Fiona O'Malley (Dún Laoghaire, Progressive Democrats)

That is a matter for another evening. The third proposal is for a new offence of threatening behaviour in and around accident and emergency units. How does one legislate for the term "in and around an accident and emergency unit"? Why is a new offence required? The behaviour outlined is already an offence. Again, Fine Gael expects the gardaí to patrol in and around every accident and emergency unit in the expectation of imposing an on-the-spot fine. The fourth proposal made by the party "calls on the Government to remove hangers-on who are under the influence". How does one define a hanger-on? If a person who may or may not have had a drink accompanies an injured person who may be a relative or an elderly person to an accident and emergency unit, is he or she also a hanger-on? This is simply a crazy notion. Finally, the motion contains the proposal to charge drunks double fees for non-treatment. The person must be medically assessed. Drunkenness must be defined and proven. Consent for an evaluation must be gained and a Garda may have to be present. Once it is decided that a person does not require treatment, Fine Gael want him or her to be charged twice for that. Fine Gael has not spared the public the company of drunks as they will not be separated until they have been assessed. Fine Gael has not freed up staff in accident and emergency departments as drunken individuals must still be assessed. If Fine Gael thinks this measure will deter somebody who is drunk from ending up in an accident and emergency department, it is more deluded that I imagined.

Not much thought went into this motion, which is a shame. Tonight's debate was an opportunity for Fine Gael to showcase its solutions to the problems facing accident and emergency departments but what it has produced only compounds the problem and takes valuable staff time from dealing with the issues.

See this speech in context