Deirdre Clune (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

It is proposed to build one of the co-located facilities at Cork University Hospital in my constituency. I am opposed, like my colleagues, to this poorly thought-out measure, which is being hailed as the solution to our health care problems. It proposes to deliver 1,000 additional beds to the system and, while they are badly needed, they should not be provided in the way proposed by the Government. The Opposition parties proposed to increase the number of hospital beds during the recent election campaign and the accident and emergency department task force highlighted the need to increase the number of acute hospital beds, but this should not be done in the manner proposed by the Minister, which is to sell public lands to develop private hospitals. The beds are badly needed but not at the price of giving away public land, which is valuable both economically and in the context of its location. This land will be lost forever to the expansion of public health care facilities and developments that could be proposed in this regard.

Will the Minister explain why the Government cannot build badly needed public beds and convalescent and step-down facilities on these sites to relieve pressure on hospitals and the accident and emergency department system in particular? The current system works well but it needs to be resourced and supported by the Government. The level of private care in our hospitals needs to be limited and, while such care has a role in our health system, the Minister should not give away public lands to provide additional beds.

The Minister needs to clarify the cost of her proposal because the electorate is unsure. Various figures have been bandied about and it has been estimated the proposal will result in €500 million in revenue foregone to the Exchequer over seven years, while the cost of private health care is estimated to increase by 40%. A total of 52% of the population avails of private health care. Private health care has a small but important role but public facilities need to be supported and developed. A stroke victim, a diabetic or a patient with a heart condition needs continuing care, which can only be provided through the public system. Private health care will deliver hip replacements or cataract procedures that can be bought through the National Treatment Purchase Fund but continuing care needed by those with long-term illnesses can only be delivered effectively by multidisciplinary teams in public hospitals.

I have spoken to many workers in the medical profession about this proposal. Doctors and consultants, particularly those who have worked in the United States, are very concerned that the State is going down the American route. As Deputy Charles Flanagan said, this proposal represents a watershed. Is the Government going down the Boston route or the Berlin route? It should examine how our European neighbours support their health services because we do not want a scenario where doctors make decisions based on the cost of a procedure rather than on its medical benefit.

I have spoken to members of the INO who are concerned that if a private hospital is located adjacent to a public hospital, nurses will leave to work in the private hospitals because working in a public hospital is very difficult. Anybody who has spoken to nurses involved in the recent strike knows they are concerned about the pressures on their profession. In particular, they are concerned about the pressures they have had to absorb and that people are leaving the profession on a daily or weekly basis. That is not good for nursing.

There are many concerns and many questions have been left unanswered about the proposed co-location system. I would like the Minister to again consider her proposals and not move forward with them. It is certainly not the way we want to move forward in our health care system. She should restore confidence to those working in the system and would-be patients.

See this speech in context