John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

I am glad that, after a clear period of reflection, Members are more measured in their contributions as this matter unfolds. For the purpose of clarity, I wish to record my congratulations to the Tánaiste on the way she approached her responsibilities as a Minister and member of Cabinet. After a few weeks in office, this situation was brought to her attention by Deputies Perry and Kenny. She sought advice, addressed the Dáil, put the documents on the record of that House and set about a course of action. She appointed Mr. Travers to conduct a report and, in the short term, brought forward legislation to protect the situation that prevails, as well as considering what had occurred in the previous 20 plus years.

I welcome the Supreme Court ruling of 16 February. We now have clarity on a situation which was unclear for many years. This has been brought about in a relatively short time after the matter was brought to the attention of the Tánaiste. I am glad the Government progressed in the way it did because the manner in which the Supreme Court ruling was brought about is healthier for this country than if we had to wait many months for an individual or motive case to be brought in light of what occurred in November. The State has been done a service in this regard. The responsibility of office holders is to protect the State and its citizens. Regardless of the views of non-office holders, when one is in office, one has responsibilities. The Tánaiste has shown very clearly that she faces her responsibilities in a decisive manner.

There is no doubt that the elderly are a valued part of society. Recent suggestions in the media and by some political commentators that this was wilful neglect and a robbing of the elderly by the Tánaiste are harsh, unfair and untrue. This type of cheap political points scoring does not serve this community or the elderly fairly.

There are examples of people suffering severe hardships trying to meet payments that were required to facilitate their elderly relatives in nursing homes, but Senators Norris and O'Toole made valuable points. People are given pensions intended to sustain them and to provide comfort and shelter for them. If this responsibility is taken on by the State, it is not unreasonable to expect that they will make a contribution. In recent years, people saw fit to put this point into practice to extremes, but we now have clarification on the matter.

Many of the institutions are providing excellent care for our elderly. There are many families that have moved away from the old situation of having three generations in one house as society changed. There are people who must place their elderly parents in homes due to their circumstances. Many elderly people are grateful for the companionship, care and so forth that they receive, but they do not expect all of this free of charge. If they have the means to contribute and pay towards that care, they are happy to do so.

I agree with the point that we now find ourselves with green-eyed monsters and cash registers clicking in people's eyes. This worries me. Senator Norris eloquently described people ringing in to radio shows that he has listened to with different points of view about nest eggs or their gratitude for the care their parents received. I, too, have spoken with both sides of the argument. I wonder if people who saw a nest egg of pounds, shillings and pence — or the euro, I should say — and now seek to cash in, paid equal attention to looking after the elderly members of their families. People have given me a message for the Tánaiste to the effect that they were satisfied with the care their parents received, that they will not pursue a case against the State and that, if it is the case that they are entitled to money, they will donate it to the very institution that looked after their mother or father. I congratulate this type of person.

However, I am in no way suggesting that those people who are entitled to be paid, suffered a hardship or had to dispose of family assets, do not warrant compensation. Of course they do but, as in every situation, there will be extremes on either side and common ground in the middle. I hope the common ground in this situation will prevail. When there were severe cuts in Government spending in the 1980s, the amounts of money involved were nothing compared to the amounts we are now proposing to take out of the spending power of the Government to provide services across the board. As citizens and individuals, we should all hope that common sense and the common ground of those who express their views will prevail and that we will discharge our responsibilities well.

I welcome the establishment by the Government of a sub-committee to work through the mechanisms to accomplish and deliver this payment. I hope that, at the end of the day, we are not in a scenario in which the legal profession gets too involved, where much money is expended by the State and matters conclude in an unnecessary fashion. People will benefit to the detriment of the provision of services.

There is a system in this country wherein the Oireachtas, the Government and the courts combine in ensuring that our democracy is upheld. In this particular case, the system has been shown to work. I concur with previous speakers such as Senator O'Toole that it is unfair to point the finger of blame at the current Minister for shouldering the responsibility and for implementing these charges. The evidence, as provided to date and which I hope will be substantiated further by Mr. Travers' report at the end of February 2005, is that this practice was spread equally over 11 Governments. The Travers report will throw light on what happened within the Department and raise many questions that must be answered. In reality, not only has the Government faced up to the responsibilities of the Supreme Court decision, but it must do so in regard to Mr. Travers' report and taking the appropriate actions to determine where the shortfall in administration of this debacle took place. The Tánaiste will act with the same degree of decisiveness as she has acted in her short number of months in office.

I welcome the tenor of this debate and the points that have been made. The important people in this are our elderly citizens. They are valued members of society and must be treated fairly and with dignity. At the end of this process, I hope we will have repaired whatever deficiencies existed in the manner in which the elderly have been perceived by certain sections of society. Let us hope that common sense prevails and that those people who have an entitlement are compensated. It is important that a system is put in place to ensure that this compensation is brought forward and that will not allow the legal professional or individuals turn this into another debacle and divert moneys from other services for their personal greed.