Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 2 Oct 2007

Vol. 638 No. 3

Leaders’ Questions.

Deputy Enda Kenny

I have no wish to prolong the matter of the answers given by the Taoiseach under oath to the Mahon tribunal, nor have I any wish to concede to the views of those who would want to turn this into a personal and bitter political battle between us. The Taoiseach will note that in comments I have made on the matter, I have never raised the issue of his marriage or private life, which is of no interest to me. What is of interest to me, however, is the matter of public service and standards in public life. I disagree fundamentally with the Taoiseach on several issues in this regard. Arising from the answers the Taoiseach gave to questions that were put to him, and taking into account that a judge of the tribunal said that some of his comments were polar opposites, it now appears that the collective culture of the Fianna Fáil, Progressive Democrats and Green Party Government is that it is perfectly acceptable to receive large cash donations for personal use, and that one does not breach any ethical code as long as one does not do anything wrong. I disagree fundamentally with that concept.

In his address to the House of Commons, prior to the election, the Taoiseach was quoting Daniel O'Connell when he said "Nothing that is politically right can be morally wrong". Will the Taoiseach perhaps answer my questions in this House, the forum of the people? On 10 September 1997, arising from comments made here on the Dunnes payment to the late Mr. Haughey, the Taoiseach said in the House: "Mr. Haughey thereby laid himself open to the possibility ‘that political or financial favours could be sought in return for such gifts, or even be given without being sought'." The Taoiseach went on to say: "if politicians are to give an effective service to all their constituents, or to all the citizens of the State, they must not be under a financial obligation to some constituents or some citizens only". He went on to say further: "we should not require of others what we are not prepared to practise ourselves". Finally, the Taoiseach said: "We must make it clear in this House by our actions that we are going to insist on the highest standards in public life. It would be very dangerous, if the message were ever to go out, either here or abroad, however ill-founded, that Government here operates on the principle of backhanders, or that there are golden circles with a high entrance fee. We must nip that notion in the bud once and for all". The Taoiseach concluded by saying: "The public is entitled to have an absolute guarantee of the financial probity and integrity of their elected representatives, officials and, above all, Ministers." It is a core value outlined by the Taoiseach, who spent 18 hours giving evidence before the tribunal, and there are still many questions. They were the standards the Taoiseach applied to Mr. Haughey. They were the standards the Taoiseach set down. Why do these standards do not apply to himself?

The Taoiseach

There are two questions, first on the question of the polar opposites, I again refer Deputy Kenny to the complete transcript of 20 September 2007. Judge Flaherty used the phrase, "polar opposites" but I encourage Deputy Kenny to read the entire transcript and see the context of the exchange rather than zoom in on one soundbite. Judge Flaherty said the reason I gave the tribunal in public session had never previously been offered by me. When it was pointed out to the judge that I had put that view forward in a comprehensive statement last May she accepted that clarification. I gave the detailed reason in that statement and set out the exact context. Deputy Kenny has taken one soundbite, which is not a reasonable thing to do.

I have been a huge supporter of rules and standards regarding the declaration and recording of anything received by Members. I have complied fully since this became a requirement in 1995. I have given a full account of what I received. Those regulations were not in force then but I would have given the facts if the regulations had been in force. I made it clear that I considered the money to be loans and not contributions. Last week Deputy Kenny tried to put a figure on the sums of money. From three different sources I received about forty-seven thousand and paid back just short of ninety-eight thousand. I have dealt with the matter completely and in a proper fashion. I have not contravened anything I said.

Deputy Enda Kenny

I find this distressing. The Taoiseach said "the public is entitled to have an absolute guarantee of the financial probity and integrity of their elected representatives, officials and, above all, Ministers". The Taoiseach, as a Minister, was in receipt of serious cash donations. He moved up to €300,000, in today's value, in four major lodgments which he has been unable to explain. The problem I have with the Taoiseach is that he does not apply the standards to himself that he applies to others. If it was wrong for Mr. Charles Haughey to receive money it was also wrong for the Taoiseach. No Minister in the current Government has had the courage to say that. The message this sends about our country and the way we do business does down every Member of the House. Every time politicians speak they are branded as being all the same. They are not all the same. Why does the Taoiseach not apply the same standards to himself as he did to Mr. Charles Haughey?

The Green Party, who are the Taoiseach's colleagues in Government and are not here today, hold the view that taking money was wrong.

Deputy Mary Alexandra White

I am present.

Deputy Enda Kenny

I apologise to Deputy White. Deputy Sargent said the Taoiseach taking money from businesses and businessmen was completely inappropriate and improper, unethical and wrong. We know from last week's vote that the Green Party has adopted a vow of silence on this matter. Today's Daily Mail refers to a written agreement made by the Taoiseach with the Green Party’s negotiating team that he would resign if the tribunal found he had taken bribes — which claim I do not make against him — had not co-operated with the tribunal or that his evidence was unreliable. Why was it wrong for Mr. Haughey to accept money and not wrong for the Taoiseach? Why is there a different standard, in view of the Taoiseach’s words to the House? Can the Taoiseach confirm that the Green Party negotiated an agreement with him on the basis of waiting for the tribunal to conclude its findings and of his resigning if he were found to be guilty of any of the three matters I cited in the fact finding conclusions of the tribunal.

The Taoiseach

Deputy Kenny knows there is no written agreement. He knows the view of the Green Party, expressed here last week, that they would await the findings of the full tribunal. He also knows that the allegation I have been asked to answer is that I received money from Owen O'Callaghan in relation to certain issues put forward in different circumstances to the tribunal. The tribunal is dealing with those issues. I will be cleared of those allegations because I received nothing from Owen O'Callaghan. I could mention several things regarding Deputy Kenny's party but I will not do so. I have never done so in 30 years of political life. I have served most of my political career and I will not pursue that line. At one time in a 30 year political life I received money from two sets of very close friends and paid the money back in full and with interest. One of Deputy Kenny's spin doctors persists in referring to three hundred thousand. The amount in question is forty-eight thousand and I paid back just short of ninety-nine thousand. All the evidence of that is there. Deputy Kenny knows that. I know he is being forced by others to continue to say this.

Deputy Enda Kenny

I am not being forced by anyone. There were four cash lodgments of €300,000 in today's terms. The Taoiseach could not explain them. That is the problem for me.

The Taoiseach

I am totally supportive of declaring issues. I supported the Standards in Public Office Commission.

Deputy Enda Kenny

Why was it wrong for Haughey and not wrong for the Taoiseach?

The Taoiseach

I do not want to discuss what Mr. Haughey or anyone else did.

Deputy Enda Kenny

It is a question of standards. The same standard must apply to him and to the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

I will not discuss the business of people who are in the grave and others who are not in the grave. It has never been my form to do that. What I could say has been well analysed but I will not say it.

I got money from close friends. They were not business people. They were not looking for anything from me. I paid them back with the relevant interest. That is the point.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

We should not have to legislate for standards. We should have them.

Six years ago the Government published a national health strategy which stated that by the end of 2003 no adult would have to wait for longer than six months for a procedure and no child would have to wait for longer than three months. A report by Fergal Bowers for RTE today says that at present 12,000 adults are waiting for longer than six months and 2,200 children are waiting for longer than three months for procedures.

At the beginning of September, the Health Service Executive, which was established to sort out the problems in the health service, introduced a total embargo on recruitment of all staff, including nurses, doctors and paramedics. Yesterday, the Health Service Executive extended that embargo for a further month. The Minister for Health and Children says this will not impact on patient care. Nevertheless, beds have been closed in Tullamore, Clonmel, Galway and Limerick and 40 staff have been let go in Sligo. One would expect this kind of month-to-month operation by the HSE in a country on the brink of bankruptcy, not in one as well off as this one, supposedly, is.

As the Health Service Executive attempts to claw back the €220 million it says it has overspent so far this year, it is clearly embarking, presumably with the approval of the Government, on a series of health cuts. Does the Taoiseach agree with the observation of his predecessor and mentor, the late Mr. Charles Haughey, that health cuts hurt the old, the sick and the handicapped?

The Taoiseach

Additional expenditure for the HSE this year amounts to €1.2 billion. Its allocation for this year is €15 billion, 25% higher than it was two years ago. I am sure the Deputy will accept that all my colleagues who administer Departments and agencies under their aegis must comply with the expenditure position. It is in addition to a €1.2 billion increase in funding that at the end of August, the HSE was over budget by €222 million. The HSE predicted it would over-spend by between €300 million and €350 million this year if it did not take corrective measures. I do not believe the Deputy is advocating an over-spend as it was a Government to which his colleagues were party that introduced the measures that stipulated that health boards should live within their budgets, and that was at a time when budgets were much less than they are today. Budgets have quadrupled in less than ten years. The HSE, like every other organisation, must adhere as close as possible to, hopefully within, the high allocation it receives through the budget.

On the other issue, I do not know whether the figures are official. I received a briefing on this and I am not clear from where those figures came. They do not appear to have come from the HSE or from the Department and for that reason, I cannot say whether they are right. On the general position, one million patients are being seen at a rate of 100,000 per month. The figures available today suggest there are 41,000 people on hospital waiting lists. The National Treatment Purchase Fund is doing a superb job. Persons on a waiting list for more than three months are asked to contact the NTPF.

As I mentioned in the House previously, some hospitals do not refer patients to the NTPF. I do not know if some of the hospitals mentioned in the report are among them. Total acute hospital discharges are up by 315,000 to 1.083 million, a 41% increase. Apart from the work undertaken by the National Treatment Purchase Fund, the HSE has, despite the many challenges and difficulties it is facing, dramatically increased the number of patients treated. Even if there are 41,000 people on the waiting list — I am not disputing this as I do not know whether that figure is correct — this is only a small percentage of the turnover.

I take this opportunity to state that anyone on a waiting list for more than 12 months and those who come within the three months' category should contact the National Treatment Purchase Fund.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

The Taoiseach's recitation of figures will be poor consolation to those people who are waiting for an operation.

I wish to deal in particular with the HSE embargo. This type of staggering from in one month announcing an embargo on recruitment to the next month announcing its continuation is hardly the way to run the health service. It is also inconsistent. I do not know if the Taoiseach read the "Situations Vacant" column in last week's newspapers which contained an advertisement for a chief nursing officer, apparently to advise the Minister for Health and Children on nursing matters. This country hardly needs more advisers on health. What we need is more nurses and medical personnel in the system. It is a little incongruous that at a time when the Health Service Executive has a complete embargo on the recruitment of medical staff, the Minister remains unaffected and is free to advertise and hire more advisers in the health area.

Does the Taoiseach have any appreciation of the worry, concern and sometimes pain suffered by people on hospital waiting lists? In effect, the Taoiseach said that because one million patients go through the system, 41,000 is not a significant number? This shows a poor understanding of the conditions which people, particularly those dependent on the public health service, have to endure. What will the Government do, if anything, about the embargo imposed by the Health Service Executive? Does the Taoiseach believe it is satisfactory that our health service and hospitals are managed in such a way that they stagger from one month to the next? There was an embargo on recruitment of staff last month. That has been extended for another month and it may continue until Christmas. Surely, it is possible, given the large apparatus established under the Health Service Executive, to organise matters so that people can obtain the treatment they deserve without having to wait for six, 12 or more months?

The Taoiseach

The Deputy has asked a number of questions. On the advertisement by the Department of Health and Children for a nursing officer, the post is for a Civil Service nursing officer rather than an adviser. The current employee is leaving the position.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan

The same is happening in the health service.

Deputy James Reilly

Frontline staff.

The Taoiseach

Let us be clear on this point. The HSE is in receipt of €15 billion in Exchequer funding. Its funding has increased by more than 10% per annum in recent years. The allocation is based on the HSE's assessment of need, as is the case with every other agency. I am not sure if the Deputy is advocating that any sector, health, education or otherwise, should disregard its agreed annual allocation and incur a huge over-spend. That is not possible. The HSE is not advocating it should do this. It has, having examined its figures at the end of five months, noted it has to date spent almost €300 million of its €15 billion allocation and has taken corrective action. I understand that will affect only a few hundred of its 120,000 posts over the remainder of the year. The Deputy should put this in scale.

I do not want to get into the mathematics of this. However, the Deputy made a statement in respect of the number of people on hospital waiting lists. There has been a dramatic improvement in regard to hospital waiting lists. From the benchmark used by the HSE, the number of people on waiting lists for surgical admissions and in other fields has been halved in recent years. I accept people remain on hospital waiting lists and I agree no one should have to wait for more than 12 months for treatment — I have no difficulty agreeing with this — but the HSE has dramatically increased its throughput.

I accept that anyone waiting for a medical appointment suffers a certain amount of anxiety. However, recently published independent research carried out by the UCD School of Public Health and Population Science in respect of hospital waiting lists states that waiting times for hospital admissions for 91% of patients is less than three months, with 76% of in-patients stating they were admitted to hospital immediately upon being told they needed admission. A further 11% of people were admitted within one month and a further 4% were admitted within three months. I am not saying that is perfect but it is not bad. It is a significant improvement on the position at any time during my career in this House. That must be taken into account. The survey also examined what people had to say in terms of GP and inpatient services and referred to people's high level of satisfaction with hospital services. Some 83% of hospital inpatients felt they had been treated with dignity and respect, 83% of inpatients would recommend the service to another and two thirds of inpatients and almost 60% of outpatients rated their experience as excellent or very good.

Deputy James Reilly

If they can access the service.

The Taoiseach

Some 9% of inpatients and 13% of outpatients said their experience was poor. It will be a challenge to get it perfect. That is why we are providing €15 billion and 120,000 people to improve it. That is what the Government is committed to. The HSE, it is hoped, will be able to get back within its figures in the remainder of the year and move on with the large increase it will again receive in 2008.