Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)

That is fair enough. I did not request it. I would prefer an opportunity to deal with legislation as well as statements and we do not get that opportunity.

I understand that in the old days this House sat until 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. Perhaps it should return to that practice because, as an Opposition Deputy, I find it difficult to get chances to speak on many of the major issues outside my portfolio. I would welcome such opportunities. I rarely get 20 minutes, as is the case today, to speak on an issue. My point is that, notwithstanding Easter, it is the already the best part of a month since this matter was discussed. If the summer and winter recesses were shortened and brought in line with those of the UK Parliament, we might get business carried out a little more efficiently and would not be seen as a laughing stock by our colleagues across the water.

Although every Deputy, myself included, likes to be out working in the constituency, particularly as an election approaches, if I were out at a public meeting or knocking on doors and was told that I would get an opportunity to speak at 11 o'clock at night, I would gladly take it. As it is, I have my chance to speak now. The last time I contributed on this issue was during the debate on the Health (Amendment) Bill in March 2005. I outlined my disgust at the legislation, which was aimed at legalising the charging of elderly patients for their care through pension deductions. While this robbery has been legalised, the legislation concerns repayments to those against whom the robbery was deemed illegal.

I welcome the specific generalities of the Bill in that context but I have a number of queries, the first of which relates to the appointment of consultants. Is it a "Harneyism" that outside consultants must be appointed? Is it because of their relationship with big business that the Government parties must go the business route and they will not resource their own staff and teams adequately to address issues? A motivated, properly resourced team comprising officials from the HSE, the Department of Health and Children and other Departments would be more appropriate. Significant amounts of taxpayers' money has been wasted in the past on consultant reports. Consultants will be appointed in this instance to set up a scheme to repay the stolen moneys and, in that context, I welcome the move but is it logical to appoint external consultants? It is not enough to state it is such a complicated issue that consultants are needed. Deputy McManus referred to similar schemes such as that which addressed payments to married women. That was dealt with internally and I do not know why this issue cannot be addressed internally, as it would be more accountable.

I am reminded of my efforts to question the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism. More than 50% of the questions I tabled are referred to the Irish Sports Council, the Arts Council and Fáilte Ireland and the problem is such outside bodies are not accountable. Increasingly, the Government cannot be held to account by this Parliament because of the crammed legislative programme and its tendency to pass the buck. In this context, the buck has also been passed and it will be difficult to scrutinise the impact of the legislation when it is enacted.

In principle, I agree with the notion of legally reinstating the moneys to families and individuals from whom it was stolen. In March 2005 I stated it was an even greater sin, having known it was illegal and morally unjustifiable, to legalise the robbery. I said half jokingly that the Tánaiste and Minister of Health and Children and the Government were a bunch of robbing hoods and she was the Sheriff of Nottingham robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. The Government needs a few Robin Hoods and perhaps it will introduce fairer distribution in the taxation system rather than allowing high earners to get away scot free following the next election.

The people who were robbed contributed to the State's success over the years. Unfortunately, the Minister is not present because, as a constituency colleague, I would love to rub it in. The Progressive Democrats continually raises, as at its conference last weekend, the need to cut taxes. The economic sensibility of further tax cuts can be debated on another day but the Progressive Democrats, under McCreevy's system, has reduced taxes. Some argue it has worked well while others argue if they had opted for the Berlin model, we might have better public transport, health and education systems because revenue would be distributed more efficiently. The relevance of the Progressive Democrats commentary on the tax system and tax cuts is found in the poignancy of the creation of the Celtic tiger because the people who were robbed, who are very elderly or deceased, paid tax at the highest rates. They lived through the Charlie Haughey hairshirt period and the oil crises of 1973 and 1979. Young people do not know what is like to live through a crisis. Our elderly lived through the tough economic circumstances of the 1950s. They tried to benefit from the boom in the 1960s but there was another recession in the 1970s. Their blood, sweat and tears paid for my third level education and paid for young people to travel before returning to live and work in Ireland and earn high incomes. The elderly are being told, however, that they must pay for their health care. The system could have been organised totally differently but the opportunity was not taken.

While the lucky few will get their money back, which is welcome, as we go forward, countless thousands of others who paid tax at the highest rates but who are no longer working and are in receipt of a pension have been told their health care is in their own hands and their blood, sweat and tears was in vain. Deputy Durkan is nodding in agreement and I welcome his support because he is slightly older. I can only speak on the basis of the experience of my parents and grandparents, which is not quite the same. It is difficult to put oneself in somebody else's shoes. Any right thinking member of society would say that charging elderly people in nursing homes was daylight robbery. I reiterate my protestations about legalising such charges and I propose a number of alternatives.

As education spokesperson, I have pointed out repeatedly that the Government consistently fails to take into account the social and economic costs of its activities. When I raise issues about investment in education, the Minister for Education and Science asks whether I would like investment in special education needs to be cut back to pay for the McIver report or she says she may not roll-out educational welfare officers if class sizes are to be reduced. Investment in education, as highlighted by the High/Scope Perry preschool project, pays for itself. Similarly, preventative health care also pays for itself.

I do not know what it is like to be old and infirm but I have dealt with constituents who are. I was contacted by the relative of an 80 year old woman who had been told she would have to wait three years before she would be assessed by an occupational therapist and then she could apply for a grant for a shower unit. I kicked up and, in fairness to the HSE, it was pointed out that whoever spoke to the relative was incorrect and that a person over the age of 80 must only wait a year. Miraculously, because the issue was raised in the House, an occupational therapist slot was found within a few weeks. Politicians blow their own trumpets a great deal and claim this, that and the other but I do not claim I secured that slot for the woman, although some politicians would. However, if the error had not been brought to the attention of the HSE through this House and the media, which embarrassed the Government, that woman would not have her shower unit. I am approaching middle age and I am in the whole of my health. The health care system could be constructed in such a way so that those who get regular exercise and engage in a programme of preventative health care reap the benefits in later years. I am not just talking about the private system of insurance whereby if one engages in exercise, one gets reductions in health care insurance, but the actual health care system itself. Why is there no official scheme for rewarding people who engage in exercise? We have heard much about the medical card for those over 70, but what about some form of incentive for those who go to the gym? I read in Time magazine that the fastest growing age group for fitness and lifestyle issues is the over 60s. There is no reason a person over 60 cannot sweat through exercise as such a person will be healthier and will cost the taxpayer less in the long run. I keep referring to the costs of the system because the Progressive Democrats Party always looks at the bottom line. If we invest in preventative health care, money will be saved down the line.

An inter-agency approach needs to be taken by various Departments. For example, some of my constituents are involved in active retirement associations and it has been statistically proven that the more someone is involved, the more likely brain activity will continue and there will be lower instances of illnesses such as Alzheimer's and osteoarthritis. Active retirement associations that get involved in physical and intellectual activities should be applauded and encouraged. However, as staff costs in the vocational education committees rose last year, the charges also rose for retired people who wanted to sign up to art classes and fitness classes and so on. The Minister for Education and Science refused to provide any funding to pay for the increased costs. While some pensioners were able to absorb the cost, others on lower incomes were not so lucky. The threshold for the definition of a senior citizen moved from 55 to either 60 or 65.

The adage that the Government has been cutting taxes but getting at us by stealth is also true in respect of the elderly.

See this speech in context