Vol. 597 No. 4
1 Dr. Twomey asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if the national treatment purchase fund is in a position to take responsibility for outpatients department waiting lists for individual hospitals to streamline access to secondary care for patients in primary care. [4415/05]
In accordance with the health strategy, the immediate focus has been on the reduction of waiting lists and waiting times for inpatient and day-case treatments in acute hospitals.
The national treatment purchase fund has been successful in arranging treatments for 23,379 patients to the end of 2004. The allocation to the fund for 2005 is €64 million, which represents an increase on the allocation of €44 million for 2004. The NTPF is expected to arrange treatment for a further 16,000 patients in 2005. It is now the case that, in most instances, any public patient waiting more than three months will be facilitated by the fund.
While our immediate focus has been on reducing waiting lists for admission to hospital for treatment, I am obviously very concerned about the long waiting times being reported in respect of obtaining outpatient appointments in certain specialties. There appear to be difficulties in particular areas and the problem also appears to be spread throughout the country. The management of outpatient waiting lists requires the attention of both the newly established Health Service Executive and the NTPF. At a recent meeting with the NTPF, I raised the question of the fund playing a part in expediting outpatient appointments. The NTPF is examining its position with a view to further assessing the needs of patients on waiting lists and the most appropriate clinical pathways and protocols required for their care. Details regarding this exercise are being finalised by the fund and I expect to receive them shortly.
The circumstances that obtain when trying to see a consultant are a mess. Is there any role for the NTPF in reducing the size of waiting lists? Could it take letters of referral from GPs and give patients a realistic idea as to when they will be seen by a consultant? There is a number of problems in this area. Sometimes when one refers patients to orthopaedic or ENT units in the south east, one does not get a letter back stating when those patients will be seen, at least not until two or three months before their appointments are due. This, however, could be two or three years after the original letter is sent. This is totally unsatisfactory to patients and the GPs who are trying to manage them in a proper way.
If we believe GPs are the gatekeepers of the acute hospital sector, which is slowly crumbling in front of us, we should give patients a realistic time at which they can be seen by a consultant and inform their GPs accordingly. The NTPF seems to be in a position to take over this role and look after the list for the whole country, possibly for all 37 acute hospitals. Perhaps there is no need for each hospital to have an outpatients' appointments administrative centre.
The validation of the current lists represents an annoyance and a hindrance and consequently care is not being given to patients when they need it. The waiting list trends are published every year in the media but the patients are not being seen any sooner. I would like to hear a radical proposal from the Tánaiste so patients will know when they will be seen. It is quite strange that in some other jurisdictions, the populations of which believe they have a good health care system, patients often wait no more than 12 weeks for an operation after the sending of the original letter of referral by their GPs. In Ireland, patients often have to wait 12 weeks just to get on to the waiting list. We are falling way behind.
I know the Minister has to deal with the crisis in accident and emergency units.
The Deputy is making a long statement. This is Question Time.
Will the Tánaiste answer some of my questions?
I largely share Deputy Twomey's perspective. The NTPF was established as a universal insurer for those waiting a long time for appointments. The idea was that the fund would have a very focused, targeted approach to using private capacity that exists within or outside the State to deal with those badly in need of surgical procedures. It has worked extraordinarily well.
Awareness of the fund needs to be increased. Almost every week in my office, I deal with five or six cases concerning people entitled to use the fund but who have not been told about it. Later this month and in early March, the NTPF will engage in an extensive advertising campaign to ensure patients know they are entitled to obtain the treatment they require through the fund. The NTPF suggested that we have a patient register so the power would be with the patient and so the patient would be given details on the time of his or her outpatient appointment. The idea was that the patient could make direct contact himself or herself. The NTPF also felt the waiting lists were very inaccurate and that there was considerable duplication.
Given the long waiting times associated with some specialties, I must examine the issue of outpatient appointments. We need to increase substantially the number of consultant posts. We have approximately 1,940 consultants at present but we need to have 3,600. This is why it is so important that we negotiate with the hospital consultants regarding a new, more modern and flexible contract for consultants. Patients have to wait for so long because we obviously do not have enough consultants. In light of this, I have asked the NTPF to make proposals on how it could deal with patients who are waiting longest for outpatient appointments. The Deputy is correct that some have to wait for incredibly long periods. If there is capacity in the State to deal with these patients in a different way while we await the appointment of more consultants, it should be used.
Is the Minister saying we can tell patients that if they have seen a consultant, they will have to wait no more than three months from that date before they can approach the NTPF?
Yes.
What does the Minister feel about the fact that some hospitals are asking patients to attend accident and emergency units because they know they will not be seen in a respectable time?
The Deputy is correct in what he is implying. Not only doctors say that. Sometimes going to an accident and emergency unit is the only way people can get to see a consultant. However, it is adding to the pressure on these units. Every day, 3,300 people present at accident and emergency units. Accident and emergency units are supposed to deal only with accidents and emergencies. We do not have 3,300 accident and emergency cases per day but, due to the lack of out-of-hours GP services in many areas and the failure to secure outpatients' appointments, people are using accident and emergency units. It is important, therefore, that we use the fund when we can without detracting from its focused nature and that we increase the number of consultant appointments, particularly but not exclusively outside Dublin. Some regions have no rheumatologist or plastic surgeon and only one specialist in areas of considerable activity. Nobody can provide a service on that basis.
2 Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the measures she is taking to protect patient care, in view of the decision by hospital consultants to ballot for industrial action; the outcome of the promised meeting of legal teams; if she has satisfied herself that proper tendering procedures were used in the procurement of the State indemnity scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4408/05]
It is regrettable that the Irish Hospital Consultants' Association and the Irish Medical Organisation are contemplating industrial action in pursuit of a resolution of the dispute over medical indemnity cover for consultants. The only people who suffer as a consequence of this or any industrial action in the health service are patients. It is particularly unfortunate that consultants should chose to embark on this course of action when they and the Government should be uniting to pursue the common goal of ensuring the Medical Defence Union lives up to its obligations to its Irish members.
Over the years, Irish hospital consultants paid significant amounts in subscriptions to the MDU. Between 80% and 90% of these costs were ultimately borne by the Irish taxpayer. Taxpayers and consultants have a common interest in ensuring the MDU does not escape from its responsibility for meeting the cost of claims from these years. I therefore appeal once again to both organisations to withdraw their threats and to work with the Government in pursuit of our joint interest. It is clear, however, that even if we kept industrial action to a minimum, it would cause delays in the treatment of patients and prolong their suffering.
Within a month of my becoming Minister for Health and Children, I gave an assurance about cover at a conference of the Irish Hospital Consultants' Association and put it in writing. It stated that "no Irish person who has suffered from a medical mishap would be left without compensation and no consultant would be left without cover in all reasonable circumstances and in accordance with the law." Last November, I put in place arrangements for the legal defence of one consultant at St. James's Hospital who was taken off cover by the MDU and against whom a claim had been notified. I met quickly this consultant, representatives of the medical board of St. James's Hospital, the Irish Hospital Consultants' Association and the IMO to agree these arrangements. I am still engaged in intensive efforts to avoid this eventuality through discussions with both organisations. I am exploring whatever avenues may be open to the State in its own right, without compromising its legal position and in association with the consultants affected by a withdrawal of cover by the MDU, to pursue the MDU by legal means. Arrangements are being put in place for representatives of the Chief State Solicitor's Office, the Office of the Attorney General and outside counsel to meet legal representatives of both organisations to discuss these issues. It would not be appropriate for me to make any comment on these discussions.
As the Government decided that the clinical insurance scheme should be operated by a State body, namely, the National Treasury Management Agency acting as the State's claims agency, no procurement procedure was required. All aspects of the operation of the scheme required to be supplied are operated by external contractors where the full public service tendering procedures apply.
I thank the Minister for her reply. It is regrettable that the hospital consultants are threatening this action. Does the Minister not accept, however, that doctors are extremely anxious and concerned at the situation in which they find themselves? They understood at first that they had cover from the MDU that turned out in practice to be discretionary, which let them down badly. They fear that, despite her promise, the Minister will let them down again and are intent on ensuring that does not happen. They want a legally binding commitment that they and their patients will not be left without cover, not just words and promises at a conference.
Surely the Minister is aware that when a similar process took place in Britain to set up a state indemnity scheme, the state took on the historic liabilities. In this instance, however, a secret deal was done with a competitor of the MDU which is a matter of some concern. Does the MPS have any historic liabilities? Does the deal with the Department protect it from any claims coming through? It seems extraordinary that the historic liabilities were not dealt with comprehensively, leading to the mess in which people find themselves.
There is a misunderstanding. The arrangements with the MPS were also offered to the MDU. When the MDU complained to the European Commission, it held that the procedures were fair.
The British Government took over the historic liabilities of obstetricians whereas we are concerned with all consultant activity in the public sector. I gave an assurance in good faith but I cannot compromise the State's legal position. It may be that, as a result of the communication from the MDU last Friday, this matter will be resolved through litigation rather than negotiation. We would prefer negotiation but if that is not possible, we will have to pursue the matter legally although I cannot compromise the position of the State and the taxpayers.
The MDU should meet its responsibilities. That was the view expressed in Mr. Justice Johnston's judgment in the High Court last Tuesday. The consultants, the Government and the patients are all at one on this issue. From a legal perspective we must ensure that we do nothing that could compromise our position and the State finances.
Will the Minister assure us that a legally binding guarantee will be given to patients as well as doctors to resolve the immediate problems of potential industrial action? The Minister has not answered my question about the MPS and the historic liabilities. Will she publish the secret deal made with the MPS? Does she not accept that the problem is the large claims in obstetrics? While it may include other consultants, the MDU raised this issue with the Department in the early 1990s.
It is regrettable that the Minister's words before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children have set us further from negotiation on this issue. Will she publish the secret deal and ensure that a legally binding guarantee is provided for the doctors? We understand the legal complexities but there is a central need to protect patient care.
My comments were similar to those of Mr. Justice Johnston. The MDU should meet its responsibilities. This has gone on for far too long. Obstetricians are not the only ones affected. Mr. Young from St. James's Hospital is a cardiac surgeon and he was taken off cover. I have a brief on the history of the MPS and the MDU. The MPS took over the obstetric cases and ring-fenced the subscriptions paid. A complaint was made to the EU that unfair practices followed and the Commission held that the procedures were correct. I can make the briefing note available to the Deputy.
The Minister has not responded to my question. What about the historic liabilities of the MPS?
Two issues arise. From the perspective of State aids, if an unfavourable deal was done with one group, namely, the MDU that would have implications for the MPS which at all stages made it clear that it is prepared to make a sum of money available if we were to take over the past liabilities.
We have tried to have a due diligence exercise carried out because there are major differences between both sides. The MDU puts the value of the historic and known cases at approximately €160 million. The State team puts it at €400 million. There is a large gap between the two. The due diligence exercise is to establish the true position with a view to reaching agreement on the sums of money concerned. We do not have those issues with the MPS and if we were to take over the MPS cases, we would expect an appropriate monetary contribution.
3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if it is proposed to proceed with the configuration of accident and emergency services in the State’s hospitals as proposed in the Hanly report; if so, the way in which it will be put into effect in each region; the timetable for such implementation; the status of the report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4317/05]
The Government has already undertaken specific investment measures to provide new and improved accident and emergency departments in hospitals, to increase the number of emergency medicine consultants and to provide additional funding to move patients from the acute hospital system to a more appropriate care setting. The Government will continue to focus on the measures required to improve the delivery of accident and emergency services, recognising that we must not look at accident and emergency departments alone to find solutions. We must also develop primary care, sub-acute care and community care so that patients can be treated in the most appropriate setting.
The report of the national task force on medical staffing — the Hanly report — emphasised the importance of ensuring that we treat emergency or life-threatening conditions at the most appropriate location. Treatment should commence at the scene, typically by trained ambulance personnel, and the patient should then be taken to the nearest hospital that is best equipped to meet his or her needs.
The Hanly report also pointed to the need for further development of ambulance services, increases in the number of acute beds and a reorganisation and resourcing of primary care so that patients, wherever they live, have equitable and rapid access to high quality emergency care.
The Hanly report is a significant contribution to the development of acute hospital services and I have asked the National Hospitals Office to progress its recommendations accordingly.
What is the status of the Hanly report? The Minister's response repeats remarks she made last Monday to the effect that the Hanly report is a significant piece of work. She did not, however, make clear, then or now, what parts of the report will be implemented.
It seems the Government would like to give the impression that the implementation group has been wound up as a result of public pressure and opposition rather than because of the consultants' boycott. The Minister may clarify that. Does the Tánaiste agree with the report which states: "In local hospitals there should not be a requirement for on-site medical presence overnight or at weekends"? Has she any appreciation of the dire consequences of this, not only for local hospitals but communities throughout the jurisdiction? If this were acted upon, the consequences would be dire.
Does the Tánaiste agree that the majority of smaller hospitals throughout the State would not be able to provide accident and emergency facilities on an ongoing basis in any capacity because all inpatient services have a requirement of 24-hour medical care? If we are to lose one, we will lose all and it will have a fatal result for hospital services. Does the Tánaiste accept that the fate of Monaghan General Hospital in regard to the loss of critical services is the fate that awaits many smaller local hospitals throughout the jurisdiction?
The key recommendation in the Hanly report is that we need more manpower at consultant level throughout the country. Although the genesis to the Hanly report was the working time directive, its remit goes way beyond this. We need to move from having approximately 1,940 consultants to 3,600 if we are to provide regional self-sufficiency as far as is possible.
From a patient care perspective, a patient must be taken to the most appropriate hospital if he or she is a serious accident and emergency case. The sooner a patient gets there the better. For example, if one has serious brain injury, Beaumont Hospital is the national centre. A small country with 4 million people cannot have a centre in every region. While there are issues in regard to where a potential second centre should be, nobody has argued we should have a centre in every region.
The same applies in other complex areas. Services can only be provided on a national basis for a population of 4 million or on a regional basis depending on the speciality. We must make progress because of patient safety concerns. If patients are not cared for in a safe environment, lives or the chances of making a full recovery are put at risk.
That is why the establishment of the health information quality assurance authority, which will deal with accreditation and standards and provide information, is important and involves priority legislation which we hope to publish in the near future and take through the House by the summer of this year. The board has been appointed on an interim basis and will hold its first meeting in Cork at the beginning of March.
Some 85% of accident and emergency cases will still be dealt with in smaller hospitals. Many accident and emergency cases dealt with in accident and emergency departments could be dealt with in a localised hospital environment. However, more complex cases must go to the bigger hospitals where a multi-disciplinary team of specialists and greater resources are located. The Deputy knows one cannot provide in each county the range of services we would all wish to have. The best we can achieve is sufficiency at regional level.
To take the mid-west, which was part of the pilot study for the Hanly report, until recently the region had no rheumatologist, although one third of women in the country suffer from arthritis, and no plastic surgeon, which it still does not have. There are serious deficiencies in the regions and we must deal with the problem on a regional basis, which was the genesis of the Hanly report.
We would not add value by having the same group travel the country interviewing all those who work in health care. Some 95% of those the Hanly group interviewed, who were working in health care, agreed with the recommendations. We need to get on with increasing manpower, particularly at consultant level. The sooner we complete the negotiations with the Irish Medical Organisation and the Irish Hospital Consultants Association the better so we can have a more flexible, modern contract of employment, suitable to the needs of 2005.
We all accept that we cannot have every service and speciality on each of our hospital sites. However, does the Tánaiste agree that the Hanly model represents an over-centralisation and will spell a diminution of services at hospital sites throughout the country? I speak with some experience of this. The Monaghan experience is the template that is being and will be applied if the outworking of the Hanly report is to proceed at other hospital sites throughout the country.
Does the Tánaiste agree that closing all inpatient beds in smaller hospitals is the opposite of what should be happening because there will clearly be a need for more inpatient beds as time goes on? We addressed this matter earlier today. There is continual need for investment not only in regard to beds but front-line cover in terms of acute hospital services. What will happen to our local hospitals?
The Tánaiste should be specific because we want to know what exactly will happen in regard to the outworking of the Hanly report. Will it be introduced by stealth or in a clinical cut following the next general election, as happened in the past in regard to hospital service provision?
The position of counties Cavan and Monaghan is a good example.
It is a sad example.
The two counties have a population of probably 120,000 to 140,000, and both have a hospital. In that context, it is not possible for both hospitals to have all the resources and specialties we would wish.
I accept that.
There are many hospitals. We need to learn from our experience and best practice, and we need to bring services as close to people as possible in a safe environment. This is what we are trying to achieve. The Hanly report is not about centralisation but regional autonomy. Currently, there is an over-centralised system. Many people must come to the Dublin area for treatment that could be administered at regional level.
That is only at a particular level.
No, it is for many specialties. One cannot provide a regional service with one consultant or, in some cases where they visit on an outpatient basis from time to time, no consultant.
What of mental services?
The purpose of the reform agenda is focused on priorities regarding increased numbers and increased usage of beds. Following a survey of 4,000 patients, Dr. Conor Burke of James Connolly Memorial Hospital recently stated that if patients had been discharged when they were ready for discharge, there would not be an accident and emergency problem. We need to learn from the examples provided by such world leaders in their fields.
I hope the Tánaiste can.
4 Mr. Neville asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the details of the consultations between her Department and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in relation to siting a psychiatric hospital in the grounds of the new prison; her views on whether the decision will further stigmatise patients suffering from psychiatric conditions; the position with regard to the decision to dispose of property surplus to the psychiatric services and invest the proceeds in the development of the services; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4318/05]
Before I reply, I wish to point out an error in the question. Deputy Neville referred to "siting a psychiatric hospital in the grounds of the new prison". This is incorrect. The proposed new psychiatric hospital will not be in the grounds of the new prison.
It will be just outside the wall.
The Deputy can contribute presently. He also asked about stigmatising the mental health services. His party has been around for a long time.
It has been in power twice in the past 20 years.
Order, please.
This is the first Government to propose building a new central mental hospital. I will provide the history to this in case Members think it was a hasty decision.
The Minister should just answer the question.
I will answer it. In 2003, the then Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, established a project team, chaired by the East Coast Area Health Board, to progress the redevelopment of the Central Mental Hospital. This team included representatives from the Department of Health and Children, the Eastern Regional Health Authority, the East Coast Area Health Board, the clinical director, director of nursing and hospital manager of the Central Mental Hospital, the Irish Prison Service and a representative of the chief executive officers of the other health boards.
The project team's remit was to critically examine all options for the redevelopment of the hospital, to put together a design brief for the redevelopment and to examine various financing options for the project. Six options were considered by the group: to develop a new facility on a greenfield site in the greater Dublin area; to develop a new facility on a greenfield site outside the greater Dublin area; to refurbish and upgrade the existing facility to accommodate the service; to have a partial new build of the hospital with retention and refurbishment of some of the existing building; to transfer the service to another existing facility; or to do nothing.
Several options, including the option of remaining in Dundrum, were examined under the various criteria including clinical quality-strategic fit, the cost, both capital and revenue, timescale, future demands, integrated services, accessibility to the public and safety and security.
The team reported to the Department in May 2004 and recommended that the Central Mental Hospital be relocated to a new purpose-built facility in the greater Dublin area as this was judged to be the most appropriate option for delivery of patient care. The project team made no specific recommendation to locate the Central Mental Hospital adjacent to a prison. However, it must be borne in mind that 97% of admissions to the hospital come from within the prison service.
The new central mental hospital will be a health facility providing a therapeutic forensic psychiatric service to the highest international standards in a state-of-the-art building. I can confirm that the hospital will remain under the aegis of the Department of Health and Children and will be owned and managed by the Health Service Executive. I have asked my officials to examine the option of providing a separate governance structure for the hospital, by way of its own board, reflecting its importance as a national, tertiary psychiatric service. It is intended to develop the central mental hospital, independently of the prison complex to replace Mountjoy Prison, by means of a separate capital development project managed and directed by the Health Service Executive. A new central mental hospital on the 150 acre site will have its own grounds with a separate entrance, access road and a separate address to the prison complex.
The Deputy referred to stigma. Much has been said about the stigma of the mental health service. The present Government is doing more than any other Government to relieve that stigma and to help patients. We are encountering significant opposition from many unlikely quarters. I am doing everything possible, including speaking to many voluntary organisations which appreciate the work that is being done. The Central Mental Hospital has been in Dundrum since 1850. This Government is the first to consider relocating it and building a new central mental hospital. I also understand that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and I were the first Ministers ever to visit Dundrum.
The lands of the Central Mental Hospital are the property of the Office of Public Works. My Department is preparing detailed proposals for Government for the development of a new hospital and the disposal of the property at Dundrum. It is my intention that the proceeds from the sale of the existing site will go towards the provision of the new hospital in the first instance, with the balance of funds to be invested in health facilities, in particular community mental health facilities. A memo will go to Cabinet soon in that regard.
My question relating to what consultations had taken place between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister on siting the hospital in grounds of the prison was not answered. In view of the exposé in a recent "Prime Time" programme regarding practices in regard to the movement of prisoners who are suffering from psychiatric conditions and who are rendered as being insane, it is important that we are made aware of the details of any deliberations that take place between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the psychiatric services in Dundrum. Given that people are determined insane and removed to the psychiatric hospital, then rendered sane for the purposes of being taken to court, and subsequently rendered insane to return to prison, we are anxious to know what discussions took place with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in this regard.
Does the Minister of State agree that organisations such as Aware, Schizophrenia Ireland and others have expressed extreme concern about the discrimination taking place against those who are mentally ill? The patron of GROW stated——
It is not appropriate to make a statement. We are already eight minutes into this question.
I am asking the Minister of State to comment on the fact that 97% of hospital admissions come from the Prison Service. Surely it is an indictment of the whole service and the relationship between those with mental illness and the psychiatric services that people with severe mental illness are being moved from prison, and the whole approach——
Will the Deputy to give way to the Minister of State? We have spent nine minutes on this question, even though only six minutes are allowed for each question.
The Deputy referred to three organisations, Schizophrenia Ireland, Aware and GROW. I met GROW yesterday to discuss many matters of concern regarding mental health. To my knowledge its representatives did not even mention——
Vincent Browne, the patron of GROW, used the word "grotesque".
I will not mention Vincent Browne. I had a very useful discussion yesterday with GROW for approximately an hour or an hour and a half and its representatives did not refer to the Central Mental Hospital. I had a very useful discussion this morning with Schizophrenia Ireland. Its representatives had reservations about the site but, following my discussions with them, they understand the progress that is being made.
Will the Minister of State conclude? We have now spent ten minutes on the question.
I have not spoken to the organisation, Aware. The Deputy speaks about stigma, but a constant reiteration and repetition about the problems in the mental health service is becoming a bit tiresome to many organisations. Much good work is being done.
Will the Minister of State give way?
Is it? After centuries of raising not cancer, heart disease, pneumonia but mental health, is it becoming a bit tiresome?
The Chair requests Members to stay within Standing Orders. Two minutes are available for the first reply.
There are other experts in the mental health area and Deputy Neville does not have a monopoly——
I am a politician, not an expert. The Minister of State does not say to other politicians who raise other issues——
I ask Deputy Neville to remain silent while the Chair is speaking.
The Minister of State is egging him on.
I am not.
The Chair wishes to make a point about priority questions. Everyone in the House is entitled to fair play.
That say that mental health——
I ask Deputy Neville to leave the House. When the Chair is on its feet——
It was an unfortunate remark——
The Chair wants to make a point. In fairness to every Deputy in the House, we try to stay within Standing Orders as best we can. Six minutes is allowed per question. On the last question, my understanding is that the Minister of State had two minutes for a reply but took five minutes. As we have spent more than ten minutes on that question, I ask Members on both sides of the House to try to stay within Standing Orders as best they can so that we can get through as many questions as possible.
5 Mr. McHugh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the reason she has commissioned a report from experts on the Tuam Hospital project given that the Western Health Board has already prepared a planning brief which was lodged with her Department in 2002 and given that the project is supported by the Western Health Board, the west regional authority and underpinned by the national spatial strategy. [4319/05]
As the Deputy will be aware, the Health Act 2004 provided for the Health Service Executive which was established on 1 January 2005. Under the Act, the executive has the responsibility to manage and deliver or arrange to be delivered on its behalf health and personal social services. This includes responsibility for the proposed developments at Tuam Hospital.
The HSE western area has prepared a project planning brief for the Tuam health campus incorporating a community hospital, Alzheimer's unit, child care training centre, primary care unit and an ambulance base. This proposal was one of a number of proposals for capital funding submitted by the HSE western area to my Department for consideration. As responsibility for the development of services now rests with the HSE, any decisions relating to this project will be a matter for the HSE having regard to the western area's overall capital funding priorities in the context of the HSE's service plan for 2005.
My colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, met a cross party delegation from Tuam Town Council at the end of January and was briefed on the proposal to develop a health campus on the grounds of the hospital. During the meeting, the Tánaiste acknowledged the importance of utilising facilities which were purchased by the State for health care use but said that this would have to be done in the context of the HSE's service plan for the western area. Members of the delegation put forward a number of suggestions on the options concerning the possible use of the Grove Hospital building. The Tánaiste undertook to examine these options and to revert back to Tuam Town Council. My Department will continue to liaise with the HSE to progress this project in the context of the HSE's service plan.
That reply appears to be at variance with reports circulated following the Tánaiste's visit to Galway at the end of January when she met the deputation from Tuam Town Council to which the Minister of State referred. I refer the Minister of State to an article reporting an interview with the Tánaiste which appeared in the Tuam Herald following her visit to Galway. She said she was getting some experts to examine the situation regarding the possibilities for this property and that she hoped this report would be with her within weeks. She went on to say that after meeting the Tuam Town Council group and hearing its view she would analyse its presentation and once she got the views of the experts she would hope to have further information in a few weeks. That is what this question is all about. Why was there a need to get experts to review this project, or what is the Tánaiste talking about?
Will the Minister of State agree that before the new Health Service Executive came into being the body charged with the delivery of health services in Galway, Mayo and Roscommon was the Western Health Board? Anticipating that he will agree with that, given that is the first line of the replies to questions from the Department, will he agree it is time to accept the report put forward and submitted by the Western Health Board to the Minister on 8 October 2002 requesting that a health campus be provided in Tuam that would consist of a community hospital, an ambulance base, a primary care unit and a few other facilities? If he does so, surely it is time to approve this project.
Will the Minister of State agree that the national spatial strategy which was launched in 2002 lists 11 characteristics to identify a hub town, one of which is that a hub town would have a local or community hospital? Assuming he agrees with that because it is a characteristic listed in the national spatial strategy document, will he agree it is time to sanction this proposal and for the Government to indicate it supports that strategy? The Government can indicate that by sanctioning this project and, thereby, indicate that it also supports the national spatial strategy.
The Deputy's time is exhausted and he should give the Minister of State a chance to reply.
I thought the Deputy would be delighted with the interest the Tánaiste was taking in the project.
I am not familiar with the Tuam Herald nor am I responsible for what appeared in it. The people examining this project are in the HSE. The Deputy is obviously familiar with the position in Tuam. This is about utilising facilities which were purchased on behalf of the State and maximising the benefits for the particular area. The HSE is examining this project. In 2001, the health service acquired the old Bon Secours Hospital and surrounding site in Tuam. It is a matter of progressing work on that and utilising it.
When will we get that report?
The Tánaiste indicated when she met the group that she would ask the HSE to examine this project and that she expected it to report within a few weeks. That meeting took place at the end of January. In a matter of a few weeks we hope to have a report on this project and we will communicate then with the Deputy.
I call Question No. 6 in the name of Deputy Coveney.
A Cheann Comhairle——
The six minutes allocated for this question has been used.
Many of the other priority questions took much longer to deal with than six minutes.
That is very possible, but the Deputy used two and a half minutes of the six minutes available to put his questions.
The Minister of State's reply was short.
I have called Question No. 6.
