Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State and the Bill, which seems to set up a model administrative system for the repayments. Undoubtedly there are some uncanny echoes in this episode, now going back a couple of years, of what happened last week, where the constitutionality of a provision that has been there for a long time was called into question.

In politics, one cannot often be responsible for the crises which come at one, but one should be judged on how one handles them. Regarding this issue, the Tánaiste was not long in office when the alarm bells started ringing, and she has handled the matter well. There seems to be a broad consensus in the House that some deduction for payments for care were justified, but equally that they had to be on a clear legal basis. One could not have a situation where payments were being deducted on dubious legal authority. The first Bill produced was referred to the Supreme Court, a sensible precaution by the President to judge its constitutionality. The thinking then had to be revised and this repayments scheme instituted. Whatever criticisms people may have about practices of successive Governments, I do not think there can be any serious criticism of the system of repayment now being put in place.

I get a little tired of the rather low level political charges which characterise the contributions of Senator Bannon. I would like to think we could debate these matters calmly, and while I might be tempted, I am not going to go into instances of incompetence, real or alleged, under other Governments. I do not know if the public wants that. It wants a system whereby if something has gone wrong, it will be put right as efficiently and expeditiously as possible.

I note there is a sort of Pavlovian ideological reaction on another side of the House when there is any question of getting some outside or private firm, with experience in a particular field, to manage a function. I have a pragmatic attitude in most instances, though certain core functions should be left to the public sector, but I do not believe this scheme of repayments necessarily falls into that category. Much play was made of the Government's use of consultants. I regret in some ways — this is true of all governments — the loss of confidence in decision-making, or of one's own ability within one's own departmental resources to take decisions without having to bring in consultants to double-check matters. However, fairly large sums of money are involved and I suppose people, especially civil servants, but also politicians, want to be protected from precisely the charges of incompetence which were flung across the House a few moments ago.

Nevertheless, I do not think that employing consultants necessarily protects a government from things going wrong. One can see that in this country and in Britain, with regard to information technology brought in to perform certain tasks, and perhaps being asked to do tasks which are too ambitious for the state of the technology. The marketing people do not honestly admit that. It is a real problem that needs to be reflected upon. If I was in the Minister's position, my instinct would be to employ the minimum of consultants to save the public purse. One must ask if in certain circumstances that might be a false economy. If one makes a decision without full knowledge of the facts it may end up costing more. That is a matter for reflection and self-critical debate in the public service and political system. It must not be simplified by heated political charges about one system or another.

I liked the devolved system of decision-making of the former health boards, introduced by Erskine Childers in the 1970s. Perhaps it was not functioning efficiently and it was time to change the process. I do not go along with the populist argument that it is wrong for the man who is running the health service on a day-to-day basis to get any kind of bonus. He is running a large and vital public service. The petty begrudgery, loved by the popular media, will get us nowhere in this matter.

Senator Daly spoke about the closure of small hospitals in 1987 and 1988 due to financial stringency. Many of them could now have a function as convalescent step-down facilities for acute hospitals. Just as we are reopening railway lines, we could reopen these hospitals for specific functions which they are capable of performing.