Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I wish the Tánaiste well with her difficult brief. I appreciate that she had the courage to say recently that she would not stand over the statement she made previously to the House. I admire it when politicians admit when they get something wrong and correct the record. That is as it should be; it is no big deal. On a previous occasion I made an appeal that this matter not become a party political football. Nobody has all the wisdom on this issue. We can now speak with 20/20 hindsight and this applies to all parties and none.

This is an error which we must address now. I said from the start that there would not be a problem with retrospection. All parties in the House have, at some time, introduced retrospective legislation. The Constitution does not allow us to make criminality retrospective but it does allow us to bring retrospection to bear on many other matters. The last time we passed retrospective legislation was to approve the appointment of a judge 16 years after he sat on the Bench; it clarified that all his decisions over those 16 years were legal. That is the last case I can recall but it was not the only one. It has certainly happened half a dozen times in the 18 or 19 years since Senator Norris and I were elected to this august body.

When the news of the judgment broke, I was in the company of a colleague from Scotland. His elderly parent is in a home in the Shetlands and he is paying the home £900 per week. He will continue to pay that until his father's estate is reduced to less than £10,000 in total. That is the situation in the neighbouring jurisdiction. I have no problem with payment. There will always be some element of payment. The concept of relating it to an amount, such as 80% of the non-contributory pension as suggested by the Tánaiste, is a fair and reasonable way to approach it.

What we must now deal with is how to repay the money. I agree with Senator Glynn that some of the people who will queue to claim this money showed little regard for the people for whom they are claiming. We must accept that this will happen. People's level of responsibility for their elderly parents and relatives is not something which should be disregarded. It is a responsibility which we all must accept in some way, even if not necessarily financially. Many things can be done in this regard. Senator Browne made an important point when he suggested that we clearly outline the entitlements of people who reach the age of 65 or 70 years. To what are they entitled in this and other areas?

We must increase the number of nursing home places, both public and private. Tax breaks for people providing such places is important. It has made inroads into the problem and has helped the private sector. However, in all fairness, as I suggested with regard to child care yesterday, people who are paying to support elderly family members in nursing homes should benefit from a tax credit. That would remove some of the pressure. It is a simple and appropriate way to deal with it.

I also believe we should promote the existing system of home care and home help for elderly people who are somewhat, but not fully, independent. At a professional level, we require a more peripatetic health service. It already exists but we must build on it. Many elderly people are happy to stay in their homes. They might be able to do 80% of what they need to do themselves and support from family and the State will remove further pressure. The four suggestions I have made should be acted on. There must be more nursing home places, tax credits for certain payments, promotion of home care support and promotion of a peripatetic service from professionals who help the elderly.

The most significant aspect of the judgment, and Senator Ryan will probably discuss this further, is that the real difficulty was not retrospection but private property. That article of the Constitution dealing with private property has caused many problems. I heard the Taoiseach speaking about trying to impose some discipline on developers who are buying up land around this city, thereby driving up the cost of building houses and creating problems for home owners and first time buyers. This relates back to the article on private property, which is the most restrictive constitutional provision on private property in the constitutions of which I am aware.