James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)

I also oppose this section. This is the meat of the Bill, and it will remove the entitlement of people over 70 to a medical card. They have grown used to that medical card, and some of them have had it for seven years. Now they are facing its loss. As Deputy Barrett pointed out, the fact that the income threshold has been changed from net to gross income will cause difficulty for many people. I got a telephone call today from someone who gave 30 years' service to the public sector and who worked in this very building. She will now lose her medical card.

These people are not millionaires. This is middle Ireland. They had a bit of comfort knowing that they did not have to face the expense of medicines and the doctor, regardless of what else had changed in their lives. God knows much has changed in the last year. They have seen their pensions obliterated on the international markets. They have seen the value of their investment disappear, and now they have the additional stress and worry of medical cards. They are also facing uncertainty over insurance, if they can afford it. Therefore, I vehemently oppose this section.

What consequences are there for those who do not hand back their medical card even though they are above the means test? I raised this question yesterday and I did not get an answer, but Deputy Shatter looked up the Act that refers to this and the fine is £50, which is €63. Maybe that is some comfort. What happens to people who find they are over the limit due to confusion, or due to failure to do tax returns until the end of the year? Will these people be charged the cost of the drugs they received during the year, or the cost of visits to the doctor? Self-employed people often do not know their situation until the end of the year. With the current expense of life and living, many people are continuing to work after 70. That is not something they necessarily want to do, but they must do so to maintain their living standards.

The Minister has heard enough from the people. She knows that they do not approve of this. She also knows that they do not approve of giving something and taking it back. As the old saying goes, "Give a thing and take it back; never see the eyes of God again". This will go down as the budget that took the medical card and universal right to that medical card away from the elderly. It is a retrograde social policy, because we should be travelling in the other direction. To say that we cannot afford to look after the welfare and health of our people, after ten years of a boom, is a damning indictment of this Government. It is a damning indictment of a Cabinet of 15 people that prioritises things in this way, of a Cabinet that puts fiscal rectitude ahead of people's health and security.

I must take issue with the Green Party, which stood for social inclusion and the lower classes. The Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, spoke in favour of all these things. Now he is part of a Government that is increasing class sizes, taking medical cards from the elderly and refusing to give a life-saving vaccine to young girls. It tried to take disability packages, including the disability allowance, from young children. The Minister mentioned earlier that more people are receiving home help this year. Can she tell the House how many hours of home help are available this year compared to last?

A smaller number of hours is being spread more thinly across a larger number of people. Many people have said that those who provide home help are just in the door, taking their coats off, when it is time for them to go again. It used to be a valuable service, but it is becoming a farce. Those who provide home help are not in people's homes long enough to do what needs to be done to keep patients safely at home. We will oppose this section, like many other sections of its kind. It is sad that the Government, in another section of the Bill, is proposing to take medical cards from people who have been widowed for three years.

See this speech in context