Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I also support the amendment. Deputy Cowley was not the only one who had an amendment ruled out of order on Committee Stage. We all had similar experiences. Minor changes were accepted as being legitimate but when proposed as amendments they were not accepted. There has been no real debate of the issues. If one was opposed to the principle of the Bill, which is what the Opposition should be doing, one was ruled out of order.

No Member would say that the health service is without problem or that it does not need to be reformed. Of course, it does. The question is why is this being done now by way of this legislation? From where did this proposal come? There was no indication this legislation would be necessary at the early stages when the three reports were issued and the Government's reform programme was published. It is not necessary.

I understand the local elections are coming up and the Minister did not want to reappoint people to health boards, but there is no reason he should not do so. Surely some continuity and certainty in this regard in the health system is essential until we know what will be put in its place. As I said on Second Stage, we are being asked to take a leap of faith but we have no reason to do so, knowing that in the next number of months critical decisions on the health service, which will dictate how it will develop over the next 20 years, will be taken. We want to be able to monitor those decisions. They may be wonderful decisions or they may not be, but nobody will know. That is the objection we have to what is proposed.

We must proceed carefully and slowly and with certainty that every step taken will be monitored and observed closely before we wipe away a health service system that is costing €11 billion a year and sacrifice the scrutinising function councillors performed on behalf of us all over the years. I do not know on what altar that function is being wiped away. Is it the altar of securing value of money? I doubt it. Nobody doubts that there is a need to secure value for money and perhaps we were not getting it. It was not being secured in every aspect of the health service. However, the reality is that there is no guarantee we will get it from faceless bureaucrats.

The basis of good governance is accountability which must be embedded, otherwise we will get inefficiencies, no matter how good the people are who deliver the service. I know a number of the CEOs of the health boards and their officials and I have the highest regard for them. They are wonderful people whose work goes unsung. However, the reality is that in any system where there is no accountability, particularly in one as vast, all-embracive and as critical to people as the health service, we will get inefficiencies, scandals, a lesser quality of health service and a disaffected workforce. Systems such as this, which do not have embedded in them democratic accountability, will eventually end up being self-serving systems. No matter how good these people are or how hard they try, they will end up being part of a self-serving system with the result that they cannot serve the patient, the taxpayer and the public interest. In view of this, I support the amendment.

See this speech in context