Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

As some of the my colleagues from the previous Seanad will know, this area has been one of grave concern to me in recent years and I have become something of a long-playing record on the matter of care for the elderly. I have no difficulty with the concept of the fair deal scheme and, in so far as it can be used, I welcome it. However, the broader issue of care of the elderly in all its complexities is something we need to debate much more fully in this House. As I have said before and sadly must repeat, if our only political aspiration for the elderly is that we will be in a position to provide them with a nursing home bed when they reach an appropriate age, that is a pathetic aspiration for the men and women who built up this country.

I am interested in the figures we are debating today, in particular the missing €1 billion and the figure of €100 million. What would €100 million do? Roughly, it would provide carer's allowance or benefit for 10,000 carers. Although I admit the means test for carer's allowance has become a little more relaxed, it is still very restrictive. I sought, and made some degree of progress with the late Minister, Mr. Séamus Brennan, that the means test would be abandoned for carer's allowance and that there would be a test for a person providing full-time care and a test for a person in need of full-time care.

I ask my colleagues to reflect on how €100 million could be used today, next week or next month. It would more or less provide carer's allowance for 10,000 carers, which would be money very well spent. I said previously that we should reflect on the possibility of introducing a constitutional amendment to protect the elderly. I am an advocate of the constitutional amendment to protect the rights of children here, but the elderly also need a higher degree of protection than they have currently. If such a constitutional amendment was passed, the courts would be open on an almost 24-7 basis because our elderly do not currently receive their full entitlements.

We have gone down the road of what I call the nursing home mentality, the mentality of Shady Pines. Nursing homes have a place and a role to play, but the majority of our elderly wish to remain in their own homes and communities with their families. That should be aspiration number one. Our first aspiration should not be to provide 10,000 extra nursing home beds, but to facilitate people to remain in their communities. Will the Minister of State give serious consideration to broadening the carer's allowance and abandoning the means test? When she examines the figures, she will see they are not as draconian or shocking as she would imagine and that the provision of a carer's allowance for every full-time carer would only amount to a modest sum of money. I urge her to take this proposal on board.

The home care packages, which have worked reasonably well, were introduced by the former Minister for Health and Children, Mary Harney. Those packages can be built upon. They have played a significant role in allowing carers and people requiring care to have a degree of discretion in order that people are not simply shuttled off to permanent beds in a nursing home. The respite grants have also played a significant role in allowing families have some degree of breathing space. I welcome the attendance of the Minister of State here and appreciate that the fair deal nursing home scheme must be properly funded. It is a good scheme and while we have had difficulties with regard to its workings and the legalities, those issues are a bit of a moving feast. The current crisis, if it does nothing else but cause us to debate further our ambitions for the elderly, will be worthwhile. "Fair deal" is a nice phrase, but the fair deal the elderly really require is discretion, hope and a better aspiration than simply a nursing home bed.

I urge the Minister of State to take on the bigger picture, not just the fair deal. I am glad she has been given responsibility for the elderly and am sure she appreciates that our aspiration for the elderly must be broad. A jigsaw of solutions is required, but practical solutions such as more home care packages, greater access to a carer's allowance, more district nursing hours and more respite grants will cost only a fraction of what the fair deal costs. Those changes would transform the lives of thousands of our elderly. I hope the Minister of State considers this broad range of solutions. We must also tackle the funding crisis in the fair deal, the anomalies in the system and the anomalies with the 5% clawback.

I hope this is the beginning of an ongoing debate. Our starting point must be to remember that one size does not fit all. We need a multiplicity of solutions, but our aspiration must be to allow the majority to remain where they wish to remain, in their homes supported by their families and communities.