Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister starts by rejecting the case I have made and then after a trickle of sentences uses the language of "at this time" and "if in the future". This is exactly what I have described. It is provision for the privatisation of the administration of this scheme or any part of it. No amount of wriggling will get away from the fact that the only reason this is here is that consideration is being given - however cursory at this point in time and even that I am unconvinced of because it may be much further advanced than that - to taking away the administration of all or any part of the nursing homes support scheme. To my mind that is a very serious prospect. I am absolutely opposed to the privatisation of public services or public service administration. I have every confidence in the public service. I want to see it strengthened and supported. I do not want legislation going through this House that provides for its dismantling at any time in the future under any guise or excuse. I stand foursquare behind public services and those who work in providing them.

Some time ago I reminded the Minister of something he said when addressing the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Bill in 2008. I believe I incorporated it into my comments on Second Stage of the Bill. He said: "We must be mindful of what happened with the HSE. We cannot allow that type of mess to be inflicted on people." He was of course speaking from this side of the Chamber at that time. He made considerable sense when he was an Opposition spokesperson on health. I was very much of a similar mind on a whole range of issues on which we each presented our respective parties' positions. How that has changed since he has crossed the floor to take up his position as Minister. Nowhere is it more evident than in the reference to the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Bill at that time.

What could the so-called outsourcing of the scheme as provided for in section 4 possibly achieve? The Minister has talked about freeing up staff into a range of other roles or services. This is a role and service that our public servants are there to oversee and administer. I believe that is where it should remain. We have seen so many people removed from the public service. Does this indicate intent of further reductions in public service numbers? We have seen a significant reduction across a range of public service responsibilities. It has been a traumatic time for people employed in the public service and their dependent families. What is this meant to achieve apart from cutting out the public service element and bringing in private contractors with staff likely on lower pay and enriching privateers. That is exactly what happens. It is not that there will be a real saving; it is that others will make money out of it. That is why they stand forward as private investors in terms of what we have traditionally viewed as public service provision.

I urge the Minister to dispense with that part of section 4 and adopt my amendment, which I believe to be reasonable. Whatever about its language construction, that is the language that people I represent understand. It reflects their current dissatisfaction with access to the fair deal scheme. It places a clear obligation on those administering the scheme to act as I have spoken of in a straightforward and comprehensive way in dealing with applicants in need of that support. That is what citizens need and most especially our older citizens and people with disabilities who seeking access to residential nursing home care out of necessity because they are no longer able to remain in independent living settings. We certainly do not need another aspect of this or any other scheme to be farmed out to privateers.

See this speech in context