Six weeks ago I raised with the Taoiseach the question of the charging, since 2001, of elderly patients in public nursing homes. He and the Tánaiste, who is now advising him on this matter, are aware that, prior to 2001, health boards were legally entitled to seek a contribution from medical card holders in long-term care. However, the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2001 conferred full eligibility to free in-patient services for all those over 70 years of age. Despite this legislative provision, contributions have continued to be taken from elderly long-stay patients. The Taoiseach indicated six weeks ago that the Attorney General was advising the Government on this matter. The Tánaiste said legislation would be brought before the House prior to Christmas, but there are only five sitting days left before the recess. Today's newspapers state that more than 16,000 long-stay patients could be entitled to free care, which could expose the Exchequer to a possible bill of at least €400 million. Will the Taoiseach respond in respect of what he said he would do six weeks ago and come clean on this issue? Is the advice of the Attorney General that the payments extracted from the long-stay patients since 2001 were illegal? Does the Government intend to make repayments where applicable, bearing in mind the recommendations in respect of overcharging by AIB? If the Tánaiste wishes to respond to my queries, she might do so.
Leaders’ Questions.
Deputy Kenny raised this matter with me. The Attorney General has considered it and reported to the Tánaiste a few weeks ago. The Tánaiste is drafting relevant legislation. It will not be introduced in the House before the Christmas recess but will be published in January in time for the spring session. As I understand it, there will be no retrospective element in the legislation. There are some legal difficulties pertaining to patients not staying in public accommodation and these will have to be examined to determine whether there is a way in which they can be dealt with. The legislation should be before the House shortly.
The Tánaiste indicated on a number of occasions that this Bill would be before the House before Christmas. Obviously, certain drafting difficulties have arisen. Any legislation introduced is introduced for a purpose. What is the purpose of the legislation being drafted? Is it because the Attorney General has given advice to the Government that contributions taken from long-stay patients in public beds in long-stay units are illegal? Does the Taoiseach not agree that, because the Minister for Health and Children needs to draft legislation to deal with this matter, retrospective retribution should be made to patients or their next of kin where illegal charges have been imposed?
This issue has been topical for quite some time. The Tánaiste gave specific guarantees on at least four occasions that the legislation would be introduced in the House before Christmas. It will not be in the House until February and published before then. Will the Taoiseach tell us the essence of the legal advice from the Attorney General? Are these payments illegal? What is the purpose of the legislation to be drafted? What outstanding legal difficulties does the Tánaiste face, to which the Taoiseach has referred? The Taoiseach might answer these questions and ease the minds and concern of those patients in long-stay care from whom payments are being extracted.
The Attorney General reported on this matter only a few weeks ago and the Tánaiste gave an undertaking the legislation would be ready as soon as possible and if it is not drafted by Christmas it will be ready shortly afterwards. Without going through the contents of the legislation, the Attorney General advises that what happens is governed by the 1976 regulations but this should be done by primary legislation. To deal with this issue we must have primary legislation. There is no retrospective factor in the legislation which is never the case anyway — we do not have retrospective legislation. Whatever happens in the future will be set out in the legislation when published.
Did the Taoiseach watch last night's "Prime Time" television programme on Irish emigrants, especially those in Britain? This matter was the subject of Labour Party Private Member's business approximately a year ago. There was an earlier, comprehensive "Prime Time" programme about the 700,000 people whom we shipped out of this country in the 1950s and 1960s. Many of them did not have the opportunity to acquire any level of formal education. Some have fallen on very hard times. Some live in isolation and are not supported — this area is the responsibility of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and he might do me the courtesy of listening — and some people live in squalor and in difficult circumstances in British cities.
It is estimated that these people remitted altogether £3.5 billion to this country when we badly needed it. The Taoiseach's Government set up a task force to examine this which reported after the most significant boom this country has ever seen. It recommended the provision of certain services, including setting up an agency to deal with the issue and the provision of €18 million by 2003 rising to €34 million in 2005, a very small amount. Deputies Stagg, Seán Ryan and I met some of the people featured on last night's programme. They raised very small issues such as free travel for people who return here, access to Irish television, the holiday week recommended in Fr. Paul Byrne's report to the task force. We met Bishop Hegarty who is concerned with the same issue on behalf of the Irish bishops. He too believes that the capacity to fund people and organisations working with the Irish in these circumstances in British cities is not sufficiently funded and that more outreach workers and so on could be provided. Will the Taoiseach tell us his response to this, given there was no provision in the budget except an amount that will bring the total allocation for next year to €8 million at a time when his task force recommended €34 million?
I recall discussion on this issue at the beginning of the year. We are all aware that there is a section of Irish emigrants in Britain who live in difficult circumstances and are not covered by British pension provisions. Many were in the construction industry in Britain as highlighted and were not covered by insurance or pension provision. In one year we have doubled the aid programme to €8 million. That is a 100% increase on last year. This is to assist the various schemes. Almost no resources were spent on this until the past few years. The former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, originally gave money for workers and aid workers and last year he went to see what was happening in this area. A few years ago we also extended the pre-1953 pensions for many of these people who were not receiving pensions. Now an additional €72 million is paid from our social welfare budget to assist these people. We set up the unit for the Irish abroad in the Department of Foreign Affairs which now works and deals with them. The previous Minister, Deputy Cowen, and his successor, Deputy Dermot Ahern, have kept in touch with this issue. Deputy Dermot Ahern is meeting the groups next week in London.
We considered free travel a few years ago. This cannot be given in isolation just to Irish people abroad. It must be extended on a Europe-wide basis. We examined this in some detail regarding people in Britain and Northern Ireland but it was impossible. A substantial amount has been done in one year in this area. We have always worked with the local authorities in Britain as well and put in resources through the DION grants to assist them in working on the various schemes. Now a high proportion of this money will be paid by individuals. The resources paid in pensions, the €8 million in funding and the effort that is being put in by the Irish abroad unit in the Department of Foreign Affairs are improving this position.
The record shows that when the Minister for Foreign Affairs took the report of the task force €1 million was being allocated in 2002 and the response was to cut that for 2003. After the Labour Party motion on Private Member's business €5 million was provided and next year it will be €8 million. Bishop Hegarty and others working with the Irish in difficult, stressful circumstances in British cities acknowledge that much could be done were it funded. The Taoiseach says that the Government has dealt with the pre-1953 pensioners. They paid for their pensions; they are receiving their entitlement. In terms of free travel, the notion of EU citizens over 65, with senior citizen status, coming here for free travel is simply not realistic. This is a modest demand from the people concerned and there is no impediment in the way of the pre-1953 pensioners receiving it.
The issue for Bishop Hegarty and others is whether they can get multi-annual budgeting so that they can plan the expansion of the services over the years ahead. Within ten years, in the nature of things, most of these people will have departed. It is a problem for a certain generation category. Some of these people live in appalling circumstances, some remitted their pay to their families in this country when it was badly needed. They can no longer work on building sites and some live in appalling conditions in London. The bishop and others need to be able to plan the capacity of the organisations dealing with them, to employ more outreach workers and for that reason a commitment to multi-annual budgeting would help alleviate the hardship they are enduring.
The Irish abroad unit was set up to liaise and work with the groups abroad. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, tells me that most of the groups involved are very complimentary of the work being done and the resources provided. There has been an increase of approximately 800% in this budget over the past few years, and an increase of100%, from €4 million to €8 million, to help those people. They are directly involved in helping those people. I have addressed the issue of travel. When studying the 1953 pension issue we showed that when we brought in the changes 70% of recipients were in Britain.
They paid for it.
No, they did not.
I am sorry, Deputy Stagg, but it is Deputy Rabbitte's question.
They were in the United Kingdom and were not paying contributions. They do not have an insurance element and that is why we brought in the pre-1953 scheme. A sum of €72 million is going into that scheme to help them, apart from the fact that our pensions are far better than those in the UK. We are assisting those people, as is the Irish Abroad unit, both with resources and through the contacts that it has built up with such groups. I am not saying that there are not very sad cases, because there are, but we are going some way towards helping Father Hegarty and all the other groups active in this area for many years, and we will continue to do so.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the postal service is an essential element not only of the economic infrastructure but of the social infrastructure? Will he instruct the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, to address the ongoing and developing crisis in the postal service as proactively as necessary? Today is the eve of a day of industrial action by thousands of postal workers throughout the State as a direct result of a serious breakdown in relations between staff and management in An Post.
Does the Taoiseach accept that there are serious questions for management to answer regarding the management and the presentation of An Post's finances? Is he aware that An Post has failed to honour a string of national agreements with the trade unions representing its workers? What is the Taoiseach's position regarding what has been described as wanton destruction of the postal service by current management? Does he accept that a national asset and service that has been available throughout the State for generations should now be downgraded, with reduced opening hours, a contraction in deliveries to rural houses and the shutdown of SDS, with the loss of hundreds of jobs? That will have a great effect, particularly on small businesses outside the major population centres——
The Deputy's two minutes are concluded.
——that are dependent on the postal service. Will the Taoiseach advise the House of the steps he and the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, propose on what I have described as the eve of a day of industrial unrest within this essential service?
There are difficulties in An Post, and I answered a question on this about a month ago. At that stage I urged management and staff to work through the established industrial relations machinery to resolve the areas of disagreement rather than resort to unnecessary industrial action. The financial position of An Post has been precarious last year and this year. The volume of post has dropped by 7% in real terms and that is creating problems for management and staff. Last year there were operational losses of €43 million, following losses of €24 million the previous year. The company will make an operational profit this year by not implementing the increase agreed under Sustaining Progress and cutting back on non-pay costs. That is the only way it is surviving.
The company will probably record a loss and its provision regarding the costs associated with the closure of SDS will be included in the accounts. An Post and the communication workers have agreed Christmas delivery arrangements in a deal brokered by the Labour Relations Commission, which covers overtime, casual workers and extra deliveries. Problems with the agreed Christmas arrangements that arose in Galway are being discussed today in the Labour Relations Commission.
Regarding the industrial action and unrest tomorrow, the Communication Workers Union has obtained a mandate from its membership for strike action, starting with a one-day strike tomorrow. It is not clear what will happen thereafter. Naturally, the Minister is concerned, as are the board, staff and trade unions. Big challenges lie ahead for An Post, such as the structural decline in mail volume. If one has less work and less business, one must start doing something with one's company.
There is enormous competition from the express sector. Technology is eating into An Post's business through e-mailing and texting. Obviously, the long history of partnership with no real change delivered is creating problems, and I hope that the two sides can resolve those interests. I need hardly say it, since they both know it themselves, but if one is losing business and has a great deal of competition, the one really busy period of the year for postal management is the last time to close one's services to the public, since they will move on.
Workers are owed their money.
Deputy McGrath, please allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.
I hope that they can resolve their difficulties as quickly as possible.
I am sorry to say that the Taoiseach has neither indicated what steps he is prepared to take to address the crisis nor properly explained to the House how the crisis arose. Is the Taoiseach aware of the great discrepancies in the financial figures presented by An Post management? In July 2003, the then management stated that by year end it would record a profit of €1 million. Three months later, a new CEO said that there would be a loss of €46 million. That has never been properly explained. Has the Taoiseach, the Minister or the latter's predecessor made inquiries regarding those major discrepancies?
The Taoiseach made the point that volumes have dropped, but I wonder if that holds up statistically for today's significant use of the postal service today in terms of advertising and promotional mail, which I believe is operating in unprecedented volumes. We need to know the statistical facts.
The Deputy's minute is concluded.
Recognising that the postal service is of such importance to people the length and breadth of the jurisdiction, does the Taoiseach not recognise that any further contraction in the service will be a major blow to isolated and elderly people, particularly in rural Ireland, who depend on the contribution of the postal service, not only to the economic infrastructure but also the social infrastructure? Why would a self-proclaimed socialist Taoiseach——
The Deputy's time is concluded.
——preside over a situation where the most profitable public services are gobbled up by private contractors, leaving services such as An Post, which is of great importance to everyone in the economy——
I ask the Deputy to give way to the Taoiseach.
——and is facing severe contraction?
I repeat there are serious issues. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has been in touch with the board, management and unions. The important message that we should give them is that they should try to resolve those difficulties. Whatever the argument about the statistics, the audited figures show that An Post had operational losses of €43 million last year, on top of a loss the previous year of €24 million, making a total of €67 million. This year it is only managing to keep its service going by not paying increases under Sustaining Progress under the inability to pay clause. Therefore, the company has problems, some of which I mentioned. One cannot force people to post letters or use technology, including e-mail. One cannot intimidate people into doing that. We have the lowest use of post per head of population in the European Union. People are communicating the way they want to. That structural decline has resulted in a decrease by 7% in the volume of mail, which is serious. I need not tell the Deputy that if there is nothing to be delivered, one cannot deliver it. That is the difficulty. The last thing the management and workers should do at the one time of the year when the company is busy, due to the tradition of sending Christmas cards, letters and parcels, is to close the company. I hope all sides, board, management and unions, will try to resolve these issues — which is what the Government urges them to do — and to continue to deliver the good service to people that they did in the past.