Jimmy Devins (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)

The huge amount of money that was taken from patients under defective legislation — the cost has recently been estimated at more than €1 billion — must be repaid. I understand that more than 20,000 people who are still alive will be eligible to recover money, on foot of this legislation, and refunds of moneys will be paid into the estates of almost 50,000 people who have died. The recent Supreme Court judgment highlighted the fact that the Statute of Limitations means that the estates of people who died before December 1998 will not be eligible for repayments, unfortunately. I welcome the fact that the repayments will comprise not only the actual charges which were imposed on patients, but an amount that takes account of inflation, calculated by reference to the consumer price index since the time when the person was wrongfully charged. The payment of the extra amount is just and correct because patients have been denied the use of the money in question since the illegal charge was first imposed. It is obvious that any interest they may have gained from such moneys should be included in the repayment scheme.

On an unrelated but similar issue, I have frequently wondered why the Revenue Commissioners do not adopt a similar approach when they are dealing with tax refunds in the cases of people who have overpaid their tax liabilities. I recently heard about the case of an individual who received a tax refund in February 2006 in respect of tax that was overpaid in 2004. She did not receive an additional amount that was calculated to take account of inflation in the intervening period. I suggest that the Revenue Commissioners should follow the example being given by the Minister for Health and Children in this Bill. It is interesting that all repayments to living persons will be exempt from income tax. Such repayments will not be taken into account when the means of individuals are being assessed for health or social welfare benefits.

I congratulate the Minister on this progressive and innovative legislation, which recognises that patients were wrongfully charged in the first place. Therefore, what these people are getting, in effect, is the return of their own money. While they will be getting it all in one sum, this should not and will not deprive them of any benefits to which they might normally be entitled. It is not the fault of the individual patient that money was wrongly taken from him or her. Therefore such patients should not be penalised in any way because those moneys are being returned to them now.

Since this issue first came to light I have been approached by a number of constituents representing patients who are still alive, thankfully, but also others who are involved on behalf of relatives who have died. The words of one particular lady resonate with me. She said, "The care that my late father received while he was in St. John's Hospital in Sligo, was of the highest order and I do not wish to avail of the repayment". I welcome the provision in the Bill that allows any eligible person to waive his or her right to a repayment. The fact that any money so waived will be assigned to fund one-off service improvements for older people and those with disability, is also very welcome. It is important that such money is ring-fenced for those improvements to which it is assigned.

I will even go further and ask that if possible, the money should be used for improvements in the institution in which the patient resided. In that way the institution that provided the care to the patient will benefit directly. This idea might not be administratively possible, but I ask the Minister of State to examine it. After all, if any institution provided care that was of such a high standard that the patient or his or her relations felt positive about, it is surely only right and proper that it should be first in line to benefit from the generous waiving of the repayment money.

As I said at the start, the amount of money involved in this process is very large — close to €1 billion. When one considers that the total health budget for 2006 is €12 billion, then the enormity of the repayment cost can be appreciated. The potential for fraud or wrongful repayment is recognised and I welcome section 17(2) which makes legal provision for the recovery of any moneys obtained through fraud or overpayment. Every euro must be repaid correctly, but because of the enormity of the sums involved, due care must be taken that the moneys are repaid to the correct persons. It is also important that there is a clear appeals mechanism in place for those who believe they might not have been treated correctly in the repayment process. Section 16 of the Bill deals with the appeals process in some detail. Hopefully, it will not have to be used. However, if a situation should develop where there is a dispute between an applicant and the repayments scheme, then the appeals process, as proposed, is transparent and fair.

I am glad that the Bill deals with the unfortunate situation of patients who have a degree of mental or intellectual impairment. It will ensure that where there has been a deterioration in the intellectual capacity of a patient, his or her rights are protected by the use of a patient private property account. This will mean that any funds accruing to patients in this category will be used for the benefit of the individual and that the money can be invested on behalf of the said patient. This Bill will correct what was a serious wrong to patients in long-term care institutions. It is right and proper that the Government is taking this line of action. It will be successful, with sufficient safeguards in place to ensure there is no misuse of the enormous amount of money involved. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context