At the Irish Medical Organisation conference last weekend doctors committed to the public health service, as opposed to those who see health as a source of speculation or profit, raised strong questions on Government policy in facilitating private hospitals with generous tax breaks and other concessions. How does the Taoiseach answer the assertion from those who are deeply committed to public health care, backed by international and other sources, that they do not support the creeping privatisation of Irish health care that the Government is facilitating, either as the most effective use of resources or the best health care for patients?

The pernicious greed espoused by the Progressive Democrats as a recipe for Irish society, with the Taoiseach's blessing, involves a relentless, creeping privatisation in the health service. Witness the so-called Comfort Keepers franchise being brought in from America for old people. We used to think Colonel Sanders was responsible only for Kentucky Fried Chicken, but our old people are now to be put at the mercy of those people.

The Government is giving hundreds of millions of euro in tax breaks to profit-seeking speculators to build for-profit hospitals. How does the Taoiseach reconcile the fact that while the Health Service Executive says no more public hospital beds are needed, the Government is facilitating the creation of hundreds, if not thousands, of private beds? Is there not a contradiction there? Independent Deputies have frequently told me of their desperation in finding public beds for very ill constituents, and this brings home to us strongly that the thousands of beds cut by the Government's predecessors in the 1980s particularly need to be restored, especially in light of a greatly increasing population.

How does the Taoiseach answer those assertions and how does he justify those valuable tax breaks for private profit seekers to cherry-pick areas of the health service in which they want to invest with no plan or overall consideration for people, particularly those who are vulnerable and not wealthy, and the needs of the population generally? Does the Government not need to put in the necessary resources to provide the beds, long-stay care and step-down facilities, rather than facilitate private speculators in health care?

Hear, hear.

The Tánaiste's announcement last year that she would support the building of private hospitals on the grounds of acute public hospitals where they are not already there — many public hospitals already have a private hospital on the grounds — was to ensure that beds taken up on a private basis by consultants who have contracts that allow them to do private work are moved into the new private hospitals and replaced by beds in the public hospitals.

The second issue is the debate on how many more public and private beds we need. There are many different views on that. The Government's view is that we require more private beds. We have produced approximately 900 over the past few years and there are plans for many more in hospitals around the country. Based on the number of people who have private health insurance, there is a demand for day and private beds in those locations.

They cannot get public beds.

Those who pay for private medicine are entitled to private health care.

The Government is creating more parasites.

I ask Deputy Cowley to allow the Taoiseach to conclude.

Deputy Cowley is the richest man in this House. He is a hypocrite.

There is no emergency service.

In fairness to Deputy Cowley's colleague, he is entitled to hear the Taoiseach's reply.

The purpose is to get better, more efficient use of staff on one campus by having the public beds together and allowing the staff to work on the campus in the hours outside their public commitment. It makes sense and is widely supported by medical staff.

That is not true. Professor Brendan Drumm does not support that.

In the late 1980s there were practically no day care cases, but now over 500,000 cases are day care so the figure from the late 1980s is not comparable with that of today. The first people to oppose that would be the consultants because they deal with more than 500,000 cases on a day care basis, which is not how it was 15 years ago.

Did it ever strike the Taoiseach that it is those who are genuinely committed to public health care and the health service who oppose the privatisation policy of his Government whereas those who favour it are the speculators, including certain sections of the medical profession who seek to gain by investing — in other words, speculating — in health care? The Taoiseach showed himself prominently on Easter Sunday during the 1916 commemoration claiming to honour the memory of those who fought. What does the Taoiseach believe James Connolly, the great socialist——

There were a few more than James there.

——would think of a Government that pushes for a private hospital on the grounds of a public hospital named after him, with the Government providing huge tax breaks to the speculators who would take up that venture? He would be as withering about the Taoiseach and his Government's policy as he was towards their equivalents in his own day.

Will the Taoiseach state which policy will be implemented? Professor Drumm of the HSE stated that no extra public beds are needed whereas the Taoiseach has just said and the Government stated that more beds are needed.

The Deputy's time is concluded.

Whose view will prevail? Who is running the country?

That is a good question.

How many public beds, which he should already have provided, does the Taoiseach suggest should be provided and how many will he provide? Does he acknowledge that citing figures, as frequently happens, in regard to the billions of euro invested in the health service does not elucidate the question whatsoever? In fact, we are lower by far than the EU average criterion with regard to public health spending. More resources are needed to provide acute hospital beds, as well as long-stay and step-down facilities.

The Deputy's time is concluded.

The Taoiseach should not try to confuse the issue by referring to day patients and the like. There is now a tendency in certain quarters to push women who have just given birth out of the hospital on the evening of the birth or the next morning. That is not real health care for our people.

The Deputy asked a range of questions which jumped around the specialties in the health service. I will try to answer them. Professor Drumm stated that the beds that are at present planned or under construction should be finished and then we will not require any more. Therefore, the issue the Deputy raises will not arise until those beds are finished.

That is nonsense. The Government should start listening.

Order, please.

I am trying to answer Deputy Joe Higgins. The Deputy referred to the consultants who would be totally committed to the public sector. I agree with that point. The Tánaiste in her reform proposal would like to make provision whereby we could have public consultants. As the Deputy knows, that is not the position for the entire consultant staff, given that others work on a 9:11 sessional basis and are not interested in becoming public consultants only. We must make provision for those staff. The Deputy will agree that where at present in acute public hospitals a number of the designated beds in what are public wards is designated private——

That is the worst excuse I have ever heard for privatising them. It is a new one.

It is Deputy Joe Higgins's question. I ask Deputy Stagg to allow him to hear the answer. The Taoiseach without interruption.

I was making the point in reply to Deputy Higgins that in a public hospital, where there are public beds in public wards and other beds are designated private, it would make better use of the management and the medical and nursing provision if those beds were designated public in their entirety. When consultants operate in private wards, which is what they want to do, and which is the service wanted by a huge proportion of the population, they can do so in private hospitals.

A huge number do not want private medicine. They are driven to it.

The question has gone five minutes over time. Allow the Taoiseach to answer.

It will free up public beds in public hospitals.

This is not new. This arrangement has been happening in hospitals for half a century.

The Government wants to build brand new hospitals for private patients.

I ask Deputy Cowley to desist.

The Government takes away public services to provide income tax breaks.

The Deputy is dead right.

Will the Ceann Comhairle ask the Taoiseach to be factually accurate? What he has said is simply not accurate. Maybe somebody should brief him on health as well.

I thought the Deputy was moved.

The Chair wishes to speak. Leaders' Questions is provided for leaders of parties to ask a question on a single topical issue.

They are entitled to an accurate answer.

The leaders of the parties now have a habit of going three, four, five and up to seven minutes over the time allotted to them.

That is correct.

The Chair will not tolerate a situation where the member of Government responding cannot be heard when putting his or her contribution on the record of the House.

Whether it is true or not.

I appeal to leaders to make up their minds what they want in terms of Leaders' Questions and perhaps bring in a Standing Order that the Chair can implement. I ask, first, that leaders desist from going over time and, second, that all Members of the House will allow every Member, including the leaders of the Opposition parties and the Taoiseach, to be heard in this House and have their contribution on the record. I call the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

That contribution was three and a half minutes in itself.

I will abide by your ruling, a Cheann Comhairle, but I have a difficulty.

That is putting a spin on it.

I have asked my party and Government colleagues not to interrupt the leaders but, unfortunately, the leaders of the Opposition refuse to make any effort to control the Members on their backbenches.

What about Dermot?

What about Deputy Kelleher?

I am in a position——

The reason for that is that this is a Parliament not a courtroom.

I accept that.

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

Deputy Rabbitte would not prefer if I just let my 40 or 50 colleagues interrupt him non-stop. We would be very good at doing that.

If they have anything to say, they are welcome to say it.

Let them off the collar. The Taoiseach has put his foot in it now.

All they need is a sheepdog to round them up.

We would need Joe with the rifle then.

If Deputy Rabbitte wants it that way, perhaps he should ask the questions and I will send a written reply.

Where is Joe, by the way? We would need Joe with the rifle.

It is entirely unfair that Deputy Joe Higgins, my fellow socialist colleague, is not allowed to hear the answer to a question that I can answer. He is being heckled by Deputies Cowley, Kenny and Rabbitte. In reply to Deputy Higgins, I was explaining that this system is in the interest of patients and will be far better for the management of the service. It is not to make tax breaks for individuals.

It is entirely to do with tax breaks.

It will be a far more efficient system. The health service will work far better if we can implement reform.