Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for outlining the reasons he is before us today with regard to a Supplementary Estimate for 2013. I suppose it is no surprise that we are where we are in terms of a Supplementary Estimate. Any person who looked at the Estimate that was presented last year would have stated there and then that a Supplementary Estimate would be required. As the year drifted on that became increasingly evident, even though there were stark denials from time to time and a certain amount of head-in-the-sand syndrome on the issue.

Without taking up too much of the committee's time, because I have only five minutes for an opening statement, we are talking about a net Supplementary Estimate of €199 million. However, when one looks down through the figures, they include, for example, an underspend in pension lump sum payments of €82 million. What is the reason that came about? Is it for administrative reasons or is it due to an intentional delay? How was there an underspend in lump sum payments of €82 million in view of the fact that it would have been a fairly straightforward calculation to work out the pension lump sum payments to made?

The other issue is the underspend on capital expenditure. It is almost cited here as an achievement. In view of the capital programme as outlined over the past number of years, this would suggest that there has been a decrease in capital projects, as opposed to savings, because of greater efficiencies and the reduction in cost of capital programmes. I seek clarity on whether the saving is due to delayed projects rather than efficiencies in the building projects.

The difficulty is that every year the Minister speaks about the HSE's outstanding achievements over the years. In fact, half of his speech consists of this. He mentioned the HSE's Health in Ireland: Key Trends report, the fact that mortality rates from circulatory system diseases and cancers have declined by 35% and 11%, respectively, since 2003, and the rapid increase in life expectancy. There have been many other major accomplishments in health care in this country and the Minister has accepted that over some time. The difficulty is that while we expect the HSE to be put out of its misery some time next year - it must be taken out and put down - the question that arises is how much cost has been involved in the internal restructuring of the HSE to provide for its eradication. The Minister stated that it must be got rid of because it has been an eternal failure. I note that in his last few speeches the Minister has become almost a hostage to the HSE. He is beginning to praise it. I wonder has some form of Stockholm syndrome developed between the Minister and the HSE. What is the reasoning behind it? Is the Minister merely being nice to the HSE before he puts it down? It is a key issue, because the question that must be asked is-----