Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

The Minister of State in question has a broader remit and does not deal solely with the elderly. If one Minister of State dealt specifically with all the problems faced by the elderly, it would help to achieve redress.

Let us consider the retrospective payment of those who were asked to make a contribution towards their nursing home care. Will the Minister of State indicate, while wearing both his ministerial and legal hats, how certain the Government is that its position will stand up to challenge in court? On the one hand, we are saying the charges were illegal and, on the other, we are saying we must put in place legislation to underpin those charges. This is an unusual way of doing business. I am sure the Minister of State has already been asked about the legal ramifications but he might expand on them. Approximately 20,000 people are to be repaid €2,000. Will the next of kin of those who died in the care of the district homes or community hospitals receive the payment of €2,000, or will it just to be paid to those currently resident in those institutions?

While we appreciate that this legal minefield has been made public and that it must be dealt with, serious questions must be asked about how it was handled. The former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, has not in any way rendered himself glorious in his attempt to distance himself from responsibility in this area. He was in charge when the problem was fully and formally noted. We first heard he was not present at the meeting with the chief executives of health boards, we then heard he was present and later heard he was present but turned up late. Whatever the explanation, it is simply not good enough. There are other jurisdictions in which a Minister involved in such a mess would not remain in Cabinet and would not excuse himself by saying he did not attend or was late for a meeting. I commend the current Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, on at least facing up to the problem and trying in some small way to correct it.

It is disappointing that we are debating this matter well over two years after it was first formally highlighted. This demonstrates once again that, in the Department of Health and Children, progress appears to be made not only very slowly but also in a very unusual fashion. This crisis is not the first in that Department and I presume it will not be the last. Bearing in mind that the Department has such considerable funds at its disposal and such responsibility for virtually every citizen, the fact that this problem has been ignored for so long after its being highlighted poses very serious questions.

On the broader issue of care for the elderly, Senator McDowell referred to the semi-private, private and public systems of care. The thousands of people seeking care are not concerned with the ideology behind who provides the care but that it is available and affordable. This presents a great challenge to us all and it is the subject on which this debate such focus. This debate might tie up a loose end but we do not know but that it might become undone in the courts. We must tackle seriously the broader issue of care for the elderly because the elderly not only need care but certainly deserve it.