Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

When one looks closely at this new legislation, namely, the Health (Alterations of Criteria for Eligibility) (No. 2) Bill 2013, one perceives clearly the type of society that is emerging from the fallout of the economic crisis. Sadly, I must state today it is not the type of new Ireland of which I wish to be part. At the last election of 2011, all Members were elected on a platform of change, reform and honest politics. This is what people on the doorsteps told all politicians and all candidates to do. I remember well the people saying that all politicians should do their best to bring about change and reform. They also told us to do the right thing because the wrong thing had been done in the past and the tone on the doorsteps was for a bit of old-fashioned public service. However, doing the right thing or good public service does not mean one should hammer the senior citizens, the sick or the disabled. The purpose of this Bill is to do this to the senior citizens and that is completely unacceptable. It also is linked to the broader economic debate to which I will refer in more detail later.

A society that does not look after its senior citizens is a society without a heart. A society that does not look after its sick and disabled is a society without compassion and this must be at the heart of this legislation today. When one digs further into the legislation, one learns the Bill reduces the income limits for medical card eligibility for the over-70s. They are reduced from €700 to €600 for a single person and from €1,400 down to €1,200 per week for couples. Those who lose their medical cards as a result of this change will become eligible for a GP-visit card but such cards cover only the costs of consultations and do not cover many of the other services available free of charge to medical card holders. This is what is proposed in this legislation. This reduction in income limits is being introduced to reduce expenditure on medical cards for the over-70s or in other words, the code is emerging here. It is forecast that this measure will generate €12 million in savings during the second half of 2013 and €24 million in a full year. That is what this legislation is about. It is not about reform but is about attacking senior citizens and the over-70s. It is about looking for €24 million and, as my colleague, Deputy Boyd Barrett, noted, when Members of the Technical Group put forward proposals in respect of funding many of these provisions, they are dismissed out of hand and not considered or taken up. This is even though a number of times recently, the troika happened to agree with my colleagues in the Technical Group on how money can be saved in respect of reform of the health service, electronic prescriptions and many other reforms that have been put on record. Consequently,I suggest the Ministers opposite should open their minds and hearts and look at alternatives, rather than screwing and hammering the over-70s.

I also note the legislation allows for data sharing between the Health Service Executive, HSE, and the Department of Social Protection and between the HSE and the Revenue Commissioners. This will include the sharing of personal data, including sensitive data, between these bodies for the purposes of assessing and reviewing entitlements and liability for taxes and charges. The Data Protection Commissioner must be consulted before the data can be shared and Members should be highly respectful about and conscious of this matter. The Data Protection Commissioner also should do his or her job in respect of this issue.

While that is the purpose of this legislation, I will now turn to considering the present and past positions in respect of this broader debate. Between 2001 and 2008, people aged 70 and over had an automatic right to a medical card based on their age. In January 2009, the automatic entitlement of the over-70s to a medical card was withdrawn, a means test was introduced with the current income limits and savings of approximately €20 million were anticipated arising from a reduction of approximately 5% in the number of people aged 70 and over who qualified for a medical card. This is the history of the measure. Another study found that 97% of those aged 80 or more had a medical card, compared with 91% of those who are aged between 70 and 79. Within broader society, 74% of the general population visited a general practitioner, GP, at least once a year. However, 94% of people aged 70 or more visited a GP at least once a year. In other words, this figure of 94% underlines the need of the over-70s for a medical card, as they need to be supported in their retirement years. These are the people who worked for this country and who for 40 or 50 years paid their taxes into the State. It is one of the issues in which one should be respectful of them. As for the frequency of visits, the same study found that the average number of GP consultations increases with age. For example, the 18 to 24-year olds average 2.4 visits per year but this figure rises to 5.4 consultations for those who are aged 70 or more. In other words, the figure almost rises to six visits per year. Consequently, Members can see there is a need to look after the senior citizens

I am delighted the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, is in the Chamber because this debate about medical cards is interlinked with, and connected to, the broader political and economic debate. One issue to which Members are not facing up, if they are to try to support the people, is that of the debt. There have been real repercussions as a direct result of all that bank debt and the Government now is going around trying to save a few million euro here and there. It first had a go at disabilities and cut special needs services, it is now after the medical cards and it is trying to strip down the health services. In addition, the Government is examining issues in respect of education, as well as driving the youth from the country through reduced social welfare payments. Moreover, it is driving more people into early graves after the austerity budgets. This is what is taking place at present and the debt issue cannot be ignored as it is linked to this debate today. Incidentally, although it did not receive much coverage, I commend members of the Ballyhea group that came to Leinster House yesterday. They launched their campaign and are doing an excellent job in highlighting the fact that we must do something about this in the context of a broader long-term strategy. Every element of the less well off in society, including the young and the retired, has been attacked as a result of the economic crisis. However, while the attack is on senior citizens in this debate, all the while the Government has pointedly stayed away from those who can most afford to pay.

Meanwhile, the Government is paying huge annual interest on the bank debt borrowings. On the €25 billion in promissory notes bonds, it is paying approximately €210 million. On the almost €20 billion we owe Europe, if one takes an average rate of 4%, it is paying nearly €800 million. On the €5.6 billion that NAMA contributed to the banks, the lost interest on that may amount to a further €200 million per annum. This is a lot of millions of euro for a broken nation to be paying to its European overlords for the privilege of having bailed out the banks and bondholders and their own common currency, and it is important to make that point. While the Government imposed new universal taxes and charges on homes, water, pensions and medical records, it is losing out on the potential interest on the €20.7 billion taken from the National Pensions Reserve Fund of up to €1 billion per year, which is 1,000 million euro. Members should consider what could be done with that money. While the interest alone is substantial, what if the State had that money back? What could be done in terms of investment or in kickstarting the Irish economy back into life without being obliged to do what is taking place in this Chamber today? This is not a debate about health or about reform; it is a debate about generating €12 million in savings, rising to €24 million in a full year. Moreover, as has been mentioned by my colleagues, these savings are part of the €781 million in savings in the health budget that budget 2013 set out to achieve and are included in the overall reduction of €323 million in the cost of primary care schemes. Unless these issues are considered and unless Members look at the facts, they are in serious trouble.

I am delighted that the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, Deputy Buttimer, has entered the Chamber because he needs to hear this straight. He needs to hear the facts and the reality. I also am concerned about the reduction-----

See this speech in context