I welcome the delegation from New South Wales, whose colleagues from Tasmania were here yesterday.

I would like to raise the issue of today's announcement of the repayment by the Government of illegal charges taken from thousands of patients in public nursing homes in long-stay beds over a long number of years. I seek assurances from the Taoiseach. First, as this matter was discovered in this House, having been raised by Deputy Perry, myself and others on several occasions, will the Tánaiste announce the detail of how the Government intends to deal with this in the House? Second, how long will that process take? I understand that 20,000 are to be paid promptly and another 40,000 in respect of the estates involved before the introduction of the Statute of Limitations, to which I will come later. Third, can the Taoiseach assure us that there will be no need to apply for compensation regarding charges? When overpayment in respect of drugs was discovered — the €2,000ex gratia payment referred to by the Tánaiste — the initial decision was that it should be paid only to those who applied, although the Government later relented.

How long will it take, when will the Supplementary Estimate be introduced, and for how much will it be? Are the Taoiseach and the Government satisfied that they are not entering into an area of grave constitutional difficulties regarding the introduction of a Statute of Limitations?

Deputy Kenny raised several questions. We will announce the scheme's full details today, dealing with all aspects that have come to light to date. I have been part of a Cabinet sub-committee with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, and the Attorney General. We have met several times to discuss making this an easy, transparent process that is facilitative and not adversarial. We are trying to make it as simple as possible and have examined the best ways to make payments.

Records do not exist in all cases; that is an important point. In many of the hospitals and institutions there do not seem to be many records at all, so the process will not be easy. We are considering the use of an outside agency with experience in mass claims. Many of them exist, since this has happened elsewhere. It will take time and require a legislative base. That legislation is now being prepared. I have no doubt that more cases will arise over time that will require examination, but in the last number of months a wide range of claims has come in on the telephone line regarding different aspects. We have tried to cover all those in today's announcement.

Paying back exactly the amount that people paid may be burdensome rather than easy. One of the things that we examined, which will be in today's document, is giving 80% of the contributory pension claim to try to ease payments. We have considered how we can do it in the most efficient way possible. It will take time, and if money is required this year, a Supplementary Estimate will have to be made. However, before the process is set up, we will have to tender for a claims group to do it. It will obviously have to work under the guidance of the HSE, however. If that legislation is passed in the autumn I do not envisage a great amount being paid out this year. However, it should be up and running on a full-year basis next year to deal with claims.

Will it be paid before the election?

It will take some years.

Deputy Kenny's last point concerned constitutional aspects. The Attorney General has been involved throughout, and there are many legal issues. One cannot be certain in such instances that people will not challenge decisions, but in so far as we have been advised, we have tried to protect that as much as we can.

How much does the Taoiseach expect the Supplementary Estimate to be for —€500 million, €1 billion or more? Second, does the Statute of Limitations apply to those in psychiatric institutions or those who have been in long-stay beds who suffer from intellectual disabilities? Third, why is it necessary to introduce a specific statute for this type of claim, which is quite unusual, in that public institutions and bodies are involved, obviously with the consent of the Department? Section 71 of the Statute of Limitations 1957 deals with the general law in Ireland. Is there no likelihood of claims that the Government was involved in a fraudulent State cover-up? In February 1987, the late John Boland, then Minister for Health, introduced and had Government approval for proposals to deal with the illegality, but that was subsequently dropped by the incoming Government in March of that year, in which the current Ceann Comhairle was Minister for Health.

The Ceann Comhairle should not be drawn into debate on the floor of the House.

The Ceann Comhairle is not being drawn into the debate. When he was Minister for Health, the Ceann Comhairle was part of an Administration that dropped proposals from a previous Government which had dealt with this matter and would have put in on a legal basis. How can the Government introduce a Statute of Limitations for six years back when the Government of 1987 knew these charges were illegal and that the preceding Government had a proposal to deal with them? Is the Government not entering into an area of grave constitutional difficulties? The Taoiseach told us before Christmas——

The Deputy's time is long concluded and I ask him to give way to the Taoiseach.

——that the Act introduced by the Tánaiste was constitutional but the Supreme Court shot that down. How certain is he, based on the advice of the Attorney General, that what he is now doing will stand up? How is it that the Cabinet could last week approve money for two State drivers for the Fianna Fáil Leader of the Seanad——

I ask Deputy Kenny to give way to the Taoiseach.

——but refuses to deal with these cases?

Finally, in the case of many patients——

The Deputy may not ask any more questions.

——their probate was not taken out. Will the Government force people to take out probates before they apply for compensation in respect of these charges?

Deputy Kenny is being disorderly.

I will resist the temptation to go back to 1976 and talk about all those involved in this issue. It is more important than that.

The issue was dealt with in 1987 and approved by the then Cabinet.

The Estimate is approximately €850 million which will be paid out over a number of years. There is no question of fraud in the judgment of the Supreme Court, which I am sure Deputy Kenny read. Although there are several categories for which this arises, the six-year rule will not generally apply for persons of unsound mind because they were not in a position to deal with this situation. We have endeavoured to deal with the matter as carefully as we can but this does not protect from the possibility of people taking cases or actions under some particular area.

We have followed the Supreme Court judgment and the Attorney General's advice. I said some weeks ago I was not certain whether legislation would be required for certain categories of patients. The advice is that there are several categories to which payment could be made without legislation. However, to cover all the categories that have come to light — Deputies will see today it is quite a detailed and extensive list — these particular categories must be covered by legislation. We have been advised that primary legislation is the best way of dealing with this.

The Government has set out to ensure the process is facilitative for the public rather than adversarial and that it is one where speed and due process are important. We already have the ex gratia scheme which will be taken into account. The scheme will be announced today and the legislation will be prepared. If it is deemed to be the best approach to deal with the issue effectively, we will tender for a claims agency. There are many such agencies in Europe and the United States which have dealt effectively with similar issues. It will take some considerable time. I emphasise that we are talking about public patients in the various institutions. The scheme does not cover the categories of private patients in other institutions.

I come back this morning to the case of the O'Hara family. I understand the Health Service Executive is in discussions with the family about a care package. Until this is concluded, I will not return to yesterday's further misrepresentation by the Taoiseach.

On the issue raised by Deputy Kenny, I point to the question of political accountability for this scandal. The Taoiseach did not answer the question about how much the scheme will cost but the spinners he put out, after he refused to answer questions about it in the Dáil, said it will cost €1 billion. Is this the case or will it cost more or less than that? What is the Taoiseach's response in terms of his political accountability for the issue of illegal nursing home charges?

The Minister, Deputy Martin, claims he got the brief on this matter but did not read it. We know the two Ministers of State at his then Department read it and we know his advisors were present and that they now say they did not read it. In respect of the critical missing file that was referred to the Attorney General and about which we were told there was a conflict of evidence, we now have the evidence of a principal officer. Mr. Hardy makes clear it was his understanding the letter had gone to the office of the Minister. Moreover, he told the committee that "everybody else in the Department was of the same view".

More pertinently, we now have an e-mail from the workshare partner of the person who prepared the file for the Attorney General. She says in this e-mail, which did not find its way into the Travers report, that she was called in my Mr. Michael Corban in the Minister's office. Of this meeting she says:

He remarked that the issue seemed complicated and he asked me if I would explain it to him. My understanding was that he was about to give the submission to the Minister and wanted to be able to explain generally what it was about. As far as I recall, I said something along the lines that it was about the need to change legislation but that the Minister would need to read the submission for himself as it was quite detailed.

That did not get into the Travers report and if it did——

It did.

It did not.

There was a conflict of interest in respect of this evidence. Deputy Rabbitte has only one agenda in this matter.

I ask the Minister to allow Deputy Rabbitte to continue without interruption.

Deputy Rabbitte is lying.

Now listen to them.

The Ministers are rattled.

The Minister, Deputy Martin, is responsible in this matter. His only defence is that he did not read the briefing document. Mr. Kelly lost his job but it is the Minister who should have lost his job. If he had an ounce of respect for his office, he would now tender his resignation.

That is what Deputy Rabbitte wants.

That is what the Minister should do.

Deputy Rabbitte seems not to be asking me a question but to be making a statement. The Travers report is a comprehensive examination of all the facts. The report is being examined comprehensively before a joint oireachtas committee and people are giving their evidence. Deputy Rabbitte knows many of the issues he raises are dealt with fully in the report. The Deputy wants to make a political judgment in respect of those aspects. Everybody can study the report and the evidence. I will attempt neither to rewrite the Travers report nor to put a political spin on the evidence which has been heard by the committee.

Deputy Rabbitte began by raising the figure of €1 billion. It is not precisely known how many will respond to the scheme. The Tánaiste's latest figure is €850 million but we cannot know how many claims will come in, for what periods, for what amounts and all other relevant data until the scheme is in place. The cost could well go to €1 billion and we will have to make supplementary provision for that.

That Minister is getting his payback.

Somebody should quiet that poltroon.

In the words of a United States Senator, "a billion here and a billion there and soon you are talking big money". This Government has no regard for money.

That is very funny. We get value for money while the Labour Party had no such success.

The Minister, Deputy O'Dea, should allow Deputy Rabbitte to continue without interruption.

Wee Willie Winkie runs through the town. Upstairs, downstairs in his nightgown.

Deputy Rabbitte is the Woody Allen of Marxism.

I advise the Minister that the Chair will have to treat him like any other Deputy who is disorderly.

The Ceann Comhairle should be careful in case the Minister writes about him next Sunday.

Deputy Rabbitte should be allowed to continue without interruption.

We are talking about persons in nursing homes who were illegally charged by the Government at a cost to the taxpayer of what the Taoiseach now says could be €1 billion. We have a Minister in office who was provided with this legal advice in a comprehensive brief from the South Eastern Health Board and he did not bother to read it.

That is not the case.

That is his defence and it is completely unbelievable. We now find from the evidence being presented before the committee and from the e-mail I have read that the critical report which was prepared for referral to the Attorney General to advise the Government, a file that heretofore had gone missing, that could not be explained and which led to the removal of the Secretary General of the Department, was in the Minister's office.

We do not find that.

I ask the Minister——

On a point of order, we do not find that. The committee has not found that.

The person whose work partner prepared the file——

Deputy Rabbitte's minute has concluded.

——was asked to explain it to Michael Corban so that he could explain it to the Minister. The basis was that legislation would be required to put it right. Now we know that it was he who was culpable and not Michael Kelly. Will there be any political accountability in this House for a scandal which, by the Taoiseach's own admission, has cost the taxpayer €1 billion?

What did the late Brendan Corish of the Labour Party do?

Is Willie standing up?

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

The late Brendan Corish knew what John Boland was signing; he was aware of the situation——

Perhaps Deputy O'Dea should give evidence.

He thinks he is down at the Sunday Independent.

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

I endeavoured to respond seriously to what Deputies Kenny and Rabbitte raised in regard to nursing home charges and to state that we are trying to deal with the issue in a comprehensive way. I know Deputy Rabbitte really wants to talk about the Travers report. I cannot rewrite the Travers report, so there is no point getting into it. I will not get into the arguments. Deputy Rabbitte is making a political point that if all this had been resolved in the past year or two, it would have meant all that happened since 1976 would not have happened. He knows that is nonsense. The intelligent public knows that if this had been sorted out a year ago——

The Government is responsible for nothing.

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

If it had been sorted out a year ago, it might have cost €800 million as opposed to €850 million. That is not the point. The fact is that from 1976 when the late and great Brendan Corish was Minister for Health, problems arose as a result of this. Several Ministers from both sides of the House were involved since. We must solve what the Supreme Court said. Throwing the issue around and trying to claim the €1 billion cost arose under the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, is really a waste of time. It is not even smart politics.