Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)

Based on the results of recent local and by-elections, Fine Gael will be in power next year. This figure should be considered in comparison with the moneys spent on PPARS, which has cost the taxpayer more than €200 million to date. The provision for the carer's allowance is comparable to the reduction in betting tax. It is important to put matters in context to get an overall impression.

The Government's record on the elderly is shocking. This time last year, legislation on the nursing home charges which were later found to be unconstitutional was rushed through this House. The Government should hang its head in shame on this issue. On the one hand, it is prepared to rush through legislation. When it came to repaying the money after the fees were deemed in breach of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, however, it adapted a different attitude and announced the money will be reimbursed in the course of two or three years. Only today we hear that the heads of the relevant Bills are being prepared and will go before Cabinet shortly. It will be well into next year before the legislation is brought forward and one cannot say when it will be enacted.

The Government's attitude in this matter is shocking, especially when one considers that it affects the most elderly in society. We can get into the argument about who will benefit from the refund. Ultimately, however, that is not our job. The bottom line is that the highest court in the land found the Government had behaved incorrectly and ordered it to repay the money. These moneys should be returned immediately and it is up to the recipients how they are spent. In some cases, the families will get the money rather than the elderly themselves. Unfortunately, some of them do not have six, eight to ten months to wait. Many will be deceased by then and others have already died while awaiting repayment.

I urge the Minister to fast-track the legislation and repay the money as soon as possible. A suggestion was made at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Health and Children that staged payments could be made. If the full amount cannot be paid immediately, there should be a minimum payment to every family. I am aware of some families who are keen to bring elderly relatives abroad to such places as Medjugorje or Lourdes, perhaps for the last time. That option would be available to them if the repayment was made.

The amendment notes that legislation was due in autumn 2005 in regard to an independent inspectorate for nursing homes. It is now the last week of this term and there is no indication of when that legislation will be brought forward. Even after the public outcry following the Leas Cross nursing home scandal, the Government remains tardy rather than proactive in terms of the promotion of an independent inspectorate. Such a body would ensure the rights of the elderly are upheld. The opposite was clearly the case in Leas Cross.

Another important element of the amendment is the call for an extension of the national hygiene audit which took place recently in the acute hospitals to all public and private nursing homes. Through my involvement with a group called MRSA and Families, I hear on a regular basis about patients being transferred from acute hospitals into nursing homes, some of which are disgraceful in terms of hygiene. There is a further problem in that acute hospitals do not always inform nursing home authorities when elderly patients have MRSA. It is a major scandal that MRSA is being introduced into nursing homes in this way. A system should be in place where before a patient who is known to have MRSA is transferred to a nursing home, the latter should be made aware so that appropriate steps can be taken, for the sake of that patient, existing patients and staff. It is unbelievable that this is not happening.

I welcome the aspect of the Government's plan relating to sheltered housing. It is very vague, however. I attended a meeting recently with the housing officer of Carlow County Council and a group in Tullow called Cheshire Homes. The latter pointed out that very few houses are being built for people with special needs. There is great scope within Part V of the Planning and Development Act for a system whereby, with some extra encouragement from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and local authorities, developers could be encouraged to bring home modifications to such a level as to accommodate persons with special needs. There has been much advancement in this area in recent years in that new homes must now have downstairs doors that are wheelchair accessible and light switches are placed low on the walls. In order for a house to be fully accessible, it would take only a small additional effort. This is not happening but is something that can be done at little cost. Part V allows for a certain percentage of housing to be ring-fenced for social and affordable housing. Changes could be made in this way but they should not be left only to developers. We should take a proactive line on the issue.

Will the Minister of State clarify the number of extra nursing home beds to be introduced? The Irish Times reported last week that €8 million is to be provided for 250 more nursing homes beds, comprising 200 in Dublin and 50 in Cork. Is this the entire sum of nursing home beds to be provided? The Minister of State will accept there are elderly people not only in Cork and Dublin but throughout the country. There must be a major increase in the number of nursing home beds.

I welcome the Tánaiste's statement concerning the conclusion of the special savings incentive scheme, SSIA, and the possibility that the allocation for this will be used to fund the plan for the elderly. There is one weakness in the SSIA scheme. There should have been three or four SSIA accounts, one for transport, one for education and one for pensions. Senator Terry has referred to the pensions time bomb on numerous occasions in the past. I welcome the initiative that we should extend the SSIA scheme to fund specific projects.

I am puzzled by the suggestion that 28% of patients currently in nursing homes will be able to move back home. I do not accept that suggestion. The people to whom I spoke who work in nursing homes did not agree with that point. It is not as clear-cut as taking patients out of nursing homes and moving them back home. First, there are many lone-parent families and families where both parents are working, unlike a generation ago when one person was at home full time and could care for an elderly relative.

There is also a growing commercialisation of Sunday and Saturday. Sunday is now like an ordinary weekday because all the shops are open. This means people are at work and cannot afford to look after their elderly relative. If one listened to "Liveline" yesterday, one would have heard the woeful tales of family members who were very upset because they clearly wanted to look after a family member but could not do so because of lack of resources. I do not think it is as easy as just moving elderly people back home.

I look forward to a debate on the issue in six months' time to see what progress has been made.