert rebated oil to high-rate auto use and could give rise to large-scale bogus claims. Illicit use would be difficult to detect and almost impossible to prove. Even if the oil that benefits from repayment is marked, it can still be laundered as at present. In addition, oil can be laundered from UK marked gas oil. Therefore, a move away from marking could only be considered if the UK were to do likewise.

For these reasons, it is not clear that a repayment system would be less susceptible to fraud. The Revenue Commissioners' intention is to continue to ensure that controls relating to the sale and distribution of oils and enforcement action in combating illegal oil laundering activity are as effective as possible. There has been ongoing extensive enforcement action, which has led to the detection of oil laundries and the prosecution of the individuals and companies involved. As the Deputies are aware, substantial action has been taken by the Garda and law enforcement agencies north and south of the Border in the recent past.

The Minister's reply was comprehensive. I take his point about the rebate and the burden it could possibly impose. If we are losing a great deal of revenue, however, it might be cost neutral. I am also aware that an isotope can be added to the diesel which would allow for the detection of legitimate fuel in the engine. Perhaps that is another way to deal with the problem.

I believe this issue should be dealt with across the EU. There was a comprehensive report on the radio today which showed that this is a huge problem across the Balkans and a very significant problem in Greece. Moreover, it was reported today that Mr. Papandreou had been attempting to get reports on the magnitude of the difficulty in Greece. Given the difficulties faced by that country, I am sure they would welcome the recovery of all such Exchequer losses arising from fuel laundering, which might go a considerable distance towards plugging the large fiscal hole they have to plug. Consequently, there is much work to be done in that regard.

I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister of State's response in that I consider the suggestion made by Deputy Phelan and me to be practical. If the estimate that €150 million is being lost is correct, it would hardly cost that amount to put in place a system of checks. However, if the Minister of State sticks to that view, my suggestion that each petrol station should be obliged to display clearly the source of its fuel would be simple enough to monitor. I welcome the successful activities of the Garda in bringing to book some petrol stations which deserved to be chased up. I await with interest the Minister of State's response to that suggestion and whether there is any way in which rogue petrol stations can be forced to pay for the damage they do to people's cars.

I again wish to agree with both Deputies that this issue is serious and must be dealt with. Obviously, the notes I have to hand were written before I heard what the Deputies had to say, but I will bring their comments directly to the attention of the Minister concerned as they make a lot of sense. Deputy Dowds made an important point on traceability and accountability and the fuel's origin being visible in a clear and obvious place. As for Deputy Phelan's point on the possible addition of an isotope, if this makes sense, I see no reason it should not be done.

I wish to make a brief final point on cross-Border co-operation. A cross-Border co-operation fraud enforcement group is highly active. The group comprises HM Revenue & Customs, the United Kingdom Border Agency, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency representing Northern Ireland, as well as the Revenue Commissioners, An Garda Síochána, the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Since 2008, it has met a total of 13 times and, as can be seen through the court proceedings, it is taking a lot of focused action. However, this is an extremely important issue that will not go away until it is dealt with effectively both in respect of penalties and transparency of fuel origin. Moreover, if it is possible to incorporate the additive as suggested by the Deputy, this should be done.

May we receive a further report on that matter?

Yes, I will ask the Minister to so do.

Community Employment Schemes

I wish to raise the issue of the revised points for eligibility for ring-fenced projects agreed by FÁS. In particular, I wish to zero in on one such project, the community after schools project known as CASPr. The project has been operating in the north-east inner city of Dublin since 1995 and I need not tell Members about the level of social and educational disadvantage suffered by that part of the north inner city over generations. CASPr is an impressive project that provides child care and educational support programmes for more than 120 children from local schools in the five to 12 year age group. It provides training for local adults from the community, many of whom were early school leavers, and runs a crèche that caters for up to 15 children. In addition, the project runs two community employment schemes under the FÁS community services programme and this assists in the staffing of all its after-school programmes.

CASPr is an accredited training centre that provides high level training up to the top level of FETAC qualifications. Since CASPr is based in a local drugs task force area, one of its community employment schemes achieved a special ring-fenced T-code status which focuses on drug prevention, education and rehabilitation. Effectively, this has meant CASPr can recruit young adults under the age of 25 years, despite the general eligibility criterion that it is for the over-25s. Moreover, because of this special status, extensions of three years normally are given and this has enabled the project to continue to attract into training and productive employment within the community a large number of people who are at risk of drug abuse.

As a matter of routine, CASPr sought extensions for three of the participants, all of whom were under 25 years and who had completed their first year, but it was told flatly that they would only be given a three-month extension because a review was in train. This was news to CASPr. The project has been informed of a recent change to the eligibility for T-code or ring-fenced projects following a recent review. I must emphasise this review did not include service providers. CASPr has been informed there are nine revised points of eligibility. I again emphasise these points of eligibility were arrived at without consultation with service providers in the field and at no point did FÁS consult CASPr. This is a source of concern for both CASPr and, as Members will understand, the wider community within the north inner city which depends so heavily on this service. Consequently, I look forward to the Minister of State's response on this important project and the provision of training services.

I thank Deputy McDonald for allowing me time to discuss this issue. As she has indicated, it is a matter that concerns CASPr, where many people have been employed in the context of a special project. In addition, a meeting of the local drugs task force in the north inner city was held this morning and it was stated it had not been consulted with regard to the review mechanism and the nine points of eligibility now proposed for special projects and their interconnection with mainstreamed community employment schemes. Consequently, there appears to be a gap between the best of intentions and consultation and awareness among those delivering these services. In particular, Deputy McDonald and I metrepresentatives of CASPr the week before last to discuss this matter. They were concerned that it would have a detrimental impact and that no proper consultation on the matter had taken place with CASPr or other service providers. It appears as though there was a degree of consultation but that it did not involve the direct service providers. It involved one umbrella group but not necessarily those at the coalface. The representatives of CASPr seek an opportunity to have an input into the new adjustments being proposed and suggest the review should take place after consultations with them and after they have been made fully aware of what is being proposed. Consequently, I would welcome a positive response from the Minister of State on the matter.

I thank both Deputies for raising this issue. As far as I can figure out, this appears, by and large, to be a communications problem. I will read the reply I have to hand, which is a little long-winded.

In addition to operating the community employment scheme, FÁS also oversees the implementation of the community employment drugs rehabilitation programme which provides 1,000 places for recovering drug users. This special programme is part of the continuum of care to facilitate and support participants in their ongoing recovery from alcohol or drug misuse. The programme aims to enable those affected by substance misuse to address their addiction, while giving them an opportunity to upskill. It also supports participants during their work placement with a view to achieving sustainable employment. The nine-point special conditions for the delivery of the drugs rehabilitation places were originally agreed by FÁS following the recommendations of the Bruce report in 2004. This study evaluated the effect of special community projects in consultation with the community sector.

In early 2009 the community sector made representations to the then Office of the Minister for Drugs for a review of the procedures for the delivery of the original nine conditions. The matter was considered by the drugs advisory group which supports and drives the implementation of the national drugs strategy. Arising from the discussions at the drugs advisory group, FÁS was mandated to establish a working group to review the delivery procedures for the drug rehabilitation programme places. The working group was tasked with reviewing the nine points to ensure consistent and appropriate referral, delivery and implementation of the special conditions for the delivery of the 1,000 places. The group included representatives of all key stakeholders, including FÁS, the HSE, the national drugs rehabilitation implementation committee, the then office of the Minister with responsibility for drugs, the community sector and the voluntary sector. It met five times last year to review and agree to the final procedures.

It was agreed that the representatives of the community sector would consult their constituent members on an ongoing basis. By way of example, the sector representatives, through Citywide, consulted their constituent groups, including community employment supervisors, throughout the life of the working group and fed into the decision-making process. As stated, the group also included representatives from the national drugs rehabilitation implementation committee, which ensured close links with the emerging care and case management framework.

The working group reported last December. It is important to note that the nine points have not been changed; rather, they have been restated and the referral process has been clarified. The agreed procedures also provide a guideline for FÁS in supporting and monitoring the implementation of the nine points. Briefing for FÁS staff is under way. FÁS personnel on local and regional drugs task forces are in a position to bring information from FÁS to the drugs task forces and update them on any relevant changes in organisational practices.

FÁS has presented a draft referral protocol to the national drugs rehabilitation implementation committee as recommended by the working group. Subject to feedback received, FÁS plans to pilot the protocol at three community employment rehabilitation sites. The aim of this process is to ensure there is a consistent and integrated approach nationally to the referral of individuals to community employment drugs rehabilitation programme places.

I appreciate this is the response the Minister of State received but our information flatly contradicts what has been said. At no stage was CASPr involved in a consultation procedure. I believe Citywide, a very fine group, is being cited because it was perhaps the only group engaged on this matter. If it is the case that the nine points have not been changed, how is it that a scheme which enjoyed T-status is no longer ring-fenced? How did that happen?

There are 1,000 allocated places for citizens in recovery from drug use, but we are not entirely clear whether all of these 1,000 places are being taken up. We are also mindful that prevention and preventive intervention are critical across the State but particularly so in the north inner city in keeping younger people — the under 25s, most particularly men in that age group — away from all of the potential hazards and a life of misery caused by drug misuse.

While I appreciate the Minister of State's response, it is inaccurate, although I reiterate that I do not lay the blame at her feet. We need to have this matter sorted out. Times are tough but by penny-pinching in this way, as demonstrated in CASPr, we will build a much bigger bill in terms of the cost to the Exchequer but also in terms of human misery. I, therefore, ask the Minister of State to investigate this issue on a cross-party basis.

It seems there was a misunderstanding in the representation of the role of Citywide because, while it was consulted, it did not represent the other groups involved. However the misunderstanding occurred, CASPr has stated it was not consulted. We need to clarify this matter, as there may still be scope for consultation in this respect.

The Minister of State has stated there is a draft referral protocol, whereby there will be three pilot community employment rehabilitation sites under a FÁS plan. I do not know what the text is and whether significant new information or a change of practice is involved. However, I would like to be made aware of what is contained in the protocol, if possible.

There may have been a communications problem, through no fault of the Minister of State, the Minister or the Department but perhaps as a result of a misunderstanding as to the representation offered by Citywide which does not speak for a range of other special projects, although that might have been the presumption. Perhaps some level of consultation could take place at this time.

My information is that the community sector was represented by Ms Joan Byrne of SAOL, with an alternate being Mr. Daithí Doolan of Citywide, and by Ms Teresa Weafer of the Ringsend and District Response to Drugs. The voluntary sector was represented by Mr. Tony Geoghegan from the Merchants Quay Project. That said, I cannot understand why on an initiative dating back as far as 2004 there is still no clarity on the way in which it operates. While the indication given to me seems to suggest matters have been sorted out, it is also suggested a pilot programme is running. To my mind, that does not add up.

I am not in a position to answer the Deputies' questions now, nor do I have specific information on CASPr. I will undertake to examine the position, specifically on CASPr, and also to seek clarity on this initiative which has been established for so long that it should be operating smoothly at this stage. If there are 1,000 places available for recovering drug users, I want to see them used fully. I will obtain further information and come back to the Deputies. I again thank them for raising the issue.

Hospice Services

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, for facilitating me in raising the issue of public funding for the Galway Hospice Foundation.

The matter of how the State supports hospice care is of massive public interest and importance, given the number of us who have been affected either directly or indirectly by cancer. There will be few people, therefore, who will not appreciate the significance of the role played by a hospice in offering comfort and support to patients and their families. I had the privilege last Friday evening of visiting the Galway Hospice facility in Renmore with the Taoiseach where we witnessed at first hand the exceptional care provided by the hospice for members of the public.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be well aware of the service Galway Hospice provides and he has been a great supporter of the facility during the years. He will know that for over two decades the hospice has served the people of Galway city, County Galway and beyond in a way that is almost impossible for us to quantify or measure. All Galwegians know in their hearts the true value of the work the hospice does and of the thousands of lives it has touched, and this excellence has been independently and internationally recognised. It is the only hospice in Ireland to hold accreditation by the International Society for Quality in Health Care. In May it became the only hospice in Europe to receive an international quality improvement award for outstanding achievement in the delivery of quality care.

I raise this matter because of the significant disproportionality and inequality in the way hospices receive funding from the Health Service Executive. Last year, for example, Galway Hospice received €3.6 million in funding from the HSE, in comparison to €11.1 million provided for Milford Hospice in Limerick. The amount received in Galway was just over €300,000 per hospice bed compared to €444,000 per bed in Marymount Hospice in Cork, giving rise to a differential of almost 50% in the level of funding provided for the two hospices.

Not only is Galway Hospice underfunded, it is also under-resourced. The number of consultant hours per hospice bed in Galway is also at variance with other facilities in the HSE west region. It received 1.2 consultant-hours per bed in comparison with 3.4 consultant-hours per bed in Donegal, for example. In spite of being disadvantaged by these inequalities, Galway hospice has continued to lead the way in terms of the provision of an exceptional service.

Galway hospice has had to rely largely on volunteer funding and requires approximately €1.5 million per annum through fund raising and voluntary donations in order to continue to provide the level of service it gives. It is a testament to that service and to the esteem in which the facility is held by the people of Galway and the wider region, that it is consistently able to raise that €1.5 million on an annual basis to meet the deficit in funding provided by the HSE. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is aware, the initial construction of the 12 bed facility at Renmore was financed entirely by voluntary funding, no call was made on the Government purse for the capital expenditure for the hospice. The deficit in finance received by Galway hospice compared to other facilities across the western region has also hampered its development and prevented its expansion. The burden imposed on it by this under-funding has meant that it cannot comply with its service requirement and it remains 14 beds short of the target set out by the report of the national advisory committee on palliative care which was prepared back in 2001. The argument is that if this facility was properly funded, it would be in a position to direct all of its fund-raising efforts towards financing the plans it has to expand the facility to meet the needs of the region. The shortage of hospice beds in Galway is also emphasised by the number of cancer deaths which occur annually at the region's principal hospital, University Hospital Galway, UHG. Some 47.5% of all deaths in UHG are cancer related compared to just 17% in Limerick Regional Hospital and 21.5% in Cork University Hospital. In both of these areas, properly structured and financed hospice facilities exist.

I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall to carry out a review of funding for hospice facilities to ensure that greater equality exists, that a level playing field exists and to demonstrate that the Government recognises the exceptional work being carried out by all hospice facilities in the State.

I thank Deputy Walsh for raising this issue and giving me an opportunity to update the House on this matter.

Our policy is to continue to develop and improve palliative care health services in all regions to meet the objective of providing modern, high quality palliative and end of life care services. The development of such services is informed by the report of the National Advisory Committee on Palliative Care 2001 and will be progressed in the context of wider reforms for the health service generally and overall resource availability.

The Health Service Executive has operational responsibility for the delivery of health and social services, including supporting facilities such as Galway hospice. The HSE funds the 12 bed inpatient unit at Galway hospice to the sum of €3.5 million in the current year. This has been reduced from €3.7 million over the past two years, owing to cost containment measures being implemented right across the Galway area. This reduced funding has resulted in a reduction in day-care services from three to two days each week. The funding reduction is part of the continuing challenge to maximise levels of service, while meeting nationally defined cost containment targets. During 2010, 283 patients were cared for in the inpatient unit and 412 patients were cared for at home by the hospice home care team.

The HSE has also supported the hospice in relation to accreditation and ISO quality awards, through funding a full-time practice development co-ordinator, as well as a part-time pharmacist and dietician. The HSE has enhanced medical provision in recent times through funding an additional registrar post in 2009 and supporting FETAC training of health care assistants through its nursing and midwifery planning and development unit. In addition, the new palliative care suite opened in Tuam community nursing unit in 2009 complements the Galway hospice and primary care teams in the community. The HSE remains committed to filling a third palliative care consultant post with the post holder having sessions in Galway Hospice and Portiuncula. The HSE is at present in the process of exploring options in this regard.

Under the National Framework for Palliative Services 2009-2013, Galway hospice home care team is earmarked for enhanced staffing for home care services. It is also scheduled for a capital development project, possibly on a less constrained site elsewhere, involving an additional 14 beds enhanced day-care facilities, a rehabilitation department and expanded family support and bereavement services. These proposals must be priorities in the context of a national approach to address recognised wider deficiencies in palliative care where there are large areas of the State with no hospice beds and little or nothing in the way of home care services.

The proposed capital development is at an early planning stage and discussions are ongoing regarding funding options, site location and other relevant matters. I understand that this process involved the hospice board working closely with the HSE, particularly in relation to prioritising the capital and revenue implications involved against a very difficult financial background. These discussions also have to take account of other palliative care issues relevant to the region, such as capital projects approved by the national framework for Donegal, Mayo and Sligo, which face similar service and resource pressures.

I thank the Deputy for raising the matter.

I thank the Minister for her very comprehensive response and for the indication of support for the home care services and the capital expansion plan. The argument the board advances for the capital expansion plan is that if the hospice was properly funded on a year to year operational basis, it could direct the €1.5 million that it consistently raises through the generosity of the people of Galway, on the new capital programme. As I said when I made my earlier contribution, the existing facility was funded entirely through fundraising. The figures are available and cannot be disputed. There is a clear inequality vis-à-vis hospice facilities in the western region. I hope the Minister of State will be able to use her influence with the HSE to have that inequality addressed.

I thank the Minister of State for her response and the positive elements in regard to the home care service and her support for the capital funding of the proposed expansion.

I take Deputy Walsh's point on the inequality in the funding allocations. I suppose much of that is for historical reasons. Very often where groups are very good at fundraising, they lose out because other facilities in other areas may be fully funded. I take that point. Increasingly, on a policy basis, we are trying to move to a standardised unit cost for funding services. I think that is the correct way to proceed. It is difficult to do that in the context of the very severe financial constraints we are operating under. I have taken note of the Deputy's request for a review of the manner in which funding is allocated across the region and I will take up this point with the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly.

I thank the Deputy for raising the matter.

Top
Share