Camillus Glynn (Fianna Fail)

The Government acted with responsibility in order to deal with a 29 year problem and has acted correctly in doing so. The Oireachtas played its part, as did the Council of State, the President and the Supreme Court. As everyone knows and has been stated by the Tánaiste, permission to take up to 80% of a non-contributory pension has been in place. In my experience, where people have been in long-term care and where deductions have been made on the basis outlined by the Tánaiste, in many cases it was very difficult for the people involved to spend the 15% or 20% of the money which remained. In some cases, it was not enough but in many cases, the people in question did not need it and did not spend it. However, when these people passed on, the first question to be posed would be how much they had left in their wills.

For example, when they were eventually located, the first question asked by the relatives of a fine old gentleman who liked his baby Power's whiskey and enjoyed smoking his pipe was whether he had left anything in his will. All he had was a couple of suits of clothes which were the property of the Midland Health Board, which the family proceeded to remove. This is what one is dealing with.

Where do we go from here? We must continue what has been started. It is deeply regrettable that it took so long to clarify the implication of a Supreme Court decision of 29 years ago. We now have a definitive resolution which is very welcome. Members will now be in a position to study the Supreme Court ruling in detail, the key elements of which have already been read into the record by the Tánaiste in the Lower House.

The provisions of the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004 which provides for the prospective charging of in-patients is constitutional. There is no constitutional prohibition on implementing a charge for in-patient services in future. The Bill was not contrary, as has already been pointed out by the Tánaiste today, to Article 15.5 of the Constitution in that it was not within the prohibition of retrospective legislation in that article. This is because the article is confined to rendering something unlawful which was, at the time of its commission, not unlawful.

The Bill is unconstitutional, as has already been stated, in regard to the property rights of citizens. While taking away a property right without compensation can be justified under the Constitution, it can only be justified to either avoid an extreme financial crisis or a fundamental disequilibrium in public finances. It is clear that the Supreme Court did not consider the exposure of the State or the sums involved, in the order of €500 million, to meet that criterion.

The Bill was brought forward but fell at a hurdle. In that context, I commend the Council of State on recommending a referral of the Bill to the Supreme Court and the President for doing so. At least we now know where we are going. It is easy to state that the Government did not do this or that. To my knowledge, no political party in this House has ever taken a stance or sought a mandate since 1976 to remove these charges. Every Government in the interim period from that date has continued with them. If political parties wish to assign political blame, it must surely be on an inclusive basis since 1976.

The Tánaiste has stated that she will not now stand over an assertion she made in the House pertaining to the bringing forward of the Bill given what is now known and neither will I. We must go back to the drawing board and we need to put right what needs to be so. Above all, we must continue to look after those who built up this State and are now unable to look after themselves.