Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)

I am glad to speak on this Bill, which is a little like a curate's egg, having both good and bad parts. There are many good things in it. The changes to the carer's allowance and carer's benefit are very welcome. The removal of the situation where a person is caring for two people but cannot receive the grant in respect of both care recipients is also extremely welcome.

There are many good things in this regard but the difficulty is that the benefit is still means-tested. Often carers are older people looking after another older person, for example, their life partner. There can be situations where carers look after people in great need of care and the carers themselves are often those who seem to lose out compared with where they would be if they were not doing that job, which the State could in no way take over. It is a mark of the strong campaign by the groups Caring for Carers and the Carers Association that there have been such changes, and I welcome what the Minister has done in that regard. I hope that it will continue.

If the means test situation had been removed, a person caring for someone could be assured of the allowance. The other anomaly, which we see every day, is that people who get one social welfare allowance cannot receive another. That is a major problem that I see all the time. People care for older people at home where, without their help, the people in question would certainly be in institutions.

Sometimes we must ask ourselves the stage that we have reached as a society. It seems to me that we are sometimes so bogged down in systems that we may forget what they are really about. Someone involved with people, as anyone in a caring profession would be, must see at first hand the real problems that exist. It is something I believe everyone strives for, namely, to have a system that best suits the needs of the people. Otherwise, what is the point of it? Often the system just seems to take over and decides what allowances or resources will be given to a person, whereas a more needs and rights-based assessment system is what everyone aspires to move towards. As a society, we have neglected people who may not have had the power base or voice they should have had. I refer in particular to those with disabilities or special needs as well as to the older population.

Everyone knows that our population is getting older, something that has happened elsewhere in Europe. I suppose that we exported many of our older people who are now in England and elsewhere. They are not drawing down the pensions they would have had they remained in this country. We have got away on the cheap. It is obvious that our pension payout is low by European standards. We should be aware that a debt is owed to our older people at home and abroad. Perhaps that should make us realise that, particularly given the Supreme Court decision yesterday, older people have been treated very badly. We owe them a debt that must be paid.

It is time for the Government to take a fresh look on a cross-departmental basis at how we support older people. Much lip-service has been paid to supporting them in the community to stay in their own home, but the translation of resources has meant that people have been unable to do that. As a general practitioner, I am only too well aware of the sad, silent migration of older people to institutions. Anything that we can do to reverse the situation must certainly be done, but that will require changes and a commitment to resources.

The sum that will be paid out owing to the Supreme Court decision is between €500 million and €2 billion. That is a great deal of money. If even a fraction had been provided for older people's services, circumstances would be different. The same effort put by the Government parties into ensuring that there is no opportunity for older people to get their just rewards and claim back the money stolen from them should be put into legislation to ensure that they might remain in their own communities. After all, we are all getting older and we will prefer not to leave our areas and, instead, remain in our communities. If we could ensure that the same effort shown by the Government in introducing the Health (Amendment) Bill 2004 were put into rights-based legislation for older people, imagine what a wonderful society we would have. Those are not impossible tasks.

On the question of home helps, in the past people had great difficulty getting a sufficient number of home help hours. It would have been a cost effective measure to ensure people had a sufficient number of hours because it would have allowed elderly relatives to remain in their own homes and in the community. There has been a difficulty in that regard, however, and whether that difficulty lies with the health boards or the Department is a moot point. The bottom line is that resources have not been available from Government. Trying to secure an adequate number of home help hours is something I and other public representatives have been engaged in on an ongoing basis, and also the provision of aids and appliances. That is an area on which we have been very remiss in terms of supporting older people in their own communities.

A sea change is required in this area and one sure way of achieving that is to ensure we put in place some type of rights based legislation. I call on the Government to address the situation with the same vigour it addressed the problem of trying to prevent the pay-back of the money owed to our older people.

People in the community have the facilities and the potential to do much important work but our system appears to favour people who want to make money out of the system. They are profit driven and non-community people. Why do our laws appear to favour those who build profit driven, non-community nursing homes rather than allow communities do that? There is great potential in communities, and awareness of the needs of older people, to engage in such projects on a non-profit making basis. The odds are stacked against communities engaging in projects to support older people in their own communities, and that should change.

The same applies to people looking for housing. I meet many people in my clinic who are looking for basic accommodation which is not available to them. If there is even a whisper of houses being allocated in, say, some new development, one spends days meeting people and making representations on behalf of one's constituents. They all have basic but important needs and it is difficult to meet those people and know that no matter what happens, they will not be looked after. Some of them have been on waiting lists for a long time. It is time we examined that problem as a society.

There is a difficulty in acquiring land yet land is acquired for various private enterprises and so on. There are many voluntary housing associations available to build houses but there is a difficulty in getting the land. Funds are available under the capital assistance scheme where housing associations can get money but there is much bureaucracy involved in that. Also, the money being allocated is not sufficient to allow the targeted numbers to be reached. There is a major problem in that regard.

There are many measures the Government could take. This Bill is a step forward but it is insufficient. Our carers need to be supported. It is a question of being penny wise and pound foolish. The State could not possibly do the job being done by carers. The Minister has gone a long way in the Bill but he could go much further.

See this speech in context