Camillus Glynn (Fianna Fail)

I can speak with experience and knowledge. I found it reprehensible that on the death of a patient who had not seen a visitor for years, when the relatives could be located the first question they would ask was whether the deceased left any money. It was a nauseating situation, which I encountered far too often for my liking. I am sure Deputies Finneran and Connolly from the other House would tell similar stories. It is not a nice thing to say about a so-called Christian society.

Money was taken from the income of such patients to ensure they had extra comforts. It must be borne in mind that the additional needs of patients in long-stay institutions would vary. Some patients would not spend a penny from one year to the next. Other patients had additional needs and liked to take a drink or a cigarette or have a bet on a horse. We are not comparing like with like. All right-thinking Members of both Houses would accept that we should not pay people an income and also take care of them. It is not fair or acceptable. It never was the case and to claim so is to make a nonsense of the taxpayers' money.

For the long-term care of people the concept of national pension reserve fund is very important. It is all about planning for the future. When planning for the future in the psychiatric services was introduced it had huge implications for long-stay institutions.

I recall that Senator Norris and another Member of the previous Seanad tabled a motion about inappropriate bed occupancy in acute hospitals, particularly psychiatric hospitals. Many acute beds in psychiatric hospitals were used as hostel beds and long-stay psycho-geriatric patients were being cared for in psychiatric hospitals when they should have been in geriatric hospitals. The policy of planning for the future in the psychiatric services has had a major impact on the elderly. In many instances, this has been for the better.

The Government recognises that a mistake has been made, hence the introduction of this legislation. One recalls the saying, "You are damned if you do and damned if you don't." We recognise that mistakes has been made but, as already stated, any charges imposed must have a sound legal basis. The ex gratia payment is being made out of a sense of moral obligation rather than on foot of a legal requirement. The Government is making a once-off goodwill gesture because we believe it is fair to make some repayments. It is anxious to bring about clarity and finality in respect of this issue. An essential part of achieving these is to make repayments. Are Members on the opposite side of the House stating that we should do nothing? In my opinion we must take action.

The legislation is being put in place to ensure that charges will have a legal basis. The Bill also contains retrospective powers in respect of deeming legal the past practice of charging.

Reference has already been made to the proposal to repay €2,000 to people who were charged. A person charged anything less than €2,000 will be refunded the actual amount charged. The scheme will cover people who are still living and who are currently receiving or who have received long-term care in the past. Payments will be made, where possible and in the majority of cases, as early as is practicable in the new year. There had been plans to advertise to allow people to apply for these payments but these have fallen by the wayside. We are all taxpayers and if the State pays out money, it should go to the people who are entitled to it. I do not see anything wrong with that and I believe all right thinking people would agree with me.

The details regarding the administration of the repayments were worked out, as a matter of urgency, by the Department of Health and Children. The new health service executive, which is taking over from the health boards on 1 January, will administer the scheme.

Approximately 20,000 people, the majority of whom are elderly and who occupy long-term care places, are likely to receive the repayments. It will not be taken into account for any means test carried out by the Departments of Social and Family Affairs and Health and Children, nor will it be subject to taxation.

Will people in private nursing homes also obtain repayments? The repayment scheme mainly applies to people who have been in long-term care in public institutions. The only people affected in private nursing homes are those in private beds contracted by a health board. People who are in private nursing homes receiving the nursing home subvention will not be affected, nor will those in such homes whose means are over the means test limits for a subvention payment.

Having discovered a legislative glitch, it is important that the Government has moved to correct it. It is also important to ensure that we cater for the needs of the elderly. A clear principle is being established in the Bill, namely, that it is not acceptable that taxpayers should pay incomes which are supposed to sustain and maintain others in the community or that they should be obliged to pay on the double if these individuals enter caring institutions. It would not be fair to expect taxpayers to do so. I may have misunderstood what was said earlier but that is the impression I obtained.

As stated earlier, elderly persons in long-stay institutions have varying needs in terms of their extra comforts. Perhaps a way might be found to address those needs. I thank the Minister of State for the comments he made and I commend the Bill to the House.