Gay Mitchell
Question:3 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will place the letter of resignation of the former chairperson of the Irish Blood Transfusion Service in the Oireachtas Library. [25729/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. Priority Questions. - Irish Blood Transfusion Service.
I am today arranging for the letter referred to by the Deputy to be placed in the Oireachtas Library. In the interest of fairness, I advise the House that parties referred to in the letter may have a different perspective on the opinions expressed.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Professor Patricia Barker, former Chairperson of the Irish Blood Transfusion Service. Professor Barker made a major contribution to the reorganisation and redevelopment of the service. I appreciate her untiring effort and commitment to the improvement of the service during her period of office.
I recently appointed four new members to the board, including a new chairman, Mr. Michael McLoone, Donegal County Manager. I am fully satisfied that the competencies of the new appointees, allied with the skills and experience of existing members, will ensure the service continues its programme of change and development. The major priority of the new chairman, the board together with the staff, is to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing environment in transfusion science in a positive and productive way that best meets the needs of our hospital services. For my part, I will ensure that necessary resources are available to the board so that its processes and procedures remain in line with the leading transfusion services internationally.
Will the Minister agree that the Irish Blood Transfusion Service is one of the most sensitive health services and, given the shortage of donations and the HIV scandal, confidence needs to be restored in it? Why did he pack the board of the Irish Blood Transfusion Service with approximately three-quarters of members from his own bailiwick? Will he confirm that in abusing these appointments for his own political local fiefdom he provoked correspondence from the outgoing chairperson, Professor Barker, which, among other things, referred to unacceptable political hacks? Will he confirm for the House that such terms were used in correspondence between the former distinguished chairperson of the Irish Blood Transfusion Service and him?
I reject the untruth that I packed the board with three-quarters of its membership from my own area.
Did the Minister know them?
(Interruptions.)
I appointed three people of the 12 who are not hacks. They are professional medical people. One was recommended by the Department as a national specialist in public health and I was told that someone from the public health area should be on the board. The other person was a manager of a major trauma hospital and the third was a reputable infectious disease consultant who is highly regarded both nationally and internationally in terms of experience.
And the Secretary General of Fianna Fáil?
I have placed all the correspondence in the Dáil Library and it would be more prudent—
Was that term used?
Not in the context of those appointments.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Mitchell should not interrupt unless the Chair gives him the floor.
To be fair to everyone concerned, there are different perspectives on this. I have placed all the correspondence in the Dáil Library and it would be prudent for the Deputy to read it in context. His paranoia with the Cork dimension is blinding him to a broader perspective on the difficulties surrounding the Blood Transfusion Service for some time. The Deputy needs to take a broader perspective rather than seeking short-term political advantage by trying to blacken those appointed from Cork and identifying them as political hacks, which they are not. I do not know their political affiliation, nor did I ask. I think it is very unfair to them as professionals. I stand over those appointments. Ultimately the Minister of the day has not just the responsibility but the right to appoint members to a board. My judgment was correct because the issue pertaining to Cork and so on existed long before I came on the scene. I have made it very clear in parliamentary replies that there is an obligation on all concerned to try to resolve outstanding difficulties. Progress was made and I do not accept that the Cork issue was germane to what happened during the summer. Other issues took over, not least the report on human resource change and management produced by Phil Flynn and Associates. That was a contentious issue within the board and across the service and perhaps it is a more central issue in all of this.
Will the Minister confirm that while there was already a large contingent on the board from the southern area he appointed three more people. He also appointed the former Secretary General of Fianna Fáil and a representative of his own Department, thereby giving him about three-quarters or more members from his own political sphere of influence – I will produce the record. Does he agree that to do so at a time when there was an internecine dispute between Dublin and Cork about blood testing in both locations, which is still ongoing, was a bad public service? Does he agree also that he did terrible injury to the reputation of the board at a time when it needed to restore confidence and that he undermined its confidence, not for the people of Cork, Fianna Fáil or his running mates, but for his own ego? Will he confirm that the terms used in those records included what I said earlier about "political hacks?" Is it not a fact that the former chairperson, a distinguished professor, in her correspondence with him, said that she could no longer put up with the political hacks?
No.
Did she not use the term "political hacks?"
We must proceed to Question No. 4.
It is important—
It is a most disgraceful day's work. The Minister has done injury—
We must proceed to Question No. 4.
A Cheann Comhairle, I must insist—
Very briefly.
First, I have to correct the record because too much misinformation has been put about on this issue which is far too important for that to happen. The issue of political hacks arose with me. I was the first person to mention it in a meeting with Professor Barker long before any appointments were made. I told her it was my view that political hacks should not be appointed to any State board. Professor Barker subsequently used this in regard to legislation, not after appointments had been made, but in terms of her general views on the way in which boards should be organised. There has been a deliberate misuse of the context, which is not right.
It was a disgraceful day's work. It is a resignation matter.
Second, there was one person from the County Cork area on the board before I came to office, appointed by the Deputy's party in government. That person has made a contribution during the years. I continued that person in office. I did not seek to remove—
A graduate of UCD. How many were from Waterford, the west or the north east?
We must proceed to Question No. 4.
A disgraceful day's work.