Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)

I will not go into the background of the disgraceful events surrounding the Bill. It is amazing that a year and seven months later we have returned to the matter. There is, however, still no idea of when exactly these payments will be made to those affected. Many will have passed on in the intervening period. The Fine Gael Party welcomes the Bill but has reservations about its implementation. The Government's tardiness is shocking particularly when one considers the Supreme Court's ruling on the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004. It read:

The Bill will affect very many people who are old, or poor or disabled, mentally or physically, or in many cases all of these. As already stated, persons so situated will almost certainly have had little or no capacity to understand their rights under the legislation or to protest at the unlawfulness of the charges.

It is shocking that a year and seven months after that, the Health (Repayment Scheme) Bill 2006 is just being introduced but the Minister of State can give no indication as to when those affected will get the money into their hands. What do these lovely phrases, such as "shortly", "imminently" and "in the near future", actually mean? At a health committee meeting a suggestion for an interim payment was made. All the patients affected were wrongfully charged and they are owed these moneys. Many of them would have used it to go Lourdes or Medjugorje for a last trip before they passed on. Many cannot now do that and will unfortunately be dead before the payments are made available.

The Minister of State did not refer to the time bomb of those who were unable to secure a long-term public nursing bed and, as a result, went into private nursing homes. I understand several court cases are pending in this regard. If the courts rule in favour of the people affected, this issue will be more explosive and affect far more people. Ultimately the taxpayer will end up paying for the Government's incompetence. Will the Minister of State clarify the status of those who are querying whether they should have had to pay private nursing home charges when public beds were not provided?

The Government has a bad record in schemes similar to the repayment one. Its response to the matter was lethargic. It was warned in September 2005 of the issue but only rushed through flawed legislation against which the Supreme Court ruled in December. Shortly after this, the fiasco of the PPARS emerged which involved €150 million of taxpayers' money being squandered on a computer system that did not work. Has the Government learned lessons from this, particularly concerning the administration and distribution of the refund scheme? How can it be ensured that what happened with PPARS will not happen with the nursing home refunds system?

Recently, there was the example of the Health Service Executive using some creative accountancy when it threw €50 million from capital funding into current expenditure. It did not inspire confidence. The final example is the disastrous deal negotiated by the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, for the residential institutions redress scheme. Initially it was to cost the taxpayer €200 million and the religious orders €100 million. It will now cost the taxpayer €1.1 billion. A series of mistakes has been made. I appreciate everyone can make a mistake. If the Fine Gael Party is in government in a year's time, I accept it will make mistakes. The challenge, however, is to recognise when a mistake is made and to learn from it. I am not convinced the Government has that capability. Will the Minister of State reassure this side of the House that it has learned from past mistakes in schemes?

The explanatory memorandum was too short, particularly in comparison with the speech of the Minister of State. A more detailed memorandum would have assisted Members to a better understanding the Bill.

The Minister stated the tendering for the contract for the design of the repayment scheme system was advertised. I have received information that there were serious difficulties with the process. I have made a freedom of information request on the process but I have to see whether it will reveal much. The Health Service Executive advertised in the latter half of 2005 with 11 expressions of interest received for the design and administration of the repayment scheme. This was short-listed to three. Following consideration of all the issues the initial procurement process was terminated in December 2005 as the executive considered the tenders unsuitable for several reasons, including value for money.

It was re-advertised and today the Minister of State informed the House that on 1 June a contract was awarded to a particular company. Will that company come in cheaper than the three short-listed companies? If it does not, a serious question hangs over the process. This is not just a concern on this side of the House. Deputy Glennon has put down a parliamentary question on the matter. There is much unease about why the procurement process was advertised, applications received, a shortlist of three created but then scrapped. I have made a freedom of information request but I am not confident about its results as FOI does not work well in the health area. There is an innuendo that one company, which the Health Service Executive preferred, did not apply initially. By cancelling the initial process, it may have suited that company. I will be pursuing this matter.

Could the tender process be open to a court challenge? Will there be a repeat of the events surrounding the awarding of the second mobile telephone licence to Esat? Those unsuccessful licence bidders challenged the basis of the award in court. A similar course of action in the repayment scheme would delay its administration and expose the taxpayer to further fallout.

I was amazed to hear the Minister of State say in the opening paragraph of his speech "This legislation must be passed at the earliest opportunity by the Oireachtas to ensure that those due a repayment receive it as soon as possible." It is amazing that 19 months later we are debating the Bill.

The Minister of State explained some of the preparatory working under way at present, even in advance of the firm getting the contract. Can he ensure that people who have applied for a refund would receive a simple letter acknowledging receipt of their claim and explaining the process to date? That should not be too difficult to organise. I receive many telephone calls, as I am sure does everyone in the House, from people who have applied for the funding who are not too sure where exactly they stand. At this stage I ask the Minister of State to ensure that those who have applied would get a letter updating them on the following: the appointment of a firm from 1 June; the preparatory work done by the Department; and the fact that priority will be given to those still living. Even that information would be of considerable benefit to those awaiting funding under the scheme.

It is shocking to think that people in their twilight years are being treated in this way by the Government. If this was any other scheme one would state that it was fair enough because people have time on their hands, but the people concerned are those in their twilight years, who do not have much time left and many will have passed away by the time they are awarded final compensation.

I ask the Minister of State to explain why it has taken over a year to prepare this legislation, particularly in light of the fact that in December 2004 the Government was capable of bringing in legislation overnight. As it happens, that legislation was flawed. The Government was capable of rushing that legislation through, yet it has taken it over a year to bring forward this legislation.

It took the HSE five months to advertise for the first tender for the provision of these services. Fine Gael has questioned why the HSE is unable to do so. Although the Minister of State skirted over that issue in his speech, it shows that the Government does not have confidence in the HSE administering the scheme. The HSE should be well able to perform this function. In his speech the Minister of State admitted the HSE has already managed ex gratia payments of over €20 million. Therefore, the Government is contradicting itself again, as usual. The Minister of State might refer to this in his reply.

The Minister of State spoke of this being a simple scheme and being user-friendly. I hope it will be but we must ensure that elderly people who apply——