David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, and this necessary Bill. While I have some reservations and questions about it, generally it is improving legislation. These are difficult economic times in which to cope with vulnerable and elderly people.

Yesterday, I received a communication from a very fine young graduate on the situation faced by him in the care of his elderly mother, one faced by many others. Although she is residing in a care home in the countryside, it comes to €3,000 a month. When her savings run out, this young graduate and his sister will find it impossible. That is why he welcomes the Bill's aim to provide some alleviation in paying for the care of his elderly mother, to whom he and his sister are devoted. He informed me he would be grateful of my support for the Bill and, although it is not a perfect solution, he feels its goes a long way to removing the current financial stress facing many families across the country.

I am concerned about the whole area of care for the elderly, having had some experience of it myself. I recall an aunt, whom I adored, when she reached her 90s but, even with her indomitable spirit felt she had to go to some home. We examined some places which were pretty grim but eventually found a marvellous home, the Alexandra Guild House. The personal touch there, respect for the individuality of the person- my aunt could even have some of her own paintings and furniture in her room - home cooking and so forth made it wonderful. Unfortunately, it ran into trouble. With the assistance of Anne Byrne, programme manager to the then Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin, we managed to rescue the place. I am very proud this was done through the political system.

I am less proud of the treatment of people in several other nursing homes. I, along with my colleague and friend Senator John Paul Phelan, have raised the matter of Bethany House in Carlow. Both of us were seriously misled on the closure of this home. People were forcibly lifted out of the home against their will and the instructions of their relatives. It was shameful. People were bundled into ambulances against their will. In some cases that amounts to a death sentence. They were taken to a hospital where they will be confined to bed most of the day or forced to stay on lounges for long periods, taking away their independence which will kill them. I knew of someone who got bedsores because of this kind of treatment which eventually killed her. With proper nursing that should not happen. I appeal again to the Minister of State to re-open the file on Bethany House. For a time it was a unique case but I have discovered it has happened in other homes in Cavan and elsewhere. This is brutalisation and abuse of the elderly. We could have another scandal on our hands.

The nuclear family model has to a large extent broken down and for various reasons one can no longer expect an extended family automatically to be in a position to look after elderly relatives. It is necessary, therefore, the State takes some responsibility in their care. In her clear and positive speech, I appreciated the Minister of State saying, "It is deeply unfair that one person and their family with modest means could face very high bills to pay for care, while another might pay relatively little even though they had substantial means and assets". I am glad a mechanism will be established in the Bill to achieve some degree of equalisation.

I also approve of the move towards community and home-based care solutions where it is appropriate - that is the key. Such care is the best. To my mind, hell would be to be stuck on one of these stretchers surrounded by other old half-corpses, drooling and moaning, with the blasted television on at full volume. Imagine the torture that must be for those who are locked into this state even though they are intelligent. I appreciate the Minister's speech in its interest in the humane treatment of elderly people.

I also discovered a little nugget in her speech on which I want to celebrate and congratulate her. One of her ministerial colleagues, a female, did a disservice some years ago to democracy in this House in a Social Welfare Bill. Under equality legislation a case had been brought where a same-sex couple were denied transport facilities and they won. Instead of addressing it, the Minister in question opted to redefine the term "spouse" to do gay people out of their rights. It was most horrendous.

It was a source of real pleasure to me today, however, when I noted in the Minister of State's script:

Section 4 defines couples for the purposes of the scheme. A couple is defined as (i) a married couple or as (ii) a heterosexual or same sex couple who are cohabiting as husband and wife for at least three years.

Well done to the Minister. I am not sure whether anyone else spotted this or said how historic it is. I am almost persuaded to believe the Government is serious about introducing a civil partnership Bill. This is the first little step. In the old days in Dublin 4, little brats like myself played a game called Relieveo which had various classes of penalties such as scissors steps, giant steps and baby steps. While this provision is just a baby step, it is in the right direction, of which I am heartily glad. I thank the Minister of State from the bottom of my heart for recognising a real human situation.

The care needs assessment is a good provision as long as it is serious and not used as a means to avoid confronting the difficulties in care for the elderly. There will always be financial implications in this area. The danger is these mechanisms may be used by the State to avoid having to cough up. However, I understand the great strains under which the State is operating at present.

I wish to ask questions about a number of other areas that are of interest. I refer to sections 9 and 10 and Schedule 1. The Minister of State stated:

Parts 1 and 3 of Schedule 1 set out the rules for calculating the contribution payable by a single applicant. In summary, a person will make a contribution of up to 80% of his or her income and up to 5% of the value of his or her assets, after deductions and safeguards have been applied.

In an uninformed view from the outside, this seems to be reasonable. How was this formula arrived at and what method was used to calculate it? It appears appropriate because if one is in a place permanently, what capacity has one to spend money anyway? It is not as though one will go off on a cruise. Moreover, one will have 20% left, which is a hell of a lot better than when such people were being given sixpence as pocket money. The phrase "pocket money" actually was used and I shuddered when I heard we were treating elderly people as though they were children.

My final question pertains to Parts 2 and 3 of the Schedule, which contain the rules on the contribution payable by a member of a couple. While I will not go into the whole matter, in this case the assessment is based on the principle of each member of the couple owning 50% of the couple's combined means and so on. I refer to the healthier member of the couple, that is, the person who remains in the community. Could this assessment render vulnerable his or her ownership of the home or his or her capacity to continue to reside there? That would worry me. In other words, if such people, who are expected to pay up to 50%, are assessed on the home and have a small income, they may find it difficult to make a contribution. Consequently, I am concerned they might be vulnerable in the enjoyment of their principal residence simply because their spouses were in nursing homes. I hope this is not the case and I may have misinterpreted it. I thank the Minister of State for this good day's work on which I applaud her. I again ask her to consider the question of Bethany Home and the other associated homes. This is not a partisan issue because there also was strong support on the Government side.