Seanad debates

Wednesday, 23 February 2005

Nursing Home Charges: Statements.

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Eamon ScanlonEamon Scanlon (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister to the House, and am glad to have the opportunity to address such an important issue which will have repercussions for a long time.

The Supreme Court has brought clarity and finality to a matter which was left to fester for 29 years, namely, the legal basis for the obligation on people in long-term care to contribute towards their living costs. This was the policy of 11 Governments and 40 health boards, but we now have clarity regarding the law, certainty about payments and confidence in the way we can proceed.

The Government welcomes the Supreme Court decision and the clarity it brings. People in long-term care, as well as their families, will also welcome this clarity. They now know what has been obscure for 29 years, namely, whether and on what basis they should contribute towards certain costs. Together with the Government and the Oireachtas, people will be confident that the continuation of the policy of contributions towards shelter and maintenance is not only fair, but also constitutional.

We are a society ruled by law, and it must be so and remain so in every detail of public policy and administration. The decision also demonstrates that our institutions of State work. We can only achieve the confidence and clarity that citizens of a State ruled by law deserve when the Government, the Oireachtas and the courts address issues clearly, exercise their powers and meet their responsibilities. Problems arise when real issues are not addressed, when basic problems are finessed or fudged and when policies are not fully grounded in law.

Since the issue was raised, the Government has to ascertain the precise legal position and to put policy on a sound legal footing. It accepted the responsibility to deal with a 29-year legal problem, and has acted to do so. The Oireachtas played its part, as did the Council of State, the President and the Supreme Court. The fundamental failure that has been corrected is the failure to properly implement a 29 year old Supreme Court decision. The delay is deeply regrettable, but the resolution is extremely welcome.

Everybody is now in a position to study the Supreme Court ruling in detail. The Government has acted responsibly and reasonably since the Attorney General provided legal advice on the matter last November. It brought forward the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill in order to put the charges on a sound legal footing. The Government realised that whichever way it addressed the issue of retrospective payments, other than by the course of action taken in the Bill, individual legal challenges were likely. Older people in long-term care and their families would have endured the stress of months of legal argument.

The Government could not have acted quicker or in a better manner to achieve the clarity we have today. Had it decided to make payments back for one year, claims would have been made for payments for two years or more. Had it decided to make payments for two years, claims would have been made for three. Even if the Government had decided to make repayments within the timeframe of the Statute of Limitations, the decision would most likely have also been tested. The Bill has been tested in a manner which is the quickest, most effective, most cost-efficient and least burdensome on those in long-term care and their families. This is why the Government welcomed the President's decision to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court. As the Taoiseach said in the House, the Government gave the President advice to this effect at the Council of State, fully respecting her absolute discretion on the matter.

There was simply no easy way to deal with the long-standing legal problem about which the Attorney General advised us. There was considerable uncertainty at that time regarding the extent of legal advice given since the Supreme Court judgment of 1976. As a result, Mr. John Travers will carry out a thorough investigation into how the issue was handled over the years by the Department of Health and Children.

Had the Government waited to legislate until it knew everything, we would not have been in any better a position than now, especially those in long-term care. We would still be many months away from legal clarity. Litigation or challenges would have been inevitable whenever it took action. This source of funding available to our health services would also still be in doubt. The situation would have remained very unsatisfactory.

No one in the House suggested an easy way forward last November. Few seemed to remember the policy of charging for shelter and maintenance was supported and implemented by 11 Governments and many health boards, of which many Deputies and Senators were members. Since 1976 no political party ever took a stance or sought a mandate to remove these charges. If political parties assign political blame, it must surely be on an inclusive basis since 1976.

Many Governments served and implemented the policy. It is only fair that all political parties which participated in these Governments take some responsibility in the matter.

Whatever way the Government proceeds, it is important that those owed money are repaid as quickly as possible without having to take legal recourse. We should strive to ensure they are refunded the charges they duly deserve.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.