John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

When the previous legislation on this matter was introduced, it ended in a debacle. At the time, we warned the Tánaiste that the legislation was unconstitutional and infringed people's property rights but she took no heed and ploughed on regardless. The previous legislation simply legalised theft. We were stealing from the most vulnerable in society. Following the recent Supreme Court decision, the Tánaiste sought to spread the blame to others. She talked about maladministration, which not just implicates former Ministers in the 11 previous Governments but also senior civil servants.

I hope the Travers report will focus on the warning given to the Government in 2001, which it failed to heed, and the 80-page legal document submitted by the health board in 2003, which the Government also ignored. We need to know what the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, knew at the time and what other Ministers knew. It is not simply a case of pointing a finger at the Tánaiste; we are clearly pointing a finger at this Administration.

The previous speaker referred to home-based subvention, which is an important issue because the solution should not be based on nursing homes. We must examine this matter. Constituents have told me that they are prepared to look after their elderly parents who have been in hospital for up to six weeks, taking up valuable beds. We may wonder why we have an accident and emergency crisis but here is a solution. I am glad to see the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, nodding in agreement. We need to examine this matter thoroughly and give that subvention to those prepared to avail of it. We would save a great deal of money, free up many beds and have a much better health service if that were done.

I agree with the Government backbencher, Deputy Nolan, who quite rightly said we need to increase the income limits. We all know of many deserving cases. I am glad such people are no longer afraid to visit their doctors but I am sure they are afraid that when the doctor makes a diagnosis, be it an ulcer or other complaint, they will have to fork out a great deal of money. A patient with an ulcer, for example, may have to pay €100 per month for medication. How can someone on a low income afford to pay that? That they must pay out such amounts will cause even more stress, which will exacerbate their illness.

The doctor-only medical card represents a miserly half-measure. It does not fulfil the promise made by the Government at the last general election. Many people will still be afraid to visit their doctors because, depending on the diagnosis, they may have to pay a great deal for prescribed medication.

We are told that to lead a healthy life, one should choose one's parents carefully and be wealthy. All the indicators show that the less well-off have the worst health problems. The State should examine ways of evening up the situation so that we will have a truly equal society, but it has not happened yet. Under Britain's much maligned national health service, one can get an appointment with a doctor and obtain medication free of charge but it does not happen here. Such facilities should form a fundamental part of primary health care, yet our primary health care strategy is in tatters.

The publication of the Government document is welcome but its recommendations are not being implemented. The Government document states that over 90% of illnesses can be dealt with at primary care level and I agree with that. The idea of primary care is to examine prevention, thus nipping illnesses in the bud. However, given the introduction of the "yellow pack" medical card, we can see that the Minister does not fully adopt that approach. We need to examine the root causes of illness. We know, for example, that 80% of cancers are environmentally linked. Therefore, prevention comes down to the basic ingredients of our lives, such as clean air and water.

There have been many scares recently concerning radon gas. We need to look at air pollution and what we are putting into our water supply. Do people have a genetic predisposition to some of the ingredients in drinking water and will they affect them adversely? I raised the question of microwave radiation with the Minister of State two days ago on the Adjournment debate. I do not understand the Government's schizophrenic approach to health care. On the one hand, it states that it wants to invest more money in health care, and is doing so, but on the other hand it is making society more unhealthy by investing more in roads instead of public transport and by locating mobile phone masts close to schools.

Next Sunday, in my own constituency, such a mast will be put in place at Ardee House, Rathmines, which is close to St. Mary's School. It is the first public building so affected under the new licensing rules. I regret very much that my constituency colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, did not act to prevent this from happening. It is going ahead on Sunday. Meanwhile, the UK's independent expert group has referred to the precautionary principle and how such masts should not be located close to schools because it would raise radiation levels thus adversely affecting children. How can the Minister of State justify putting a mast of that sort near a school? He will wonder later on why it is that people have cancer. I just do not understand the logic.

In his reply, the Minister of State suggested that normal planning regulations will apply. We know the 2001 planning and development regulations exempt such developments from the normal planning process. Therefore, neither the public nor the city council have an input. There are no rules so we do not have a proper examination of the pros and cons of this development. That is most regrettable. The reply that is trotted out all the time is that this is normal planning, but it is not normal planning. This matter, which I have raised a number of times today, is causing me much grief. It should have gone through normal planning. I appeal to the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, who is a member of the Progressive Democrats and whose colleague is putting through this measure, to please ensure the installation of the phone mast on Ardee House in Rathmines is reconsidered.

See this speech in context