Geraldine Feeney (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister to the House once again and I am pleased to contribute to the Bill. As the Minister pointed out, various bodies associated with the health service are governed by the 1961 Act. Legal advice now suggests that this legislation is faulty and could be unconstitutional. The Bill is sensible and seeks to put right and prevent problems in the future. As the Minister indicated in the other House yesterday, it is comforting to know that all the bodies being dealt with in the Bill were properly and transparently constituted under the 1961 Act and they have operated well to date. However, the Government cannot ignore the Attorney General's advice, which was given last October that a more fundamental review of the 1961 Act was required. No pragmatic or capable Government could ignore legal advice of that nature.

Unlike the Opposition spokesperson who is condemning the Minister, I compliment her and her officials for the speed in which they got the Bill to the Houses, given that the legal advice from the Attorney General was only received six or seven weeks ago. Senator Fitzgerald referred to the need for more time. It is no wonder her party is in Opposition because if it were given all the time it has sought, it would get nothing done. I dread to think in what kind of state the country would be if her party were in power.

The main gripe of the Opposition parties with the Bill is the inclusion of co-location. It is nauseating to hear them griping in this manner all the time. I do not know what the hysteria is about. A general election was held only six months ago. The outgoing Government of the Progressive Democrats and my own party, Fianna Fáil, supported the co-location of hospital facilities. The main Opposition parties opposed it. The people spoke and the Government parties won a resounding victory and we are back in Government. The issue has been dealt with in that co-location has been given the green light by both the Government and the people who voted for it. We should move on.

It is important to refer to the merits of co-location. As the Minister indicated, it will result in the freeing up of 2,500 beds in public hospitals, 20% of the total public hospital bed capacity. However, it is worrying that private elective admissions take up 35% of the total capacity. The Minister is correct and very brave in saying she is not prepared to let these factors lead to a situation where private patients receive priority over public patients. That is not fair and it should not be allowed. Co-location is a wonderful idea. The main Opposition parties are mad not to buy into it and support it. The Minister referred to direct admission to surgical and medical units. One of the best aspects of co-location will be the location of general practitioners on site on a 24-7 basis. These are the kind of measures we have to move towards introducing.

The Minister referred to the legal disposal of sites to allow for the construction of private hospitals. Senator Fitzgerald can rest assured the Minister is not going back on her word and she may get some comfort from this information. I have been told that to dispose legally of an entity means to lease. My understanding of the matter is the lands are not being sold off; they will be leased.

As the Minister pointed out, the amendments to the Medical Practitioner Bills are essentially technical. According to the advice of the Attorney General they are necessary. In the main they relate to the transition period. This will ensure an orderly transfer from the existing council to the new one that will come into force.

It is only nine months since we enacted the Medical Practitioners Act. Senator Fitzgerald is correct that it was introduced in the past year but I disagree that it was rushed through the Houses. That is far from being the case. The Act, which is still in existence, is almost 30 years old and needed changing. Every medical practitioner in the country was screaming out for change. I was a member of the previous Medical Council, on which I sat for five years, and everybody was crying out for a change in this.

I repeat that the Minister was brave. Many of her predecessors would have kicked to touch on it. Nobody wanted to touch it and it was let continue. We are worse the wear for that because cases like the Dr. Michael Neary case, which blew us all apart, made people sit up. The Minister was brave for introducing this amendment to the House and I commend her for that as well. It was in need of reform and it will be changed. I am pleased the Minister expressed her appreciation to the president of the Medical Council for the board remaining in office for a few extra months to facilitate the orderly transfer of powers from the current council to the new one.

The Minister has gone through the main points of the Bill. I will not rehearse them but I look forward to contributing to Committee and Remaining Stages tomorrow.