Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I hope the Minister of State has been listening intently to what was said by previous speakers. One of the weaknesses in the way we treat legislation in this country is that a Bill is published and a great deal of debate follows but minimal changes may flow from it. It is disappointing that, although there were ongoing debates about the elderly and their care before the publication of this Bill, we did not have a level of substantive debate, either in the Houses of the Oireachtas or at the Joint Committee on Health and Children. We might have teased out the problems and put forward our ideas about possible solutions in advance of publication.

This is a very important political debate but is also important philosophically. It is a statements debate because it offers a statement about how we wish to see today's elderly being treated. All of us will be tomorrow's elderly. I am worried that what we are doing is a housekeeping rather than a homemaking exercise, if the pun may be forgiven. It is about fitting people into a slot where they will be neat and tidy but removed and no longer the source of controversy and debate.

Reference was made earlier to the Ryan report and to what we must do as a result of that dreadful report and other similar ones dealing with what we deem to be atrocities. There is talk of a referendum on children. I hope that will come to pass and that children will have strong constitutional and legal protection. In 1983 and on other occasions we introduced into the Constitution protection for our unborn and I am happy with that provision. On Second Stage I made the point that perhaps it is time we deemed necessary the possibility of having a referendum to provide protection in the Constitution to safeguard the rights of the elderly in our community. That may be the type of statement we should make as a society.

Unfortunately, there are people in this country today who are literally afraid to grow old because they have no idea what the future holds for them. This Bill is an attempt to resolve their worries and concerns but it is politically and philosophically wrong in the sense that we are trying to find a solution to remove the problem from our books rather than address the needs of tens of thousands of our citizens. I do not mean this as party political and I hope the Minister of State knows me well enough to realise that.

The debate, therefore, must be wide-ranging as must the examination of options. That is why it is so necessary the Minister of State should take on board what we are saying. Perhaps we will not divide on Committee Stage. We are all going down the same road and in some way will all be part of the consequences of this legislation. We must get it right. The debate has not been sufficient over the course of the past two or three years. We do not seem to have recognised fully the demographics of society or faced up to the challenge of what we know the population trends will produce. However, if this Bill, in its amended form, is to bring about the sort of place in our society which our elderly people can enjoy, with safeguards, security and other options, more must be done. This is only a small part of what we should be trying to do for our hundreds of thousands of elderly citizens. We will not debate again today the questions of carer's allowance and benefits, community care and housing associations etc. That is for another day. In so far as we are trying to provide long-stay residential care by means of this Bill, it is crucially important that we approach it from the widest possible remit and that the type of concerns my colleagues have outlined should be taken on board by the Minister of State.

This is a profound political opportunity for the Minister of State to make her mark. Since I had the privilege of joining the Oireachtas over 20 years ago I have to say, looking at all sides of the Houses and all political parties, there have been very few Ministers who could genuinely say they had made a difference when they walked out of Leinster House. One who made a difference, with regard to the elderly and their care, was the late Seamus Brennan. Most people simply pass through and finish their job without making any real difference to anybody. I hope the Minister of State will avail of this opportunity to put in place a scheme of care and support for our elderly which will make a difference. She should try to approach that in the right direction, philosophically speaking.

The Bill needs significant changes, particularly in the thinking that underlies it. We are asking for a very small step, namely, that there should be the broadest consultation, examination and level of analysis of each person's unique circumstances. Rightly and properly, we love to tell children and teenagers how unique they are and how many options lie before them. The world is their oyster. The thinking in the Bill says to people at the other end of the life cycle they are not unique but more or less the same and one solution will fit all. I certainly do not agree with that analysis and hope the Minister of State can bring about the changes that will make life not just bearable but better for the people who have built this country. Our paying so much lip service to the elderly and claiming they built the country, etc. is glib, self-satisfying and hypocritical unless we make real changes and make this Bill work. We must put people, including the elderly, at its centre and not regard them as parts of some economic equation.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.