Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND CHILDREN díospóireacht -
Thursday, 27 Oct 2005

Nursing Home Charges: Motion.

The committee will deal with the motion proposed by Senator Browne.

I move:

That the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children calls on the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children to ensure that those people waiting for refunds arising from the illegal nursing home charges are paid without further delay.

This time last year this issue was being hotly debated in the Dáil. The Government was forced to admit, late last year, that there was a problem. The Tánaiste introduced emergency legislation which was rushed through both Houses before the Christmas break. Thankfully, it was not signed into law but was referred to the Supreme Court where the Tánaiste was proven wrong, as the Opposition had predicted. The legislation fell and, subsequently, new legislation was put forward.

It is scandalous that the State has been convicted of taking money from the elderly by the highest court in the land. However, the Government is still dragging its feet on compensating the families concerned. It is doubly scandalous considering that the people involved are the elderly and do not have a year or six months to wait. Many have died in the last year waiting for this money. Many families need the money and will use it wisely. One family recently told me they intend to bring their parents on a trip to Medjugorje. It could be spent on other items that are required to enhance the elderly relative's quality of life in their last months or years.

It is not good enough to hear the Tánaiste tell the Dáil, as she did recently, that she planned to deal with this next year or the year after. The committee must act on this. We investigated this issue at length but it makes a mockery of our work and of our so-called democracy when the Government, having been convicted in the Supreme Court, can disregard the judgment and decide to pay in its own time. This would not happen in an ordinary case in court. We should lead by example.

I second the motion. Senator Browne is correct. If people owe money to the State, the State is quick to pursue them for it. It does not wait for 12 or 18 months to collect its dues. In this instance the State legally owes these people money. The same criteria that the State applies to its citizens when collecting its dues, and I have no problem with that, should apply to the State when refunding the elderly from whom it took money.

There is another issue. Obviously, there are people who might not be alive when this happens but who now have an expectation of getting the money and have the time and the will, as it were, to benefit from it. However, it is being dragged out. Does the Department envisage a situation where there will be a reduction in the number that will be refunded? Obviously, different criteria apply to the families and next of kin who may be eligible for refunds in the event of their elderly relative passing on.

I support the motion. It is important that the committee agree with it. It is a scandal that elderly and vulnerable people — all of the people concerned were not necessarily at an advanced age although all of them were vulnerable — who had money robbed from them have not been refunded the money they are owed. It is still not clear when it will be refunded.

There is a sharp contrast between the experience of those who have been wronged and the way the Minister and the Department have been speedily able to introduce legislation to charge people. We did not have a problem with the legislation but it is worth noting that it was passed without any delay. The resignation or forced removal of the Secretary General of the Department took place without delay. There has been an investigative report which, I believe, let the politicians and Ministers off the hook. That report was also compiled without delay. The only thing that has been delayed is the refund of money to people who were robbed by the State. The Minister promised the money would be returned and the legislation would be in place this autumn. She mentioned a Supplementary Estimate to provide the funding. Now, we are told the legislation will not be introduced until the new year.

It is incredible that the committee must put forward a motion such as this. There was an expectation when the scandal was revealed that there would be a genuine, concerted effort to right the wrong. I have a sense of foreboding, particularly after looking at the Ferns report and its recommendations regarding the Department and the Minister for Health and Children. This is an even greater scandal and there is a requirement on the system to respond urgently, quickly and effectively.

Will there be delays in that case as well? This worries me because all these matters appear to be relative. When the media attention moves from the issue of nursing home charges, the matter starts to slide. Money is coming in from the charges that have been provided for in legislation but there is a slide with regard to returning money.

I thank Senator Browne for putting this motion before the committee. I warmly welcome it.

This Minister finally did something after 29 years. Action was taken swiftly this time last year when the Minister took office and realised the problem the country was facing and sought to remedy it, as any good Minister might. Complications and difficulties have caused a delay. Others might disagree but I like to think that we in the committee have a function in supporting the delivery of health services and supporting the Minister to that extent, although people will not agree with everything she does. If we support the principle of remedying this situation, we must acknowledge the fact that the Minister finally, after 29 years, did something about it. We should compliment the Minister for that.

Leaving aside the Minister's reputation in other areas, this is a Minister who acts, and acts as swiftly as possible, because she knows the difference between right and wrong.

That is not——

Will the Senator allow me to finish? The Minister is acting as swiftly as possible. The delays that have been caused are legitimate. There is no problem with asking what is causing these delays. Given the reputation of that Minister, we should compliment her on acting on this and doing the country a service by stopping what was happening. I propose an amendment to that effect. If the Chairman wants to submit such an amendment, I will draft it.

We will just debate it.

It should be recognised that Deputy Perry raised the issue first.

Hear, hear. Deputy Perry is the man.

Hold on, that is not the issue for the committee today.

It is also a fact.

There is no need to bring in sideshows here.

Excuse me, Chairman. Deputy Perry is no sideshow.

Deputy Perry is the man who brought it to the attention of the Dáil. The Minister responded to what Deputy Perry raised in the Dail. That is on the record.

If the Deputy wants to go back over all that again, I could suggest to her that the late John Boland was given credit for seeing this first. I fail to understand, however, why he did not pursue it later on.

Because there was a change of Government and Fianna Fáil entered office.

Hold on a minute.

That is a load of nonsense.

That is exactly what happened.

I am aware of that but surely when someone goes from Government to the Opposition benches they are not gagged for life. If this was a pivotal issue, surely it was up to the Opposition to make the point.

The Opposition does not run the country.

The Government runs the country.

If the Deputy was the Minister for Health and Children and then became the Opposition spokesperson on health and a serious issue arose, would he sit on his hands afterwards because he was now on the Opposition benches?

So it would be my fault?

It was Deputy Rory O'Hanlon.

I would imagine that if the issue was that serious, it should have been said then. In any event, people are pointing to their watches and suggesting that we move on.

Perhaps Mr. Boland did write to the Minister who forgot to read it. That happened not so long ago.

: I am sure the Deputy would have wanted to remind the Minister of that.

We are very good at reading the brief.

We are here to deal with this particular motion, not outside issues. We should move on because time is short.

I support the motion, as drafted. It should be pointed out that many people had no difficulty paying charges for nursing beds. People have said that to me but the fact that the money was taken off them illegally is what irks them. When this controversy arose, the impression given was that the money would be paid back speedily. If there are difficulties in assessing the amount owed to people, I suggest that, as a goodwill gesture, the Minister should make a part payment immediately to those who are owed money. We can calculate the exact amount at a later stage but a partial down payment should be made as a pre-Christmas gesture. That would test the Minister's goodwill.

Historically, quite a number of people in the health service were paid superannuation but if they wished to return to work in the sector they had to buy back those superannuated years. For example, £1 in 1976 equates to over €9 now. Therefore, if money was levied illegally from people years ago, the reimbursements should be made with added interest, since money does not have the same purchasing power now. I call on the Minister to make a down payment in this respect.

We must deal with this situation urgently and, to that end, I support Senator Browne's motion. The delay to these elderly people is more serious than to someone with a long lifespan ahead of them. Could we not consider this motion as empowering the Tánaiste? In the private session many of us were complaining about the difficulties we have in getting legislation pushed forward in the Department of Health and Children. Surely this motion will only help the Tánaiste. I also support Deputy Connolly's proposal for an immediate payment to show that there is goodwill behind this issue. It would be an important, useful and practical gesture.

I support what Deputy Fiona O'Malley said. This complex matter has been continuing for 29 years. The Minister grappled with it and introduced legislation. We should never sacrifice accuracy for speed. It will take some time and if we waited for 29 years to have the situation corrected, I do not see any reason that we should not wait a little while longer. I totally subscribe to the view that they should be paid.

We all agree that they must be paid.

I support what has been said by Deputy Fiona O'Malley and others.

We would all like to see the money being paid as quickly as possible. I personally do not know why there has been a delay. On that basis, I support the motion.

I would love to support the motion but I took some time to check the facts with the Department to determine where we stand. It is important to take into consideration the fact that tomorrow the HSE will be receiving the response to the invitation to tenders for a company to assess the level of claims. We should take the motion into account as well as the information behind it. The Department is currently in discussions with the Office of the Attorney General and other Departments on various issues that need to be considered concerning the scheme. The other Departments include the Department of Finance and the Department of Social and Family Affairs, while the Revenue Commissioners are also involved. Significant and complex issues are under consideration in this process and it is vital that, in as far as is possible, the scheme to be put in place will address effectively all these issues to the satisfaction of all parties involved. It is also intended that legislation will be brought before the Oireachtas early in the next session and that payments will commence shortly after the Bill is passed and signed into law.

Following on from the Government's decision, an outside organisation experienced in handling mass claims will be engaged by the Health Service Executive to design and manage the scheme within the parameters of the key principles approved by the Government. The organisation selected will work closely with the HSE to ensure that the necessary co-operation is forthcoming on records held by health agencies. The selection of an outside organisation will provide an independent input into the design and administration of the scheme.

The committee should also take into account the fact that, in line with public procurement guidelines, the HSE placed a notice in the Official Journal of the EU and received expressions of interest from a number of organisations that have been shortlisted. Shortlisted companies have been invited to tender on the basis of a pricing schedule and specification documents which were issued on 7 October. Tender documents are due to be received by the HSE tomorrow. A negotiated tendering procedure with the companies is due to commence shortly thereafter. The HSE anticipates the successful organisation will be in a position to sign the contracts on 18 November, which is very soon. In addition, a national oversight committee has been appointed by the Tánaiste and has already begun its work. It will provide an independent input into the design of the scheme and will monitor the operation of the scheme in order to ensure that it is being fully implemented quickly in the most equitable and effective way possible. It will advise the Minister on draft legislation and the draft detailed scheme. It will also report to the Minister on the operation of the scheme at regular intervals.

What I have said is a direct response to the motion and matters are not being left in abeyance. Four Departments are working to put the scheme together. The tenders will be received tomorrow and will be signed off by 18 November. New legislation will be in place in the new term to deal with the scheme. To my mind, therefore, everything that is practically possible is being done.

I want to say something before the revisionists get their way in trying to change history. In the Government amendment to Labour's Private Members' motion last night, the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, was trying to take credit for stopping this practice. It should be made crystal clear, however, that Deputy Perry, as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, initially highlighted this issue. It was the Supreme Court that made the Government change what it was doing.

The first Health Bill introduced by the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, attempted to have a retrospective element to stop payments to patients. It would have moved forward from making the charges to people. In the course of this debate, we heard the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, actually say that he had no responsibility for it. He refused to take any such responsibility. Before we start trying to change history, it should be noted that the Government took no responsibility for this issue until it was forced to do so both by the Committee of Public Accounts, through Deputy Perry, and the Supreme Court.

If we are moving forward on this issue, as Senator Browne has proposed, will there be a budget allocation in respect of it when it comes before the committee? This is not something that solely concerns the health services. It concerns the fact that the Government took money off people illegally. It is the Government's responsibility to come up with this money and it should not be taken from the health budget. I would like to know which Department has made allocations for this extra €1 billion that will be paid out next year in the budget. We should follow up that matter. What the Chairman has just read out is fine and dandy but money must be put aside for the payments to be made.

Deputy Twomey, it is fine and dandy not to listen to what I have said. I have just made the point that the four Departments are working together on how they will implement this scheme. Implementation must mean money.

The Government was quick to reimpose the charges on people. It got that legislation through the House within three weeks.

The Deputy should be careful of the tyranny of consistency when he is given the opportunity. Deputy McManus was embarrassed last night——

Deputy Fiona O'Malley should not be silly.

——when her previous words came back to haunt her.

That was pretty silly anyway.

Let us try to deal with the motion.

The legislation to make these charges legal was brought through the Houses quite quickly. One would expect, since it was promised by the same Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children we all are told is so great, that she would make sure that these repayments were made as quickly as possible.

She is doing that. It is complicated. We would all like it done yesterday.

We are looking for a nice clear plan. The Chairman stated what the Government is doing, sending it out to tender 12 months later.

It is not 12 months later. Let us be clear about this. First, the process was initiated towards the end of last year. One does not just arrive with tenders the day after the Dáil debate. A process is put together by way of the tender being prepared and that has gone out. Tomorrow — it is not as if it is 12 months down the line — the tenders will be decided upon and implementation of the scheme begins in November.

In the meantime, on the issues Deputy Twomey is addressing, the four Departments involved are working towards how the scheme can be rolled out. This is not a way of saying it will happen years from now. We are talking about early next year.

Is the legislation drawn up?

I just made the point that legislation will be before the House early in the new session.

On the basis of the information you have been given, Chairman, when do you expect the Government will start paying back money or does it say when people will get the benefit of it?

It does not say that but it states clearly that the legislation will be put in place early in the new session.

Will that need to be in place first before the money is paid back?

Yes. The four main Departments are putting together that scheme now. I do not suggest it is premature, but it is premature in the context of the tenders being decided tomorrow.

Which Department will take responsibility for it?

Obviously the Department of Health and Children.

I wish to make a few final points. The highest court in the land has ruled that the charges were illegal. On that point alone, if any of us were convicted in any court, never mind the highest court in the land, and told to pay back sums we had taken illegally, we would do so immediately and would not be given the luxury of doing it in a year or a year and a half.

If it was straightforward, yes. In this case, it is not.

Even if what you say is correct and it happens,——

It is correct. There is no "if" about it. I am stating the position.

If it happens, the Chairman is talking about legislation published in February at the earliest which must go through both Houses. As far as I can gather from what he stated, the legislation has not been drawn up yet. Why did the Government not table an amendment stating that categorically, which would be the logical way of dealing with a motion? The State has raised an extra €1 billion in income tax and therefore the money is available.

The people concerned are elderly and do not have time on their side. Some of them may have only a month or months to live and a year has already passed. We are talking about February 2006 at the earliest before this can happen. Those factors must be considered.

If somebody was overpaid by the Department of Social and Family Affairs, as Deputy Neville pointed out, or through an agricultural payment or if a person made a mistake completing an agricultural form, the State would nail him or her straight away. As far as I am aware, the people who were overpaid by the PPARS system lately have been told this week to pay it back. A contradictory line is being taken.

It is not fair to compare this to social welfare payments where it is clear whether a person has been overpaid.

My point is the State should have a consistent line and should lead by example.

This scheme is not so straightforward. So many thousands of people, with different sets of circumstances, are involved that a scheme is being properly rolled out which includes an independent watchdog ensuring all necessary procedures are put in place.

I am anxious about two issues in this regard. I have found promises of legislation from the Department of Health and Children to be hollow. I pointed out the case of the Medical Practitioners Bill, which was promised six years ago this month.

Deputy Connolly suggested that an ex gratia payment, for example, of €1,000 could easily be given because many elderly people are owed far more than that. Surely we want them to be able to spend the money.

Deputy Fiona O'Malley has an amendment to put before the committee.

I move the following amendment to the motion:

That the words "That the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children commends the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children for moving swiftly to correct the nursing home charges issue and asks for immediate clarification as to why there is a delay in paying the charges." be substituted for "That the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children calls on the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children to ensure that those people waiting for refunds arising from the illegal nursing home charges are paid without further delay.".

Quite clearly, we are taking up the essence of the motion, by asking the Tánaiste and Minister of Health and Children why there is a delay. We all are anxious to ensure that people are paid, not for the sake of jumping to do it quickly but for the sake of doing it correctly.

I second Deputy Fiona O'Malley's motion.

Is the amendment agreed?

I would agree to the amendment if it included that the Tánaiste and Minister for Health would specify a timeframe for the payment afterwards.

Is that not why the word "clarification" is included?

We are at one on this issue.

If we can get the Tánaiste to explain the timeframe and when the deadline for payment will be, then I will support it.

That is incorporated in the amendment.

We will vote on it. We do not want to go against any member of the committee. We will go with the amendment as drafted.

We will not accept it then.

I am obviously new to this committee. I am here in substitution for my colleague, Deputy McManus, who wants to raise a matter on the Order of Business. I am not used to quite such an adversarial committee under the chairmanship of Deputy Cassidy, who has a calming effect on our debates at the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business.

Chairman, will you indicate for my benefit the current position on the legislation? Have the heads of the Bill been approved by Government? When will the Bill be introduced?

I responded a few minutes ago by stating that at present four Departments are working towards the preparation of the legislation and it is promised — I take the promise as a real one — that it will be before the House in the new session — I am presuming this to mean February.

I have some experience of preparing legislation. I have never heard of a Bill being prepared by four Departments. I know how long it takes one Department to do it. I would be fearful of four Departments doing so. I presume it is being prepared by the Department of Health and Children, in consultation with three other Departments. Is that the case? Which other three Departments are involved?

I cannot argue with the Deputy's experience of Departments. I do not have any such experience. I am just making it clear to the committee that there are four Departments——

Which other three Departments are involved?

I read out their names a few minutes ago. They are the Departments of Finance, Health and Children, Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners. Clearly, this is quite a complex scheme.

The Revenue Commissioners do not make legislation.

While I realise Deputy Howlin is new to the committee, coming in here and glibly challenging what I am saying will not get us any further. Even from my eight years here, I am aware that a Department has an input into legislation. I am also aware that it has implications for the Revenue.

I am simply here to elicit information. The Chairman's opening comment was that four Departments were involved. I am seeking clarity on that. It is not my experience in any committee that when one asks such a question one is attacked by the Chair.

I would not call that an attack; I call it an explanation. The Deputy has been around a fair long time.

Maybe the Chairman could explain who is drafting the legislation? When will heads of the Bill be produced?

I suppose that is the difficulty in coming into a meeting at the half-way point; it is hard to pick up where we were. I began the meeting by explaining all of that but I will go back to it again.

Please do.

It will take some time.

In fairness, the Crisis Pregnancy Agency is waiting outside.

I am aware of that but Deputy Howlin wants to make a name for himself on this committee.

We should not facilitate that because the committee members have dealt with that.

Deputy Howlin wants an explanation.

That is not fair, Chairman. We have business to conduct.

Even though the meeting began at 9.30 a.m.——

This is the second time a member of the committee——

Dictatorship again. This is not a shouting match; it is incredible.

——has come in here and asked for the committee to start again because the member did not turn up on time.

That is a difficulty.

It is a difficulty for members who turn up on time.

Does Deputy Fiona O'Malley know when the heads of the Bill will be ready?

I have no idea and that is what the motion seeks to find out. It is looking for immediate clarification.

When will payments be made? Can Deputy Fiona O'Malley guarantee payment by the end of April next year?

Can we move this to a conclusion? Can we ask the Crisis Pregnancy Agency to come in and can we stop wasting committee time?

Can we settle things down?

I am so annoyed.

Is that normal?

Will the Chairman put the amendment?

Did the Chairman inform the committee about the approval of the heads of the Bill, the lead Department and its introduction in the House?

We began the meeting at 9.30 a.m.

I did not ask that question.

I will give the Deputy background information. The Deputy is under the impression I am ad libbing——

I said no such thing.

We began the meeting at 9.30 a.m. The motion was moved and I provided background information about what was happening and about the delay.

Did the Chairman refer to the heads of the Bill?

I did not. I am coming to that. Can the Deputy take his time?

Sure, I have all day.

Three Departments and the Revenue Commissioners have an input into the preparation of the Bill.

The Chairman referred earlier to four Departments.

Okay, four organisations.

This is ridiculous.

The Crisis Pregnancy Agency delegation has been waiting since 9.30 a.m. It is not fair.

Can we review the debate afterwards and get on with the Crisis Pregnancy Agency?

The elderly have been waiting more than a year for payments.

Yes and we have a motion before us.

Why do we not take the division now?

The elderly have been waiting since 1999.

Successive Governments were wrong.

The tendering process will be completed by tomorrow, 28 October. A decision on the award of the tender will be made by 14 November and the process will be put in train regarding how to meet the claims. Legislation will be introduced during the next session.

Where does the legislation stand?

I am not aware——

Clarification is needed from the Minister.

Could I ask a question without interruption?

The Deputy has not read the amendment.

We need a break for coffee.

We are here since 9.30 a.m. and we are well able to work.

A motion was tabled by Senator Browne and an amendment was tabled by Deputy Fiona O'Malley, in which she commends the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children for moving swiftly to correct the nursing home charges issue and asks for immediate clarification as to why there is a delay in paying the charges. All members are agreed——

My question was simple. Does the Chairman know anything about the heads of the Bill?

No, but we will find out.

Deputy Howlin, without interruption.

Let us just put the amendment because we have no more time to waste.

Can nobody speak other than Deputy Fiona O'Malley?

This is not a dictatorship.

Somebody will get back to Deputy Howlin. We do not know.

Exactly. I will find out for the committee.

I simply wanted to know the position regarding the heads of the Bill. The Chairman does not know and that is fine. That is all I wanted to know.

: Is the amendment agreed?

If the word "swiftly" is deleted, I will agree to it.

We have many other issues to deal with.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl 6.

  • Deputy P. Carey.
  • Deputy J. Devins.
  • Deputy D. Fitzpatrick.
  • Deputy J. Moloney.
  • Deputy C. O’Connor.
  • Deputy F. O’Malley.
  • Senator T. Leyden.
  • Senator C. Glynn.

Níl

  • Deputy P. Connolly.
  • Deputy B. Howlin.
  • Deputy D. Neville.
  • Deputy L. Twomey.
  • Senator F. Browne.
  • Senator M. Henry.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Barr
Roinn