Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House.

I have a problem when the Government tables a motion congratulating itself and equally when Members on the Opposition benches table a motion condemning the Government. The people in general have a problem with us because of this kind of scenario. I do not see why the Government needs to be congratulated for spending the money it has to spend, that it raised to spend. It is required to spend the money. It cannot put the money in the bank but must spend it, so it is not a matter of congratulations. Neither is it a matter of condemnation. This is the kind of thing that brings the House into disrepute with people generally.

I have listened to the Minister of State and cannot disagree with a word he said, except perhaps his point that for members of the Opposition, enough is never enough. I would have thought that it is the same for those on the Government benches, for whom enough is never enough either. I have heard numerous Ministers say they wish they had more money and that they have not got enough. Every time they come to this House to speak they claim they only have X amount and have to make do with it. There is no difference in that regard. The same applies on both sides of the House.

It is important that we determine how we can make things work well and how we bring the situation forward. I wish to focus on a number of points, the first of which is the independent inspectorate. I can guarantee that within a few years of its establishment, a motion will be tabled in this House. The matter of who is in Government at that point is totally irrelevant; Senator Bannon might be on that side of the House or he might be on the Government side in the other House, and I wish him well in his campaign. The reality is that someone will ask if the inspectorate was a mistake, if it was a waste of money. He or she will point to the costs and argue that inspectorates did not cost so much in the past.

I have a suggestion, though I know there is not a snowball's chance in hell that it will be taken up — that is always the problem with sensible suggestions. Setting up a nursing home inspectorate is a very good idea but there are other areas that also need to be inspected. This inspectorate will be set up on an ad hoc basis and will only examine a certain area. The Minister of State should analyse the various areas the Government will have to examine over the next few years. In fact, there are areas within his Department that are relevant.

Two weeks ago, we discussed the issue of early childhood care, which is the other side of the spectrum. The same question arose with speaker after speaker, namely, how do we know when a parent is dropping his or her child to a care facility in the morning the child is going into a safe place that is well run? The question is exactly the same for elderly people, namely, how can we be absolutely sure they are in a safe, well-run facility that complies with all of the relevant regulations? We most certainly need an inspectorate but it should not be on an ad hoc basis, dealing only with the elderly. We should, however, investigate what is happening in buildings which the Government is subventing. There is no reason an inspectorate or other body cannot look after children under six as well as elderly people at the other end of the spectrum. It will eventually be governed by health and safety because that is what we are trying to achieve.

To create synergies I ask the Minister of State to inspect the various institutions in which citizens of this State of any age are being looked after. This will avoid setting up something and regretting it two years later as we argue about whether to extend its area of responsibility.

I welcome the constant theme of flexibility in the Minister of State's proposals. He is correct about the number of people who would prefer to stay at home and the number of extended families and communities who favour that option. I would like to have heard what the Minister of State means by flexibility, not to hold him down to it because these proposals must go through a process. If an extended family has three elderly relatives being looked after in three different houses and all three decide to move into one of the elderly persons' homes, it becomes easier for the extended family and economies of scale make it easier for everyone. As things stand two people in such a situation cannot get the same level of support, though I am open to correction on that. Extended families often have more than one person to deal with.

I also welcome the Minister of State's point that a certain number of places could cater for twice that number of people, because people do not need to be present all the time. The idea that people can move in and out of a home as and when they need support is welcome.

The Minister of State said the subvention rate was increased last year but that does not appear to be the case. Is that increase down to the number of people who qualify, rather than an increase in levels? Will the levels be increased? The Fine Gael amendment states that subvention levels have remained static since 2001. If that is correct it is almost as nonsensical as retaining the 1993 levels, as the Minister of State said. Inflation since 2001 must amount to at least 10%.

How will this work? Will the Minister of State recognise that we cannot do these things without a sense of care in the community? I am worried by the greed in Irish society at the moment. The more we can do for families who want to look after their elderly relatives themselves, with a little support from the State, the better.

I would like to see the formula showing how we can save money. I can see the figures the Minister of State has provided but what does it cost, per person, in a nursing home for a year and what is the subvention level available for each? What does it take to give such people a Rolls Royce level of support at home, involving somebody staying with them at night or visiting them for a few hours during the week? The State might have difficulty organising an hour here and an hour there. The home care service works very well but extended families can sometimes do it equally well. I have seen it happen in my own community.

The flexibility proposed by the Minister of State could give a better quality of service and also save money — it is a win win situation. We need to increase funding levels because the point made in the amendment is important.

The motion, "recognises that this package will mean a major improvement in home and community-based support for older people." I remain to be convinced and I do not see how it will happen. The money will make a difference but we need to see it working and how flexibility will be built into it, because that is the most difficult task. Every home, community and family are different. Some live close to each other but others live far away. A family member may be based in Dublin but a relative might live 150 miles away and it is costly to visit them every weekend. If somebody put that to the Minister of State would he take it on board?