Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I would like to make a brief intervention on the Bill. I have spoken over the past week or so with a number of different groups that have concerns about some of the elements in it. I do not oppose the levying of some form of payment; there should be some form of payment where people can afford it. I am clear on the Supreme Court's reflection on this fact. The court did not object to the retrospective element of it. However, the court ruled that it was depriving people of their private property. It was a constitutional point about the protection of private property.

I agree in principle with the general thinking behind the argument that a person in a nursing home whose only income is his or her pension should be prepared to pay a significant portion of it towards the costs of their care. If we could look at the practice of "a third, a third and a third" used in many parts of the professions and if a person in a nursing home could keep one third of that money for himself or herself and pay 65% or 66.3%, it would be considerably fairer and easier. I am making this point on a human level because the amounts of money are not hugely significant to the State but the amount of disposable income for people in nursing homes is very important. It is about having the money to buy the little things like a present for a grandchild, to be able to give at some stage at some time.

I ask the Government to have a rethink on the Bill. I am aware that it will not accept amendments here because I am sure that the last thing it wants to do is to bring this Bill back into the House. However, I consider there is a need to put down an amendment, to discuss this part of the Bill further and to hear the rationale. If we accept the rationale that there should be some element of payment, could I ask the Minister to ask for an examination of how it should be implemented?

We should ease back when implementing this policy and recognise how we can significantly help people. We are faced with paying back an amount that the pundits put at up to €2 billion. I do not know if this figure is correct in terms of the assessment of the total cost of the mistakes that were made over the past 20 years or so. I will not dwell on this aspect now as we will be debating the whole issue in the House tomorrow. However, I would ask the Minister to outline how much it would cost the State in net terms if we reduce the amount demanded of pensioners to two thirds of their pension. Reducing the amount to this level would give a great element of independence and dignity to people who have given their all to this country and show that the political establishment empathises with them. The Government should reflect on this.