Phil Prendergast (Labour)

I welcome the Minister. The Labour Party accepts that, in light of the reported advice from the Attorney General, it was necessary legally and constitutionally to introduce primary legislation to confirm the 19 bodies purportedly created under the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act 1961. We also realise the Oireachtas had to move quickly to close off the existing loophole. However, questions arise whether doubts exist regarding the legal status of similar bodies.

Section 3(1) of the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act 1961 states: "The Minister may from time to time by order (in this Act referred to as an establishment order) establish a body to perform functions in, or in relation to, the provision of a health service or two or more health services." Similarly, section 3(1) of the Local Government Services (Corporate Bodies) Act 1971 states that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government may "whenever with the agreement of the Minister for Finance he determines that it is expedient to do so, by order (in this Act referred to as an establishment order) establish a body to provide for the Minister, the authorities therein specified, being authorities to which this Act applies, or the Minister and the authorities so specified, as the case may be, such services as may be specified in the establishment order". The bodies established under this legislation include the Local Government Computer Services Board, the Fire Services Council, the Dublin Transportation Council, the Irish Water Safety Association, the National Safety Council, the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board, the Local Government Management Services Board and the Environmental Research Unit. Is it possible to make the same interpretation in respect of those bodies as that which gave rise to the need for the Bill? I would like to see the advice of the Attorney General in this regard.

I have a difficulty with and object to the inclusion in the 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 the health service further along the road of dividing public and private patients so that soon sick people who arrive at the hospital campus could be directed left or right, some to a spanking new facility, supported by tax breaks to its wealthy developers, and others to the older public hospital. I do not believe that the separation of the sick into rich and poor hospitals is anything other than ideologically based. This aspect should not form any part of emergency legislation. Such legislation should be confined to matters that constitute a genuine emergency and should not be used by the Government as a vehicle of legislative convenience.

I also have a difficulty regarding the restricted time we have been given to debate this issue. My concerns have been echoed by many other colleagues in the Houses. While it is necessary to introduce legislation to ensure we make the position politically sound, I do not understand the need for the provisions relating to co-location. I have a serious problem with the latter and I await the Minister's reply.