Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, to the House and note that once again he finds himself in the eye of a storm. When the storm broke over the constitutionality of charging elderly patients in long-stay care, I was reminded of a famous quote by a former Minister for Health, now the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, who when asked to describe his situation in the Department of Health, replied it reminded him of Angola. The reference may have passed over people's heads. On one famous occasion the journalist Vincent Browne stated that he could not figure out its meaning. Sadly, at the time the former Minister made the reference, Angola was the country containing the greatest number of landmines in the world. It was pockmarked with them, leading the former Minister to draw the analogy. Vincent Browne should take note of the explanation.

The two issues dealt with in this Bill are very straightforward. As the Minister observed, the introduction of this Bill brings clarity to the issue of the constitutionality of charging patients for the maintenance element of inpatient service in publicly-funded long-term care residential units.

I do not wish to go back over ground covered by other Senators like a variation on a theme. Members on all sides of the House have alluded to the crisis that struck the Government in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the original Bill. Since then, the focus has been on the 29 years when the charges were charged illegally. However, the Minister is correct to emphasise that when the smoke clears, despite the drawbacks, the reality of the judgment is that the Supreme Court did not doubt that the Government is fully entitled to charge. The issue arose regarding its retrospective nature. I understand that a regulation was at fault rather than an actual law. To my mind, a regulation is in "division one" of the hierarchy of legislation. It was not passed at the relevant time to allow successive Governments to introduce this measure.

Inevitably, the Opposition will use the issue to score political points and if we were on the other side of the House we would do the same. The fact is that according to the court, the charge was levied illegally for 29 years and no-one spotted it or did anything about it. The Minister wishes to correct the legal anomaly and move on.

At the same time, she is taking the opportunity to introduce a second measure which will be welcomed by all who have concerns about the access by the more severely economically disadvantaged to local general medical services. It is a sad reflection on our society that despite our economic progress, a large cohort of people still exists for whom the cost of access to medical services is prohibitive. The Government should be applauded for taking this initiative along with the other legislative measure. It would reflect terribly on our society if parents living in economically-strained circumstances were discouraged from taking their children to see a GP for strictly financial reasons. In the Minister of State's former professional capacity as a pharmacist, he must have been exposed to many people with financial difficulties in his locality. Knowing him as I do, I am sure he did his best to alleviate their problems and he must be particularly proud to bring this legislation through the House.

There was some criticism of the catch-all nature of the Government's initiative to introduce medical cards for those aged over 70. If we are to be a caring society, what is wrong with taking an initiative of this nature? I use the word "society" rather than "government" to avoid having a political charge thrown at me. Those of us in a position to help others who are less fortunate should do so. While some people over the age of 70 are asset rich, despite the advent of the Celtic tiger they may not be cash rich. If God spares me until I reach 70 and beyond, I hope I will not be obliged to worry about the financial implications of my health but that the Government will acknowledge the contribution I made to the financial upkeep of the State and that it will repay me in my retirement. The acknowledgement is as much symbolic as it is financial.

Despite all their flaws, the Chinese have a wonderful philosophy in their approach to the elderly. The elderly are a respected part of Chinese society and of Asian society in general. We used to have such respect in our culture. Sadly, the all-embracing, consumer-oriented, fast-paced society in which we now live has eroded at the edges people's traditional affection, regard and respect for the elderly. I make the observation to rebut the criticisms levelled at the Government about the catch-all nature of the initiative for those over the age of 70.

The Government has decided to go a stage further and target those within the medical card scheme who will benefit most, namely, the significant number of people who are socially and economically disadvantaged. Its initiative is part and parcel of being a caring Government. The Taoiseach has been accused of political opportunism for saying he was a socialist. A Taoiseach puts his or her own stamp on the Administration he or she leads. As Head of Government, all initiatives flow from the Taoiseach to other Departments in terms of policy and legislation. Given the Taoiseach's background, he saw at first hand deprivation at its worst in the inner city of Dublin as he grew up. Why would he not claim to be a socialist, if it means directing his Government to introduce policies to help the deprived? As a recent report pointed out, many people are still deprived. Sadly, this most affluent of cities still has within it some of the highest levels of poverty anywhere in the Republic.