Dáil debates

Wednesday, 16 February 2005

11:00 am

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is proposed to take No. 5, Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2005 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 4, Criminal Justice Bill 2004 — Second Stage (resumed). Private Members' business shall be No. 44, motion re waiver scheme for domestic refuse charges (resumed), to conclude at 8.30 p.m.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are no proposals to put to the House on the Order of Business.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to propose an amendment to the effect that time be set aside today from, say, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., for a statement to be made to the House by the Tánaiste on behalf of the Government arising from the 88-page Supreme Court judgment in which it has just ruled that the nursing homes Bill is unconstitutional. This matter was first raised by Deputy Perry and it appears as if the information that was available to the Department of Health and Children for quite some time amounts to a massive cover-up, possibly exposing the State to tens of thousands of claims. This is because property rights may not be retrospectively interfered with by the State.

This has serious implications for thousands of people all over the country. I know the statement will require some analysis by Government and in that sense the fact the President referred it to the Supreme Court for a constitutional test is to be complimented. It has just been brought to my attention that under Standing Order 101 all Government Bills shall be published if accompanied only by a printed explanatory memorandum, explaining the provisions of the proposed legislation in a readily intelligible manner. I understand no explanatory memorandum was published with this particular Bill. It means the Government legislation is flawed.

The issue of future claims is not in question, but the House needs to know from the Tánaiste on behalf of the Government what its reaction is to this legislation and what clarity has now been brought to the issue of the imposition of charges prior to 2001, which appears to be somewhat unclear. Is the State now exposed to literally tens of thousands of claims going back ad infinitum, as the issue was not on the question of property rights? The House should set aside a period of time today for an explanation from the Tánaiste, and there might be an opportunity for Deputies to question her as to what the Government's intentions are as regards dealing with and facing up to this liability.

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support Deputy Kenny's request for a brief debate today on this important development. Following the passing of this Bill, Deputy McManus on behalf of my party, wrote to the President, suggesting that she might convene the Council of State, because in our view this Bill was unconstitutional. It has now been struck down by the Supreme Court, with some of the implications that Deputy Kenny has just outlined.

The House needs an opportunity, as well, to test the Taoiseach's confidence in his Minister for Health and Children. It is a bad day for her. She has already lost the chief executive of the Health Service Executive. She has been unable to commit to her promise on medical cards. The legislation which promised to provide a new "yellow pack" medical card is not yet before the House. Accident and emergency departments throughout most of the country's hospitals are not functioning. It is a bad day for the Minister for Health and Children and for the Government. It rushed the legislation through in the face of pleas from this side of the House that it ought to be more considered, given the discrepancy that was uncovered. The Taoiseach ought to assent to the request that the House be given an opportunity to discuss this.

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is quite a worrying development and indicates not alone the problems raised by the Supreme Court but also vindicates Opposition warnings that the Bill was being rushed through the House. This health amendment Bill was inspired, it seems, more on PR grounds than from a legally vigorous and well-thought out policy viewpoint. It is clear that the business is unfinished and that a debate is needed. It is important to call for a debate.

When we have a debate I would like to hear from the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health and Children whether a special Estimate will be provided by the Government and whether it is prepared to listen to the views that were expressed and which were not given a hearing. These urged that more time was needed to deliberate on the legislation because of the complexity of the issue and with regard to the retrospective action that is needed given the injustices over many years.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not agree that this is a worrying development. It is a welcome development as it vindicates the arguments presented by the Opposition to this Bill on its rushed nature, its purpose and its intent. There clearly was not sufficient consideration given to the enormity of what was involved. Today is a good day because this has happened. It is right that the Government takes the lesson that rushed legislation to accommodate what is perceived as an immediate need is not good governance. Lessons will be learned from this and that we will see a more considered approach to legislation that affects ordinary decent citizens throughout the length and breadth of this State. I also support the call for statements on this matter to be accommodated today, following the Tánaiste's statement to the House. I hope we proceed in a more orderly and considered fashion in addressing this and all other matters in future.

Photo of Bertie AhernBertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I said earlier, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill is unconstitutional. I have had no chance to talk to anybody about it, as all I have received is a note informing me that there has been a 93-page judgment. I welcome the clarity which the court's ruling will bring. When the meeting of the Council of State took place, the Tánaiste and I said it was better to get this issue clarified. It had been around for 20 years in one form or another, this ruling now deals with it and we will have to examine it. The legal problems arising from the method of charging medical card holders for long-term institutional care goes back many years, at least to 1976. This is obviously a complex area of law. The Minister for Health and Children, together with myself and her colleagues in the Government, will study today's judgment very carefully. I am not in a position to say at this time whether further legislation may be required in this matter. I understand the Tánaiste will be happy to make a statement to the House later today, in consultation with the Whips. We will just have to check with the Whips to see if it can be arranged.