Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Health (Repayment Scheme) Bill 2006. This Bill which provides for the repayment of nursing home charges illegally taken from old people who knew no better and were, effectively, sitting ducks, is long overdue. The Supreme Court judgment, which was universally hailed, was delivered on 16 February 2005. I understand that repayment in full with interest accrued will be made to up to 70,000 people who were illegally charged nursing home fees. This is regarded as radical compensation and is likely to cost in the region of €1 billion.

The HSE appears to have two ways of calculating interest. Strangely, both methods benefit the executive. I understand that the HSE links interest with the consumer price index so that whatever €1 would have bought a person six years ago is applicable today. However, when people who owe the HSE money have to repay it, they are charged compound interest rates, which is a vastly different arrangement. A particular group of people are caught in this trap. These are women who were forced to leave the health service as a result of the marriage bar in the mid-1970s. When these women try to buy back service for pension purposes, they are charged compound interest rates, which is grossly unfair. The fact that they were forced to leave the health service a certain number of years was itself unfair and they are now being doubly penalised. A different arrangement should be introduced. If the HSE uses this method of calculation for moneys owed, it should also use it for moneys owed to the elderly people who were illegally charged nursing home fees.

I understand that more than 40% of the people concerned will be paid back promptly. However, I wait to see what "promptly" means and what length of time it will take for payments to reach those from whom they were wrongly taken. The fact that it could take several years for 60% of the people concerned to receive their payments is particularly worrying. There are many sections within the Health Service Executive which have taken particular pains to identify people who were wrongly charged and a considerable number of people can be clearly identified at this time. As soon as this legislation passes through the House, we should make a special effort to ensure payments are made. This legislation took upwards of 14 months before it was put before the House. I do not know what difficulties the individuals who framed the legislation had. We have seen situations that might have suited the Government or the powers that be where legislation was rushed through the House in one day. If we were to deal appropriately with these matters that type of initiative might have been considered. Prior to Christmas I called for an ex gratia or goodwill payment to be made to these people, not necessarily the full amount, but at least sufficient to allow them to spend some money in their last few days. Ultimately, their needs are not great, but if the money was wrongly taken, it is appropriate that they, rather than their relatives, might have the opportunity to enjoy it. Such an ex gratia payment might be the only portion of the due rebates they will ever see. Many of those who had nursing home charges illegally levied for many years are in despair of ever living to collect one penny they are due. People do not spend all their lives in nursing homes. The average is about two years. There is therefore but a small window of opportunity in terms of putting the money into their hands.

I want to raise a number of other issues, but the onus is on the State to repay them in time. Pensioners are among the most vulnerable of citizens and their care is in somebody else's hands. We have messed matters up and there is an opportunity now to undo some of the damage. The main features of the Government's repayments scheme embodied in the Bill have been agreed as far back as May 2005. I ask that this initiative be put in place immediately.

See this speech in context