Ulick Burke (Galway East, Fine Gael)

Anybody who fails to recognise the anger of the many elderly people who protested outside the gates of Leinster House and on the streets of Dublin in the recent past misses the whole point of the need for this legislation. It is unprecedented that a Government would introduce legislation to withdraw a service to the elderly — those over 70 — regardless of the times that are in it. If the present Government cannot find areas other than the withdrawal of medical cards and associated services in which to make savings of €100 million, we know it must have scant regard for the elderly.

The Minister of State spoke about savings. Earlier this afternoon I heard the statement of the Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, in which she diverged from her prepared script and indulged herself by mentioning statements made by other Members of the House — usually this side of the House — ten to 12 years ago on the availability of medical cards. One wonders whether she considered the waste of time and energy for the officials who had to research that information. She probably has such a large number of support staff within her Department that she could waste their time to make a political point.

What is the actual cost of the implementation of this legislation when one considers drawing up the legislation and the changes that must be implemented as a result? We learned from the Minister's speech when she introduced this legislation to the House on Second Stage that there are now three sets of conditions and criteria for special categories of the over 70s. The people who are to implement this on the ground are already confused by statements issuing from on high and from all sorts of places when they are assessing people, legitimately, for medical cards. The Minister of State said he remembered the discretion allowed by health boards. We all remember that. Where is the discretion today when cancer patients in this country are being refused access to the services provided by a medical card, regardless of their age? If that is not the nail in the coffin for many people I do not know what is. Now the Minister of State is talking about withdrawal of medical cards from the elderly. Every single Government speaker on Second Stage has stated that 95% of people will retain the medical card. That statement is inconsistent because the Minister of State has said in his contribution that the majority of people would retain the card. In a matter of four or five pages, the number has been reduced from 95% of people being more or less guaranteed retention of the medical card to that of a bare majority. There is not a scintilla of proof available from anybody, including the Minister of State, with regard to how many people will benefit and how many people will lose out. It is certain that far more than 5% of those currently holding a medical card will lose them. To cap all that, it is stated in section 4 of the Bill that entitlement may be index-linked. Surely if the Minister wanted it to be index-linked she would use the phrase, "It will be" index-linked on 1 September each year. This will not happen as it is only a notion that could or might happen; it is not a guarantee that it will happen. Many more people will, after a year or two, lose out and will be beyond the income limits.

The Minister of State referred to the example of where a spouse dies. If a person is just one single euro over the limit, he or she will lose that facility. The limit is €700 for a single person and €1,400 for a couple. I hope somebody in the Department looked at this before the Government included this provision in the budget. I am certain the majority of people on public service pensions would lose the medical card. I refer to retired nurses, gardaí and teachers who will probably lose out as a consequence.

There are now 350,000 people over 70 years of age and by the year 2020, there will be many more. We are living longer and we have to plan for this. Elderly people live longer as a result of better health services but this will become a burden on the State. If that is the economics behind it rather than the consideration of health needs, then so help any of us if we live beyond that dreaded age of 70.

See this speech in context