Shane Ross (Independent)

This is a political nightmare. We require the impossible, namely, reasonable and mature debate. The situation is ready-made for an irresponsible Opposition, because a mistake has been made by a Government and the person left holding the parcel when the music stops gets the blame which explodes in her face. It is wrong that the Government should suffer the kind of political attacks it has received over this matter. It was not in any sense the fault of the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, that the Government was landed in this situation.

It is regrettable, albeit inevitable, that for several reasons the matter should have become a political football. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the issue of old people handing over their pension books and money being taken from them has been going on since at least 1976. We will never know whether everybody noticed it and said nothing, or nobody noticed it, or some people noticed it and drew it to the attention of various Ministers. We do know, however, that it has been going on for nearly 30 years while Ministers of various political hues were in office. In this country, Ministers for Health tend to present a roll of honour, which in other circumstances would be very honourable, but it is absurd to begin attributing blame to anyone for this matter. It would be political opportunism to blame the Tánaiste. It does not stick.

Children and the elderly represent two groups in society which are extraordinarily vulnerable and from whom it is easy to make political capital. As speakers on the Government side have said, the elderly are going to become a focus for great debate in the years to come because there will be many more of them. As their numbers grow they will have more voting power, will attract more consideration than they have been used to and will form pressure groups. Such lobbying groups will be successful because they will carry greater numbers than heretofore, and their members will be more articulate and will live longer.

The proposed compensation scheme has become a political football, which is a pity. However, the political argument can be defused by acknowledging the fact that the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, has tackled this problem in a fairly forthright way. On 16 December, in a remarkably honest statement, she said the Government could not pay all the amounts that had accumulated since 1976. She then agreed to pay what turned out to be a token amount of €2,000. After that, the legislation was referred by the President to the Supreme Court and we have come across a situation which is a complete and utter mess. It is an entanglement from which it will be difficult to emerge.

We should thank the President for having referred the Bill to the Supreme Court and for fulfilling the primary duty for which she is elected. The Government may already regret the endorsement it gave her because she has caused a great deal of headache but that is exactly why she is there. She should be congratulated.

Senator Norris pointed to a practical problem that will now emerge, which is that we are a pretty sceptical and cynical nation when it comes to dealing with a big pot of money. It is essential that all those who are injured, damaged, ill treated and have had money taken from them should be compensated, as well as the heirs of those who are deceased. Some will have paid money for the upkeep of their relatives, which they did not have to pay. When sums as great as €1 billion are being spoken of, however, there is a danger that people who were inconsiderate to their elderly relatives and contributed nothing will make claims to which they are neither financially nor morally entitled.

I do not know how the Government will get out of this dilemma because I suspect there will be an enormous number of unjustified claims which will be extremely difficult to take on. It is a courageous Government that stands up to people left holding the baby or, in this case, the elderly. Whereas every single penny should be paid out for justifiable claims by people who were treated badly, there is a real danger in separating those from others who feel that this is an opportunity to reclaim funds to which they are not entitled. It is difficult for politicians or governments to fight that type of battle. When individuals with apparent hard-luck stories go to the Supreme Court, there is a media frenzy. Some of the time these are worthy cases, but once in a while they are not. This is a real difficulty for the Government so we must ensure that the compensation pot is not exploited.

I wish to say a number of things about the debate that is opening up on the elderly and nursing homes. If we are to be honest about it, the taking of pension books by nursing homes or anyone else was despicable. It is difficult, however, to deal with situations of this kind. It may not be a nice thought but we must recognise that, on the whole, nursing homes are in the business for the money. Private nursing homes are established in order to make money, although some of us may find that difficult to reconcile with the idea that medicine and medical care should be an almost philanthropic duty and something to which we are entitled. Nursing homes can be extremely exploitative, ruthless, inhuman and profit-driven. That notion rests uneasily with the idea that humanity comes first. We need to recognise that problem and tackle it.

In the time remaining, I wish to make one point.