The Supreme Court will today rule on the constitutionality of the Bill which allows the Government to deduct charges from the pensions of State care recipients.
The Health Amendment (No 2 Bill) was rushed through the Oireachtas before Christmas after the Attorney General advised that the practice of making such deductions was illegal.
The President, Mrs McAleese, referred it to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality after a meeting with the Council of State.
The Bill requires elderly people in care to pay up to 80 per cent of their pensions towards their nursing home bills.
It would regularise the practice of imposing charges for long-stay in-patient services and provide that the charges may be imposed on medical card holders. It prohibits legal actions for recovery of the charges unless they were initiated by December 14th last, and gives retrospective sanction to deductions made in the past to ensure nobody can claim a refund.
In what it called a 'gesture of goodwill', the Government decided that those illegally charged in the past would be given €2,000 each.
The Bill brought a storm of criticism from opposition parties and organisations caring for the elderly.
The Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, stated that health boards were obliged to provide nursing-home care for all, and provide it free of charge to medical card holders.
The seven-judge Supreme Court conducted a three-day hearing at the end of January.
Mr Eoghan Fitzsimons SC, arguing against the Bill, said it aimed at making legal the unlawful practice over some 30 years of charging holders of medical cards for long-term care in nursing homes. It breached the rights to life, to human dignity, to bodily integrity and to equality before the law of some of our most vulnerable citizens.
The right to life encompassed the right of people who could not otherwise look after themselves to be maintained by the State free of charge in an institution until they died, he said.
Mr Dermot Gleeson SC, for the State, argued that the legislation was proportional and was required by the common good.
The State contended the public interest served by the Bill was that of avoiding "immense financial problems" by not seeking to turn back the hands of the financial clock. It also disputed claims that the Bill constituted an unjust attack on property rights, or interfered with the administration of justice.
If the court finds the Bill unconstitutional the Government will have to redraft it. If found to be constitutional it will be immune from any challenge in the future.
Some €2 million a week has gone uncollected since the AG advised the Government.