Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 11, line 11, to delete "Executive," and substitute the following:

"Executive, and

(iii) except in exceptional circumstances, not sooner than 12 months after the commencement of the payment of a relevant subvention,".

Every opportunity should be taken to discuss the Bill in as much detail as possible. The aim of the amendment is to enable the HSE to allow patients to receive a subvention for a specific period. The difficulty is that the payment of a subvention can be queried almost within months of a patient receiving it. Subventions should not be reviewed for a certain period of time. They should be treated like medical cards which can be issued for three to six months. If a subvention is reviewed soon after it is given because information has been provided for the HSE which might not be true, it makes matters difficult for the patient involved.

Many of the amendments are based on the one issue. I am disappointed the Minister of State is not reciprocating in any way with this side of the House. The Minister, Deputy Harney, stated that under the new policy no one would be forced to sell his or her house and that the HSE would not implement existing rules in such a way that people would lose their homes. This appeared on the website of Age Action Ireland.

The Taoiseach implied that funding for the care of the elderly in the future had already been decided and that discussions had taken place with mythical stakeholders. I previously asked the Minister of State to identify these mythical stakeholders who had already decided it was perfectly valid to take the homes of elderly people in order to pay for their private nursing home care. He did not answer the question. It is clear that the words of the Minister to the effect that houses will not be taken from elderly people will have no value in years to come because they do not have any value today. We have already pointed out that patients are being forced to sell their homes to pay for their nursing home care. Therefore, her words have zero value.

What will matter is legislation; that is what we are discussing. The measly words of the Minister, the Minister of State and the Taoiseach will mean nothing when it is passed. Will the Minister of State indicate who are the stakeholders with whom he had discussions and who agreed that homes should be taken from elderly people? As he did not discuss the issue with anybody on this side of the House, it is clear that the stakeholders are not on this side. Who are they? Age Action Ireland stated its group was not involved and that it was against the legislation. With whom has the Minister of State had discussions? Who decided that homes would be taken from elderly people to fund their care? We now know this is Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats policy but we do not know with whom it was agreed. Fianna Fáil brings in everybody to discuss matters. It brings in IBEC and the trade unions. The elderly people who are engaged in this discussion would like to know who is representing them who allowed this proposal to go forward. It is most important that the Minister of State answers this question.

We are aware the Government parties have no respect for the Dáil. They will be backtracking when this measure is reflected in the opinion polls. It will be suggested not much will be taken from elderly people but there will be a difference between what the parties will state in their general election manifestoes and what is contained in the legislation. The Minister can write on any website she wishes, including that of Fianna Fáil, that she will not take anybody's home, but it is already happening. Her words and those of the Minister of State have no value. What matters is the legislation. This is different from regulations which can be and were interpreted differently by the CEO. Believe it or not, in the past ten months, when we knew the legislation would be brought forward, the HSE has been more inclined to stop elderly patients receiving subventions.

The subvention rates have been the same since 2001 and there have been no discussions to increase them. An attempt to increase them might be made once the Government copperfastens the arrangements to deprive a large percentage of elderly people of the right to receive a subvention.

The Minister of State must answer the questions asked. I asked about the figure of 5% as far back as 11 May in my Second Stage speech. The Minister of State avoided that question completely until he attempted to explain the situation in a press release issued before he was due to speak on "The Last Word" with Matt Cooper on 12 October. No attempt was made to explain it clearly in the House. While he is here, will he indicate who are the stakeholders with whom he discussed the issue and who agreed to allow legislation under which the homes of elderly people would be taken from them to pass through the House? He should do so without further prevarication.

Families will have some job in obtaining a subvention under this legislation as the Government will take everything into account and ensure families will have to go to a solicitor to sign off or risk being locked up in jail for a couple of months. If a family does succeed in obtaining a subvention, the elderly person concerned will deserve to receive it and hold on to it for a few months.

See this speech in context