Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)

This Bill offers the opportunity to discuss a major problem faced by Irish people, namely the age of our population. I cannot believe the Bill's provisions on means testing are not being opposed by my party. Throughout Ireland's history, people have always maintained that their home is their kingdom. This will be the only instance where the Government and its agencies will use the home as part of the means test. Senior citizens will be forced to have their houses evaluated before they can receive the care they need. It is unthinkable that a person may have worked a lifetime to obtain a family home and at the end, due to the necessity to sell their home, all the work done over the years and time and effort put into rearing their family in the family home may be put in jeopardy by this legislation.

There are other worrying aspects to this. In recent months, I dealt with the case of a woman who had to leave an excellent job in England to return to Ireland to care for her mother. While looking after her mother, who lived in a house that had been improved by her family over many years, the woman received the carers allowance but when she later began to suffer ill-health, her mother had to be moved to a nursing home. The woman was subsequently paid a disability allowance, which was lucky because, if she was not, the old legislation would have probably required the sale of the home to pay for the mother's care and, despite all the effort and time spent caring for her mother, the woman would have had to seek alternative accommodation.

This Bill does nothing to allow someone who spent a lifetime caring for a loved one to remain in the family home, yet everyone seems to agree on its importance. The other day, Deputy Ring criticised a different Bill as being difficult to understand. I find it difficult to understand how we can allow this Bill through the House without a vote on Second Stage. What will happen to the people who live in homes which they consider as their kingdoms? If the house is of a certain value, it may have to be sold when a family member needs care.

I cannot understand why we are being so selective in our decisions on who to exclude under the provisions of this Bill. It is not unusual that a relative could care for a loved one in the family home for 20 or 30 years without any payment, yet such a person is being excluded under this legislation because he or she is not a spouse or child of the applicant or a relative in receipt of disability or similar allowance. No heed is given to the relative who may have eked out an existence from a small family holding while also caring for loved ones. I hope, when this Bill is on Committee Stage, amendments are tabled to change that aspect of the means test because it is not acceptable in its present form to anyone who works with senior citizens.

Who is to determine long-term care? The care may be short-term from the point of view of the family concerned. The care recipient may improve through medical care to the point where he or she can return home. However, we are insisting on including this as part of the means test.

Yesterday, the Taoiseach lost his cool with Deputy Joe Higgins over the family home, yet today we are allowing this Bill to pass through the House. I wonder whether it is constitutional to allow the family home to be assessed in this manner. I will raise this matter with the Labour Party spokesperson on health and, if amendments are not brought, I will consider my response in terms of the amendments I can bring.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform admitted that he would like to charge senior citizens for their long stays in the general hospitals. I know people stay a long time because I have advised people to remain in hospitals because step down facilities were not available to them. They had no choice other than to try to go back to the family home where no one was in a position to care for them. There were two parts to the nursing home subvention. The first subvention amounted to €192 and it was divided into three so that if a person was fit enough to shave, for instance, he would not receive the maximum payment. Yet, can anyone show me one nursing home that would assess a person on that basis? If a person could say his brother-in-law or sister-in-law was mobile, would a nursing home say they would be charged less? It has not happened and it will not happen. The maximum fee is charged for everyone.

Enhanced subvention was later introduced, causing constant suffering for the unfortunate people who were trying to get the money together for care. It was a complex, pressurised situation because we did not have proper step-down facilities. There should be an orchestrated plan to provide step-down facilities rather than putting the family home, which is dear to everyone, under threat. This Bill places the family home under threat, and we can like it or lump it. I have raised it at Labour Party parliamentary party meetings and will continue to do so. I will table amendments to have this legislation changed in that regard. I ask the Minister of State to examine the relevant section as well.

St. Vincent's Hospital, Athy, should be developed to allow more step-down beds. A great team works there and the facilities of the wheelchair association, sheltered housing and a day care centre are available. It is an ideal location to link with Naas General Hospital and provide step-down facilities for senior citizens who will probably return to the family home.

The Minister of State should also consider those excluded by the means test. There is no logic to the treatment of the case I mentioned. After leaving a good job in England to return to Ireland, a woman became ill while caring for her mother. She was fortunate to be in receipt of disability allowance, otherwise the family home would have had to be sold. If she had been in receipt of the carer's allowance, the family home would have been sold because of its value and the inability of this society to care for a person in those circumstances.

See this speech in context