Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister. I concur with those who stated it is good to see her so willing to come to the House on so many occasions.

At the height of the crisis that arose a few weeks ago, two Members of the Lower House who are over 70 years of age and I were interviewed on the plinth by RTE. The first question I was asked was whether I have a medical card and whether I receive free medical care. I do not recall ever receiving a medical card. However, on the one visit I made to him last year, my doctor stated that since I am over 70, I am not obliged to pay. He either missed out on the €640 the State should have paid him or on the fee that I should have paid for his services. I have no difficulty with stating that those at the top level should be obliged to pay. However, there is one query in that regard which I will put to the Minister in a moment.

As stated on the Order of Business, I am concerned that people do not realise the seriousness of the financial crisis into which the country is facing. We must take action to solve that problem. One of the things we must do is monitor areas in which we can afford to reduce costs. We must then proceed to reduce those costs in whatever way possible. I have a difficulty with those who object to every effort to cut costs without offering alternative proposals.

The Department of Health and Children employs approximately 100,000 people. Despite the pay freeze, the partnership deal will cost €189 million in a full year. That figure does not even include the cost of pensions. We will be obliged to pay 10% of every public service worker's salary from moneys borrowed. We have already borrowed so much and there is no sign that we will be able to reduce our level of borrowing in the near future. I have a real difficulty in respect of this matter, particularly in circumstances where there might be a failure to cut costs.

In my opinion, the deal done in 2002 was not good. I support the Minister in her efforts to ensure a better deal is obtained on this occasion. Unlike Senator Feeney, however, I would not state that we were screwed by the other side. If a bad deal is agreed, it is the fault of the negotiators on both sides. I applaud the Minister on what she is trying to do to reduce the cost to the State.

I have one query to put to the Minister. I am of the view that we should spend money on prevention rather than cure. In many instances we do not do so. From a business point of view, I came across an interesting case whereby one British company made great efforts to reduce the amount of salt in bread sold in its stores. What it did was approved and accepted because there was a large campaign in Britain in respect of how bad salt can be for people. When something similar was attempted in the Czech Republic, the relevant supermarket's customers sprinkled salt on their bread and ended up consuming far more salt than would otherwise have been the case. I refer to this case because it provides an example of what can be done.

The position is similar as regards obesity, in respect of which there is a major problem in this country. An extremely interesting article on this matter was published in The Irish Times yesterday. We must take action to educate people about the dangers of obesity rather than being obliged to provide them with hospital care at a later date.

Prevention is better than cure. Will the Minister put my mind at rest and indicate that the steps she is taking will not retain in our hospitals those people who might otherwise have been cared for at home?