David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State who has acted expeditiously and provided the House with full reports. I also welcome the fact that he has published the surrounding documentation. Some of the latter is technical in nature and I do not propose to discuss it in any great detail. It is important, from the point of view of democracy, that this information has been placed before us. In providing it, the Minister of State has acted courteously, efficiently and in a manner which assists the democratic process.

Senator Glynn's speech demonstrated one of the values of the House, namely, that one can actually hear from people who have first-hand knowledge and experiences of matters of this nature. When a Member has this kind of experience, it is important to listen to his or her contribution with respect and to take into account what they have to say. Senator Glynn made some sensible, useful and practical points. He stated, for example, that it would be foolish for the State to give money to people which is intended to sustain them in the community and then make no attempt to ensure that they are given the dignity of making a contribution.

I have, however, a number of qualms about this matter. The first of these relates to the quite substantial number of millionaires in this country who manage to pay no tax whatever.

Some of the language used — even that employed by the Tánaiste — in the debate on this matter has been unfortunate. I salute the Tánaiste, however, because I believe she took on a poisoned chalice. I do not know anyone else who would have plumped for the Department of Health and Children. Most people would run a mile from it. The Tánaiste is an efficient and clear-thinking person and it is significant that she unearthed and confronted this problem mere weeks after assuming her new position.

One of the terms used previously in the debate on this matter was "pocket money". Let us not use such terms in respect of the elderly because they are demeaning and patronising. When one has lived one's life, earned one's money, paid one's taxes — unlike our friends the millionaires — and contributed to society by raising a family or whatever, it is terrible to be told in one's 70s, 80s or 90s that one can have pocket money. Would it not be possible to refer to it in some other way? The Minister of State avoided using the term "ex gratia payment" but it was used in the Lower House. There is an element here of the lady of the manor handing out things from her wicker basket. Elderly people are entitled to the money they receive.

I am concerned about the retrospective nature of the legislation. If it was illegal to take money from these people, surely they are entitled, as of right, to full recompense. I do not believe it is correct that the legislation should have retrospective effect but, on the other hand, the sums involved would be quite huge were that not the case.

There appears to have been a certain degree of co-operation in the earlier stages of the debate on this matter. Questions were asked, particularly by the Fine Gael Party, in the Lower House which helped to bring this matter to light.

We need to be sensitive in terms of elderly people and their treatment. I am not too concerned about the lump sums because many of the people involved, if they are in institutional care, will not have any major use for the money. I may be wrong but that is what I believe. On the other hand, the income they are allowed to retain is important.

I listened to an radio interview last night with Michael O'Halloran, an extremely decent man who served as Lord Mayor of Dublin some years ago. I recall doing battle with him about the preservation of 18th century buildings, etc., but we became friends following our initial spat. During the interview he documented, as did Senator Glynn, the things people in institutional care often want or need. He stated that they might buy a daily newspaper and a Sunday newspaper, which is more expensive, a pint every second day and one packet of cigarettes per week. This would mean that they would exceed the €35. There should be consultation with Mr.O'Halloran and his group, the Irish Senior Citizens' Parliament, which is non-party in nature, or Age Concern to see if a practical way of dealing with this matter can be found.

The Minister now has a good bargaining chip to get facilities for the elderly. Members have said that this money was taken illegally and in some cases people's houses were sold. Some of these people may have felt, perhaps unrealistically, they may be able to go back to their houses. That possibility was removed because they were forced to sell them as they were taken into account in calculating how much money they had. The Minister can now bargain for expensive equipment such as hoists. Certain institutions find it difficult to get these things.

I pay tribute to the people who work in this area. I have an aunt whom I love very much and who I looked after for a few years. She very sensibly said that she was falling over while I was in Leinster House gadding around and I might find her on the kitchen floor after a stroke one day. She went into the Alexandra Guild House, which is marvellous. The staff were pinched and squeezed by the financial constraints but they were not bleeding the old dears in the place, they were very generous in what they charged. I brought the subject to the attention of the Minister's predecessor and the programme manager in the Department of Health and Children. I got the directors of the nursing home to come along and a sensible financial plan was worked out so they could get a subvention from central funds and, along with a financial expert, we put together a system where relatives who paid could claim tax allowances. That is one of the things of which I am proudest — that we saved that wonderful facility for old people. It was necessary, however, to give them help from outside.

This is an increasing problem because the population is ageing but we prefer not to think about it. I mentioned facilities because I was contacted by a man who works near me about his mother. She is in a hospital in Dublin that I will not mention because I have not visited it and that would be unfair. She has Alzheimer's disease and is being looked after. She is restrained and has uncontrolled bowel movements. For her dignity the family have tried to keep her wearing her own clothes. They sometimes get bags of clothes which have been left in the corner for a couple of days with bowel movements in them. That is dreadful. She has been accepted for another residential home but they cannot get the medical authorities in this other hospital to sign the form that would release her.

This is what we are talking about. I do not blame the people in this hospital, I am sure they are under-staffed, over-stressed and lacking resources. This woman is repeatedly falling. Every time her relatives visit, she is bruised. When they ask for an explanation they are told she fell or she was given a glass of whiskey for her birthday and she was not used to it and fell over. The place caring for her is not suitable. We should be able to look after our old people better.

I do not envy the Government trying to untie this Gordian knot. It is right and practical, however, that it should be done. It is appropriate that relatives should have to make some contribution. They cannot grumble too much. Senator Glynn mentioned families who do not visit elderly relatives at all and then come in for the kill at the end if they think there is a pot of money. It is barbarous and I hope it does not happen too often. If the resources exist, there is a moral responsibility to look after one's own.

This should not be treated as a political football. The situation emerged due to the questioning of the Opposition and the integrity of the Minister. It is now being faced and a practical resolution must be found. I worry about the legal effectiveness or unchallengeable nature of retrospective legislation that states that even though it was illegal to take people's money, they will only be given back a certain amount. We must be careful of the language of the ex gratia payment —"pocket money". I am a mere 60 years old and if someone told me he was going to give me pocket money I would give him a clip on the ear. I imagine there are quite a few feisty old dears in residential homes across the country who would, if they could get out of their beds, give a resounding clout to anyone who used such language to them and I would support them in doing so.