Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)

I move amendment No. 1:

"To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann,

Noting the reported legal advice of the Attorney General that it is legally and constitutionally necessary to introduce primary legislation to confirm certain bodies which were purportedly created under the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act 1961;

Accepting that this is an urgent matter requiring the urgent enactment of emergency legislation by the Oireachtas;

Believing it is unacceptable that such emergency legislation should be used to facilitate the introduction of other non-urgent, politically controversial matters, such as those relating to the proposed co-location of private clinics on the grounds of public hospitals;

Declines to give a second reading to the Bill, on the grounds that it bundles together urgent and uncontroversial matters with those that are in no way urgent and are intensely politically contentious."

I wish to share time with Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.

In moving the amendment, the Labour Party does not wish to obstruct the passage of legislation to address the concerns of the Attorney General that certain bodies established under the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act 1961 may be legally and constitutionally suspect. However, we strongly object to the inclusion in this Bill of measures to facilitate the development of co-located private hospitals on the grounds of public hospitals. The Labour Party is fundamentally opposed to this measure, which seeks to take our health services further along the road of dividing public and private patients so that in the near future when sick people arrive on a hospital campus, they will be directed left or right depending on whether they are public or private patients, some of them to sparkling new facilities supported by tax breaks to wealthy developers and others to the older, public-only hospital.

The Minister has not convinced anyone that this separation of the sick into rich and poor hospitals is anything other than ideologically based, despite what she said which seemed to suggest this would bring patients closer together rather result in them being further apart in terms of whether they were public or private patients. Was she serious when she said the initiative was founded on the principle that all patients ordinarily resident in the State should have access to public hospitals based on medical need and that the possession of private health insurance should neither influence timeliness of access nor treatment? She suggested co-location would result in an equitable system, which I find incomprehensible.

An aspect of the Minister's political agenda should not form any part of an emergency Bill, especially one which is being rushed through the Oireachtas the week before Christmas, the debate on which will be guillotined and for which the time allocated is extremely restricted. This is dictatorial rather than democratic. Even though the Minister's party has only two votes, she has plenty of willing followers in Fianna Fáil and the Green Party who will ensure she will win the vote that will take place tonight. While we will do all in our power to remove the co-location element from the Bill, it is likely that we will not even reach that section of the Bill on Committee Stage. That is unsatisfactory and undemocratic. That is the reason we have moved an amendment on Second Stage to ensure the House will have an opportunity divide on this aspect, namely, the inclusion of the co-location element in the Bill which, otherwise, is emergency legislation.

The other anti-democratic aspect is that the Opposition and the public in general were not told about the Bill until the end of last week, even though the advice of the Attorney General was received in October and the Cabinet was told about the matter on 4 December. The Minister said her legal advice was that she was not to say anything about it until the end of last week. I do not understand the reason for this because she told us "The legal advice also has implications for bodies set up under the Local Government Services (Corporate Bodies) Act 1971 and that matter is under active consideration at present." That issue could be declared public when legislation on bodies set up under that Act was being prepared but not ready, yet nobody could be told about the legislation from the Minister's Department until it was ready to be published. If there was a concern about the public or the Opposition learning about it one month or so in advance of its publication, it appears there was no such concern in regard to legislation on bodies set up under the local government Act. I ask the Minister to respond to this matter, otherwise we can only conclude there is something undemocratic about her not telling us of the need for this legislation until last week.

This is a complicated Bill which involve considerable cross-references to various legislation. Clearly, for that reason it involved considerable drafting which must have taken some time to complete. It would have been helpful for the Opposition to have had sight of the legislation in advance to enable us to make the same cross-references and our legal advisers to examine it carefully to ensure there were no problems with it. Is the Minister satisfied that she has comprehensively covered the whole area incorporated in the legislation, given that it includes references to a raft of legislation? It covers 19 existing bodies and 40 bodies which initially were set up under the 1961 legislation. It is strange that in the intervening 46 years it did not come to light that there was a problem in this regard. The Opposition, anyone with an interest in these matters, particularly those interested in the drafting of legislation, and other members of the public should be given more information on the reason it was considered necessary to introduce this emergency legislation today and the specific legal advice received. I hope the Minister will give us that information.

On the technicalities of the Bill, I wish to raise an issue concerning one of the bodies established under 1961 Act but which no longer exists. I refer to the National Rehabilitation Board which was set up under the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act 1961 and dissolved in 2000. The Minister said on an RTE programme last Friday that her concern was focused on the 19 organisations still in place. I am sure she is aware of the legal difficulties concerning the National Rehabilitation Board, specifically the superannuation entitlements of its former staff. This matter went to court and it seems the former staff have a right to redundancy payments but no Minister has taken responsibility for ensuring their rights are fulfilled. The issues arises under this legislation. I ask the Minister to examine it and address the concerns expressed when the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the courts dealt with the rights of former employees of the National Rehabilitation Board. I hope she will be able to clarify the position and that we will be able to make progress for the former employees of the board.

I wish to address the issue of co-location and its inclusion in the Bill. I agree with my party leader and Deputy Reilly in asking the Minister if the reason the legislation is being rushed through today has much more to do with her urgent desire for co-location. She advised that further legislation would be required in regard to the 1961 Act and that she would introduce another Bill in 2008. Why then was it necessary and so urgent to put this Bill, to the debate on which a guillotine will be applied, through the Houses the week before Christmas, particularly when the legislation in regard to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government does not appear to have the same level of urgency attached? Some of us are suspicious that the real agenda is to introduce the elements that deal with co-location, specifically in regard to St. James's Hospital and Beaumont Hospital.

I am particularly concerned about the wording of the Schedule on page 11, which deals with St. James's Hospital, and page 13, which deals with Beaumont Hospital. It refers to "the disposal of land or an interest in land by the board of the Health Service Executive for the purposes of (i) the said construction, and (ii) the provision of those services by the private undertaking . . .". I understood it was not intended to dispose of lands and that the intention was to lease land for the purposes of co-location. I would be concerned if the legislation was being used to bring us to a position where we will dispose of publicly owned land to private operators who will get tax breaks to provide for private patients on the grounds of public hospitals. Up to now we have heard of the intention to lease land, but the Schedule clearly provides for the disposal of land. That would further add to my concern on behalf of the Labour Party that this element should not be included in the legislation. It is written in black and white that there is a provision for the disposal of land, among other matters. I am concerned about this.

I am also concerned about the issues that have not been teased out in regard to the relationship between private and public hospitals, particularly how public hospitals will be compensated in respect of the funds they currently receive for the accommodation of private patients. I found it incomprehensible that the Minister said this was going to mean that public patients would have access to health services on the same basis as private patients when we know perfectly well that this is not the case and is even less likely to be the case when we have co-located private hospitals.

Recently, a grandmother called to my clinic. She told me that her grandchild, who had an orthopaedic problem, had been told she would have to wait three years for an X-ray and treatment in the public system. The family has a medical card but decided to go to the private clinic of the consultant, which is held in the public hospital. The family subsequently brought the child for the X-ray but the child was not allowed into the X-ray department until €150 had been paid, because the X-ray was being carried out privately. The family's concern is that the child will have to stay in the private system, given that she started there.

See this speech in context