The troika will conclude its review of the so-called bailout programme today and no doubt will give us a collective pat on the back and congratulate the Government on meeting its cutback targets. It thinks the Government is doing a great job because it is keeping it happy, but back at the ranch it is very different for citizens, particularly those who rely on the health service. Sinn Féin has no confidence in the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, who presides over disaster after disaster. I note the Tánaiste seems to have little confidence in him. Only his lack of confidence can explain his decision to keep an eye over the Minister's shoulder in respect of the location of the national children's hospital. That is a wise move on his part.

I suggest the Tánaiste open investigations on a couple of other fronts. For instance, he might have a look to see how people are supposed to manage on home help allocations of 30 minutes a week. He might have a look at the case of Ms Jennifer Banks, a Galway woman, a multiple sclerosis sufferer who cannot get the medication she needs to deal with chronic pain. He might also explain why the Minister continues the illegal operation of the mobility allowance scheme. He might also usefully ask the Minister to explain why he met NAMA on 20 April to discuss the provision of a primary health care centre in Balbriggan. That meeting took place months in advance of his doctoring of the list of primary health care centres to be built.

The Deputy should be very careful using that sort of language - "doctoring".

The Minister is a doctor.

I stand by my use of language.

One does not make allegations.

I have two questions for the Tanaiste. What is he going to do about the mobility allowance scheme and the fact that the State is operating outside the law? Second, what about the meeting the Minister had with NAMA on 20 April? The Minister has made it clear in an answer to parliamentary questions that at that meeting he discussed the issue of a primary health care centre in Balbriggan. We know that the list of centres to be built was subsequently changed and that Balbriggan was included.

There is quite a lot in the question asked by the Deputy and I will deal with the matters in the series they were addressed to me.

On the issue of the national children's hospital, the Government will proceed with the building of the hospital. There has been been talk for as long as I can remember about the building of such a hospital. We are going ahead and will build it. As the Deputy will be aware, An Bord Pleanála struck down the planning application for the original site identified as the location of the hospital and the Government subsequently appointed a group to look at the options available to it. We will be considering the report from that group in the near future. The Taoiseach gave an indicative timeframe in that regard when he addressed the issue in the House during the week. The people need to be assured that the Government will proceed with the building of a national children's hospital and we have identified the source of the funding for it. It will be of enormous benefit to the people, particularly children.

The Ombudsman has made a report on the mobility allowance issue. She has recommended that the upper age limit of 66 years as a condition of the mobility allowance scheme be removed with immediate effect. She has recommended that the HSE reconsider the applications of the four complainants mentioned in the report and that it reconsider the applications received since 1 April 2011 which were refused solely on the basis of the upper age limit. This matter requires further consideration by the Government in order to meet the requirements of the Equal Status Act 2000 and ensure there is no hardship for those in receipt of the mobility allowance. We are seeking further legal advice on the options available to the Government. It is not its wish to withdraw the allowance from those who receive it. It will be seeking legal advice on how we can proceed in a way that is reasonable and sustainable and will not cause undue distress to those in receipt of the allowance. The Ombudsman found in an investigation she conducted that an upper age limit of 66 years for the allowance was not in compliance with the Equal Status Act and recommended that the scheme be reviewed and brought into compliance with the Act. She also raised the issue in her 2011 annual report. The mobility allowance was established in 1979 by way of a departmental circular. There were two further circulars, in 2002 and 2007, but the basic criteria applied remain. A person must be unable to walk or be in such a condition that the exertion required to walk would be dangerous to his or her health. The allowance is payable by the Health Service Executive, subject to a means test, to persons with a severe disability.

Thank you, Tánaiste.

Have I run out of time?

I would like an answer to the NAMA question.

What about the Minister and NAMA?

If the Tánaiste wishes to finish his point, he may proceed.

I thought the Ceann Comhairle was discontinuing my contribution.

Can we get to the NAMA question, please?

I was only making a gentle intervention.

As I stated, the allowance is designed to help eligible persons-----

We are familiar with the allowance.

The Deputy asked the question.

I am replying to it. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked about the mobility allowance.

The Tánaiste is trying to talk it out.

They are not serious about the issue.

The Tánaiste is running down the clock.

This is what is of interest. There is a report from the Ombudsman and the Government respects the Office of the Ombudsman. It is perfectly reasonable that Deputy Mary Lou McDonald should ask the question here this morning. There are many who want to know in what way we are dealing with the issue and I am explaining the position to the Deputy. It is of interest to the public. Currently, the amount payable is €208.50 per month. There are in excess of 4,500 recipients of the allowance, at a total cost of €12 million. As I stated, the Government is considering the report of the Ombudsman. We must take further legal advice on it and the recommendations made, particularly as they relate to the Equal Status Act.