Vol. 536 No. 5
63 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Health and Children the reason it took from 29 March 2001 to 11 May 2001 to get a reply to a Parliamentary Question on the number of reviews, committees, groups, bodies and so on, established by him. [14937/01]
More than 4,000 Parliamentary Questions were answered by the Minister for Health and Children during the year 2000. The volume of questions so far in 2001 would indicate that a total of similar proportions can be anticipated this year. In a single month the number of questions answered can be as high as 656. This represents the highest total of questions answered by any Minister or Department and I make the point that the headquarters staffing of the Department of Health and Children is not large, relatively speaking. Also, the preparation of responses to Parliamentary Questions, which is always given due priority by the Department, is one of many pressing demands on the limited staffing resources of the Department.
This is the context within which the approach to various types of Parliamentary Questions is adopted. In general, questions break down into three types: those which are properly for the Department and where the necessary information is readily to hand; questions which are proper to the Department but which require further research and data collection; and questions on issues which are quite clearly a matter for local management of health boards or the Eastern Regional Health Authority.
The objective of the Minister and the Department in each case is to be as helpful and informative as possible, bearing in mind the overall limitations on staff time and the need for efficient use of public resources in addressing the Department's extensive brief.
In the case of the question referred to by the Deputy, all of the information required was not readily available. To ensure that the reply was both accurate and comprehensive, considerable research and consultation was required. The final reply to the Deputy was issued at the earliest date by which these criteria could be met.
Apart from the timing of the reply, I will comment on its content. Far from being a symptom of paralysis, as the Deputy has suggested elsewhere, I would regard it as a great strength of policy making by my Department that it engages in a considerable degree of consultation and in- depth analysis of issues. Public policy-making is no longer the preserve of a select few politicians and senior civil servants. Contemporary models of public management quite deliberately emphasise the importance of consultation and a partnership approach and I make no apology for observing the principles of participative decision making in discharging my role.
The record of the House will show that the Fine Gael Party has 55 Deputies and I speak for them on health issues as the main spokesman. When I tabled a Parliamentary Question to the Minister on 29 March 2001—
A question please, Deputy.
Would the Minister agree that the Standing Order requires a parliamentary question to be answered in three sitting days, not on 11 May 2001, after a number of rows on the floor of the House? Is it not a fact that because there are, according to the Minister's reply, 55 such reviews, groups and bodies, and his civil servants are too tied up with sticking-plaster approaches to policy to keep the Minister's backside covered, they cannot do what they are supposed to and answer parliamentary questions tabled in this House? Would the Minister further agree that the list is not only not comprehensive but also misleading? Where in the list is there mention of the work force planning study on therapists, the Deloitte and Touche value-for-money review, the tribunals of inquiry, and the working group on needs assessment for carers and care recipients? With all his civil servants and more reviews than Heinz have products, I have not been able to get an accurate reply from the Minister in six weeks.
The Deputy has made a huge meal out of something that does not deserve the kind of attention and activity he has been engaged in, such as invoking Standing Order 31. That is a bit of a joke. It was a fairly routine parliamentary question and if the Deputy had difficulties in obtaining answers, he could have telephoned me or contacted me in the normal way so that we could have inquired into the matter. The Deputy did not do so, however, because all he was interested in was creating hype around something that did not merit that kind of hype.
These are not Mickey Mouse review groups. I attended all the recent conferences held by public servants' organisations working in the health sector, including the various nursing unions and IMPACT. All these organisations are represented on a range of groups dealing, for example, with implementing the recommendations of the nursing commission. By any objective assessment, that marks a milestone in the way we treat nurses within the health service. Is Deputy Mitchell saying we should abolish all those sub-groups and advisory fora? Is he sug gesting we should get rid of the monitoring committee responsible for implementing the recommendations of the nursing commission? Is he suggesting that we should get rid of the national cancer forum and a variety of groups that have advised us effectively on a whole range of areas?
Health is a complex sector and it evolves in terms of consultative and advisory groups, bringing on board other representatives from a range of organisations. The list is exhaustive but if there are some omissions I regret that and will make sure we can add to it. However, I do not accept the basic proposition of the Deputy that these review bodies should be abolished; they certainly should not. They were part of the system for quite a long time before I arrived in my present position. In fact, Deputy Mitchell's own party leader established a number of those groups when he was Minister for Health.
The Minister has made the case that maybe a phone call from me to his office would have elicited the information I sought. Is the Minister aware that I already have a formal complaint before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges about a previous parliamentary question I tabled? Not only was it not answered here, it was only forwarded to me after he answered it outside the House, despite a number of phone calls to his office.
Not true.
No other Minister treats this House with such discourtesy and contempt. It is the sort of stuff that tribunals are made of because people like him, who are constitutionally required to answer questions, do not do so. Will the Minister tell the House if it is true that a question asked by me—
The time is up on this question, Deputy.
—on 20 March last, on the number of bed closures, was only sent to my office today? Is it not a fact that, for example, one of the working groups the Minister has established is to review medical card eligibility, when everybody knows that somebody on £95 a week should have a medical card?
Briefly now, Deputy. The time is up on this question. We have to move on to Question No. 64.
The Minister cannot take a decision. He has no strategy and, furthermore, he does not even have his own Cabinet behind him.
The Deputy should resume his seat.
The Minister's latest PR exercise at Ballymascanlon is just a continuation of this sort of nonsense.
Will the Deputy please obey the Chair?
We sought clarification from Deputy Mitchell after he raised the issue on the Order of Business some time ago. His own secretary was nonplussed by our query and we could not get clarification from his office as to what he was on about.
A typical cowardly attack on someone who is outside the House. He will blame anybody and everybody.
