Dáil debates
Wednesday, 27 September 2006
Care of the Elderly.
3:00 pm
Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
It is a national scandal that the State is failing to provide necessary services for older people. Even though some must scrimp and save to support themselves in their homes, the Government cruelly imposes VAT on the companies providing care services. These companies inevitably pass on this charge to the person who must pay to keep an elderly relative at home. Such people are being unfairly doubly charged. This points to the duplicity of the Government which, on one hand, encourages the private sector to provide services for older people which are its responsibility to provide, while, on the other hand, making it more difficult for older people to buy the service they are compelled to buy because the Government will not do so. It is absolutely ludicrous.
I am encouraged by the Minister of State's reply that he is reviewing the situation. Will he remove this inequity immediately? It is a crippling charge. The Government is not providing adequate home care for people who require that service. The available home care packages are limited. In particular, those who are trying their best to keep older relatives at home must not only provide the cost of paying a private company to do what the State will not do but also face the further cost of the VAT that is cruelly taken by the Government on that charge.
The Minister, Deputy Harney, encouraged these companies to provide these services, no doubt to satisfy the Progressive Democrats' private profit agenda. No mention was initially made that VAT at 13.5% would be charged for those services. Only those who are registered for VAT and have a VAT number, which is not the case for most of those looking after elderly relatives, can get that money back. "Liveline" listeners were lining up to talk about this issue and they have a strong case. I ask the Minister of State not merely to talk about reviewing the situation but to tell us whether the Government is committed to removing this inequitable charge.
No comments