Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group) | Oireachtas source

I object and draw attention to the manner in which this legislation has been brought before the House. It was published late last week. Deputies scarcely had time to read the legislation and certainly did not have time to consider it properly or to consult with stakeholders. The Minister and the Department were absolutely unreasonable in the manner in which this legislation was put before the House. We were told that the last general election was a democratic revolution. Any revolution is based on information. It is another U-turn on the part of this Government that it would bring legislation before the House at such short notice, giving both Opposition and Government Deputies little or no time to consider or consult about it. It is absolutely outrageous behaviour and is, again, another U-turn by the current Government.

Deputy Boyd Barrett outlined the history of the hypocrisy surrounding this issue on the part of the Minister, Deputy Reilly, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, and others. Everybody also recalls the grandstanding and outrage of the Leader of the Labour Party at the time, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Eamon Gilmore. He did his usual grandstanding and outrage act in the Dáil. Now there is a U-turn on that. It is a fact that both the Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, and this Government have again reneged on the positions they held and promises they made in that election and, indeed, in the programme for Government. Politicians, politics and political parties are being brought into disrepute on a daily basis because solemn promises and commitments made to the electorate in the course of a general election are being reneged on.

Young people can no longer trust or believe statements made by politicians.

The Minister of State trotted out the old, dishonest argument that cutbacks are needed. It is especially dishonest of the Labour Party to make this argument which must be rebutted at every opportunity. The Government continues to have choices. This is a very wealthy country, with significant numbers of wealthy individuals who do not pay their fair share of taxation. In recent days, we learned that the chief executive officer of the Bank of Ireland receives an annual salary, excluding additional payments, of approximately €690,000. Last week, the Minister for Finance informed me that 10,000 individuals have a combined income of almost €6 billion per annum, giving an average annual income of €595,000. Moreover, a further 20,000 individuals have a combined annual income of €8.742 billion per annum, giving an average income of more than €400,000. These extraordinarily wealthy people do not pay their fair share of taxation, yet the Government refused to impose any tax increases on them in the previous budget. We were told the Labour Party was prepared to walk out of government on this issue, but it did not do so. Even if we were to take 10%, 15% or 20% of the incomes of the wealthiest individuals in Ireland, they would remain extremely rich.

The Central Statistics Office informs us that the top 5% of earners made a profit from the recession, both in terms of income and assets. Last Sunday week, the Sunday Independent reported that in the past two years the richest 300 individuals in the country had increased their wealth from €50 billion to €66 billion. Despite this, we do not have a wealth or asset tax. There are, therefore, choices. We could, for example, take on the rich and powerful and properly tax their income, assets and wealth to properly fund the health service. The Government, specifically the Labour Party, should have made this choice.

On the basis that it expounded a policy of universality and free general practitioner care for all during the general election campaign, people expected the Government to introduce a Bill to implement its policy commitments. We could have at least expected it to implement some reasonable measures, for example, the provision of free general practitioner cards for people with long-term illnesses. The Government told us such a scheme would be in operation by June 2012, yet there is no sign of the relevant legislation. It is clear that legislation to reduce eligibility can be introduced at the drop of a hat, whereas there is always a problem with drafting or some other aspect of legislation when one wishes to extend eligibility.

In addition to a provision implementing its promise to introduce free GP visit cards for people with long-term illnesses, we could have expected the Government to abolish prescription charges given that it was ostensibly opposed to the charge when it was introduced. Rather than abolish the 50 cent charge, however, it chose to increase it to €1.50 per item. It now costs people in poverty, including those on an income of €188 per week, up to €19.50 per month for medicines.

We could also have expected income limits for medical cards to be increased given that they have not increased since 1 January 2006. The only reason for the large increase in the number of medical cards issued in recent years has been the increase to 430,000 in the number of people who are unemployed and, as such, automatically entitled to a medical card.

The current income limits for medical cards are out of date. A person with income in excess of a social welfare payment will not be eligible for a card. For instance, the current limit for a single person aged up to 65 years is €184 per week, which is below the minimum social welfare rate. The figure for a married couple is €266.50, which is also below the social welfare rate. One would have expected the Government to increase these income limits.

Members, in particular, members of the Joint Committee on Health, have consistently made the case to the Minister and Health Service Executive that people suffering from serious illnesses such as cancer should receive a discretionary medical card. Prior to the centralisation of the medical card system, people with serious illnesses were able to obtain a discretionary medical card. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. I am informed that applicants in this category have been told the only way they will obtain a medical card is if their general practitioner certifies they are terminally ill, which is outrageous.

I ask the Minister to consider the issues I have raised. We expected and should have been given some amelioration of the position in regard to the issues to which I have referred.

See this speech in context