Given the day it is, the Government has the full support of the Fine Gael Party regarding the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. I have said on many previous occasions that we may have differences regarding other issues. However, this is an important day and perhaps the Tánaiste might give the House an update on what is happening.

Yesterday I asked the Taoiseach a question regarding people over 70 who are in long-stay public beds and the advice offered by the Attorney General to the Government, which has been in its possession for some six weeks. The Tánaiste is aware that it was the Government's intention to introduce a Bill before Christmas. That will not happen until the new year. The Taoiseach said the regulations governing this issue date from 1976. They do not, however, deal with the persons to whom I refer. The question is whether the legal advice offered by the Attorney General indicated that the taking of payments from the over 70s in long-stay public beds is illegal. Newspapers report that there is a liability of up to €400 million. Perhaps the Tánaiste would clarify the position.

I thank Deputy Kenny for his good wishes to the Government and all the parties in the effort to find a resolution of the current vacuum in the peace process and for the offer of support from the Fine Gael Party. I very much appreciate that. The Deputy asked for an update. It would be wrong to assume that the only outstanding issue is that of photographic verification. It is also important to acknowledge that the Government supported others in their quest to have photographs published. We have seen many photographs published of dreadful atrocities and many videos used for propaganda purposes. Humiliation works both ways.

Regarding people over 70 in long-stay public beds, I have made it clear to Deputy Kenny that a couple of weeks ago I sought the advice of the Attorney General who said it would be legally safer to have primary legislation in this area than to rely on regulations. Legislation is being drafted. I hoped to introduce it in the House before Christmas, but I hope it will be with the Government either next week or immediately after Christmas and brought through the House after Christmas. It would be wrong to assume that what happened was the fault of anyone. Any moneys taken were taken in good faith. The Attorney General is simply saying that if we are going to take a contribution towards board and lodgings from people in public institutions then, in order to be safe and secure, we should introduce primary legislation. That is what we intend to do.

I thank the Tánaiste for her remarks on the issues I raised. Does she mean that the payments taken from those over 70 over the past number of years will be repaid retrospectively if the advice of the Attorney General is that they were taken illegally, through nobody's specific fault? If that is the case, will the primary legislation introduced in the new year make provision for retrospective payments, as did the IFSRA findings regarding the AIB and its customers? Will the patients in question, or their next of kin in some cases, be compensated in respect of payments made under the regulation?

One cannot compare the two situations. Any moneys taken were taken in good faith and the Attorney General has advised that this is not an issue. What he is saying is that in order to be certain as we go forward we need primary legislation. Clearly if such an issue arose between the time we became aware of the difficulties, in other words, from when we got the Attorney General's advice, and the time new legislation is enacted, we would have to deal with that. However, that has not yet arisen. I am awaiting legal advice on that matter, but I hope to be able to publish the proposal very quickly and will make it available to the Opposition as quickly as I can.

I join Deputy Kenny in wishing the Taoiseach well in today's endeavours. I confess that I am a little taken aback by the Tánaiste's remark that it should not be assumed that all that remains at issue is the question of photographic verification of decommissioning. I was under that impression, given that the Taoiseach said at Question Time yesterday that there was one outstanding issue and all the media reports are to the same effect. I am not quite sure that I understand the Tánaiste's remark. However, the Labour Party wishes the Government success in its important endeavours.

I want to ask a question regarding the 200,000 people who now face the prospect of increased drugs bills and increased accident and emergency charges on 1 January while still having to pay €40 or more to visit a doctor. This comes about because the changes announced in the budget are to be implemented on 1 January, whereas the yellow-pack medical card, the doctor only medical card, may require primary legislation or other administrative changes which the Government is not yet ready to bring before the House.

I draw the attention of the Tánaiste to the drugs refund threshold spiral in recent years. On 1 June 1997, it was €38; on 1 June 2002, it was €53; on 1 December 2004 or from 1 January 2005, it will be €85. That is an increase of €47 per month or 123% since 1997. The accident and emergency charge increased from €15 in 1997 to €31 in June 2002 and will increase to €55 on 1 January 2005. That is an increase of 261% in that period. Of course, the cost of VHI has increased by 100% since 1997 and will rise again by approximately 5% following the increase of 25% in the cost of private beds. All of those increases will go ahead on 1 January next. People will have to pay to visit a doctor because the Tánaiste's legislation will not be before the House. Will the Tánaiste respond on this and state whether, at a minimum, she will postpone the implementation of the charges until such time as the yellow pack cards are legislated for?

Some 1.2 million people do not or will not have to pay any drug charges. The increase is €7 per month, whereas in the United Kingdom the charge is £6.20 sterling per prescription, which is approximately €10. Some 30% of those who visit a doctor never acquire a prescription. Therefore, in making choices for next year, the Government decided to extend the doctor only card to as many low income families as possible, particularly those with children.

This does not require primary legislation, only the signing of a statutory instrument, which I intend to do immediately. Obviously, we must advertise and seek applications. It is normal, when one is extending a service on a different basis, that this would take a number of weeks into the following year. It will probably be the end of February or the beginning of March before people begin to receive the doctor only cards.

Given that the Tánaiste now admits that the doctor only card will not be introduced until the end of February or the beginning of March and having regard to the fact that we waited 18 months for the Bill on the restructuring of the health services, it is obvious the Tánaiste should not implement the increases on 1 January. It is well for her to talk about the increase being only €7 and so on, but I detailed the figures. There has been rapid escalation since 1997 in costs associated with visits to accident and emergency units, the drugs refund threshold and VHI. However, the Tánaiste intends that where people on very low incomes do not qualify for a free visit to the doctor, they will also be charged increases on the drugs refund threshold, including in the event of them having to visit accident and emergency. The simple solution is that until such time as the legislation goes through the House, the new increases ought not to be implemented.

I do not accept that. As I stated, the current position is that 1.2 million people, a considerable number, will pay no drugs bill. The doctor only card will be of great benefit to low income families with children who want reassurance from a doctor and want the opportunity to visit a doctor without having to worry about the cost. Charges have increased but the taxpayers' investment in health care has increased by an even greater margin, to over €11 billion next year, which is threefold the amount available seven years ago.

The poor pay.

Health care is expensive and we must make choices.

The health service is inefficient.

In most countries, people must pay all along the line, including those at the very bottom who must make a small contribution towards prescriptions. In the UK, one must pay £6.20 sterling, approximately €10, for each prescription.

What has that to do with the issue?

We do not live in the UK.

What of Boston and Berlin?

The UK only has the NHS.

The Tánaiste without interruption, please.

: They do on the NHS.

What has that to do with the increases here?

This is Deputy Rabbitte's question. Only Deputy Rabbitte is entitled to ask a supplementary question.

We are looking for answers.

The Government has limited resources available to it and it makes choices based on those resources.

The Government said that money was coming out its ears.

Most have welcomed the doctor only card and there is huge interest in it among the public.

They will not get it.

They will get it as quickly as possible.

Independent Deputies and socialist Deputies-——

They are not all socialist.

We are united, Deputy Hayes.

Deputy Joe Higgins is not on his own.

Deputy Conor Lenihan ran out of steam last night.

——have constituents travelling from around the country this morning to bring a message to Government. They are from the 8,000 post office workers who have been left with no choice but to strike for basic justice and workers' rights. How does the Tánaiste justify standing over a situation where workers on very modest incomes have been denied any wage increases whatsoever under Sustaining Progress, the so-called partnership deal?

Five weeks ago, on Leaders' Questions, the Taoiseach agreed with me that there was an important social element to the An Post service and no more so than in regional towns, villages and remote country areas where the post office is part of the social fabric of life. Despite this, there is a proposal to privatise approximately 100 sub-post offices. The Government outrageously put its hands in the pockets of ordinary post office workers and, even more scandalously, in the pockets of post office pensioners to subsidise and finance this service. Why is the Government prepared to allow this to happen? Why is An Post management, which has no credibility due to the way it has dealt with its workers and broken agreements, given carte blanche to walk all over the rights of post office workers, to break agreements with impunity and treat workers in a way that gives the lie to any concept of so-called partnership?

Is this a question or a statement?

Will the Tánaiste stand over this disgraceful abuse of workers, for which she will be responsible, as she will be for any inconvenience caused to customers today as a result of this unavoidable action? What investment does the Government propose to make in the social fabric that is the An Post service?

Is it a social service or a business?

The workers have not fully exhausted the industrial relations machinery of the State. Some 10,000 staff work in the postal service. In the past, agreements have been made but productivity has not been forthcoming. In the past couple of years, the postal service has lost €90 million. Last year, the volume of mail dropped by approximately 7%. We are moving to a situation in which by 2009, as Deputy Joe Higgins is aware, there will be full liberalisation in this area. The reality is that the company cannot pay if it is not able to do so. All social partnership agreements provide an out for companies that do not have the ability to pay, which is the position in regard to An Post.

That is as helpful as the Tánaiste was yesterday fumbling around the Christmas tree that refused to light.

We could have done with a handyman like the Deputy.

He was not invited.

We could put Deputy Higgins on the top of the tree.

Allow the Deputy to speak. He has only one minute.

Not a penny of investment has been made by the State in the postal side of services. That can be contrasted with the following. A handful of rich parasites from the highest paid echelons of business, the medical profession and the legal profession recently bought land in Stillorgan for €31 million. Only four years later, they sold it for an obscene profit of €53 million. Their contribution to society is that working people will slave for 30 years to pay mortgages on the houses that will be built on the land to make this profit, which puts these bastions of the establishment, in my view, on the same level as heroin pushers who we usually regard as anti-social scum.

Is this a question or a further statement?

The Deputy's time is concluded.

However, when the Government halved capital gains tax, it handed these speculators a direct subsidy of €10 million. The Government subsidises a handful of social parasites but treats thousands of men and women working in the postal service, who drag themselves from their beds at 5 a.m. on dark, wintry mornings to keep our social services going, with absolute contempt and ignores them.

The Deputy's time is concluded.

Will the Government stand by workers' rights? Will it make the necessary investment available so they can provide the services needed in our society? Will it give them their wage increases?

The best investment would be if both sides would work together to find a resolution through the industrial relations machinery of the State. It is not the case that no investment has been made in the postal service. Some €12.7 million was invested in computerisation just over one year ago. The Government remains committed to a successful postal service but that requires everybody to implement agreements reached and to use whatever industrial relations machinery is available to resolve difficulties of the kind the Deputy mentioned.

That is a pathetic response.