I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Health (Repayment Scheme) Bill 2006. This is the second occasion in two weeks that I have spoken on legislation relating to older people, which represents progress. For too long, the needs of the elderly have been neglected and have been dealt with on a piecemeal basis, usually through secondary legislation, some of which has been found to be faulty and illegal. The best way to deal with the needs of the elderly is through primary legislation.
While I welcome this Bill, it is disgraceful that it has taken so long to introduce the legislation necessary to refund the illegal charges paid by people in nursing homes. No other group would be left waiting for almost a year and a half to have their money refunded to them.
The bottom line in respect of the nursing home payments is that the State broke the law over a long period. During that time various Ministers and Ministers of State at the Department of Health and Children knew there was a problem and either kept quiet or simply forgot about it. Deputy Perry should be complimented on his initiative in raising this issue. How long would the unlawful action of the State have continued were it not for Deputy Perry's intervention? That is a valid question.
When the unlawful payments were eventually highlighted, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, with the full support of the Government, introduced legislation with the specific purpose of denying the most frail and vulnerable people in our society the money due to them in retrospective payments. During the debate on that Bill, I and my Labour Party colleagues, as well as other Opposition Deputies, warned the Minister that she was taking a grave risk in introducing that type of legislation and that, in all probability, the Bill would be found to be unconstitutional. In effect, that is what happened — the Supreme Court found that the Bill was unconstitutional. The rights of the elderly were vindicated by the courts, not by this House. The Government failed to vindicate the rights and entitlements of the elderly in our society.
Another fundamental question which must be addressed in legislation and which could have been dealt with in this Bill is what happens to older people who need care and cannot get it in their own home setting, and for whom a public nursing home bed is not available? In theory, our laws provide that everyone is entitled to long-stay care but we all know that in reality, the situation is very different. We do not have sufficient long-stay places for the people who need them. The majority of older people want to stay in their own home environment but approximately 4% or 5% of them will require long-term care in nursing homes. In that context, the age profile of the country means additional long-term nursing home beds in the public sector will be required.
At present, an abundance of money is available to the Government. However, as far as I can see, it is used for the pet projects of Ministers whose sole objective is to identify projects in their constituencies to promote get themselves re-elected. They were elected to this House to look after everyone.
A commitment was given that this Government would provide 2,000 extra long-term public nursing home beds. Regrettably, that was reneged upon. That the Government has failed to build on its commitment and provide long-term care needs in public nursing homes will be a major scandal in the future.
I received representations, as have Members of all parties, from medical card holders whose spouses need long-term care. Unfortunately, that care was not available within the community. Those older people could no longer look after their spouses at home and public nursing home beds were not available. To provide the care for their spouses, these people, elderly themselves, were obliged to secure a loan from a credit union to augment a social welfare payment and a subvention to meet the weekly repayments of approximately €800 in a private nursing home.
I asked the Tánaiste whether medical card holders are also entitled to a refund under this scheme. She has turned her back on this group of people. Notwithstanding this, will the Minister of State address this issue when he responds at the end of this debate? Are medical card holders who are unable to gain access to a public nursing home and who must enter a private nursing home and pay for it themselves through loans entitled to a refund? If not, why not? As I stated, the Tánaiste has turned her back on this category of people. However, given that people are entitled to long-term care, the courts once again may intervene on behalf of older people.
Last night's RTE "Prime Time Investigates" programme on accident and emergency departments highlights the lack of commitment by the State to older people. Most of the people in accident and emergency departments are elderly. I have given much consideration to the fact that the Government will only respond when a scandal or potential scandal is highlighted by the media, especially on television. The same approach was taken after the Leas Cross scandal. When issues are raised in this House by Members of the Opposition or questions are asked why legislation has not been enacted or certain steps have not been taken, we are pawned off by the same standard reply that legislation is proceeding. Years afterwards, particularly in the context of the elderly, promises made have still not been enacted.
Last week we dealt with the Health (Nursing Homes)(Amendment) Bill 2006 and the need for the Legislature to regulate. Care within public long-stay settings is not subject to regulation. The private and voluntary nursing home sectors are subject to certain regulations. However, they are completely inadequate. They emanate from 1993 regulations and the Health (Nursing Homes) Act 1990.
Ten years ago report after report demanded the introduction of statutory regulations governing nursing homes. We still await them. I mentioned it last Thursday and I ask again when that will legislation see the light of day. The time constraints between now and the next general election mean it is unlikely that the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power, will be in a position to bring it through the Dáil. Well before the Leas Cross scandal was raised in this House, the inadequacies of the regulation structures and the fact they were introduced on a piecemeal basis were outlined in various reports since 1999. That is unacceptable.
I compliment the National Council on Ageing and Older People on the publication of its most recent report on improving the quality of life for older people in long-stay care settings. Having read the report, I plead with the Minister of State and his officials to take on board many of the recommendations contained therein. Unfortunately, during recent years, other bodies, at a cost of resources and time to those involved, brought forward similar reports which were overlooked. They were ignored and were left to gather dust on a shelf in the Minister's office. If some of these recommendations had been implemented, many of the scandals of recent years could have been avoided.
I wish to refer to some recommendations contained in this report, but before that we must acknowledge that we have a major problem in considering how to deal with the care of older people in future years. I read a population labour force report which shows that in 2006, the elderly, or those aged 65 and over, number 463,000. It is projected that in 2036 they will number 1.1 million. If a substantial service is to be provided between now and then, we must ensure that the needs of the elderly are deemed a priority and that hard decisions must be taken by everybody, irrespective of who is in government.
A plan to finance the needs of the elderly well into this century must be formulated. On the basis of various reports and what we know with regard to nursing homes and lack of services etc., much care and many services will need to be provided. The matter must be examined.
In the context of a report from the National Council on Ageing and Older People, some basic issues must be outlined very clearly. With regard to the direction we will take in future, some points should also be made clear. For example, there are no national standards of care, with existing regulations confined to nursing homes and voluntary homes. It is difficult to prosecute nursing homes which violate existing regulations. There is no published analysis of the inspection report on private facilities. We have known this and referred to it time and again. There is no common standardised approach to nursing home inspections. Even if people wished to go to the Ombudsman with regard to private nursing homes, its powers only extend to public long-stay care facilities.
This relates to the issue of the physical environment, and I referred to what was a negative and wrong decision taken by the Government not to proceed, notwithstanding promises, with long-term public nursing homes. Currently, even the inadequate inspectorate system we have does not cover public nursing homes.