I have received notice from the following Senators that they propose to raise the following matters:Senator Erin McGreehan - The need for the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to engage with local authorities on the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.Senator Emer Currie - The need for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make a statement on the UK Government's Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill.Senator Lynn Boylan - The need for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to make a statement on current capacity issues at animal shelters.Senator Maria Byrne - The need for the Minister for Health to make a statement on the measures being taken to alleviate pressures on GPs.Senator Fintan Warfield - The need for the Minster for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to ensure the preservation and future use of the Iveagh Markets, Dublin 8.Senator Tim Lombard - The need for the Minister for Education to make a statement on capacity issues in secondary school places in Clonakilty, County Cork.Senator Seán Kyne - The need for the Minister for Health to provide an update on Saolta plans to redevelop facilities at University Hospital Galway and Merlin Park Hospital.Senator Aisling Dolan - The need for the Minister for Transport to make a statement on the closure of waiting rooms at train stations, including Ballinasloe, and train time punctuality on the Galway-Dublin line.Of the matters raised by the Senators suitable for discussion, I have selected Senators Erin McGreehan, Emer Currie, Lynn Boylan and Maria Byrne and they will be taken now. I regret that I had to rule out of order the matters raised by Senators Warfield and Dolan on the ground that the relevant Ministers have no official responsibility in the matters. The other Senators may give notice on another day of the matters they wish to raise.
Gnó an tSeanaid - Business of Seanad
Local Authorities
The Minister of State is welcome. I wish him to ask the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government to engage with local authorities to request clear actions, targets and reporting regarding implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD.
It is about time the Departments, local authorities and State agencies got real and serious about implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It should never be a box-ticking exercise or personality policy where one person in a local authority or Department has an interest in doing the right thing and brings up the standards within that local authority or Department.
I wrote to the Department recently asking that it write to the local authorities to ask each of them its action plans for the implementation of the UNCRPD. If the Department was serious, it would be investing and making it mandatory to do these things. However, when the Department responded to my questions on making it mandatory for disability staff training or on what it is doing in regard to upskilling or, indeed, on implementing any article of the UNCRPD, what I got back was jargon. To be honest, I was quite upset about it. What I got back was that section 47(1)(a) of the Disability Act 2015 requires public bodies in so far as is practicable to take all reasonable measures to promote and support employment by them of people of disabilities. "As far as practicable" is not an answer. As far as reasonable measures are concerned, there is no mandatory reporting. There are no concrete guidelines. There is nothing to ensure people with disabilities who work within the authorities are looked after and protected. I know first-hand there are people being bullied and abused every day and there is no way to report it and no line manager to go to. This is because, going back to the start, it is personality policy. If one has a good personality and is in control of these situations, one has a good policy. At present, there is no uniformity with regard to any of this.
The Department would not even write to me when I asked whether there was disability awareness training. It could not even ask a county manager whether he or she conducted or provided his or her staff with disability awareness training, disability equality training or any type of accessibility auditing training.
The Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, is here delivering a speech to me written by the said Department. To be honest, it is relentless. It is depressing if the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, which is at the front line in delivering housing and public realm projects, is not willing to accept that we need to start making it mandatory that policies are disability proofed. When we are putting in public realm projects and "improving" our local towns and we do not put in the proper tactile footing or do not mark our streets, we are making it dangerous for people with disabilities. It is cost neutral. If we are not spending money properly, that is a disgrace. It means the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage is not planning for the future and not looking after potentially 15% of the population and is discriminating against them and making sure they are not allowed into our local centres.
The Minister of State should not get me started on the inaction in relation to making public partnership networks, PPNs, more attractive, suitable and welcoming for people with disabilities. I look forward to his response.
I thank the Senator for raising what I think is a very important issue. Obviously, I am replying on behalf of my colleagues, the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and the Ministers of State, Deputies Peter Burke and Rabbitte, who all collectively launched a new joint national housing strategy for disabled people, as the Senator will be well aware, on 14 January 2022. In that strategy, they set out the vision for the co-operation and collaboration of Departments, State agencies, including local authorities, and others in delivering housing and related supports for disabled people over the next five years.
The areas that are to be addressed to deliver on the vision of the strategy are set out across a number of themes, namely: theme 1, accessible housing and communities; theme 2, inter-agency collaboration and the provision of supports; theme 3, affordability of housing; theme 4, communication and access to information; theme 5; knowledge, capacity and expertise; and theme 6, strategy alignment, which focuses on ensuring that all Government strategies and polices promote the rights of disabled people from a housing perspective, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Among the objectives of the strategy is to meet our commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to facilitate disabled people to live independently and as part of the community by ensuring that disabled people have equal access to housing and clearer pathways to accessing support services, promoting their inclusion in the community from a housing perspective.
Housing and disability steering groups, which were established by all 31 local authorities under the previous strategy, are reaffirmed under the new strategy as the most effective forum for delivery of the outcomes of the strategy at the local level. The role of the housing and disability steering groups will be strengthened over the lifetime of the national strategy. Housing and disability steering groups are chaired by the directors of services in the local authority and membership includes representation from the Health Service Executive, disabled persons' organisations and approved housing bodies.
The strategy will operate within the framework of Housing for All - a New Housing Plan for Ireland which is committed to ensuring that affordable quality housing with an appropriate mix of housing design types provided within social housing, including universally-designed units, is available to everyone in Irish society, including those with disabilities. Preparation of the implementation plan for the national housing strategy for disabled people is at an advanced stage and will be completed by year end.
I reiterate what I have said to Ministers over the past number of years. Visions are not mandatory. There is no sign in this of mandatory funding to be earmarked for capacity building, for training to help communities and to help staff make sure they are not making mistakes. Staff are not making mistakes and making things inaccessible for people on purpose. They are doing it because they are not trained. They are doing it because they cannot see or they do not have that lived experience of someone in a wheelchair or someone who is visually impaired trying to get around our streets and our communities every day. We do not have accessible toilets. None of this stuff is mandatory. Visions are not mandatory. It is about time that we make these things mandatory within the local authorities.
I hear Senator McGreehan clearly. The points she makes are important. The Senator is absolutely right to raise the issue of the availability of such basic things for people with a disability and they should continue to be highlighted. I will certainly take back the Senator's remarks to the Minister. It is important that local authorities, in particular, are the lead in recognising how services should be provided. I thank the Senator.
I thank the Minister of State.
I concur with the Senator. I mention my local authority even in respect of getting footpaths fixed for people with disabilities in wheelchairs.
Northern Ireland
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and call on Senator Currie to raise her Commencement matter.
I appreciate the Minister coming in today. I watched with interest last night the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill in the House of Lords. Lord Caine gave an overview of the British Government's amendments that will be brought forward on Committee Stage. As the Minister will be aware, the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, of which I am a member, last week visited Westminster and we had the opportunity to meet Lord Caine. The committee, which is chaired by our colleague, Deputy O'Dowd, met Lord Caine and the North Ireland Affairs Committee representatives from the Labour Party and the Conservatives to impress upon them our opposition to this Bill and the importance of legacy, which was definitely top of the agenda. I was interested to hear Baron Murphy of Torfaen, a former Secretary of State, last night say that, of all the speakers who spoke last night, he counted that 19 were against it, four were for it and four were in between.
The House of Lords does not have the capacity to reject a Bill.
It is more about oversight and scrutiny. However, it can send out a very strong message about whether a Bill is workable or if it fulfils the rule of law, or about the impact it has on Northern Ireland. There were some very powerful contributions last night. It is no secret that I fear the impact this Bill will have on Northern Ireland. I think it is just as important as, if not more important than, the protocol Bill. I think common sense will prevail on the protocol but I worry that common decency will not prevail on this Bill. It continues to hurt people profoundly - victims and survivors. It re-traumatises them. They feel robbed of their opportunity for justice, having dedicated their lives to getting justice for their loved ones. There is such strength of feeling that this allows the baddies to win; it legislates for people to get away with murder. When we say the rule of law does not matter, we also say that the truth does not matter, and we then allow statements to come out like, “There was no alternative to what happened”, and we end up in this moral lawlessness.
The trauma has highlighted to us the impact this could have in terms of the taunting of victims and survivors. That still happens, and we saw it ourselves this weekend, when a survivor of the Troubles - a victim of the Troubles in regard to her father - was taunted with chants at an event. We can see the repercussions now of that moral lawlessness, so where would the introduction of this legislation bring us?
The amendments that were highlighted last night include strengthening the review process so it would be compliant with the European Convention of Human Rights, ECHR, and there would be criminal investigations, if appropriate. There was reference to independence. There would have to be consultation with individuals before the Secretary of State would appoint the chief commissioner, although I do not know what that means, and there would be consequences for a lack of co-operation. However, there is not a lot of faith in those amendments.
I want to hear a statement from the Minister today and to give him the opportunity to restate our opposition to the legislation. Nothing is off the table when it comes to how we proceed or react to this legislation going forward.
I thank Senator Currie for bringing this important matter to the attention of the Seanad but also for her ongoing work in regard to campaigning for change in this area and on the approach the British Government has decided to take in recent months.
The Government has been clear from the outset that the UK legacy Bill, as it stands, is not fit for purpose and it represents a unilateral move away from the Stormont House agreement. We also have serious doubts about whether the Bill is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. Overall, we are deeply concerned about the impact this Bill, if enacted, may have on the fragile process of reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
There is near-universal opposition to this Bill in Northern Ireland, including from the five main political parties and those representing victims and their families. This opposition was echoed by the UK Parliament's own joint committee on human rights, which has urged the UK Government to reconsider its whole approach. The Bill had its second reading in the House of Lords yesterday and opposition to it has become more vocal. This week, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all-Ireland and the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all-Ireland stated jointly that this Bill will deepen division and further demoralise all but a tiny minority of those it purports to help. It seems almost as though it has been designed to fail.
I raise our concerns about the Bill regularly in my contacts with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I have also had discussions with the Northern Ireland political parties, with victims and their families, and with senior US politicians in recent weeks. Thanks to the Senator, I met with the Truth and Justice Movement in Leinster House. Following that meeting, I urged the Secretary of State to engage directly with victims to get their perspective on this legislation. The Secretary of State has indicated that he is open to considering amendments to the Bill. However, I have been very clear that any amendments would need to be radical and fundamentally change the substance of this Bill for it to meet our core concerns around immunity, compliance with human rights obligations and victims' participation. The Government cannot support a process which is not compliant with our obligations under the ECHR.
I am aware of increasing calls for Ireland to consider the initiation of an inter-state case at the European Court of Human Rights in regard to the Bill. The Government's current assessment is that such a step would be premature for now. The Government's approach to legacy and reconciliation has been always that it should be victim-centred, taking the Stormont House agreement as its starting point. We will continue to use all avenues, bilaterally and multilaterally, to effect change to this legislation. I welcome the Senator's continued engagement on the issue.
On a matter as sensitive as how we deal with the legacy of the past, of all things in Northern Ireland, it is the area where we should try to seek accommodation of each other's views and try to put in place a collective approach that communities, political parties and both Governments can buy into, support and advocate for, and ensure is a success. The idea that anyone would take the direct opposite approach on something as sensitive as legacy, with all of the trauma, hurt and really difficult memories that families are trying to cope with, and act unilaterally against the advice of virtually everybody in Northern Ireland, seems to me to be extraordinary. That is why we continue to urge the Secretary of State to reconsider this approach.
I have to say I have had good conversations with the Secretary of State on this. We have not agreed to a new approach but, certainly, I think he is listening, and it is important to say that. However, we have a long way to go, I am afraid, and we do not have much time to get there, given the movement of this legislation through Westminster, potentially, in the coming months. What we hear has got to be based on what is good for Northern Ireland, its communities and the families that have been traumatised by violence and brutality at times in the past. That has to be the only and primary consideration. If we do that, the two Governments, working with parties and, in particular, with victims groups and their families, can find a way forward that we can all support, but the current approach of the British Government and the legislation it has advocated for is not the way to do this.
If the intent of a Bill is rotten at the core, then the Bill, even with amendments, remains rotten at the core, and I personally do not believe there are any amendments that would fix this. I think the only way to proceed is to bring people with you, and for the Irish Government, the British government, all the parties and the victims to work together and to learn that lesson that you have to bring people with you. All of the parties are against it, as well as NGOs such as Amnesty International, our Government, the human rights commissioner and victims. It is important that we are clear that nothing is off the table if it comes down to this legislation proceeding, and it is important for us to say we are looking at all options if the legislation does proceed.
It is a requirement for any process dealing with the past to be credible and to be effective. Victims must be at the centre. The current UK proposal lacks that credibility and runs the risk of being more perpetrator-focused than victim-focused. The Government is using all avenues to try to effect change to the UK Bill. My Department raised the legacy Bill at the United Nations Human Rights Council earlier this month, which I think is an indication of how concerned we are in terms of the direction of travel. We have also drawn particular focus on this issue at the Council of Europe. The decision by Committee of Ministers' Deputies in September, reflecting the views of member states, noted concerns about the lack of formal consultation and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The committee urged the UK to reconsider the unconditional immunity scheme, which is the essential problem with this approach. My focus on the human rights aspects arises from the fundamental importance of human rights to the settlement reached in Northern Ireland and in the Good Friday Agreement.
Among other things, what is proposed in the UK Bill could amount to immunity for gross violations of human rights and a low bar to achieving immunity. I remain open to engaging and considering options, but I will remain guided by fundamental human rights principles and the needs of victims and their families. The UK Bill does not meet either of those tests at the moment. We will work hard to continue to try to engage with the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State and between the Taoiseach’s office and the Prime Minister’s office, where there have been conversations on this issue. I hope the British Government will see sense and engage with us. We will be constructive in trying to find solutions, compromises and middle ground positions, where appropriate, should the opportunity arise, and I hope it will.
I support the Minister in what he has been doing. The legacy of hurt and pain will never be healed and those wounds will never clear up if we allow the British Government to pass this Bill. I support the Minister in all of his work in bringing it further to the UN and to the Council of Ministers. I thank the Minister for his work on this and we support him.
Animal Welfare
I have raised this issue a number of times in the past couple of weeks. Unfortunately, we are all familiar with the post-Christmas puppy regret and with the large numbers of surrenders that are seen in January. However, it appears that Christmas has come early this year, with four shelters in the past 24 hours announcing they are at capacity and 17 in the past three weeks having announced they are full.
Unfortunately, it is a combination of the now unwanted post-Covid-19 lockdown dogs and the housing crisis forcing tenants to choose between their beloved pet and putting a roof over their heads. It is leading to a large number of dogs being surrendered. While I am not excusing anybody who got a dog during lockdown and who did not do the proper assessment as to whether they would be able to look after an animal for the 15 years it can take, that is not to say that a number of the dogs that are being surrendered are being so because they have behavioural issues caused by the fact they were bred in industrial puppy farms, where they were inbred and deprived of human interaction for those important first few weeks of their lives.
It is the Government's failure to regulate those puppy farms and to ensure the dogs are properly socialised that has led to this glut in dogs being available for people to buy during lockdown and that is now leading to the glut of those being surrendered. I asked for the Minister of State to come before the House today because I did not get an adequate response from the Department of Rural and Community Development, which has responsibility for the dog breeding establishments and the Control of Dogs Act, while animal welfare falls under the brief of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. What is the short-term plan by the Department to support these shelters with their capacity issues? Will funding be put in place so that they can foster the dogs out or provide new accommodation for them? They are under extreme capacity pressure.
What is the plan in the long term for dealing with the dog breeding establishments, which are churning out dogs, as if on a conveyer belt, making them readily accessible to people to get, and then, when the behavioural issues manifest or when people who are irresponsible no longer want these dogs, they are turning up at the shelters? Again, it is the public who are picking up the paycheck for those surrendered dogs.
What is the short-term plan to help those shelters to deal with the capacity issues and the long-term plan actually to stem the flow of dogs in this country through the puppy farms?
On behalf of the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, I thank Senator Boylan for raising what is a very important issue. I am delighted to have the opportunity to outline the work across government in this area, the commitments we have made in the programme for Government and how we are acting on them and what the different Departments are doing. The Senator has directed this question towards me and my Department today from an agricultural perspective, and I take that on board. As the Senator rightly outlined, there are a number of different areas of responsibility and I am happy to outline them.
I acknowledge the fantastic effort and commitment made by animal welfare organisations and the many volunteers dedicated to the care and welfare of canines, who often operate in challenging and stressful circumstances. Animal welfare charities play a crucial role in helping animals in need, educating people and raising public awareness around improving animal welfare. Those who work in the sector treat it as more than a career. They are passionate about this area and the Government recognises the huge work these key workers do. It is truly front-line care.
In relation to capacity issues, as the Senator has outlined, the Department of Rural and Community Development has policy responsibility for dog control and dog breeding establishments, while the local authorities are responsible for the operational activities. These include dog licensing, the dog warden service and the management and operation of local authority pounds or shelters. The Department of Rural and Community Development's 2021 dog control statistics, which are compiled from returns from all local authorities, indicate there are 34 local authority dog shelters or pounds. The Control of Dogs Act empowers the local authorities to enter into arrangements with any other local authority, with the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ISPCA, or with a person connected with animal welfare. The procurement of any service, therefore, in relation to local authority pounds is a matter for each local authority and the management, and operation of such pounds or shelters are matters solely for the relevant local authority.
Animal welfare is increasingly important to people in Ireland, and I consider it a priority for my Department. The Department's animal welfare grants programme is a clear acknowledgement of the vital work of animal welfare charities in delivering on the care and welfare of animals, including the neutering and rehoming of dogs. On Animal Welfare Awareness Day last December, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, announced record animal welfare grant funding of €3.7 million to 98 animal welfare organisations. Of this funding, €2.7 million was awarded to 68 organisations that deal with the welfare and rehoming of dogs.
The Department of Rural and Community Development statistics indicate that almost 2,000 dogs were transferred from the local authorities to dog welfare groups for rehoming in 2021. These figures are down from 2,500 in 2020. All of the figures in this area are showing a dramatic change and improvement. These statistics also demonstrate the success of the various neutering and microchipping programmes operated by these animal welfare charities. I acknowledge that, their ongoing work in this area and how we are working to support them in that.
The Minister, Deputy McConalogue, intends to deliver on the programme for Government commitment to further increase the funding allocated via the grants programme in 2022. He will announce details of these awards later this month. As with last year's awards, this year's funding will recognise the importance of education and dissemination of knowledge to improve animal welfare and, indeed, educating the public on the responsibilities involved with dog ownership.
Imparting knowledge on animal welfare and responsible pet ownership plays a crucial role in improving standards nationally and can help to reduce the number of dogs which are abandoned, surrendered or rehomed. That is ultimately the point. We will work, as will the Department of Rural and Community Development and the local authorities, to address any short-term pressures. The absolute approach, however, has to be reducing, and I am sure the Senator agrees with me on this. We have made huge progress in this area on better breeding techniques and education. We must drive home the message now at this time of year that a dog is for life and not just for Christmas. Everybody who is contemplating getting a family pet this Christmas should bear that in mind.
I thank the Minister of State for outlining the valuable work the shelters do, because we know the pounds rely on them to move the dogs on that are not reclaimed in the pounds so that they are not euthanised. It is welcome that the figures for euthanasia have gone down year on year. That said, we have a particular issue this year because of the rush to buy dogs during Covid-19 and, post-Covid-19, those dogs now being surrendered. There is a need for a short-term emergency measure to engage with those shelters that do not have capacity.
They are openly saying they cannot take more dogs. That is a concern because, while we are not excusing people surrendering their dogs, if they cannot do so they will find other ways to get rid of them. There is nothing to address that very short-term issue we have this year, particularly post Covid. I hope the Minister of State will take back to the Department that we are in a unique situation this year and it requires an emergency plan.
I will bring the points raised by the Senator directly back to the Minister, Deputy McConalogue. The Commencement matter tabled by the Senator referred to capacity in the shelters and contingency plans. The broad approach the Government takes feeds into that. The programme for Government includes a commitment to promote responsible pet ownership. The Senator's point in respect of welfare is currently being advanced by the Department on various aspects relating to ownership. The Animal Welfare Strategy 2021-25: Working Together for Animal Welfare reflects the programme for Government commitment on responsible pet ownership and includes a commitment to establish an advisory council on companion animal welfare. I know the Senator is making a point in respect of an immediate issue, and I will bring that back, but it is important to recognise the broader points in the context of welfare because significant progress has been made in recent years. That can be seen from all the key statistics and we should acknowledge that. We will work with animal welfare groups and State agencies to address any issues there may be in the short term but we are heading in the right direction in the longer term and we will double down on that work in future.
General Practitioner Services
I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to discuss this important issue. What will the Department do to alleviate the pressure general practitioners, GPs, are under, but also to improve the delivery they are able to provide? In Limerick, which is my area, many people cannot get a GP appointment. They are waiting three or four days for an appointment. I recently met a person who had to wait two weeks for an appointment. In addition, many people cannot get on GP lists. GPs are under enormous pressure. The population is growing, especially in Limerick, and there are not enough doctors to facilitate people who want to get on a GP list.
On the other hand, University Hospital Limerick is in the newspapers every day in the context of overcrowding. Part of the reason for that overcrowding is that people are presenting at the hospital because they cannot get an appointment with their GP. I ask the Minister of State, on behalf of the Government, to lay out the resources that will be given to doctors to help to alleviate waiting lists.
People deserve to get good medical care. It is not the fault of doctors that their waiting lists are so long; it is just that there are not enough doctors. People become ill at different stages and they deserve to receive good care. I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister of State.
I thank the Senator for raising this important issue. The Government recognises that there are significant challenges facing general practice and that those challenges can limit access to GP services in certain areas and negatively affect the timely provision of care. We all know that is the case. Some issues are specific to certain areas. There is no doubt there has been a general increase in demand for GP services, due in part to demographics and our ageing population.
In recent years, general practice has had to do a lot more. GPs were called on to provide additional services such as Covid referrals and vaccinations. At times, that impinged on routine care delivery. In addition, the services provided by GPs in the community have been expanded, and rightly so, to reduce patients' need for hospital attendance. The chronic disease management programme is now almost fully rolled out and has transformed the management of severe conditions. It is improving the lives of patients.
The Government has taken a number of measures to improve the recruitment and retention of GPs in order to increase the number of GPs practising in the State. It has provided substantial resources to help to strengthen general practice. Since 2019, baseline funding for general practice has been increased by more than €200 million, or approximately 40%, per annum under the 2019 GP agreement. Furthermore, budget 2023 provides additional funding for GPs to recruit extra capacity, with a focus on nursing, administration and IT. The resulting increased capacity will support the planned expansion of GP care without charge for those who earn the median household income of €46,000, or less, from April next year.
The GP agreement provides for significant increases in capitation fees rates for participating GPs, as well as new fees and subsidies for additional services. It also provides for improvements to maternity and paternity leave arrangements and increases to rural practice supports, as well as introducing a support for practices in areas of urban deprivation. These measures increase the attractiveness of general practice as a career choice for doctors. The roll-out of the enhanced community care programme and direct access to diagnostics is of major assistance in the delivery of GP care. More than 200,000 diagnostic scans have been already provided this year and the funding for 2023 has been increased to €45 million, from €35 million this year. Some 30 community specialist teams for older persons and 30 teams for chronic disease management are to be in place by year end. Most of them are now in place and are reducing the need for patients to attend their GP practice.
A sign that the measures undertaken are having the desired impact is that the number of doctors undertaking GP training has more than doubled in recent years, from 120 in 2009 to 258 in 2022. Working with the Irish College of General Practitioners, which now has responsibility for GP training, 350 training places are planned to be available in 2026.
Finally, the Department of Health and the HSE are preparing for a strategic review of general practice to commence shortly. The review, with stakeholder input, will examine the issues facing general practice and set out the measures needed for a sustainable GP service across the country in the long term.
I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive response. He indicated that the number of GP training places will increase by 2026. We have a problem in the short term, however. He referred to enhancements that are happening in rural areas. During Covid, there were a number of mobile units. Doctors held clinics in villages one or two days a week. Many of those clinics have not reopened. That is something the Minister of State might be able to consider. The local doctor in Cappamore used to attend at the dispensary in the village of Moroe, County Limerick, once a week. Many people in the area do not have a car and were finding it difficult to get to a GP. That is one of the many issues.
In addition, I would like the Minister of State to consider how we can incentives some of the doctors who are working abroad to come back here to work. That would help to ensure people do not have to wait days or weeks for a GP appointment.
I thank the Senator. I hear what she is saying in respect of practices closing down after Covid. Many things have changed. However, general practice is providing more to the community and, although demand for services has increased, steps have been taken to increase GP capacity and support general practice and those steps are having a positive impact. The increased investment in general practice, with improved fees and supports, is attracting more doctors into general practice. As I stated, the number of doctors training to work as GPs has increased in recent years. The establishment of community-based specialist teams will ease the demand for GP services from older persons and those with chronic diseases. The swift provision of scans through the direct access to diagnostics programme eases the burden on GPs to manage patients awaiting testing. The Senator and I would agree that more work needs to be done to improve GP services further and to cater for increasing demand as the population continues to increase and age and more people are provided with GP care without charges.
The planned strategic review will examine a comprehensive range of issues. It will identify changes and the need for a better GP service into the future.