Dáil debates

Tuesday, 6 February 2007

 

Health Service Reform: Motion

7:00 am

Photo of Liz McManusLiz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

Yes, it is a public hospital. I would have thought the Minister would have heard about it. However, I will be happy to give her the information.

With regard to the situation in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, we hear from the Minister that we have too many nurses but time and again facilities cannot be used because there is a shortage of nurses. This raises issues regarding the consultants' contract. While I want the contract renegotiated — it is a scandal that it has persisted for so long — I also want to ensure it does not become inoperable and the current nonsensical problem, whereby hospital consultants are unable to work due to shortages of staff, beds or operating theatres, is not prolonged. Regardless of what one thinks of hospital consultants, most of them work hard, like to work and feel frustrated when prevented from performing operations or procedures because the Government, despite the unprecedented level of resources at its disposal, has failed to provide the necessary infrastructure. Overlaying this scenario with additional consultants without first providing an infrastructure will create problems. The Minister must be honest about what she proposes.

While it is popular to take on the consultants, what does it mean in reality? Resolving problems in the health service requires much more explanation, thought, investment and reform. While it is easy to have a populist catch cry, it is difficult to rectify the problem. The Minister will have my party's support if she takes the correct approach but we will be quick to point out any flimflam should she engage in it on this issue.

It is worth reiterating the proposals outlined in the motion because they address a number of the core problems in the health service, not all of which occur at hospital level. The Labour Party recognises that a rebalancing towards primary care is critical because too many of those who end up in hospital do not need to be there. We must shift many patients towards accessing care at community and primary care levels. Serious reform of health service management is also required. We propose a major drive towards preventative medicine and children's health through the provision of medical cards to 40% of the population and free general practitioner cards for all children under five years of age. The development of an insurance-based system for those aged under 16 years is a first step towards a truly integrated service, to which both the Labour Party and Fine Gael Party are committed.

The Government side has produced a daft proposal to build private, for-profit hospitals on public lands. It tries to sell the notion that these facilities will result in the delivery of 1,000 additional public beds. The Government's approach will not deliver 1,000 beds because it is not a case of substituting like for like. In addition, the proposal does not enjoy broad support either on the medical side or at political level.

Interestingly, Professor Drumm implied criticism of the Minister's proposal when he expressed the fear that, having entered a hospital's grounds through the same gate, private and public patients will go their separate ways, with the former accessing a nice hospital with hanging baskets and the latter accessing an under-resourced and inadequate public hospital. Anyone examining the Minister's approach of developing for-profit hospitals at the expense of building public capacity would have major concerns. I sincerely hope the Minister, who has no mandate to go down this route, will fail in her endeavour and will not reach her target of signing a large number of contracts. Parties on this side are committed to ending this policy, which is bad for the health service, to ensure we secure best value for money and optimum patient care in future.

It is important to consider the content of the Government amendment. While amendments tabled by all Governments are self-congratulatory in tone, the amendment before us is dishonest. It states, for example, that there are more medical cards now than in 1997. Given that the proportion of the population with a medical card has declined from approximately 34% to roughly 29% since 1997, this statement is not true. The rules of the game require that the Official Record reflect the truth.

The GP-only medical card, of which 38,000 have been issued, is a joke.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.