The credibility of the Minister, Deputy Reilly, was dented and completely undermined long before his latest stroke. The involvement of the Minister for Health in private medicine and nursing homes at a time when those services in the public sector are being cut back and, in many instances, closed raises the most fundamental issue as to his suitability to hold the ministry. He clearly has a direct and evident conflict of interest.

Then there was the debacle around the €130 million of cuts to be visited on personal assistant hours, home care packages and home care hours, which led to the motion of no confidence in the Minister. Labour Party and Fine Gael backbenchers wrestled with their consciences and won, and they voted confidence in the Minister.

Read on.

Allow Deputy McDonald to pose her question.

No sooner had they done that then the most recent farce played out-----

Deputy McDonald did a lot over the years.

-----that is, the addition of these primary health care centres which just happen to be in the Minister's constituency.

The Taoiseach stated that the issue of need was not the only criterion and said there were others. He mentioned competition and GP co-operation. Was the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, aware of those additional criteria, and did she accept them, or is it the case, as she stated in her contribution in the Dáil, that there was - to use the euphemism - a lack of transparency in the decision-making around this?

This has been another stroke in the Government's stroke politics. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, at least got that right. How can the Taoiseach, the head of the reforming Government, stand over this? Surely, a Taoiseach who is so critical of Fianna Fáil and the Administration that went before this one, should ensure that he calls time where strokes are pulled by senior Ministers. The Taoiseach should tell us about the criteria. Did the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, know about them? Does she know about them now? Is she now prepared to row back on her criticism of the lack of transparency on this issue?

I take as contemptible the Deputy's allegation of personal benefit by the Minister, Deputy James Reilly, in respect of his remit as Minister for Health. He has already given details on all of this to the House in a public statement. He is one of the few people with a genuinely passionate interest in shifting the structure and nature of how health is delivered in this country in the interest of the patient. This is not an easy task and the Minister is focused on getting the strategy right and implementing it.

The decision in respect of the primary care centres is to develop 20 primary care centres from a list of 35. I have provided Deputy Martin with the reasons it was necessary to have a list of more than 20, simply because a range of issues could arise, such as objections, non-buy-in, lack of competition, impact on acute services in hospitals and the range of services that must be provided through the primary care centres in order to be effective. As I have mentioned, some centres were in areas where a lease was arranged, some in areas where a lease was to be arranged, some had direct HSE-Exchequer funding and others were under the PPP programme. They are the sectors and the Minister has set out the criteria involved.

As mentioned, this particular development of primary care centres involves 20 from a list of 35. It remains to be seen which 20 get across the line, taking all the criteria into account. They were part of the Government stimulus package announced by the Government and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and were signed off in individual sectors through discussions and recommendations by each Minister in consultation with his or her colleagues.

I am sure that at the end of all of this the Deputy will appreciate the importance and function of primary care centres to provide decent, first-class care and attention in many areas for people who need them. I wish to God we could provide more primary care centres in a shorter time because they are a part of the development of this stimulus package for primary care centres. Where they work well, they are very effective. I have been in a number of them and have seen at first hand the response from patients and the efficiency that applies when everybody buys into the provision of a really strong, effective primary care centre. This is so important for the future health of people all over the country.

The Taoiseach does not have to convince me of the value of primary health care centres, which are the right model to pursue. However, that is not the issue at hand. Let me clarify that this is not personal to the Minister, but it is very clear that where a Minister for Health who presides over the public health care system and who has taken decisions to reduce bed numbers and close public nursing homes has an interest in private nursing homes, there is a clear and evident conflict of interest. It astounds me that this has not crossed the Taoiseach's mind. It astounds me that when making his ministerial appointments, the Taoiseach did not clarify the position with the Minister.

Can we have the Deputy's question please?

The Taoiseach did not answer my question in respect of the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall. She made the serious charge in respect of the selection of these primary health care centres. She said in this House that the decision making lacked transparency. Clearly, she had a very different understanding with regard to the criteria than the Taoiseach has articulated or than the Minister had. Will the Taoiseach give a straight answer? Did the Minister of State know about the additional criteria? If she did not know, has she subsequently been apprised of them? On foot of this, is she prepared to withdraw her charge of a lack of transparency?

It seems to me this has been stroke politics. However, perhaps the Minister of State has been furnished with the information and perhaps she takes a different view now. Can the Taoiseach tell us whether this is the case?

I am glad Deputy McDonald, on behalf of the Sinn Féin Party, accepts that what the Minister is doing is the right model. Second, it astounds me that the Deputy has the gall to stand up in this House, in view of the statements made by one of the Price sisters about the leader of the Sinn Féin Party.

For God's sake, will the Taoiseach ever once answer the question without -----

The Taoiseach, without interruption, and please stick to the question.

The Sinn Féin Deputy made an articulate point about clarity and transparency, but she should also include truth. The truth of the matter is that the Minister for Health, as one of a number of Ministers with regard to the stimulus package -----

That is not the truth.

Deputy Martin already put his question.

Speak through the Chair, please.

The Minister for Health, as one of a number of Ministers in regard to the stimulus package announced by the Government, put forward the recommendations after consultation with his colleagues in regard to the development of 20 primary care centres from a list of 35, covering a range of criteria I have set out here. The Minister was in touch with all his colleagues.

Did that include Deputy Shortall?

Obviously, the decision of Government is based on moving forward with the development of the primary care centres as quickly and as effectively as possible, covering the sectors mentioned and the criteria laid down in regard to each.

I am very glad the Deputy accepts this is the way to go with primary care development and we look forward to this element of the stimulus package moving to commencement and completion as quickly as possible.