Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. I also welcome the Bill. The Minister of State will not take it amiss if I say that some issues progress by trial and error and this is probably one of them. One would hope to arrive at the right result in the end.

The Bill falls into two parts. There is first the question of legitimising the charging of patients for care and maintenance. There has been a good deal of debate on that over the past couple of months and in general most commentators and political parties accept the principle. It has not been fiercely attacked from any substantial source.

The Bill refers to a maximum take of 80% of the non-contributory pension. That strikes me as being rather on the high side. I have not done an exact calculation, but an old person left with a maximum of €30 or €40 a week might want to buy a couple of things for himself or herself or family members. This does not leave people with very much. I hope this section is interpreted as meaning a maximum rather than a norm. I would hope that the norm would be 10%, 15% or 20% below the maximum. I am realistic enough to know that with hard-pressed agencies that may not often be the case but in my view, 80% is a bit on the high side although I have no problem with it as a maximum.

The other part of the Bill is meant to provide a statutory footing to the new type of medical card. Despite the criticisms, the card is welcomed by the general population as far as it goes. It is also welcomed by most general practitioners. At least it means that if people are worried about their health and fall within the relevant category they can attend a doctor without having to pay a substantial charge. They do not have to sit about worrying. There are very definite limits as to what can be paid out in terms of medication per month or per year. The card is an improvement.

I have not been in the House for much of the debate but I heard the discretionary element being criticised. If we want humane legislation and humane public administration there must be some discretion. A rigid rule-based system allows no account of personal circumstances, of differing needs in what look on the face of it to be similar circumstances. No doubt the Senator who raised the point did not like the idea of political representations being made on behalf of deserving cases or perhaps undeserving cases. However, some discretion must be built into these types of rules.

There has also been some criticism about granting medical cards to the over 70s on the grounds that not all the implications were thought through. That brings me back to my original point about Government sometimes proceeding by trial and error. I am quite certain that when Donogh O'Malley announced free secondary education, all the implications were not thought through. It was a matter of making the announcement first and thinking through the implications afterwards.