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

What I am saying is that if we want to get to the bottom of what happened, we need an honest debate about where we were, how we got there and how we are trying to get out of there. It would be appropriate for this Government to be more up-front in all its dealings with regard to the Irish people in terms of sovereign debt, bank recapitalisation and retrospective bank recapitalisation. These are the key issues. They are the central tenets on which the Government was elected from this side of the House.

We can talk about the past in its entirety, but when Government members were on this side of the House, every morning it was a scorched earth policy of opposition. They can say anything they like about this Opposition but, in fairness, when we believe something is right and proper, we support it. At the time, however, it was a scorched earth policy, particularly that pursued by the Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, when in opposition. Take, for example, the establishment of NAMA. NAMA was brought in for a specific purpose, namely, to try to stabilise the bank balance sheets, which were impaired to a certain extent, and to transfer the debt. Day in, day out, the leader of the Labour Party consistently insinuated that it was being established to bail out individuals, developers and others. The Government has now been in office for three years but it has not changed as much as one sentence or comma of the legislation underpinning NAMA. That is because it was set up for a specific purpose when the State was at its most vulnerable. Yet, when they were in opposition, they consistently tried to undermine it, not for any ideological reason but for no reason other than bare-faced opposition when this State probably needed a little bit of united support in order to face the abyss before it.

With regard to the health services, the Minister for Health gave an interview today congratulating himself and slapping his own back for his achievements in office in the past three years. In the same breath, he then announced there will be a delay in the rollout of universal health insurance, that the White Paper will not be published for some time and even that it will not be a White Paper at all but a Green Paper, and that this will go into a consultative mode for the next year or so. On any critical analysis, this is simply a slap in the face to the Minister for Health by his Cabinet colleagues. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform have both decided that the Minister for Health's handling of universal health insurance has been bungled, to say the least, given he could waltz into a Cabinet sub-committee meeting without any costings, any analysis or any idea of the impact it might have on the cost of providing compulsory private health insurance to families throughout this country or on the funding of services. None of this was done. This is a central plank of how we are going to fund the second largest spending Department, which needs to be guaranteed a certain source of funding every year to provide basic services, yet the Minister in charge of that Department has no notion of the cost of the policies he is pursuing or of how it will impact on the health services. Just as importantly, he has no notion of how it will impact on citizens who will not be asked but forced to take out universal health insurance, because it will be compulsory. It beggars belief that a senior Minister could, after three years in government, come forward with a piece of paper that effectively had no costings and no impact analysis on the provision of services.

We are discussing priorities for the year ahead and it is March 2014. I want to look at the priorities for 2013 because to analyse retrospectively the Government's performance would be better than hoping it will be better this time around. The 2013 priorities stated that the Department of Health would publish a White Paper on universal health insurance in 2013, but that was not delivered. The Department was to establish a new patient safety agency on an administrative basis in 2013, and that was delivered in 2014, thanks very much. There was a commitment the Department would work with the HSE and the State Claims Agency to develop a risk-based approach to provision of indemnity to services and professions by the end of 2013, and that was not delivered either. We can go on and on.

What I find most amazing of all is the issue of the funding and delivery of services and, more importantly, the cutbacks to services, all of which have been targeted at the most vulnerable. We have time and again, year in, year out, a readjustment of the HSE budget in September or October. Every year, this targets the most vulnerable. There are cuts to home helps and personal assistants and the increase in prescription charges. Does the Minister of State have any concept of what €25 per month means to people on a fixed income? The Minister for Health, when he was in opposition, told us that our introduction of a 50 cent prescription charge per item would have an impact on people's ability to access medication. He said it would even cost lives because it would deter people from taking medication. The same Minister, not in opposition but in government, promised he would get rid of the prescription charge in April 2011, yet in March 2014, three years into his tenure, we find that prescription charges have increased fivefold. I would like to know from the Minister what is the difference between March 2011 and March 2014. Other than the passing of three years, there is no difference at all. What has happened is that ordinary people have been penalised, particularly those on fixed incomes who cannot access medication because it is costing them up to €25 a month.

By any stretch of the imagination, this debate should have facilitated us to scrutinise the Government's record to date, not allowed the Government to engage in self-congratulation on the benches opposite, pretending and spinning that it has done a good job. This has been a shameful exercise for the last two weeks.

See this speech in context