Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Feb 2005

Vol. 597 No. 5

Leaders’ Questions.

I notice that the Minister, Deputy Cullen, seems to be a little happier in his brief today.

The great survivor.

Prior to the European Parliament elections in 1979, I recall that the late and much loved Seán Flanagan, from my county, announced a £500 million package to save the west. When the truth was discovered, however, the election was over. I notice that at a recent Fianna Fáil meeting, the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, seems to have got a rush of Valentine's blood to the head. He announced a package of €16 billion——

Million.

——over ten years for transport. The package included a metro line from Dublin city centre to the airport, running underground to Dublin's northside; a second terminal at the airport; an investment in road construction of over €1 billion per year; the reopening of rail services to County Meath at a cost of €156 million; a new rail station at Spencer Dock; and an underground rail interconnector linking Heuston and Connolly railway stations at a cost of €1 billion. What struck me was that at the end of Deputy Callely's contribution, as reported in the newspapers, he said he did not want to pre-empt any decision of the Minister in having this matter brought before the Cabinet.

He left the loose change in the kitty.

Later in his remarks, Deputy Callely said he had ordered reconstruction works to commence at the exit from the Dublin port tunnel that will spit out 6,000 trucks per day. He also said: "You will see a visible improvement in this shortly." Will the Taoiseach comment on the Minister of State's Valentine's Day message? Does the Taoiseach agree with this kind of carry on? Did he hear the Minister, Deputy Cullen, say a short time ago that the figures released by Deputy Callely "are just guess work and are not based on any fact"?

We now have a Minister for traffic, appointed by the Government, yet he is making remarks that are not based on facts, merely on guess work. Everybody knows that travel times have increased dramatically.

The Deputy's time has concluded.

The average car journey time is now very much more than it was. Arising from that, does the Taoiseach agree with Deputy Callely's carry on? Will the Taoiseach clarify the position in so far as the metro is concerned? Is there any basis in fact for this €16 billion, ten-year programme that has been announced?

As Deputy Kenny knows, the Minister dealt with all these questions earlier today. The Government is in the final stages of preparing the ten-year plan which was agreed in the budget. We said we would extend the envelope to a ten-year programme and would examine transport projects in all areas. That brings into play what the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, was referring to — all the current proposals that have been presented in one form or another. The Government is committed to delivering a 21st century transport infrastructure. There is an unparalleled commitment to the transport sector, including €2.1 billion in Exchequer support this year alone. Obviously, the figure for the ten-year period will be enormous. However, all these matters are under discussion at the Cabinet sub-committee. It is hoped they will be finalised in March and then the Minister will formally present them.

I thank the Taoiseach for the clarity he has brought to this matter. I have known for years that the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, is not shy, particularly at Christmas, but I saw his photograph some time ago in the newspaper and he looked like Napoleon in a hard hat when the giant underground cutter broke through at the port tunnel. He proclaimed victory on behalf of the people of Dublin as he single-handedly achieved this wonderful breakthrough. Given that he will be known as the Minster for fantasy in terms of transport, does the Taoiseach propose to speak to him about such wild announcements which are based on guess work? Despite all the remarks he made, he never referred to outside greater Dublin.

Will the Taoiseach elaborate on his views regarding an outer relief road for Dublin, which has been mooted for many years? Is there room in these proposals for any other part of the country? For instance, the former Minister for Transport, Deputy Séamus Brennan, who was equally good at making announcements, stated it would cost €300 million to reopen the western rail corridor between Sligo and Ennis. Will that ever appear at the Cabinet table? What about the south east, south and south west which have not been mentioned by the Minister for fantasy?

The figures sound enormous but the five-year plan will cost €10.2 billion. The budget for infrastructure this year alone is more than €2 billion. The levels of expenditure on public transport and the roads programme are enormous.

In reply to Deputy Kenny's important question on the regions, in recent years an unprecedented number of major high quality road projects have been completed. Under the ten-year plan, all the regions will get a fair share of the resources. The final plan must be drawn up but the intention is to build on what has been done in recent years at Port Laoise, Balbriggan, Cavan, Arklow, Donegal, Callan, Nenagh, Blackpool, Croom, Kilmacthomas, Kildare, Watergrasshill, Drogheda, Youghal, Skibbereen, Monasterevin, Ashford, Rathnew, Ballincollig, Cork and Limerick.

What about the south east?

The Mallow northern relief road should be included.

The latest on the south east is that a previously unknown, unheard of and undocumented historical site has emerged in the area but it is hoped that will be resolved. Deputy Howlin will help us to do that. The regions will get a fair share and a plan will be announced next month.

Just when we had grown accustomed to getting Christmas cards from the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, we will have to prepare for Valentine's cards as well. I am not sure the system will be able to cope with that.

Will the Taoiseach outline to the House honestly whether he has any regrets about appointing the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, as Minister for Health and Children? She came into the House on 18 November 2004 and promised to provide 200,000 "yellow pack" medical cards and 30,000 ordinary medical cards. The doctors welcomed this, as one would expect, but there were no more discussions with them. The cards could not be provided and the Tánaiste then found it necessary to bring in legislation, which was promised within a few weeks but has not appeared. None of that explains where are the 30,000 ordinary medical cards which were to take effect from 1 January. What has happened to them?

I refer to the figures of the GMS payments board, which show that more than 8,000 people, comprising 6,296 in January and 2,068 in December, have lost their medical cards. A total of 64,478 people have lost medical cards since before the general election. In case the Taoiseach says it is because they have received great wage increases, I remind him that the threshold for a single person living alone is €153 a week while it is €284.40 for a married couple with two children. This is after the 7.5% increase in the thresholds from 1 January 2005. Did the Minister for Health and Children miscalculate? Did she think that the simple application of the 7.5% increase would result in 30,000 additional medical cards?

More than 8,000 fewer people have medical cards than were promised. How much more will we accept? People in pain and suffering on paltry incomes are not able to get a medical card and more than 8,000 have lost theirs in the past two months alone.

At the beginning of the year, 1,145, 083 people were covered by medical cards, which is just short of 29% of the population.

It used to be 40%.

Deputy Rabbitte is correct. The health boards continued last year with their management review of the medical card database, which has been a factor in reducing the number of medical cards. The Tánaiste made that clear in the House recently. This exercise last year removed approximately 104,000 cards from the medical register for various reasons.

The Tánaiste is taking steps to ensure people on low incomes can visit their general practitioner and bring their children without being put off by cost.

We expect 230,000 more people to benefit this year.

A total of 30,000 will receive the traditional medical card and 200,000 will get the doctor visit cards.

They are being short-changed.

A short Bill is needed, which must be passed in the House shortly. The Tánaiste hopes all the cards will be circulated before the end of April.

If it is such a short Bill, why is it taking such a long time to emerge? It has nothing to do with the provision of 30,000 traditional medical cards. What is the point in repeating statistics? More than 8,000 fewer people have medical cards and there is no sign of the Tánaiste changing that.

How can the Taoiseach say this Minister is performing? She lost the chief executive of the Health Service Executive and she has presided over the robbing of people in nursing homes. She was not present last night when 1,500 people attended a protest demonstration about the condition of Wexford General Hospital nor was she present last week when 795 people met under the disability banner to protest at the useless nature of the Disability Bill. Her predecessor, Deputy Martin, may have done nothing except commission consultancy reports but she is going backwards. No chief executive has been appointed, no "yellow pack" medical cards have emerged while 30,000 medical cards that were promised have not been delivered and cards have been taken from more than 8,000 people.

The accident and emergency service is in crisis but the Minister did not forget to increase the charge for this service by €10 or increase the drugs refund threshold or increase bed charges by €10 from 1 January but she forgot to deliver medical cards, negotiate with the doctors and to prevent the loss of the chief executive of the health service.

The 30,000 traditional medical cards will be given in April. They are not part of the legislation, which covers the 200,000 doctor visit cards.

They should be given now.

Both will be given before the end of April. This year will see more openings, action and movement across a range of hospitals.

What about patients entering Mullingar Hospital who have to be taken out because there is no nurse?

The Taoiseach should listen to the anger of the people.

The Taoiseach, without interruption please.

We have seen enormous expenditure, €300 million into St. Vincent's Hospital and money spent on Tullamore hospital, Roscommon hospital and a range of other hospitals that have opened up.

There are a few to which no money was given.

I suppose Naas hospital will do well now.

The Taoiseach, without interruption please.

The Health Service Executive is up and running since January. The reform structures have been put in place, the Tánaiste has put in place a significant action programme in the accident and emergency area. Naas hospital is doing very well as the Deputy knows. His colleague, former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, put that in place.

Deputy Stagg should know this is his leader's question and he is not entitled to ask a supplementary question or to comment. The Taoiseach, without interruption.

He was not interrupting. He just wanted to congratulate the Government on Naas hospital. There are also all of the other developments. In the accident and emergency area this year we have a planned programme to put almost €70 million into improving those accident and emergency areas that are deficient. We have also put significant additional staff into these areas.

I wish to ask the Taoiseach about his prodigal Minister, sitting beside him, the Minister for Transport, particularly in the context of the EU Commission report today about Irish women being at greatest risk of poverty in the European Union compared to other member states. It is important to examine how we use public money. Has the Taoiseach anything to say with regard to the loss of public money such as money lost on electronic voting machines, €52 million, and storage of €680,000 per annum, rising to €1 million if we include maintenance, for machines which it seems will never be used? I raised the issue of the escalating costs for the upgrade of the M50 previously. Over a few months the costs have risen from approximately €200 million to €800 million, an enormous increase. Also, should a PR consultant effectively charging twice as much as a rival PR consultancy company be hired? On the issue of public money ——

The Deputy is entitled to ask a question on one topical issue only.

My question is all about one topic, public money. The Ceann Comhairle knows well that asking about the Minister who oversees that spending is asking on one topic. How can the Taoiseach say that the Minister is exonerated when Mr. Dermot Quigley's report states there is no comprehensive inventory of work done under the PR contract in question, that monitoring and recording of the work done was not satisfactory, and in the case of a number of areas of work, as well as support work at various international meetings, he was not convinced that the services were fully within the scope of the contract? Is the Taoiseach serious when he says the Minister is exonerated? Is he going to lay out criteria to ensure we do not have a repeat of this debacle? Will he set out criteria with regard to foreign travel for consultants, fund raising by consultants for their ministerial employers and for the hiring of consultants? Will he set out performance indicators to measure achievements and performance? Will the Taoiseach put these measures in place and ensure we do not have a repeat of this debacle?

Is the question about the Quigley report and the Standards in Public Office Commission report?

It is about the outcome of the Quigley report and what the Taoiseach intends to do?

The subject of controversy raised by the Deputy has been examined in detail by two separate bodies. There is nothing to suggest that the Minister, Deputy Cullen, acted inappropriately in the matter in question. The House knows that when we drew up the terms of reference, care was taken to ensure that nothing would be done to pre-empt any investigation the Standards in Public Office Commission might decide to carry out.

By and large, Mr. Quigley was asked to address the issues relating to the procurement process and he concentrated his inquiry on that area. His report, which is in the public domain, shows that while there are issues we must improve on in the procurement process, the Minister did nothing wrong. The Standards in Public Office Commission found there was no basis on which to undertake an investigation.

With regard to what I intend to do, I have already stated that we will introduce new procedures to deal with these issues. The Cabinet has discussed and almost finalised these matters and the new procedures will be announced shortly. I hope this will alleviate the pressure with regard to this issue and tighten up the procurement system. The Department of Finance must also examine some aspects of the issue raised by Mr. Quigley. It will do that as part of a review it will undertake on procurement generally. We will follow up on the two aspects raised by Mr. Quigley.

The Taoiseach mentioned the Standards in Public Office Commission. I am not surprised it found no prima facie case, given that the Quigley report was quite rushed in the sense that the Taoiseach asked for it to be back on his desk before the Dáil reconvened. The Standards in Public Office Commission had a long debate on the issue. I imagine the members did not all agree on the position, but the commission put a position into the public domain.

Does the Taoiseach think the investigation done was comprehensive? Is it acceptable, given that it was just dealing with procurement? It did not deal with other pertinent issues such as whether a consultant should be able to conduct fund raising for a ministerial employer or some of the issues raised somewhat obliquely in the Quigley report.

Following on previous investigations carried out by the Taoiseach, is it any wonder there is not much comfort in him saying he will vet appointments made by other Ministers? Are we to expect the Taoiseach to look up every tree in County Waterford, or wherever it happens to be——

The Deputy's time has concluded.

——to investigate the merits or otherwise of an appointment? Would it not be better for him to concentrate on the Standards in Public Office Commission putting in place regulations and criteria that would ensure it would know what it had to do and could do its job?

Again, the Deputy is raising two points. I do not intend to examine every aspect of it. The Government discussed the matter and we have agreed to incorporate guidelines into the Cabinet handbook in this area. These guidelines will apply, particularly in the PR or communications area, where there is a significant element of direct service to a Minister, or where a Minister suggests a name of a person or enterprise for a consultancy or contract. What will happen is that the Secretary General of the relevant Department will be required to inform the Secretary General to the Government who will arrange, if necessary, for the Cabinet secretariat to inquire about any aspects of the proposed procurement that it considers necessary. I hope an inquiry would not be necessary as the procurement process will be strengthened. The Department of Finance is already dealing with that.

The question raised by the Deputy of whether somebody with a contract to a Minister should be involved in fund raising is a wider area. If anybody has a Government contract, should he or she be debarred from political activity and debarred from a significant sector of the State? If some company such as PricewaterhouseCoopers had a contract with the Department of Finance, should everyone in the company be debarred from the system? I do not think that is what we are talking about. The issue concerns whether somebody works directly for a Minister, or works directly in a Minister's office. What we are doing is changing the regulations to deal with that area. Broadening out in a wide area is where this problem started. We have investigated the issue and two bodies have examined it. Mr. Quigley has made suggestions for change, both in the procurement process adopted by the Department of Finance and in our Cabinet handbook. We have taken action on both.

Top
Share