Nicky McFadden (Fine Gael)

I find this debate to be most callous. This issue is not about politics or scaremongering and Members should not lose focus. Senator Corrigan rightly observed that this society has been looking after its elderly much better and, as a consequence, they are living longer and with dignity. They are doing so because they had the reassurance of, and access to, a medical card. I believe it is foolhardy to withdraw medical cards from all the over 70s because the bulk of the cost has been saved through the Government's negotiations with GPs in respect of the new fees, as well as the new practices regarding prescription practices. I am unsure whether the Minister of State can hear me but I am sure the Government has saved a lot of money in respect of the 10,000 people who are deceased but who had medical cards. The Minister of State should revert to me by commenting on how much money the Department has saved, having realised that GPs were in receipt of payments for 10,000 deceased people. I believe the economic argument has been and could be saved.

My good and dear colleague, Senator de Búrca, whom I greatly respect, spoke about how easy it is for Opposition Members to criticise the Government. It is extremely easy when the boom has been wasted and so much money has been squandered. The Government's targeting of the most vulnerable sector of society, with one fell swoop in a single stroke of the pen, is callous. I refer to the waste on PPARS and the storage of the electronic voting machines, as well as the money wasted in FÁS. While the latter is just one sector that Members know about, how much more will come out? Senator Twomey is correct to call for a postponement for everyone of the forthcoming pay increase and I agree with him. The cervical vaccine for children and a universal medical card for all our old people should be granted instead.

I am sure the Minister of State realises that withdrawing the automatic entitlement to the medical card does not simply pertain to prescriptions and doctors' fees but to all the other ancillary services. Senator Corrigan referred to its importance in respect of home help, respite and so on, but such benefits are automatic only if one has a medical card. I referred to a case previously of a gentleman whose wife suffered from Alzheimer's disease. To this day, he regrets how he neglected his wife because he did not have the professional capacity to look after her. He did not know how to look after her and lacked support from the State because he was not entitled to a medical card. He did not have free access to a public health nurse, incontinence pads, physiotherapy, chiropody and all the other services that are necessities, not luxuries, when looking after an old person. Such people have worked all their lives and have paid their taxes, and they should be cared for. This is about honouring and respecting our elderly.

I support Senator O'Toole in respect of the over 80s. As I believe the Minister of State is a good individual, I ask her to take into account the over 80s. They are not great in number and, were the Department to save money in all the other areas to which I have referred, it might be possible to look after them and grant them universal access to a medical card. I warmly welcome the amendment that was accepted in respect of those who are in a higher income bracket, such as teachers, local authority workers, ESB workers, Army officers and gardaí. While everyone from those groups will benefit from the amendment proposed by Fine Gael, what will happen after the expiry of the three-year period? What will happen if one lives until one is 73? If, after one's spouse dies, one receives a widow's pension and is over the limit, does that mean that one loses one's benefit after three years? How would one manage then? Moreover, such a person will have become three years older and will more likely have become frail. This concession must be extended further.

While Senator Feeney's heart may be in the right place, she suggested that people came to Dublin to protest for the craic. My relatives who are over 70 were present and my aunt was in tears because she felt so moved by the support she was getting from older people, including those on Zimmer frames. I applaud the Minister of State for appearing on that platform because she wished to identify with, and connect to, those people. However, they should not be dismissed or be made feel as though they were up in Dublin for the craic.

Senator Feeney also spoke in the House about the scene in St. Andrew's church, how offended she was by the manners on display and the way in which the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Moloney, was treated. While it is not good to heckle a Minister who is trying to speak, Senator Feeney did not really address the issue, namely, that people were afraid about losing something they had been gifted as a bribe before the general election and which then was taken back in one fell swoop. How can one take back a present? I never have and I am sure the Minister of State has not done so either. One cannot take back something one has given.

In the long run, this measure will cost the Government a great deal more money. I refer to elderly people being asked in March to fill in an application form so that they can be means-tested. Elderly people are unable to so do and do not like filling in application forms. I spend much of my time helping older people to fill in application forms. They are afraid and believe that people wish to know their business. This measure is both unnecessary and unhelpful, and I ask the Government to reconsider it and to find the money elsewhere in the areas I have outlined.