Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 1990

Vol. 126 No. 16

Public Hospitals (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ross

I do not want to delay the Bill, especially as I was not here for Second Stage, which went through more quickly than I expected. Section 2, which provides that the funds should be vested in the Minister for Health, is seemingly a very innocent, logical and sensible section. I am suspicious, as a matter of principle, that any funds should actually be vested in the Minister for Health or in any party politician at all. There is a case to be made in regard to all funds of this sort, and the national lottery, which Senator Cosgrave so rightly raised, that these funds should not be vested in the Minister for Health or in anybody who is subject to the normal sort of pressures which politicians are subject to. They should be vested in an independent body, a public trustee or an independent trustee. It seems we are too loose and cavalier about always placing these funds in the hands of the Minister. There is a very good case that funds of this sort — and there is a parallel between this and lottery funds — should be vested in someone who is not subject to the pressures that politicians are subject to.

I would ask the Minister for his comments and ask him why it was not felt possible for the Government to put this in the hands of someone who would not be subject to the sort of suspicion and the pressures which a politician can be subject to and is subject to in cases of this sort.

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Mr. N. Treacy)

I could respond by saying that it is politicians themselves who create the suspicions about their colleagues. I have no difficulty whatever in discharging my duties as Minister of State in the Department of Health in an impartial manner. Neither has the Minister for Health. Some of the colleagues here in the front benches of the Opposition clarified the contribution made by the hospital sweepstakes to the health area. When funding was short at the start of this State over the years in the thirties, forties and into the fifties, the sweepstake was of major benefit in providing capital funding for buildings and other facilities for the health area. As the sweepstake was designed to help in the health area, it was felt that the funds of the trustees should be transferred to the Minister for Health to be administered by him on behalf of the people who were employed there and whose joint and collective efforts made a key contribution to providing and administering resources for health capital expenditure over the years.

Mr. Ross

The Minister has not quite answered the question which I put to him. I understand what is happening. I understand the reasons why it is happening, but what I have not got from the Minister is any reason why funds of this sort should not be taken outside the political arena. The moment funds of this sort are distributed by a politician, they are subject to suspicion, not just from politicians but from the public. I know the Minister said that there would be very strict criteria about distributing this money. I do not doubt for a minute that the present Minister for Health and past Ministers for Health and Ministers for Finance are absolutely unblemished on the issue of integrity, but as a principle the Government should consider — and not dismiss, as the Minister has just done, — that funds of this sort which are discretionary, despite the criteria which the Minister spelled out but which are discretionary within those criteria, should be taken away from politicians and given to people who are not subject to that suspicion. I am asking the Minister what is his objection, not just in the national lottery which is a public scandal, as a general principal, to giving these to people who are not subject to political pressures?

Mr. N. Treacy

I could respond to Senator Ross by saying that this is a political forum. We are not vesting money in any political forum. We are vesting money in the Minister for Health. If money was to be invested in a politician, be that politician the Minister for Health or another politician, then the Minister for Health would be named; it would be a named person. However, we are vesting money in the Minister for Health as the head, on behalf of the Government, of the public health service department. He is the head of that collective department and his agents in the Department of Health will distribute the money. The undistributed funds are held in the name of trustees appointed by various hospital sweepstakes' committees. The trustees have agreed, in fact, that the money will be taken over by the Minister for Health. The purpose of this section is simply to enable the Minister to do this.

Subsection (3) was inserted to ensure that the money would not have to be taken into the Exchequer extra receipts, which I have already referred to — the Appropriations-in-Aid — and then voted to the Minister for Health by way of Supplementary Estimate. This would be a very tortuous, arduous and protracted procedure and would deprive the people who need and deserve this money from getting it quickly. When vested, the Minister for Health will be able to distribute the funds. There will be no charges attaching to the funds for issuing and administering the cheques. The payments will be fully audited by the Auditor and Comptroller General on behalf of the State. The accounts will be presented to the Oireachtas. If we were to transfer the moneys to some other authority or body, we would have to provide for their administration, vouching, accounting and for whatever reports would have to be put together in order to do this. Consequent on that there would be a reduction in the small amount of money available to these people. To save administration, the State will carry that in the normal Health Vote. The Minister is there as a representative of Government in a public service Department to distribute these moneys to people who worked for an organisation who contributed to the capital expenditure needed many years ago for the Department of Health.

Mr. Ross

I understand what the Minister is saying. Maybe he should consider something else. What the Minister is saying is that they have to be vested in the Minister for Health for reasons of practical expediency. It is something which should be understood. The Minister also said that it would be very expensive to employ somebody to distribute these funds. I am not suggesting for one moment that there is a full-time job for one person involved in distributing these funds. The Minister is giving me an opening here that maybe a public trustee should be set up to look after funds of this sort and then we could include funds from the national lottery as well. We could include funds from other areas where somebody, ultimately would have to be subject to the Minister for Finance. It should be someone who could stand in the public arena, be subject to public scrutiny, and make firm recommendations in public to the Minister about the distribution of funds of this sort. The criteria could be spelled out in public and be subject to public scrutiny. It would be much harder for any Minister to come back and say, "no, we are not doing it", without giving a very good reason.

I am worried about the public perception of those who distribute public moneys, and why they distribute them. There is definitely public concern about this and I do not think it just comes from politicians. This may be a very minor Bill in the macro-economic picture, but there is a principle involved there. There is a public concern about any discretionary funds, especially of a charitable nature like this, which are distributed by politicians. The Minister should consider the suggestion that funds of this sort should no longer be directly administered by politicians. They should be managed by people who are independent of political parties and who can make a public issue and public recommendations about how they distribute the moneys. The Minister could consider this idea and not dismiss it completely.

Mr. E. Ryan

The only concern is that the money will get to the people concerned before Christmas and many of them are very anxious about this. I would like to ask the Minister whether setting up the distribution of the funds will take time. Will the people get the money before Christmas? That is what people are concerned about, not the points Senator Ross is making. Senator Ross is the person who is making the people concerned. I was not aware that people were concerned about the way any politician is distributing money. I think the Senator has a vested interest in his stand on many issues by making people concerned about these issues and by pretending that they should be concerned about the way money is distributed. I do not see any problem. I do not hear anybody talking about it.

Professor Conroy

I am very pleased to see that it is the Minister for Health who is going to be the "person designated". I would have thought it a great pity if it had, in fact, been the Minister for Finance who, perhaps, many people might have thought would have been the person. I am glad that it is earmarked for the health sector. I find the remarks of Senator Ross surprising. They seem to me to be the absolute negation of democracy. That is what we are about here. We are accountable as politicians and that is the way it should be.

Mrs. Honan

I am not surprised at Senator Ross's usual stunt. The Senator did not address this Bill on Second Stage, and it was going fine. It is people like Senator Ross who create doubt in the minds of people outside about our credibility as elected people in this House and in the other House. The Senator comes in here and just decides which section he will object to——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have to ask the Senator to keep to section 2.

Mrs. Honan

I am dealing with section 2. I am dealing with the rubbish that Senator Ross is getting on with. The Senator said that this money was going to be given to a party politician to hand out. As the Minister, Deputy Treacy, has clearly stated, this money is vested in the Minister for Health. Like Senator Eoin Ryan, the only concern we have is that this legislation will be cleared here this evening, properly and absolutely correctly by us as legislators, and that the funds are given to the families who are to get the money. If Senator Ross was living in the real world like us as politicians elected by the real people and not by those who elect him, he would know that the couple of quid is needed in the homes of the families who were former workers of the Hospitals Sweepstakes.

Mr. Ross

I would like to point out that I was making a serious political point before people started getting particularly personal about it, which I think is rather unfortunate. I am a little tired hearing these things bandied across the floor of this House. I am a little tired that every time one raises an issue of importance about which the public are concerned, speakers on the Government benches come back and say that this is a stunt. What they would like is that one would never raise any issues that are controversial or about which they are sensitive. The moment you accuse them of having their hands in the till, they say it is a stunt. I have been saying things about the national lottery——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I will have to ask Senator Ross to stay with section 2. The Senator is definitely broadening the debate.

Mr. E. Ryan

I will ask Senator Ross to withdraw his remark. He said we had our fingers in the till. That should be withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I did not hear any remark.

Mr. N. Treacy

I heard it clearly. I have never seen any till. Any moneys that have been expended in my Departent have been vouched for. Everything has been done with the intention of helping the community.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If there was any reference made I would ask the Senator to withdraw it.

Mr. Ross

Certainly I will withdraw it. I should point out to Senator Hogan — I get confused about who is in which post in this House at the moment — that I am sorry that I was late for this particular Bill. That is why I am coming in on the section. I came in to speak on section 2. I was late. I do not accept that this Bill should be rushed through simply because people want their money by Christmas. If that is the case, the Bill should have been introduced a long time ago. It is not good enough for the Government to come just before Christmas and say it should be rushed through before Christmas, if it is bad legislation. I do not accept that as an excuse or a reason for curtailing discussion on it. I am as sympathetic as anybody to those people getting their money before Christmas. Fianna Fáil does not have a monopoly on sympathy for those people, but I also want to see good legislation.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I will have to ask the Senator to stay with section 2.

Mr. Ross

I want to see good legislation passed. I want to see it passed in this House, but not in a rush or in a wave of phony sympathy for people, such as that which those on Fianna Fáil benches are now expressing. Now I want to get back to section 2.

I would simply like to say on section 2 that I would like the Minister to consider leaving that money in the hands of trustees as it was before so that they would distribute it under the criteria which the Minister is using. This is a genuine concern. It is no good saying it is not. The general public are concerned that the money should be seen to be distributed fairly. That is the genuine issue. I know people are sensitive about it. I would ask the Minister to consider leaving it in the hands of those trustees who administered the moneys before or to appoint different trustees.

Mr. N. Treacy

Could I say that Fianna Fáil may not have a monopoly of sympathy for people, but there is one thing certain and it is that we have had a monopoly on the delivery of services over the years to people who need those services, along with the other main constitutional political party in this House. The two or three main political parties have served this country well and will continue to do so. We are not here to rush through legislation. The request was made by Senator Upton that this Bill be brought to this House and a request was made to the Leader of this House that that be done. We co-operated, as a responsible Government. We brought the Bill in here. We are not debarring anybody from contributing. We are not rushing anything through. We will vouch for all moneys and appropriate them in the normal, proper manner. What Senator Ross is suggesting is something for financial and fiscal policy — more financial than fiscal. It is a matter for the Minister for Finance. While I can consider anything, it is not for me to be able to respond and say: "Yes, we could do this, that or the other." The trustees requested, after the liquidation, that they be relieved of their duties and that they had no further function. We considered that in the normal legal, financial manner. We felt that the advice from the Attorney General and the Department of Finance was most appropriate and that the proper thing to do was to have this vested in the Minister for Health. We are doing that. We are asking the House to endorse that I hope that can be agreed to.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ross

Could the Minister explain what this means "by virtue of this section, shall not be revenue of the State". Could the Minister explain what that means? Does that mean that it cannot be put in the general Exchequer in the way other revenue is, and has to be distributed specifically for this purpose of this Bill?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are on section 3.

Mr. N. Treacy

Section 3 leaves it open to the Minister for Health, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to decide how exactly he will dispose of the available money on foot of service with Hospitals' Trust (1940) Ltd. I clearly outlined that in detail in my Second Stage speech here. The Minister for Health did likewise in the Dáil. Basically, what it means is that the Minister for Health will make certain proposals to distribute the moneys taking into account the age and the level of service of former staff of Hospitals Trust (1940) Ltd. I believe he will consult with the Minister for Finance on this matter and have the moneys distributed accordingly.

Mr. Ross

It was the Minister for Finance, as well, that Senator Conroy was interested in. Senator Conroy should note, I think, that it is subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance.

Mr. N. Treacy

In an advisory capacity.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 4 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Mr. N. Treacy)

I would like to sincerely thank the House for this wonderful co-operation. We will do our utmost to ensure that the funds are distributed and forwarded to the relevant beneficiaries between now and Christmas.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 5 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.