Skip to main content
Normal View

SEANAD PUBLIC CONSULTATION COMMITTEE debate -
Thursday, 24 Nov 2011

Rights of Older People: Discussion

The purpose of this meeting is to have discussions with the organisations which made written submissions on the rights of older people. The clerk to the committee has supplied all organisations with a list of key points in the various submissions which the committee wishes to discuss as the committee wishes to concentrate on areas of policy and legislation rather than immediate budgetary requests.

The format for today's meeting is as follows: I will invite delegates from the Irish Hospice Foundation, the National Federation of Pensioners Association; the Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland, known as CARDI, to make opening remarks not exceeding ten minutes to be followed by a question and answer session. I will then invite delegates from The Carers Association, Age Action Ireland and the Institute of Community Health Nursing, followed by Older and Bolder, Retired Workers, Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation. The groupings were decided upon as to the order in which submissions were received by the committee.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and the witness continues to so do, the witness is entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of his or her evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and witnesses are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person or persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

This is a particularly important day for the Seanad. This Public Consultation Committee is a new venture for this House and we hope it will be a positive engagement with the general public on certain issues. I invite Ms Caroline Lynch, communications and advocacy manager, and Ms Marie Lynch, Irish Hospice Foundation, to make their presentation. I will allow ten minutes' speaking time and the speakers may share time. We are constrained by time as the Chamber will be required at 5 p.m. We have received and studied the delegations' written submissions. I, therefore, ask the delegates to synopsise and raise in bullet point form the matters they wish to emphasise.

Ms Caroline Lynch

On behalf of the Irish Hospice Foundation, I thank the Seanad for giving us this opportunity to speak about the rights of older people. I will focus on what needs to happen to fulfil the right of an individual to have a good death. I will also briefly outline the work the Irish Hospice Foundation does and give some factual information on dying and death in Ireland. I then propose to address some of the issues Senators have identified in the many submissions they received.

The Irish Hospice Foundation is a national charity dedicated to all matters relating to dying, death and bereavement in Ireland. Our work centres on development, building support for the hospice philosophy in all care settings, improving access to hospice services and working towards the provision of high quality care, including bereavement support. Our work has evolved since the foundation was established 25 years ago. Founded because of the need to develop and fund specific hospice services, we have expanded over time to meet the needs of people dying in hospitals, at home and in institutions. We also actively promote discussion of the issues relating to dying, death and bereavement. To clear up some of the confusion, we do not run hospices - they are all independent; neither is it a membership organisation, although we work very closely with all hospice service providers.

A significant proportion of the population is directly affected by death each year. More than 27,000 people die annually and as between four and ten people are directly affected by each death, this means that more than 250,000 people come to terms with the loss of a loved one each year. People die at all ages. Approximately 350 children die each year, most in their first year of life. Approximately 78% of all deaths are in the over-65 years age group.

More than 6,000 people use hospice services annually and it is estimated that up to 13,000 patients will require access to hospice and specialist palliative care in 2016. It is important to note that all persons with advancing life-limiting disease require a palliative approach to their care. Specialist palliative care services respond to those with complex palliative care needs and provide advice and information for those caring for people dying at home, as well as in residential and acute settings.

What do we want when we are dying? The first Irish survey of death and dying in 2004 was commissioned by the Irish Hospice Foundation and found that two thirds of people wished to die at home. Some 10% expressed a preference to die in hospital or a hospice. The reality is that only 25% of people die at home; more than seven out of ten die outside their own homes and 48% die in busy acute hospitals. Therefore, the majority of older people die in acute and long-stay settings.

The 2004 survey also revealed that more than 80% of people believed that hospital care for people who were dying needed improvement. In the United Kingdom almost one quarter of occupied hospital beds were occupied by patients in the last year of life. A national audit conducted in 2010 by our hospice friendly hospitals programme found that up to 25% of people who died in acute hospitals could have died at home if the services were in place.

I will focus on a number of particular points, beginning with the implementation of the Law Reform Commission's proposal on mental capacity legislation. We support this proposal and believe legislation should be enacted as soon as possible. The issue of capacity affects people who are dying and their health care providers and carers when decisions have to be made about continuing or discontinuing treatment. Every effort should be made to fulfil dying patients' known last wishes, particularly when they no longer have the capacity to express their wishes. Ensuring the wishes of a dying loved one are respected is also a consolation for carers.

Ensuring potential legislation is successfully implemented would require the development of assessment tools for GPs and public education on advanced care directives. Think Ahead, the flagship programme of the national council of the forum on end of life in Ireland - another Irish Hospice Foundation initiative - provides a system to guide members of the public in recording and registering their preferences in the event of emergency, serious illness or death. It was launched last month by the Taoiseach. It is hoped this resource will assist in the growing public awareness of dying and death.

Extending the role of HIQA to oversee home care packages would be welcome if it was allocated sufficient resources to appropriately develop and oversee the implementation of these standards. It is important that end-of-life care is included in any home care standards. Standard 16 of HIQA's national quality standards for residential care settings for older people in Ireland covers end-of-life care. Based on the work of our hospice friendly hospitals programme to date on developing standards and auditing care at the end of life, the Irish Hospice Foundation fully endorses the initiatives to audit community services and support HIQA in developing standards. Our work in this area shows the importance of including individual, family and staff perspectives and joining up services and team working and communication in shaping quality care. We will shortly pilot a new audit system in community hospitals based on the audit conducted in the acute sector.

Standards for institutions for care of dementia are welcome. HIQA's national quality standards for residential care settings for older people in Ireland have supplementary criteria for dementia-specific residential care units for older people. These criteria speak about the need for care to be person-centred and activity focused, to promote meaningful self-expression for residents and to facilitate their communication needs in an individualised manner.

The Irish Hospice Foundation and the Alzheimer Society of Ireland have been involved in a two-year joint project exploring the palliative care needs of patients with dementia. This is part of a wider effort to extend palliative care to cover all illnesses. Our project has reinforced the need for staff training in the provision of dementia and palliative care. There is also a need for access to specialist advice. Most importantly, we must anticipate and plan for the care of people with dementia who are dying. The aim is to keep people out of distress and in their place of care. Any transition from the nursing home or the home to a hospital must not be a burden for the patient.

We support the introduction of legislation to establish a clear right to community care which would ensure people and professionals could plan for the future. It would also reduce people's fear and stress. The Irish Hospice Foundation believes people diagnosed with a life-limiting condition should automatically be entitled to a medical card and a full range of community services. Many patients are already medical card holders before their prognosis. Those who would quality for a medical card on the basis of their new diagnosis would be using it for a limited period of time. Financial stability is often lost after diagnosis of a serious illness with a patient or carer no longer able to work. They have less income but greater expenditure and the medical card would potentially allow them to access a range of services and have some comfort.

A study conducted in nine counties in 2009 and 2010 by hospice and palliative care social workers of the Irish Association for Palliative Care found that processing requests for medical cards varied from one to 85 days, with 23% of applications taking more than 20 days to process. As a result, 13% of patients died before the process was completed, while 24% of applicants had been refused a medical card. Obviously, this is unacceptable.

The voluntary sector fills many gaps in the community. For our part, we fund a night nursing service for non-cancer patients. Last year 151 patients received a night nursing service, a 17% increase on the figure for the year before. This service cost €178,000. We live in economically challenging times, but there is much volunteer passion in communities. We have an opportunity to harness the experience of the bereaved as volunteers. These are individuals who can channel their good and bad experiences of death into a positive service for people at end of life.

Regarding a formal framework for the delivery of palliative care by primary care teams, 90% of care provided in the last year of life is provided by a GP and a primary care team. The average GP practice will care for up to 20 dying patients every year. Unlike other countries, Ireland has no formal framework to support the delivery of palliative care services by primary care teams. Such a framework would assist in people being cared for in their homes or the community for longer. It would help in planning and anticipating the transition for patients and facilitate the involvement of family and carers.

Some resources will be required for the provision of training, after-hours nursing services, communications systems between care providers and up-to-date and flexible responses, but many of these measures will actually be cost neutral. With better communications and by mapping the services which are available, professionals will understand each other's roles and what they can access for their patients. An example might be 24-hour access to advice from the local specialist palliative care service. It is ultimately cheaper to have people well cared for at home than dying in an acute hospital.

The IHF endorses education about end of life and bereavement care at introductory, intermediate and advanced levels for staff working in care homes and long-stay settings. We believe that funding for education and access to study leave should be privileged. Indeed, the IHF sponsors staff attendance at many educational events. All staff should be able to avail of introductory level education, an example of which is Final Journeys 1 and 2, which is already operating in some community and nursing home settings and is making a difference to patient care.

We need standardised undergraduate education for professionals, and palliative care training for health care assistants working in this sector should be mandatory. We continue to develop our links with academic institutions such as the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and University College Cork, which is offering a masters degree in end-of-life health care ethics, the first of its kind in the world. It is imperative that staff continue to be released to attend these opportunities.

Finally, I draw attention to some facts. There are continued bed and staff shortages, 237 and 610 respectively, in the specialist palliative care services that exist and these need to be addressed. There are three areas of the country still with no inpatient unit: the midlands, the south east and the north east. This inequity should be urgently addressed. The infrastructure in our hospitals and long-stay institutions must be reviewed. Only 15% of public hospitals have the choice of single rooms and some are not en suite or fully wheelchair accessible. Again this is an urgent issue. We thank the committee for its attention.

That is a good overview of the wonderful work the Irish Hospice Foundation does. How acute is the shortage of beds in the various regions? In Waterford there is a shortage of palliative care beds but is the story the same throughout the country?

Ms Caroline Lynch

At the moment there are just over 150 palliative care beds in the entire country, with about 670 staff. There is a shortage of 237 beds and more than 600 staff. There is a plan under national policy for an inpatient unit in Waterford. There are plans for a 20 bed unit there in the cancer care centre. I do not have a progress report on that but there is a good home care service in that area. Every part of the country is well covered by home care teams. There are about 22 of them.

It is inequitable, however, that three parts of the country do not have an inpatient unit. It is ten years now since the 2001 report of the national advisory committee on palliative care which recommended at least one inpatient unit in each of the former health board areas. While there has been progress in Waterford with a plan for 20 palliative beds in the cancer care unit, we do not know when it will be developed. It should be acknowledged there is a good network of local hospice groups that are raising funds. This is particularly so in Waterford.

I thank the group for this detailed submission. The submission calls for medical cards on a statutory basis for the terminally ill and those in palliative care. Has there been any progress on that during the group's interaction with the HSE and the Minister for Health?

The submission was striking by outlining what looks like a low rate of training in the medical professions for specialist care in the palliative area. About 12% of doctors who responded had received some form of training. Are there any initiatives to address this and is there anything we can do about it?

There were calls in the IHF 2009 report for the regulation of the funeral industry. Has there been any movement on this since 2009?

Ms Caroline Lynch

On medical cards, there was some progress when, earlier this year, the Minister established a more centralised system for the administration of discretionary medical cards. Those medical cards are given out to patients who would not normally be entitled to a medical card but on the basis of hardship or illness are given it. That is the only progress that has been made. We want to do more research in this regard, particularly into the economic costs. We would say that ensuring people have access to a medical card and all of the social services that go with it enables people to stay at home for as long as possible, which is a cheaper option for the State than admitting people to an acute hospital, where the cost is estimated to be €1,000 per night. We would welcome the Seanad's support in this.

There are three levels of training for palliative care. Specialist training is where consultants have palliative care as their area of expertise. Not everyone requires that; there are intermediate levels and general levels. The report mentioned where we looked at 300 long-stay institutions and found only 12% of doctors had any formal training. There are a lot of education initiatives at present. The key thing is that the HSE allows people time off so they can attend the training programmes and that it would support and fund the work we are doing because we have a lot of educational initiatives.

The Government said it would reform the funeral industry. We are looking for this, as is the funeral industry itself. There has not been any progress so far but the National Council of the Forum on End of Life in Ireland issued a briefing paper earlier this year. The funeral service industry is probably one of the least regulated industries in the country, even though it is responsible for the burial and cremation of 27,000 people annually. There are no standards in the area and no oversight mechanism. Anyone can set up a service. We have put a proposal to the Government that a special office would be established to oversee the sector based on the Canadian model that has operated successfully for the last 30 years and which would be self-financing. There would be proper training and standards for the industry as a result. We are lobbying on this but I do not have any progress updates at the moment.

I thank Ms Lynch for her excellent presentation. I was struck by the opening of the presentation, with the overall objectives listed, including that everyone has the right to a good death. Do we have any legislation in place that supports the right to a good death? The presentation mentioned a number of Bills where we need to make progress. Which of those would be the priority?

Looking at legislation dealing with mental capacity or the right to community care, I notice the IHF also talked about the importance of coupling that with a public education programme. Each of these would have resource implications but would legislation without a public education programme be effective? Is the Irish Hospice Foundation arguing it would be critical to achieve effective implementation of legislation?

My third question relates to the comment in your submission on the €1 million towards the research project on palliative care. Was that €1 million contributed by the State or did it come from fund-raising? How important is research in terms of the issues being pursued and why has the Irish Hospice Foundation chosen action research as a methodology?

Ms Caroline Lynch

In terms of the legislation, the establishment of HIQA was important, particularly as it is responsible for standard 16 which covers end of life care. The public education programme is also crucial, particularly with regard to the proposed mental capacity Bill, which considers advanced care directives. People need to be educated on the issues regarding their future health and social care needs and this will require resources. The voluntary sector can play a role in this regard along with the Hospice Foundation and other disease specific organisations such as the Alzheimer's Society of Ireland and others that engage in public awareness activities. However, it is also important that the State gets behind the legislation, introduces it and ensures there is discussion and dialogue on end of life issues.

We know from the national consultative process that we organised in 2009 around the country that there is confusion on many end of life issues and on terminology, but there is also significant engagement and people want to know more. They realise there is only one opportunity to get this right. They are also aware that if they want to have their voices heard and their needs respected, they need to engage and talk to their families, their health care providers and their solicitors. End of life care is not just about hospital or hospice care. Many other issues are involved, such as financial, legal and economic issues and these need to be discussed. This will not happen overnight and it must be something that is considered long term. We have made the suggestion in submissions to the Government that there should be education that a public health approach should be taken to end of life care. This would mean that people would learn about end of life issues from early on, from the cradle to the grave. We should start early on speaking to people about end of life. It should not just be when somebody gets a diagnosis of ill health that they learn how to cope and look after themselves and maintain a good quality of life. People in the community, including younger people, should be taught about what bereavement support is needed.

On the question of the €1 million allocated for research, this came from a joint project involving the HSE. We raised funds for the project, entitled Palliative Care for All, which runs over five years. The project examines how we can extend palliative care to people with illnesses other than cancer. Approximately 80% of people who currently use hospice services have cancer as that is how the service has traditionally developed. We have had three action research programmes. One looked at dementia care, another at heart failure and the third at chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder. We decided action research was the way to go because we would be involved in working with the consultants, doctors and nurses and would see the care pathways for people under their care and in how we could influence those pathways and ensure that a palliative care approach was introduced. Not everybody needs access to specialist palliative care. Some patients could stay under the care of their cardiologist if that person had been taking care of them for some time, for example for ten or 20 years. What is required is that the cardiologist would have an understanding of palliative care principles. Then, if things got very difficult, they could seek advice from their specialist colleague or refer the person to the hospice service.

Have I covered everything?

At the rate we are going, we will not finish this evening. We must be very succinct. I allowed 20 minutes for these questions, but we have gone well over that and other people may want to ask questions. I do not wish to interrupt Ms Lynch; it is very interesting. However, we must be more succinct or some of those at the back will be disappointed at not being able to contribute and as Chairman, I will be under pressure. I advise those asking questions to try to be succinct and not to ask questions just for the sake of asking them. Answers also must be brief. Otherwise some of the other groups will say they did not get the opportunity to contribute. I hate doing this, but I must ask people to conclude quickly. Unfortunately, I am constrained by time as there is other business ordered to take place in the Chamber this evening.

It is good to hear of volunteers coming forward. Where I live in Sligo, I have seen many volunteers come forward to become involved in the hospice. With regard to the role of education and the broader understanding and appreciation of death in society, could we steal or borrow the model the National Office for Suicide Prevention offers? For example, members of that office came to the Houses to give three to four-hour training for people to understand the basics and they are also going around the country - they have been invited to Sligo - talking to front line workers. Is that model available or could it be used? Would the Hospice Foundation advocate or support that and if so, could we help it to do so?

Ms Caroline Lynch

The Hospice Foundation would support that. Many volunteers are involved with individual hospices or hospice service providers and training is provided to all of those people. We will go to the National Office for Suicide Prevention and learn about its model and consider whether we can work with hospice providers to deliver a similar model. We will all learn from each other.

It should also extend to the broader community. People may not be volunteers, but they need to understand more about death, palliative care and end of life experience. That can only help everyone.

Ms Caroline Lynch

Absolutely. We are very aware of the work of the National Office for Suicide Prevention, particularly the work it has done on bereavement care. We support that work and will certainly go back to it.

I welcome Ms Lynch and thank her for all the good work the foundation is doing. I am a particular fan of the foundation's Dignity by Design project which was based on getting money from the State and matching with private funding to facilitate small projects in hospitals around the country to make them more friendly to people and their loved ones at the end of life. How is that going, given the current crisis with regard to public moneys? I am conscious of time and it is quite all right if Ms Lynch wishes to provide a response later, but I would be glad to hear a brief answer now.

Ms Caroline Lynch

This is a good news story. Together with the HSE Estates, we have put together €1.2 million for projects in 14 hospitals. These will include refurbishing mortuaries and developing family rooms. Money has come from HSE Estates and from the national lottery and we understand there is more to come. This is a positive move and there is investment in this area.

Thank you. We will now take the next two presentations, with ten minutes for each and interaction from Senators who wish to put questions. I welcome and call on Mr. Jim Keegan, vice president of the National Federation of Pensioners Associations, to proceed.

Mr. Jim Keegan

I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to address the Seanad on issues concerning older people. I was taken off the bench as third reserve and thrown in here to this lion's den.

I am vice-president of the National Federation of Pensioners Associations and am also a member of the executive of FERPA, the European Federation of Retired and Elderly Persons, the headquarters of which is in Brussels. The federation represents more than 10 million people in Europe. This position gives me an opportunity to understand how other countries deal with problems facing older people. In this respect, I commend the Nordic countries on the care and attention they give to older citizens. They pay high taxes. Most people here have paid higher taxes during their working lives, but have not ended up with a welfare state like those of the Nordic countries. The reason is that politicians reduced taxes to gain favour with the electorate, to win seats and to put their parties in power. This was a mistake.

The submission from the National Federation of Pensioners Associations was fairly substantial and I will not go over it except to say that the principles and recommendations set by the United Nations, the Madrid plan of action, and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and subsequent North-South forum report should all be implemented in full as soon as possible. A White Paper on pensions from the European Commission is due this month and there is a probability of a pensions directive by 2013. I wonder what effect this will have on the new framework document on which the Government is working at present. This framework document is being negotiated between the Government, trade unions and employers with no input from pensioners or their representative bodies. This is wrong.

The European Trade Union Confederation has been asked to write to the 27 Heads of State and Government of the European Union about the living conditions of millions of senior citizens in Europe who are at risk of living in poverty and need. This letter will focus on the need for pension systems that guarantee all workers living on a pension a decent standard of living. Pensioners in this country have a right to an adequate income and a decent health care service, having paid their taxes and PRSI during their working lives.

I have a list of 23 items which have affected the purchasing power of pensioners over the past years. It includes various levies, the universal social charge, loss of the Christmas bonus and changes in tax bands. I could go on, but I will wait for the budget to see what I can add to the list. The word from Germany is that more austerity measures are on the way.

It is a sobering thought that by 2050 the ratio of people in work to those in retirement will be 2:1, from the present ratio of 4:1. This is what the experts on demographics tell us, but demographics are only guess work. Who knows what will happen in the next 40 years. There could be global warming, major earthquakes or even the end of the world. While it is always prudent to look to the future, we should not be carried away by demographics. We should correct our present day problems first. The cuts in public spending, particularly in social expenditure, are treating the symptoms rather than the real causes of the crisis.

Loneliness and isolation are major problems for older people, particularly in rural areas. Without some form of companionship an old person's health will decline rapidly. The issuing of travel passes to the elderly in rural areas is a joke, because there are no State train or bus services in many rural areas. The closing of rural post offices does not help either. Old people have got used to going to the post office and meeting people to have a chat while collecting their pensions.

Next year, 2012, is the year of positive ageing and intergenerational solidarity. The elderly are already doing their part by babysitting their grandchildren to allow parents to go to work and, in some cases, giving up their life savings to safeguard their children's homes because they have fallen behind with their mortgages. There should be a full Minister for pensions rather than a Minister with four different portfolios.

The next speaker is Dr. Roger O'Sullivan, director of the Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland, CARDI. Mr. Conor Breen, of CARDI is also here.

Dr. Roger O’Sullivan

Thank you, Chairman, for this opportunity to address the committee. I will briefly outline the work of CARDI on population ageing and ageing in rural communities. Given the time constraint, I will focus on the issue of rural transport.

CARDI was established in 2007 to promote collaboration and co-operation across the island of Ireland and to help research play its part in planning for demographic change. It is an all-Ireland organisation. We have a cross-disciplinary focus in our research. We promote research to inform policy and practice. One of our aims is to bring forward evidence so that policy, practice and resource allocation can be based on the latest information.

Our activities focus on three areas. They are events on ageing, translating research on ageing, and our grant programme. In our grant programme we have covered a range of issues. It is important to recognise that we are living in a time of demographic change. A person turns 60 every eight seconds. People aged 65 and above make up 11.1% of the population of Ireland. This is expected to increase to 23% by 2031. The largest increase is in the oldest old. There are now 48,000 people aged 85 and over, and that is expected to triple by 2031. It is a great achievement that we are living longer than ever before, but living longer must be matched by healthier lives.

Traditionally, we thought about ageing and how we aged in relation to our genes. We often say we should pick our parents carefully because that will dictate how we age. We now recognise that only 25% of ageing is due to our genes. The rest is determined by where and how we age. Recent research looks at the issues of family, smoking, diet and exercise. The two issues that stand out are the engagement and the empowerment of older people.

I will now speak about two funded projects. One is on transport in rural areas and the other on healthy ageing in rural communities. Why is it important to understand rural transport? We must recognise the importance of transport for health appointments, avoiding social exclusion and access to key services. In the Republic of Ireland, 33% of rural households reported difficulty in accessing banking services and general practitioners. This compared with 15% and 11% for their urban counterparts. In rural Ireland 52% of households had difficulties in accessing public transport compared with 11% in urban areas, and 37% of older people living in a rural area had a transport need that is not being met by public or private transport means. Transport needs relate to shopping, personal issues such as hospital appointments and visiting friends. Transport in rural areas is an important issue for remaining connected and is important for the health of people living in rural areas.

In Northern Ireland the average weekly spend on transport by a retired person is £41.20, about 12% of total expenditure. In the Republic of Ireland it is €70.19, about 15% of total expenditure. We have higher weekly transport costs. In Northern Ireland, 35% of women and 66% of men have driving licences. In the Republic of Ireland 40% of women and 74% of men have driving licences. Six out of ten women in the Republic of Ireland do not have driving licences. In Northern Ireland, 12% of all households are made up of pensioners who live alone. The figure for the Republic of Ireland is 8%.

Risk of poverty in rural areas is just under 18%, compared with 12% in urban areas. Two groups of people who are at particular risk of social exclusion in rural areas are those who do not drive and those who do not have access to a family network of friends who can meet their transport needs. Transport enables older people to maintain independence and social networks. Barriers to independence and social networks include poverty, low income, lack of access to a car, poor transport services and the location and opportunities to use transport services.

Research evidence shows that if we focus solely on economic arguments regarding rural transport we might not recognise the wider benefit and knock-on effects of having a good transport system. Research indicates the provision of rural transport is not sufficient for older people who do not drive, do not have access to public transport, cannot afford to keep a car or need to make regular hospital appointments. High quality integrated rural transport can help to combat social exclusion among older people, thereby improving their lives. The provision of adequate rural transport for older people is a key aspect of positive ageing and policy decisions should recognise that.

I apologise for my late arrival in the Chamber. I was otherwise engaged but I had an opportunity to follow most of the discussion on the monitors. I thank the witnesses for attending this meeting.

The submission from the National Federation of Pensioners Associations, which I found very interesting, focused on ageism. The issue of a mandatory retirement age has been raised on several occasions by my colleagues in this House. Mr. Keegan suggests there should not be an upper age limit but what is his view on a mandatory retirement age? Could the argument be framed as a right to continue working beyond the age of 65 for people who chose do so?

CARDI's submission was also thought provoking but the issue of care of older people with dementia, along with the specific rights that apply, stood out. I refer in particular to the issue of end-of-life care for people with dementia. Can CARDI make any specific proposal on how one should adapt end-of-life care policies and guidelines?

As I live in a rural community in south County Sligo, I understand the dilemmas elderly people face in rural communities which are poorly served by public transport. The debate on public transport is a difficult one but the witnesses will be familiar with the intricacies of running a bus that may be carrying two people along a route. Are there alternative solutions to asking the State to provide additional services? Does a different model exist which we are not aware of? Could we be encouraging something more appropriate for a local community? The existing model is not always going to fit and there is no point in asking for it because it will not happen. That leaves elderly people in a vulnerable position, however, and they are becoming increasingly disconnected from communities because even though their neighbours may be making enormous efforts to include them, some of them will not come forward.

Mr. Jim Keegan

On the retirement age, I was recently in Brussels where I attended a presentation by the international trade union council. There were doubts about the prospect of a mandatory retirement age for the simple reason that nobody wants to be working on a building site at the age of 68. In the construction sector, one cannot have it. The council does not believe it would work for the same reason as it is not possible to apply a universal minimum wage. Every country sets different standards.

We met several Ministers on the issue of rural transport. Instead of providing the free travel pass, rural people could be given vouchers for taxis so they can go into town to do their shopping and meet people. The travel pass is no good to them.

Dr. Roger O’Sullivan

The research on end-of-life care standards was conducted by Dr. Suzanne Cahill of Trinity College, Dublin. The research investigated the particular experiences at the end of life for people with dementia and outlined a clear set of care standards. I can forward the details of the research to the Senator.

In regard to rural transport, I also favour taxi vouchers but other models of good practice can also be identified. That is an advantage of comparing what is happening in the North with the South. There is, for example, the concept of the volunteer driver, although the issue of insurance must be addressed in this regard. A third option is the dial a lift system. It was called the Rural Rover in Northern Ireland, where it was operated by traditional bus companies. However, while buses travelled along a route from A to B, they stopped off at different points if requested to do so in advance.

Did Ministers respond on the issue of taxi vouchers?

Mr. Jim Keegan

It is still in the air, like everything else.

We will take it down from the air now, thank you.

Mr. Jim Keegan

Perhaps Senators can do that but we cannot.

This is why the witnesses are here.

Mr. Keegan referred to the national pensions framework and stated that most pensioners do not have a say how their schemes are being restructured. Has he investigated the area of pension trustees under current law? He is asking us to use our soft power with the Minister for Social Protection but there are already certain provisions in the legislation covering this area. Does he believe his members are not being given a right to vote on the trustees who will represent them? This could already be covered by the law.

Mr. Jim Keegan

Is the Senator referring to trustees?

Mr. Keegan stated that pension members of these schemes are being ignored and are not allowed to take part in discussions or negotiations about changes.

Mr. Jim Keegan

I was speaking about the pensions framework document that is being negotiated.

They are not included in that.

Mr. Jim Keegan

Pensioners or their representative bodies should have a seat at that table.

I just wanted to clarify that.

In regard to the suggestion that the minimum pension should be set at 34% of average industrial earnings, how was that percentage arrived at? Is there any movement towards involving older people in deciding the amount of pension they are paid?

What are the most important things we should seek to change in order to achieve a high quality and integrated rural transport service?

The rural transport network that has operated in Bantry and west Cork for the past decade is quite good. Services reach Bere Island and the peninsulas. However, the danger always exists of a reduction to its multi-annual funding. The future of the service should be more definite because older people should not have to face these fears. I presume the witnesses are familiar with our rural transport system. How can services be put on a certain basis rather than depending on annual funding?

Mr. Keegan

In regard to the pension as a percentage of the average industrial wage, we began by looking for 50%.

Mr. Jim Keegan

Eventually, we began to call for 40%. This Government stated that it would endeavour to give us 34% of the average industrial wage. That is no good if the State pension is below the poverty line. So 34% of the average industrial wage will be below the poverty line. People who have paid their taxes and PRSI all their lives deserve a pension that they can live on.

Dr. Roger O’Sullivan

The rural transport scheme regularly receives very good feedback. It is important to recognise that it accounts for about 1.5 million passengers every year. It functions on less than 1.2% of the total annual spend on public transport. If one wants to increase good practice, looking at those figures, one can recognise that increasing that spend is a good way of sustaining rural transport.

Thank you very much. We will now move on to the next three delegates who can take their places. They are as follows: Mr. John Dunne, CEO of the Carers' Association; Mr. Eamon Timmins, head of advocacy and communications, Age Action Ireland; Ms Lorna Roe, social policy officer, Age Action Ireland; and Dr. Amanda Phelan, Institute of Community Health Nursing. The delegates are most welcome. The caution has already been administered to them concerning privilege. I do not have any objection to second speakers, providing they share time. We will start with Mr. Timmins. Speakers have ten minutes each and should confine themselves to that limit so that we can get through this evening's business.

Mr. Eamon Timmins

On behalf of Age Action I thank the committee for the invitation to address it today. Age Action is a national charity which works to promote positive ageing and better policies and services for older people. In the context of today's presentation, our vision is to make Ireland the first country to apply fully the 1991 United Nations Principle for Older Persons into our national way of life. That would mean Ireland would be a country where: no older person lives in consistent poverty; no older person should die from cold in their home; no older person should be required to leave his or her home through lack of community services; and no older person should be excluded from society through lack of public or private transport.

There is a lack of realisable human rights in Ireland, particularly social and economic and economic rights. They are often spoken of as "a right to apply", as opposed to "a right to receive". An older person's human rights in Ireland are not guaranteed by statutory rights, but more so in soft-law generic statements of commitment - for example, in the programme for Government. Unfortunately, many commitments are political commitments and, as such, lack the legal grounding that statutory guarantees would provide.

This causes problems for implementation and provision of services and policies. A good example concerns two reports in 2009 on home care packages, one by PA Consultants and the Department of Health, and the other one by the NESF. Both reports found that the implementation of this important community service was defined mostly by the bodies implementing them, as opposed to a clearly defined need or clearly defined rights.

A good illustration of the problems that this lack of clarity creates was the Ombudsman's report last year, entitled "Who Cares? An Investigation into the Right to Nursing Home Care in Ireland". In that document, she examined more than 1,000 complaints based on individuals at their wits' end trying to access public nursing home beds. We have the legislation but because they did not have a specific right to those beds, they had all sorts of difficulties acquiring them.

At the international human rights level, human rights for older people derive from general hard-law strategies, such as the UN Universal Charter of Human Rights, and the UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, through to the more soft-law strategies such as the UN Principles for Older People and the UN International Plan of Action on Ageing.

More recently, the UN has furthered its commitment to developing measurements to protect the rights of older people by setting up the open-ended working group on ageing. This group works alongside the recent Universal Periodic Review of Ireland and the forthcoming Irish report on the UN Convention of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

In that context, Age Action recommends that this committee considers the incorporation of the International Convention of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights into domestic law. We also suggest that this committee should consider the ratification of the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We ask the committee to consider the progress and output of the UN open-ended working group on ageing for the purpose of strengthening the protection of the human rights of older people in Ireland.

Article 11 of the Convention recognises the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.

Over the past ten years, significant progress has been made to curb the very high rates of poverty among older people. They have fallen from 44% in 2001 to 10% in 2009. However, certain trends are endangering this progress during the recession. We have overall deflation but there is also itemised inflation for specific items upon which older people depend. These are rising while general inflation is falling. These include: rising taxes, both direct and indirect; broadening the tax band to include those on low income; and income needs are having to go further as basic services are reduced or abolished.

In addition to the 10% of older people who are deemed to be on incomes below the poverty line, many others are on incomes that hover around the poverty line. For example, 70% of older people living alone live on incomes in the bottom 20% of the income distribution. Therefore quite a number of older people are on very low incomes.

We are trying to emphasise the importance of the State pension, which has a key role in keeping people out of poverty. As Mr. Jim Keegan said earlier, the national pensions framework is committed to maintaining the State pension to 35% of gross average industrial earnings. Currently, the rate stands at 33% which continues to be a worry, as many of our members are struggling to make ends meet.

We have done an analysis of the consumer price indices data from the CSO. In the 2008 to 2010 period inflation has gone down by 3.7%, but key costs such as heating, health insurance and medical costs are soaring. That is causing huge difficulties for older people.

The net effect for older people from the crisis we have faced in recent years includes reduced spending power of the same welfare benefits they receive, in addition to rationing when the cost of basic living is more than available income. This is particularly the case for older people living in rural areas who are hit by a carbon tax, and incomes are generally lower. They also have higher costs, such as home heating and transport.

In recent months, we have been campaigning on the issue of fuel poverty, which is a good example of the difficult decisions that those on low incomes have to make. Figures are due out in the next few weeks from the Dublin Institute of Technology and the Institute of Health on the excess winter death rates in Ireland from 2006 to 2007. Those figures make for shocking reading. We still have a serious fuel poverty issue; in 2011, people are dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes.

Article 12.1 of the convention recognises the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Article 12.2 refers to the creation of conditions which would assure access to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness. The type of care older people require is less acute and tends more towards the management of chronic health conditions, including rehabilitation and a mix of health and social care services. This is largely due to the high rates of disability and chronic disease at the latter stages of life.

Financial access to health care has been the Achilles heel of the Irish health service, with right to health determined to some degree by privately funded arrangements. Health insurance has jumped in cost by 62% over the past three years, while at the same time pensioners' incomes have reduced.

TILDA, the Trinity College longitudinal study, shows that 11% of older people do not have coverage by either health insurance or a medical card. This is the unacceptable reality for some older people in Ireland. We have some hope in that the Government is talking about universal social health insurance. The nearest comparable system is the Dutch system. We are somewhat worried in that success depends on the design of the health insurance package as part of that. The policy planners need to ensure that this insurance element is adequate to meet the needs of older people for the specific services they require.

There is systemic violation of rights in the Irish health care system, principally, the reliance on emergency care in hospitals while simultaneously the reduction in the number of available beds has led to gross overcrowding and significant outpatient delays. The introduction of the prescription charge is counter-intuitive to good public health and preventive health policies. The changes in the dental care entitlement mean that treatment is refused unless it is for emergency cover, which is particularly worrying when we consider that the average cost of a routine examination is €44 and that represents a fifth of the weekly State pension. Opting not to go to the dentist leads to issues of malnutrition and neglect and all of these are avoidable violations of older people's rights to physical health.

At the other end of the spectrum the fair deal scheme and funding crisis in the HSE earlier this year stimulated a large number of calls to Age Action from older people who shared the experience of being unable to access nursing home care. At the time we rang around some hospitals and on 18 August 2011, we got data back from six hospitals. On that date, there were 266 older people in Irish hospitals with a clinical assessment that nursing home care was needed but they had no nursing home to go to. This fiasco has been added to since with the changes in the scheme where older people cannot draw down the fair deal funding until their financial assessment has been completed. That can take on average about six weeks. To stay in a nursing home for six weeks, while waiting for State support, at a cost of €1,000 a week will cost €6,000, which is beyond the means of some older people and their families.

The fair deal scheme has been subject to criticism for not covering many of the basic essentials of care, such as incontinence pads, therapy services or social activities in the contract. Some nursing homes are now imposing a flat fee to allow residents to pay for these items, in some cases this is happening regardless of whether the resident needs those services. We ask the committee to actively promote the planning and delivery of health and long-term care for older people in Ireland within a rights-based framework.

Article 15 of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by the UN also recognises the right of everybody to take part in cultural life. Services available in the community are the backbone of independence for older people. Since the hugely popular and effective home help and home care packages were introduced the budgets have been progressively increased over the years as the schemes have rolled out nationally. In the period 2009 to 2010, that trend was reversed. For the first time we saw home help hours planned for 2009 and 2010 falling short. It is interesting to note that in 2010, a reduction in the allocation of home help hours of 700,000 hours was made on the provision for 2007. Although the scheme is being rolled out, when one compares the figures from the HSE on what was provided in the time period from 2007 to date, 700,000 less hours were provided in 2010 than in 2007. We are concerned at the reports of further HSE cutbacks to its community based services in order that it stays within its budget.

I had planned to discuss transport but as the Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland, CARDI, has done a very good presentation on it, I will skip over it.

My final point is on the right of older persons to live in their own homes. The budget for the home adaptation grants suffered a 23% cut in last year's budget. In June 2010, Age Action contacted 30 county councils to establish the impact of the cut and the funding restructuring on the grant provision. Of the 30 local authorities who responded, six were not taking on new applications, 20 had significant waiting lists some of which were up to a year long, some councils had more than 1,000 plus older people on the waiting list for the home adaptation grants. This grant is of major importance in supporting older people in their communities. As the country's hospitals grapple with a bed capacity crisis and the issue of delayed discharges, community support infrastructure for adapting homes to be suitable to an older person's needs is crucial. We must remind people that in all the surveys and in all the opinion polls, the place where older people want to live out the latter years of their lives is in their own home. Those community services are vital to that.

We are very grateful that this committee will examine the rights of older people in its first report. It is a very important issue, more so in the present climate.

Thank you Mr. Timmins. I call Dr. Amanda Phelan, from the Institute of Community Health Nursing.

Dr. Amanda Phelan

Chairperson, Senators and colleagues, on behalf of the Institute of Community Health Nursing I thank you for the opportunity to speak to members on this very important issue. I am a member of the Institute of Community Health Nursing and a lecturer in the UCD school of nursing, midwifery and health systems. I am also a co-director in the national centre for protecting older people and my academic research is predominantly in care of older people and in particular, on protecting older people from abuse.

The Institute of Community Health Nursing was set up in 1985 with an agenda of quality improvement in community nursing services, comprised of community registered general nurses and public health nurses, the difference being that community registered general nurses are nurses who move into the community to work whereas public health nurses have done a masters level programme in public health and work in the community. We work on a geographical caseload with a population from the cradle to the grave.

I will now deal with the rights of older people. Rights are founded on the ideal of equality and social justice. Older people have rights within a citizenship and a human rights framework. However, marginalised groups, such as older people can be compromised through political power dynamics. This is why it is important that sufficient thought is afforded in discussion such as this, not only to the decisions that are made on behalf of our society but also to the practical consequences of such decisions. The Madrid plan on ageing from 2002 articulated central themes that focus on the realisation of rights of older people and the full and effective societal participation of older people as well as health and social care. The UN currently has a draft convention on rights of older persons, which reflect the Madrid principles.

Like many other countries, Ireland has an ageing society, but 95% of older people live at home. As Mr. Timmins stated, studies indicate that is where they want to be. In Ireland, our life expectancy and the number of older persons as a percentage of total population have risen, particularly in the cohort of older old. Although it is important always to view older people as a diverse population, as ageing occurs, older people may require additional social and health supports. Community nurses visit older people in their homes, in fact community nurses make 10,000 visits per day and a third of those visits are to older people. The focus is on empowering the older person and meeting their health and social care needs in the context of family and community. However, the right to live at home can be compromised by a lack of adequate services.

Support services in the community are significantly rationed and many carers are under significant pressure. I will give an example. One assistant director of public health nursing was told to cut her hours by 900 hours. She described this as compared to acting like God. It resulted in people entering nursing home provision, which was not their wish. She said that doing this job is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. In line with the recent comment from the UN independent expert team visit to Ireland in January, it is crucial that Ireland maintains social protection and social support services. It is particularly important in the context of Ireland's austerity measures, which have a disproportionate effect on older people who depend on such services. Older people have a right to equality in the health care system, for example recent statistics from the UK by the National Cancer Intelligence Agency show that the choice of surgery decreases with age, even though the chance of extending life and quality of life exists. This was considered explicitly ageist and a denial of core human rights. In terms of social integration, efforts should be made to ensure social integration and participation from the level of policy making to the experience of every day life for older people. In line with comments by one of the Senators, we see retirement as explicitly ageist. Although many individuals look forward to retirement, including me, its mandatory status is based on age and chronology is not a good basis for this. It is discriminatory. Retirement age is not reflective of somebody's ability. Alternatives should be considered which promote the right to continue work.

Independent advocacy services are imperative, the delivery of independent advocacy is currently a standard for residential care facilities under the HIQA guidelines, but this should be available for older people in the community. Care standards should be regulated in the community so that older people are protected. Older people in the community are more at risk because they are not in a public space, such as a residential care facility. In terms of rights, older people with dementia require extreme attention. Many specific therapeutic interventions have been demonstrated to increase quality of life for people with dementia. It is important that the ethos of person-centred care underpins the life experience, regardless of whether people live in a community or residential care setting.

The mental capacity Bill urgently requires to be debated and passed through the Oireachtas as it has the potential to reform current archaic legislation and promote a framework of engagement rights. Active citizenship means prerequisites are provided for to attain social inclusion. However, for older people, issues to do with structures, processes and cost containment can have the effect of limiting rights and marginalising further a vulnerable group. The Institute of Community Health Nursing advocates that older people should have the same rights as every other age group within an enabling and supporting environment and that they should be available in a practical sense rather than used in political statements.

We urge that the training of public health nurses be considered as an urgent issue by the Government. This issue is reviewed annually and for the past four years the number of student public nurses has not met demand. We cannot close down wards and public health nurses do not have waiting lists; therefore, with the population rising, the demands are significant. Workforce planning is imperative. Community nurses should have a key role to play in articulating at the table at which policies are made; at the moment their voice is silent.

According to my list, Mr. John Dunne, chief executive of The Carers Association, should have been first. I hope he is not offended.

Mr. John Dunne

Not at all.

With regard to having a committee on the rights of older people, The Carers Association may be atypical, as it represents people who provide care on a voluntary basis in the home. Our agenda overlaps significantly, but our focus is not necessarily on older people. Many people being cared for are old; in many cases, the carers are also old.

I will spend most of my time discussing the habitual residence condition. I apologise to anybody who has never heard of it because it is boring as sin, although it has two great advantages. It is important and something can be done about it in the next six weeks, as it can be addressed in the next social welfare Act.

The habitual residence condition was introduced in 2004 to combat welfare tourism. The first initiative taken by the Government was to indicate that people did not qualify for social welfare if they had not lived in Ireland for two years. There was an objection from the Council of Europe under a charter we had signed and it was also successfully challenged in the European Court of Justice. The requirement was modified and a number of new criteria were introduced which allowed each member state of the European Union to protect itself against welfare tourism without having to specify an arbitrary qualifying period. The considerations brought to bear were the length of a term for which somebody had been living in the State or another country, length of time out of the State, the nature and pattern of historical employment, the main centre of interest - an interesting concept - and future intentions. Whatever about the merits of somebody returning to Ireland to claim the dole and the authorities refusing to grant it until qualification is achieved, this condition is also applied as a test to family carers and it does not seem to make very much sense in that context.

I know hard cases make bad law, but I will begin with an interesting example. A 94 year old man living in a remote area of the west has advanced Alzheimer's disease, is blind and permanently wheelchair-bound. He has nobody to look after him and is living in a shebeen in the middle of nowhere. His nephew was born and reared in Scotland but has been living with him for the past year and a half. However, he does not qualify for carer's allowance because of the habitual residence clause. The man is 42 years old and his parents live in Scotland; therefore, it is deemed that his major interest lies in Scotland. Both men share the older man's pension and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has given them heating oil and supplied them with a fridge and some furniture. In this case, the State, under law, refuses to accept that the person concerned is entitled to carer's allowance. In the past month the public health nurse called to see the nephew and explained that she had set up two hospital appointments for the uncle, but the HSE will not pay for the taxi ride to hospital and the family does not have the money for it. That is the practical effect of the habitual residence condition.

There is a small number of problem cases. Approximately 18,000 people apply for carer's allowance each year and 600 are tested using the habitual residency condition. Approximately 40% of foreigners such as the Scottish man in question are declined, while 8% of Irish people are declined. Some of the reasons given for ruling out a person can be extreme. There is the case of an Irish couple established in England who returned home to look after a family member. They were initially declined carer's allowance because the wife had kept open a bank account in England, although that issue was resolved on appeal. There was a review earlier in the year which streamlined some of the systems used. If a person had applied for carer's allowance up to the beginning of this year, there would have been five pages of questions on the habitual residence condition. One can think of the Scottish man in County Donegal coping with his obligations and having to complete such a form. It has now been reduced to one page of questions, although the person about whom I spoke cannot really show on the basis of the relevant criteria any reason he should qualify under the habitual residence clause. If the law is allowed to continue in operation, legislators will be saying, in effect, that they want this person to get back on the boat and go home to where he came from. They would also be guaranteeing to look after his uncle, even though there is a not a queue of people offering services in County Donegal.

How did we get to this position? The habitual residency condition was included in law in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005, with new regulations becoming effective in 2007. Section 180 of the 2005 Act relates to carer's allowance, with subsection (2) noting that the allowance shall be subject to the habitual residence condition. Our proposal is simply to rescind section 180(2). If legislators consider the allowance is in some way open to abuse, there is another clause in the same Act which allows the Minister to set conditions regulating qualification for the allowance. Our argument is that if somebody qualifies for the allowance, which is tough enough to do, he or she should not have to meet the habitual residence condition. If a person has returned to Ireland to look after somebody on a full-time basis, that should be regarded as the main centre of interest. The criteria can be interpreted in a particular way; rather than having people jump through hoops, we are suggesting the State would lose nothing by repealing the subsection.

Other issues were flagged in the correspondence. We support the idea that HIQA should oversee home care packages within a regulatory framework.

With regard to adopting the standards-based approach, the HSE made an assessment of a case involving a very large man who, unfortunately, has died since. He was being cared for by his wife, who is a small woman. As part of the assessment of entitlement to respite care it was indicated that moving the man was a two-person operation. However, there was no acknowledgement of the fact that when HSE personnel were not present, this rather small woman was left by herself to do the work involved. If we are to implement standards, they must be backed up by the provision of appropriate resources; if that is not the case, they will not be helpful and it can be frustrating for those who know the standards required to be met.

We strongly support the introduction of legislation to establish a clear right to community care for older people, but in practice we acknowledge that this right must be qualified. As it is not absolute, it might be better expressed as people having a right to a reasonable expectation of being able to stay at home for as long as possible. Apart from having a rights-based approach, this would be a nod towards fiscal sanity.

We support the development of palliative care services and find the system works very well for us in a community home. We have some initiatives in that regard and it is an important agenda to pursue. We strongly support rural transport and continuing the free bus pass. However, let us go back to the case of the Scottish friend with his uncle, which is a transport issue that goes way beyond rural transport and free buses. This is simply about how one gets to hospital. I know of another carer who is wheelchair-bound and looks after her mother. When bringing her mother to hospital in Dublin, not even a remote rural area, she has to get two taxis. I inquired whether she could not get a bus to the hospital. She said that the hospital provides a service to get them there but it will not guarantee that it will get them there in time for an appointment. That is not much of a service.

We strongly support the publication of details on how people qualify for services such as home help. We also strongly support transparency in the provision of services. There are concerns at the moment, which might not be legitimate, but they exist because of the lack of transparency. The first is that there appears to be no obvious or standard assessment criteria for service eligibility for many services. The second is a strong feeling of covert discrimination against carers in receipt of carer's allowance; that the State says a person is getting a carer's allowance and that is it, that it will not provide anything else. I sympathise with staff in the Health Service Executive desperately trying to ration scarce resources. One way of shining a light on the issue is to have transparency around criteria.

I presume the point made about the habitual residency clause is that it was an unintended consequence of the 2004 Act.

Mr. John Dunne

I do not think it was unintended. The clause applies to a range of social welfare benefits. I do not understand why - it would be great if anyone else could tell me - it was applied to the carer's allowance, which is not about welfare tourism. It is a case of someone coming back to this country to provide a full-time service and saving the State a truck-load of money. Why does the Government want to disincentivise that? I do not think it is an unintended consequence; it is accidental or wrong.

Mr. Dunne's request is that we, as the political limb, try to rescind that, if possible. The point is well made.

I received figures at a previous committee I chaired on the family. Have any of the groups carried out financial costings on care at home, either voluntary or through carers, versus State care in the local community hospital or private nursing homes? I do not want an answer now. The issue is complicated. Approximately seven years ago I was staggered by figures I received on the cost of caring for someone at home versus State care. The former was approximately a quarter of the cost. There was a huge imbalance. I am looking at the financial implications to the State even though we should not consider these matters today.

I will take questions from Senators Healy Eames and Bradford and we can bank them.

I thank everyone who has presented to the committee. I will direct my initial question to Dr. Phelan. If other speakers wish, they could take up the point as well.

In Dr. Phelan's view do older people need to have their rights strengthened in law to realise good quality care and to be eligible for public health nurse services? One example that has come to my attention in the past 24 hours relates to a decision taken by the HSE to decline an ambulance taxi service for transport for an older man to get radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Given the decision, does Dr. Phelan perceive a weakness in the law?

Since she represents public health nurses in particular, in serving older people's needs the public health nurse is a key provider. Are they and community registered nurses adequately involved at decision making levels in the Department of Health, the Health Service Executive and child and family services in order that they can make the right inputs to influence decisions that would lead to better care for older people?

I too welcome the groups presenting this afternoon. I apologise for missing the commencement of the meeting. What I have heard is music to my ears. The issues are ones I have tried to raise as strongly as possible in recent years. Sometimes we feel that we are trying to push a stone up a hill.

Mr. Timmins asked the committee to actively promote the planning and delivery of health and long-term care for older people within a rights-based framework. In a sense, that follows on from the question asked by Senator Healy Eames. How far out should we try to push the boat? Members of all political parties as well as the representatives favour that, and in theory one should not have to ask as we are supposed to have that in practice. On a number of occasions in the Seanad and when I previously served in the other House I asked that we contemplate the possibility of a constitutional referendum to protect, defend and vindicate the rights of the elderly. We are having a debate on the constitutional amendment to protect the rights of children. One wonders whether we will have to go that far at the other end of the spectrum. Every health service exists, in theory, from medical cards to the ambulance mentioned, to the carer's allowance to which people are entitled, but the service provision is just not there in reality. Coming from the Government side of the House I do not have to lecture the committee on the fact that we have a broken economy. One could ask whether we should aspire to seek some degree of constitutional protection for the elderly so that these endless battles would come to an end some day.

The Chairman inquired about the cost of looking after a person in the home as opposed to in State care. I saw a figure in one of the presentations that the cost to the State is €65,000 per annum for a person who is not being looked after at home.

I am sure the representatives get tired of making demands year in and year out. We often debated with the former Minister for Social Welfare, the late Mr. Séamus Brennan, whom I held in the highest esteem, about the possibility of having the carer's allowance provided without a means test on the basis that it would be provided to a full-time carer who was looking after a person in need of full-time care. I am speaking about six or seven years ago. The figures he produced at the time on the cost of removing the means test and the provision of carer's allowance to all full-time carers looking after a person in need of full-time care were surprisingly modest. I have not fully read through the documentation but I am surprised that it does not appear to be a demand from all the groups. We have made significant progress on the means test and income disregard but on the basis that the cost to the State of institutional care for an elderly person is €65,000, as opposed to a significantly smaller amount for a person being looked after at home, if that is what they wish. Perhaps we should revisit the issue of automatic entitlement to carer's allowance.

I agree that the habitual residency clause is causing huge confusion, not just for carers but for other social welfare applicants. We all come across genuine applicants who are defeated by the habitual residency clause. The provision may have always existed in law but from a practical perspective it did not seem to exist until approximately two years ago. Now, every second query I receive on social welfare relates to a difficulty with the habitual residency clause. When one raises it with the Department, there is no response. I agree that the issue must be addressed. I ask that the representatives confirm their view on getting rid of the means test for carer's allowance and whether constitutional protection is something to which we can meaningfully aspire.

I have allowed Senator Bradford a bit of latitude because it is his first time to contribute as a member of the committee. I invite the representatives to respond but ask them not to be as leadránach as my good colleague from Cork, Senator Bradford, who means well. I say that in a kind way.

I will take a vow silence now.

Mr. John Dunne

On the first question on differential costings, in fairness, one must compare like with like. Our figures suggest that the cost of providing family care within the family in the home compared to public provision of the same care if one factors in the carer's allowance, as distinct from what the Health Service Executive might pay someone to do the same work is a multiple of four in that case. Sometimes care at home involves a high level of medical treatment. We are not just talking about keeping a person company. The difference in cost between this and keeping a patient in an acute hospital bed is a multiple of between 25 and 30. There is a significant difference, but one is not comparing like with like. I could give the committee a more detailed breakdown of the figures, if necessary.

Mr. Dunne could submit figures after the hearing but before we come to a definitive decision.

Mr. John Dunne

It would be very nice if the Government offered to abolish the means test for carer's allowance. We would not fight with it over it. We do not argue with the principle of people having to demonstrate that they qualify for the allowance. One cannot simply walk in and say one is a carer and receive the money. Having said that, we are concerned about delays in processing applications. Other forms of support such as the half-rate allowance are a source of concern. This is an anomaly in the social protection system, but for us, it is a very important piece of the puzzle. The respite grant is €1,700 per year. There are 20,000 family carers for whom this is the only payment they receive from the State. They are regularly told they should use the grant to fund X, Y and Z. If I were seeking to change the allowance regime, I would not focus on the means test. I know the habitual residence criterion is an issue across the board, but I am making a specific point. The requirement is more complicated with regard to other welfare schemes, but for carer's allowance, it is black and white. It is stated separately in each piece of social welfare legislation that the habitual residence clause applies to specific legislation. We ask that a technical adjustment be made and the reference be removed from the legislation dealing with carer's allowance. This would not solve the problem in the case of other allowances, but it would solve one problem cleanly.

I do not want it to sound as if I am opposed to adopting a rights based approach. However, my question about constitutional protection is this: if we hold a referendum and create a constitutional right, how will we guarantee that we will deliver on that right? If we cannot deliver on it, what would be the point of stating it?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames directed some questions to Dr. Phelan.

Dr. Amanda Phelan

When making decisions about legislation, we need to be careful that legislation does not become paternalistic rather than empowering for older people. The centre of legislation should be that older people are empowered, within their capacity.

With regard to public health nurse representation in decision making, public health nurses are impoverished, but it is not for the want of knocking on doors. We are lobbying for such inclusion. Reports on child protection show that the input of public health nurses in child protection cases has been huge, although they are not recognised at case conferences. This is despite the fact that their work in prevention and the provision of secondary care is large. There is an invisibility within policy documents and the Department of Health.

Article 45.4.1° of the Constitution indicates:

The State pledges itself to safeguard with especial care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the community, and, where necessary, to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphan, and the aged.

There is, therefore, protection for older people within the Constitution. How it is practically articulated is questionable.

As most older people live at home and as the health care service is, supposedly, based on primary care, the options for older people should not be to live at home only if they have a high degree of independence. As they lose independence, their options should not be limited to a care facility, into which they do not want to go. We would like to see more options for them at every level in order that they can live with their families because that is what they want. Surely we all have a right to live at home, if that is what we want to do.

I thank the delegates for their presentations. They have clearly said there is something we can do about the habitual residency clause. How far has their lobbying on the issue progressed? Has it simply extended into the great blue sky?

In his written submission Mr. Eamon Timmins referred to the creation of a commissioner for older people. I would appreciate hearing his thoughts on the role of such a commissioner. Someone else referred to having a Minister with responsibility for pensions. We have a Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Where would a commissioner for older people fit in? Forgive me if this question has been answered and I missed the answer.

I thank the delegates for their presentations which were very informative. I was not present for all of them, but I was watching on the monitor.

My involvement in care of the elderly dates back to 2004 when I was involved in major litigation on the care of people in nursing homes. There was no legislation on this issue for a period of 26 years. The matter had been brought to the attention of the Department of Health in 1978, but there was no reaction for 26 years until the matter was brought to a head. This raises serious concerns about how we have approached the care of the elderly for many years.

I am concerned about long-term planning. By 2031 there will be more than 1 million people aged over 65 years. We have done a huge amount of work on the care of the elderly in nursing homes and in upgrading nursing home care services. HIQA is making sure standards are met. However, not enough is being done to provide home helps with the skills necessary to look after people who want to remain at home but do not have a member of their own family to provide that care. I was recently contacted by a community hospital to state it did not qualify for the JobBridge programme. It wanted to get involved in the programme in order to give new skills to people who would then be available to work in the community. What are the delegates' views on teaching the necessary skills to those who want to provide home help? Are there procedures for making sure the home help being provided is adequate? Where elderly people are provided with a home help, is there a procedure available to them for when the system falls down? Many elderly people are afraid to complain if they are having a difficulty with the home help provided. Are there adequate procedures for dealing with this problem, especially in rural areas where the choice of home helps available may be limited? How can we make long-term plans in this regard?

I do not wish to chastise Senators, but I ask them to be mindful that a question should be brief and to the point, not to make statements.

Mr. Eamon Timmins

There are different models for the role of commissioner for older people. Northern Ireland and Wales have appointed commissioners for older people using slightly different models. A commissioner for older people could have a tremendous impact on many of the issues we have discussed. For example, the Welsh commissioner instigated an investigation into the care of older people in acute hospitals. The commissioner had the statutory power to go into hospitals, ask questions and report back to the National Assembly for Wales, where the report could feed into policy. The commissioner could have a role to play as a national advocate. This might feed into some of what Senator Bradford said about rights and whether older people are being treated adequately.

We did not get a chance to answer the last question. There must be a rights-based approach, as otherwise we will continue to have ambulances not being called out and a greyness as to who is entitled to what. One might have two people at different ends of the country in identical circumstances where one receives a service and the other does not. We, therefore, need a rights-based approach, as well as clarity and transparency as to what people are entitled to receive. The first step towards this would be the incorporation of the UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights into domestic law, to monitor the progress of the UN open-ended working group on ageing and see how Ireland is comparing and stacking up. A commissioner for older people would have a role in that regard. Whether the commissioner would have a role in monitoring these elements, we need an independent voice in an ageing population. Who is going to ask the difficult questions and examine how the statutory bodies treat older people, particularly when we have much larger numbers coming through?

To respond to Senator Colm Burke's point, we are very concerned about what is happening in the home care sector. I could set up a home care company in the morning and recruit people from very dubious backgrounds to go into people's homes. In many ways, a person who is receiving a home help service is far more vulnerable and open to abuse behind the closed doors of his or her home than someone in a residential setting where people are coming and going. We saw a frightening investigation on "Prime Time Investigates" last year. There was nothing new in it for anybody who worked in the sector, but there were some scary things happening on camera. We need regulation urgently. It is not a matter of implementing regulations when the abuses start to come to light; we have already seen cases appearing in the courts, including cases in which people were robbed or abused. We need to regulate the persons caring for older people. We are not in favour of having a nanny state, but we are in favour of the State protecting vulnerable people, which is not happening. I believe it is on the work schedule of the Department of Health, but there must be some urgency attached to it.

I welcome the delegates. Like Senator Colm Burke, I was following the proceedings with care on the monitor and wondered whether I would be cutting stubble by asking the question about home helps, although I was here to see Senator Burke ask it. To develop the point, the problem is often not even direct acts of abuse so much as negligence and people not actually doing their jobs. Of course, people who are vulnerable are often the least demanding. I wonder whether there is something about inspections, in particular, that needs to be introduced and how complicated it would be to establish a system that would guarantee that individuals who are doing this job would be liable to have somebody peeping over their shoulders to see how they were doing it.

There is a lot of talk about how the media treat different categories. The media did very well in the exposé mentioned. However, in general, do any of the delegates have views on the depiction of older persons in society? Do they have time, in view of all the practical issues they are addressing, to consider whether there is perhaps anything in our media culture that needs to be rectified?

I thank all of the representatives for their presentations. The emphasis has very much been on realisable rights, not just rights that are tokenistic. In particular, the focus of Age Action on socio-economic rights is very important for us as a committee to consider, as well as its focus on poverty among older people, an issue which has been mentioned throughout the presentations. If we were to frame a right to continue in work, would it in any way address some of the issues to do with poverty, lack of adequacy in pension provisions and so on? Clearly, there are sectors in which having a pension age is of practical value, but where people choose to continue in work - perhaps it might be better framed as a right - they should be able to do so. Would there be an impact on ensuring stronger protection of socio-economic rights and a higher standard of living for older people? This is something we need to tease out; however, it is more of a long-term question.

I welcome the group to the Seanad and hope we will have a fruitful result to our discussions. It is up to us to follow up on the many suggestions made.

I raise the issue of intergenerational research. Older people are people just like everybody else, but they have different needs in society. Children and those who have fallen over and broken their leg very often have the same needs as older people. Society has a lot to answer for. I know that Older and Bolder conducted some research on this issue in conjunction with the United Nations and the Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland, CARDI, last year. This is an avenue I would like to see explored.

Somebody mentioned the rights of children, but the rights of older people are often similar. If we establish the rights of children, this will deal with many of the rights of senior citizens also. These include high quality public services. Often, if an older person wants to get on a bus, he or she must use the step-down mechanism. What are we doing in this regard?

We have dealt with the issue of transport, but I will allow the Senator to ask a question.

If there were three things we could do in the social and public sphere as a priority, what would they be? We could even work with the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland which has a programme of design for all. Designing for all means designing for older and younger people. Do the delegates have any recommendations to make in this regard for the future?

There is one more Senator offering to speak. Senator Paul Coghlan, a Killarney man, has a brief question.

I compliment all the groups on giving of their time to be with us to give us the benefit of their views. Senator Ivana Bacik put her finger on an issue of interest to me: the rights of older people. Is there some work we could do in this regard, or is it something the delegates do not consider pressing because they are mainly dealing with people who, because of age or incapacity, do not believe this affects them directly? How do they weigh the issue? It is important, given that people are not expected to retire at as young an age as in the past. As a society, we must consider the issue in the medium to longer term. I would be interested to hear the representatives' views on it.

As I do not want to dictate who answers the questions, if a delegate considers it is appropriate, he or she may respond.

Mr. Eamon Timmins

Employment is a major issue for some older people who have retired and for the next generation of pensioners. The trouble will start in 2014 when pension age is changed from 65 to 66 years. Not everyone in private sector employment is obliged by legislation to retire at 65 years, but for many, the contracts they have signed with their employers state they are out at 65. That was at a time when they expected to receive their pension at 65. By 2032, the pensionable age will move to 68 years. Certainly, many currently working and thinking they are fine will be caught in a poverty trap between the time they finish work and the time they can receive their pension. We have always supported the right of people to retire at 65 years if they have planned throughout their working lives to do this. We have also supported the right to continue working. Ageism is the subject of one of the provisions in the Equality Act - employers cannot discriminate on grounds of age. However, we do need to build in a right for people to continue working.

As we stated in our pre-budget submission, we need the State to start considering how it can retrain workers. How do we make sure older people are given places on training courses and that they are not discriminated against when it comes to work training, whether through statutory authorities or company training schemes? We need to start planning for retraining the workforce.

There are two types of people who do not want to retire at 65 years. There are people who suddenly look at their pension arrangements and note the drop in income involved, but there are others who genuinely live for their jobs and are suddenly told at 65 years that they are out the door, with a "Thank you very much and good luck." That is wrong. It is bad for society because we are losing a lot of experience, but it is also very bad for these individuals. It contributes to the poverty trap created by somebody drawing a line in the sand long ago when people aged 65 years typically had only a few years more to live. Now people retiring at 65 years still have an entire life ahead of them - another 20 or 30 years. Laying down a marker that people should be able to work beyond 65 years would be a practical thing to do.

Mr. John Dunne

To answer Senator Susan O'Keeffe's question about the habitual residence condition, we have had a lot of nods acknowledging that there is an issue. It was only last night, when preparing for today, that I sat down and went through the legislation; therefore, it is only today that we are articulating for the first time a specific step that could be taken. It is one of those frustrating things: everyone acknowledges the issue, but if someone cannot specify what might be done, it could continue forever, although I hope it will not.

To pick up on the point made by Mr. Timmins, speaking as someone who employs people who are well into their 70s to provide paid respite care work at home, I make a distinction between the right to work which is absolute and the right to employment which is slightly different. With no disrespect to anyone, we are facing a situation where people's capacity to do a job is declining. That feeds directly back to another question asked about the skills and quality of those providing the service. It is a potential catch-22. For me, as an employer, the ultimate solution is that I can tell someone he or she is not able to do the job any more and he or she is fired, although I would not, obviously, be so brutal. That is the process, but it is not a good way to end the arrangement. It is definitely an important and a difficult issue. I am coming at it genuinely with my credentials on my sleeve, but it is not as simple as giving people a right to keep working.

Dr. Amanda Phelan

Mr. Dunne reminds me of Bill Cullen saying on "The Apprentice", "You're fired."

On Senator Rónán Mullen's point about the media, I agree that older people are frequently portrayed as being in a dependency framework, but this is a reflection of societal paranoia about ageing. Some advertisements claim that a cream makes a person appear ten years younger. There is a fear of getting older which is being fed into.

In terms of legislation for the home, the public regulation of a private space such as the home is difficult. However, there is some regulation in terms of child protection. As a public health nurse and having taught under the public nursing programme and worked in the national centre, I have found that if one wants to see a person in the home, there is no legislation to get one past the door. If the gatekeeper is an abuser, he or she has control over whom he or she wants to let in or out. Sustaining that relationship is difficult because it is necessary to work on trust. If the gatekeeper is a perpetrator of abuse, for example, he or she has no interest in being found out and in allowing someone past the threshold. If there is a suspicion about the health or welfare of an older person in the home, there should be legislation to allow services, at least, to conduct an assessment on the person concerned. If there is a concern, there should be something like the supervision order provided for in the Child Care Act to ensure services are allowed in.

Intergenerational research is important. The Senator asked about three things. For older people, there should be a right to a good life; there should be a right to have one's life quality-optimised through care delivery - for example, there are specific therapeutic techniques that can be used to optimise the life of a person with Alzheimer's disease; and there should be a right to have a voice in society.

Regarding the point of retirement, in America more than 40,000 people aged over 90 years go to work every day. The idea of retirement goes way back to Otto von Bismarck and is a socially constructed concept that people are no longer able to work after 65. It is about proposing innovative ways to get around this. People should have an option to retire, but they should be allowed to continue to work within their abilities. For example, someone who can no longer load truckloads of stuff could be offered an alternative consistent with his or her abilities. That should be a partnership arrangement, not an imposed hierarchical arrangement.

We will have a short sos before we hear from representatives of the last three groups: Ms Patricia Conboy, director of Older and Bolder; Mr. Michael O'Halloran, secretary of the retired workers committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions; and Mr. Liam Doran, general secretary, and Ms Eileen Lawrence of the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation.

Sitting suspended at 4.35 p.m. and resumed at 4.40 p.m.

As one of the groups arrived slightly late, under the rules of the House, I am obliged to reread the section on privilege. By virtue of section 17(2)(i) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continues to so do, he or she is entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of his or her evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they do not criticise or make charges against a person or persons or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. With that caution appropriately administered, we will continue, not that I fear anything the delegates will say will cause problems for us. I ask Ms Conboy of Older and Bolder to proceed, while bearing in mind that each group has a maximum of ten minutes. We will try to adhere as closely as possible to the schedule and she should now proceed.

Ms Patricia Conboy

I am delighted the Seanad Public Consultation Committee has taken on the issue of the rights of older people and I am delighted to have the opportunity to appear before it. I had prepared a presentation but given the time constraints, I will not go through it. Instead, I will try simply to highlight the points that are most pertinent with regard to members' focus on what they can do as Senators. While I have approximately eight brief points to make, before getting to them I reiterate that Older and Bolder is an alliance of eight organisations. Moreover, The Carers Association and the Irish Hospice Foundation, from which members have heard, are two of our member organisations. Dr. Roger O'Sullivan and others referred to the issue of the empowerment of older people in respect of engagement, voice and so on. Through its work, Older and Bolder places great emphasis on enabling campaigns that provide for a collective voice and collective action on specific issues. We are at a particular moment in our campaign life in that we are at the start of a campaign called Make Home Work: The right to age well at home. I have literature available on that campaign and while members already have received some, those who seek more can ask me for it afterwards. As for that campaign and other issues on the committee's agenda this afternoon, I will go through the most relevant points while bearing in mind what already has been said by colleagues and trying not to repeat too much.

First, the right to care in the community and in the home is discretionary and is unequal and problematic. This is an issue for older people and for citizens of all ages. If I become sick in the morning, I have neither a right to care nor any clarity pertaining to care. The key issue for this committee is the Health Act 1970, which no longer addresses the full range of needs that must be addressed in respect of people's health. It provides for an entitlement to inpatient hospital care but not for similar entitlement to care in the community. All these issues have been thoroughly parsed out in the Ombudsman's report on the right to care that was published last year. I recommend that members interact with that report again. This pertains to individuals of all ages who are having huge difficulty in this regard and does not necessarily entail a heightening through legislation of the rights of older people.

I have been considering how the Health Act 1970 needs to be reformed and upgraded. As for planning for population ageing, the central message in Older and Bolder's current campaign, Make Home Work, is that while individuals must plan, which is very hard for them to do if they do not know their entitlements, the Government also must plan. Moreover, this is not the time for cuts to medical card provision or similar ad hoc responses. A planned approach is needed for the provision of services for older people in the future. The happy news is that a blueprint is available. It is on the Department of Health’s desk and is before the Government. I refer to a report published last year entitled, Report of the Expert Group on Resource Allocation and Financing in the Health Sector. It is current and considers the question of redesigning the health services and financing in order that finance follows health objectives, which is what it should do. Moreover, health objectives include the right of all to age well at home. This report provides highly practical guidelines on how budgets can be allocated within the existing quantum of resources, which was part of the expert group’s terms of reference.

Members will be aware but I will highlight that Older and Bolder is of the view that an audit is required of community care services to establish clearly what services are available for older people and what are not. This is not known at present and were one to consult HSE service plans and so on, one would learn that X amount of money is being spent on home help services. However, the small print reveals that this means home help services across the care groups and does not relate solely to older people. Consequently, finding out what people have access to is highly difficult. In trying to be practical about this, it would be useful to invite the HSE to consider how it could make more use of its HealthStat system to audit the existing services and to provide more information about the services that are available in the community in different parts of the country. It is doing quite well on the acute hospital sector and this is another practical measure that could be taken.

On international issues, speakers referred earlier to whether the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights might be incorporated into Irish law. This issue of the incorporation of human rights instruments of one kind or another goes back many years. Older and Bolder proposes that this approach should be considered as part of the constitutional review planned for later in the year. As for the proposed United Nations convention on the rights of older people, this convention will not necessarily happen but is one option that is being considered at present. Were the Seanad to clarify the Government's position on a United Nations convention on rights for older people, it would be useful. My understanding is that the European Union has not favoured a dedicated convention on the rights of older people and consequently, clarification in this regard would be very useful.

There has been some discussion about a commissioner for older people and so on. I will not comment on that proposal in particular. However, I am always in favour of examining what we have and ascertaining what can be done with that. At present, we have a Minister of State with responsibility for older people. However, that Minister of State has a very broad brief. While I have great respect for the individual who is in that role at present, she has four portfolios. An improvement occurred this year when the children's ministry was upgraded to Cabinet rank but there is a need to examine how the portfolio and the office for older people are resourced and to consider the range of responsibility. Four portfolios is a large load for any Minister to carry. I emphasise that I make this point without any implication for the individual.

Although it is not on the list supplied to members, I refer to the national positive ageing strategy. The strategy is available in draft form within the Department of Health but has not yet been made available to the NGO liaison group. Older and Bolder, as well as other organisations that are members of that group, would love to see a copy of that draft in good time to enable them to interact and provide some feedback with sufficient time to influence the draft before it becomes a public document, which it may well do next year, which is being designated as the European year of active ageing.

That is my menu of specific points and I would be delighted to answer any questions members may have.

I thank Ms Conboy for her contribution. Next, we have Mr. Michael O'Halloran, secretary of the retired workers committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Mr. O'Halloran is more than welcome and should now proceed. He has a maximum of ten minutes.

Mr. Michael O’Halloran

Thank you, Chairman. I wish to share with members a brief story about this Seanad Chamber. Many years ago, I was a senatorial candidate on two occasions. I have got a seat at last and it is good.

I wish to make a few general points. If I may say so, the difficulty with this consultation is that there are 1,001 issues which affect older people and the committee will not be able to deal with them all. I must give some advice. Senator Bradford, who no longer is present, gave advice to delegates but it is very important that when making its report, the committee does not leave out issues. However, as it cannot include them all, the report must be carefully crafted.

The question members of the retired workers committee asked themselves and affiliated unions through the congress was, what can the Seanad do that is not now being done? We recognise that human needs are extremely complex and that law can be even more complex. Transitioning needs from theory to practice is very difficult. It has legal implications but also economic and social implications that at times are extremely difficult to deal with. The first point I make is that older people are being talked about very well today. I am an older person too and am 75 years of age. I was nearly in a palliative care bed - I thought it was wonderful - or at least it might be there for me. However, my point is most older people are not in institutions but are out being active in their communities. We sometimes are overlooked and people sometimes talk about us as they do about children or people with disabilities and ask questions like, does he or she take sugar? I take pints and will go on doing so until I die. However, the point is that older people play an active role in society and this should be recognised and appreciated.

I revert to the question of what the Seanad can do. There are some aspects of law in Ireland that are quite insulting to older people. One of them is a provision about lunacy. Being independent and having autonomy are very important to an older person. When older people have to make a decision or are asked to make one, often they cannot make it for themselves because a status has been conferred on them. The Members need to examine the Law Reform Commission's report on this issue and implement its recommendations. The Members can do that but I cannot.

Senator O'Keeffe asked what lobbying in this area had been done. I wrote submissions to Departments on the rights of older people over a period of 15 years. I raised the issue of a voucher scheme in the context of transport services in rural Ireland in a submission I made at least 12 years ago, but I got no response. This Chamber has a very important role to play. I will not go into the debate on whether it should be kept other than to say it should be but in a different way. A problem at Oireachtas level is that we do not have a chamber in which we can have issues questioned. We cannot question Ministers or the Lower House. Members of this institution could ask questions to tease out issues that we cannot pursue outside this Chamber.

The main point I want to make in this presentation is that human rights are the most important thing to human beings, of that there is no question. In the great city of San Francisco a great declaration, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was drawn up and it is a magnificent document and a magnificent statement of humanity. I would like there to be such a universal declaration for older people. The nearest we can get to that is the UN draft convention, which is such a statement. All 27 member states of the European Union and a few other countries, including Canada and Norway, have said that they do not want it and that it is not necessary. However, it is necessary in that it will act as a signpost pointing to the humanity that older people have and that must be protected, advanced and nurtured. Older people would feel better in themselves if they had such recognition. I say that for two reasons, first, it is important and, second, it would not cost much to do it. Every right we talk about must be translated into economics when it goes to a Department and that is where the difficulty arises. A measure that would not cost very much but would enhance dignity is one the Members should definitely consider in this day and age.

The Chairman will have guessed by now that if I had come to this Chamber I would have been asked to leave because I talk so much.

It is a habit others have in this Chamber.

Mr. Michael O’Halloran

During the past ten years progress was made in many respects on provision for older people. There were increases in pensions, prior to the past two years, and in granting a medical card to all those aged over 70, which was half taken away and then given back. We now have home care packages but I remind colleagues that at one time home care was a voluntary service provided mostly by women and it was not done on a professional basis. The introduction of home care packages was important. All the advances we made are being pulled back for economic reasons and that is a great pity. I am glad I have lived but I regret having lived this long to see that great progress being hauled back. Progress will not itself remain permanent nor can it be guaranteed in the future simply because people have rights or because laws have been enacted but there has to be an economy to back it up and there has to be a decency in people. I think it was Gandhi who said one can judge a society by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Such rowing back on the progress made is bad judgment.

Great research on older people's issues has been done and is under way, which is a matter a Member of the Seanad might raise and have debated at some point in the future. It has been shown that older people's health care improved on foot of the granting of a medical card to all people over the age of 70. That is not my view but the view of many eminent professionals in health care. If impositions are put on poor people they may not be able to access health care, not because they do not have a medical card but because they cannot afford prescription charges and a charge on the medical card. That is a detail I was not going to go into because I wanted to deal with the more general issues.

In concluding, I will quote Aristotle, which is suitable in the Seanad because he addressed the Senate in Athens many times.

Mr. Michael O’Halloran

No, not that one. He said society is not just for life, it is for the good life, and the good life is for older people. Next year is the European year of ageing and intergenerational solidarity. Ireland could make a contribution to that year not just by only having seminars, which we will have, and by talking about it but by ratifying the UN Convention on Older People.

Last and by means least is our next speaker, Mr. Liam Doran, who has ten minutes to make his presentation.

Mr. Liam Doran

Having heard Mr. Michael O'Halloran speak, I had the thought that this House is the poorer for the fact that he did not get to sit in that chair a bit earlier than today. I do not believe he will be the person who speaks the most. There are probably very few in here who are not good at speaking.

In the context of being the last speaker, rather than run through a long presentation, I will identify some points that were not covered previously. The Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, INMO, sincerely welcomes the opportunity to meet this committee today. We very much welcome the focus it has decided to put on one of its early works.

I note that the title of the discussion is Submissions on the Rights of Older People. We represent approximately 10,000 nurses and midwives who all or part of every day of their working lives touch older people. The rights of older people in this country are being trampled on at this time for various reasons, of that there is no doubt, particularly the sick and vulnerable in the older population. My colleagues can speak about how to enhance the lives of active older people in the community and so on. In terms of health care, there is no doubt that the last few years have been extremely problematic for older people trying to regain good health, trying to regain or maintain their independence and their right to live at home. We represent a range of nurses working in different areas.

I wish to make a point to the committee which relates to a policy issue. My colleague who spoke previously touched on this point. Public health nurses work solely in the community. The committee might like to know that not everyone is eligible for public health nursing services. It is restricted to those who have a medical card or a designated illness as determined by the Minister. While there is a shift in terms of a medical card giving access to GP services and so on, we do not have universal access to public health nursing services in the community. That in turn creates a huge two-tiered system, deficit and problem which must be addressed if we are to maintain independent living and address issues of concern to the older person.

I wish to raise a practical issue, which I hope will be taken in the spirit in which it is meant. We are extremely concerned about the manpower challenges that will face the health system following 28 February next year. On that date there will be an exit pathway for public servants and most people here will know what I mean by that. Within nursing and midwifery the age cohort of the public health nursing group and the age cohort of nurses working in continuing care in community hospitals and so on is of a particular nature that we fear significant numbers of those people will decide to exit almost on the same Friday evening, as it were, and nothing is being done to address that issue. Continuity of care is very important in those areas. A practical challenge for this committee is to get the Department and the Government to re-examine that policy which will result in people exiting with no guarantee of replacement and to examine how we can maintain the quantum of care of the elderly or the community interventions that are required to deal with the rate of mobility in the system at present. That is a practical problem.

Another issue is also practical and it must be addressed. I will get to speaking about the future in a moment but in the here and now the issue is the closure of continuing care beds for whatever reason, including those driven by a HIQA inspection. With respect, we have a jaundiced view about why a HIQA inspection, which is primed to make the environment better physically or through intervention, can trigger the closure of a unit. This happens rather than the State stepping up to its obligations and addressing the problems, which is an issue. Nobody can be proud of the pictures in the media ten days ago when three elderly people were in wheelchairs saying they did not want to leave their home, despite Big Brother telling them they had to. That is not upholding human rights or providing care for the elderly.

No amount of spin about this being a mixture of reconfiguration of services, the staffing embargo and other elements will address the issue. We would not like this to happen to us and it should not let it happen to those people. It is their home. I speak as somebody whose mother died in continuing care, and she was very happy there. When she lost the ability to live independently, the last thing she wanted was to be forcibly moved. I ask the powers that be to think again about that journey that seems to be beginning.

Another matter of significant concern was touched on before, the question of acute bed capacity and how it impacts on the sector of society involving the older person. More than 50% of the people who will be on trolleys tonight around this country will be old, regardless of whether the number is 300, 200 or 400. That is a blight on our health system because of the nature of the ailments, such as chronic chest problems, multi-systems failure and loss of mobility due to arthritis. All these factors lead the older person to go into an accident and emergency department because they cannot access intervention anywhere else. They will find themselves on trolleys to a disproportionate level, and they may spend an extended part of their stay in the hospital on a trolley, which is wrong.

I know Senators will have a chance to peruse our submission in due course. More than 750 older persons are currently in an acute bed in hospital after being clinically discharged. As there is no continuing care service for them to access, they are left in the bed. The INMO would forcibly argue that this is elder abuse, as a person cannot sleep or rest in an acute hospital environment; it is not tailor made to look after needs and cultural wants. A ward never sleeps in an acute environment by its definition and to leave those people there is wrong. There can be arguments about bed blocking in accident and emergency departments but from a humanitarian perspective, it is not fair and something must be done to recognise the needs of older persons.

Another issue has been discussed in detail. The last place people want to be is in a hospital or continuing care facility. Dr. Phelan mentioned it and our retired nurses section has told us that the home help service is being decimated as we speak. It is seen as a low-hanging fruit for savings in the health budget. Mr. Eamon Timmins told how 700,000 hours have been taken out of the home help system in the past couple of years but that programme keeps people independent and moving. It is about camaraderie as much as anything else. Taking that away removes the last vestige of humanity and human rights from people.

There are genuinely significant problems facing the older person in the health service. Their voice is viewed as passive and they are seen as amenable to cutbacks and so on. They are suffering disproportionately. I dread the next budget but I will not get into what has been said in the past 48 hours. I am trying to rise above that for the moment. It is just a fear that they will be part of the next round of cuts, leaving people with increased final lengths of stay in hospital and more cost for the State. The here and now issues are very significant and I challenge the Seanad, with all due respect, to speak forcibly on them and try to reverse the policy trend growing on the back of economic difficulties.

I will speak to the medium to longer-term prospects for the older person. I am not sure if this is fully understood, although it is spoken of in certain terms and those who came before me have referred to it. The quantum of the problem, if it can be called that, of demographics facing this country is totally under-estimated, and there is a lack of planning. I remind people that Deputy Michéal Martin, then Minister for Health, and former Deputy Dermot Ahern, the then Minister responsible for social welfare, did work on it approximately seven years ago. The Government formed the view that one almost could not articulate the cost coming over the hill because of the demographics, and the work was quietly shelved. That was in the good times when the Celtic tiger roared and we could not put down on paper the challenges facing us.

That is the reason we are suggesting a commission on the older person and we are very much in favour of a rights-based approach. We spoke about children's rights in recent years and although I am not making a political statement, the Government of the day went through hoops not to make this a rights-based system and looked to avoid the associated rights. If these are not available a person will be ostracised, isolated and marginalised when the going gets tough. A commissioner for the older person would try to bring together the realisation of what is needed to prepare for a future when all of us will want to grow old with independence and dignity while actively participating in our community. Older people would be viewed as a positive rather than a negative and if they are ill they would be dealt with fairly and equitably. They should be discharged from hospital as soon as possible back to the community and support structures. That must be an aspiration, although it does not come without cost. It is the least older people deserve if they are to have human rights.

We are nearing conclusion of the discussion because of excellent chairing and the willingness of all the presenters to be so precise. I acknowledge this and am thankful for it. I will make one or two comments before asking questions. As a member of this committee and having listened to the presentation, I know this is a critical issue. We had some sense of how critical it is but the presenters' extraordinary expertise and commitment, coupled with the recommendations made on the basis of research, analysis and consultation with a much wider public than we can engage here, confirms my perspective that this is one of the most significant issues we could have picked to begin our consultation.

Some of the suggestions in the recent presentations, such as framing our report within the context of the European year of the ageing and international solidarity, are interesting. All the delegates gave very practical and concrete examples of how to solidify, either in law or policy, a rights-based approach to the issue. It is also important for us to draw on that. The presenters gave some specific practical examples of elements that might not cost that much to begin in the short term, which we could usefully focus on in our report.

Many of the presentations, particularly the last couple, identify the potential for a UN convention on the rights of older people. Professor Ger Quinn and Professor Rose Anne Kenny will appear before the committee next week. Professor Quinn will specifically address the issue of the added value of a UN convention, in particular, on the rights of older people, and look especially at whether the country could take the lead in shifting the EU consensus that is resisting such a convention.

I do not have specific questions to ask about what has been said because we have heard many excellent targeted examples of what we could pursue. Ms Conboy referred to the establishment of the right to community care and the 1970 Health Act. Does she believe it is a practical recommendation one could pursue?

Ms Patricia Conboy

Yes, absolutely. The 1970 Health Act is very clear about the right to inpatient hospital services. It is under that Act, for example, that all of the issues to do with nursing home care have been situated. The Government takes the view that the nursing home support scheme overrides the Act in terms of inpatient hospital services, but this is disputed by the Ombudsman.

The other related issue is that the 1970 Health Act does not deal with services in the community such as home helps, home care packages, respite care services, day care services or even access to therapies of one kind or another. I recommend that the committee invite the Ombudsman to speak on this issue.

We have heard a further three excellent contributions. Given the economic circumstances and the constraints we face, Ms Conboy struck an important note when she asked what we could do with what we had. Perhaps she has answered that question already in reply to Senator Katherine Zappone. My question is what one would put at the top of the list.

Mr. O'Halloran asked what the Seanad could do. Perhaps it might be a declaration. I am delighted to hear experts will come before the committee next week to speak about a declaration of rights for older people. Perhaps Ms Conboy and Mr. O'Halloran might respond to these questions.

Mr. Doran's contribution was most interesting. His members are probably being hit very hard, in the same way that we all are. We all have to do a little more for less, so to speak. We had better await the announcement of the budget.

I thank the three delegates for their presentations. Mr. O'Halloran is sitting in my seat and is very welcome to it.

Mr. Michael O’Halloran

It shows that I should not have got a seat. There is a better person in it.

I hope Mr. O'Halloran feels the heat.

Senator Ivana Bacik hopes to vacate it at the next general election.

We will see. We may all be vacating our seats if this institution does not last. In all seriousness, it was helpful to hear the presentations and I echo what Senator Katherine Zappone said. When the committee was established and we decided on the rights of older persons as our first theme, we came to it with open minds knowing that it was an extremely broad topic. Having read the written submissions and especially having heard the discussion, common themes and practical issues emerge that we could usefully address in our report.

Something Mr. O'Halloran said resonates with me, namely, that we must acknowledge most older people live active lives and make a significant contribution and that legislation or policy should not be patronising in any way but should empower. However, we must have particular regard for older people with diminished capacity. That is where, perhaps, a specific set of recommendations applies. Issues arise in terms of the draft UN convention for people without diminished capacity.

In my previous questions on the convention I referred to the right to work, to participate and to determine the pace at which one will withdraw from the labour force. Perhaps many of the presentations in the previous session focused on people with diminished capacity. I am struck by the right Ms Conboy identified in the Older and Bolder submission, namely, the right to age well at home. That is critical and it is an issue which has come up in all of the earlier submissions. There is a need, therefore, to ensure adequate safeguards in home care services. Other speakers referred to this issue also.

I am struck by a point made by Mr. Doran about HIQA. Of course, issues arise when HIQA closes down nursing homes, but at the same time one must make provision for where home care does not meet standards. For far too long the State was negligent in allowing institutions for children and others to remain open when standards were inadequate. The debate opens up the bigger question of how one regulates home care services. It is clear that HIQA cannot close down a home where there is abusive care. We must grapple with this issue.

Mr. Doran referred to what would happen at the end of February and the shortages that might develop in terms of front-line staff. We need to consider how we will deal with this issue. It is clear that home care services will be even more important then and that we will be more reliant on them. These are all issues with which we need to grapple.

Mental capacity legislation has been referred to in a number of submissions. The Bill is due shortly before the Oireachtas justice committee.

Ms Patricia Conboy

I will respond briefly to both questioners. The point being made is that health is not medicine alone. Therefore, transport and opportunities for involvement in the community and to have a secure income are important. Older people have said this to us repeatedly; it is a clear message from them.

On Senator Bacik's question on employment, another specific issue for the committee, there are exemptions under the Equal Status Act on the issue of mandatory retirement. If that issue alone were addressed, it would be very useful.

On the issue of population ageing being seen as a burden, the bigger burden in the longer term will be that of inequality. Professor Rose Anne Kenny, in respect of the Trinity College longitudinal study of ageing, will highlight the fact that the real burden is that imposed by inequality experienced early in life which causes more sickness and difficulty in later life and results in a heavier burden on the health service.

Mr. Michael O’Halloran

I wish to contribute briefly on the issue of older people and work. I did not refer to it in the submission because it was not possible to deal with all of issues in detail.

Towards 2016 contained provisions on improving employment possibilities for older people on the basis that they should have the right to work and that if they remained in work, they would have access to certain aids such as training and the provision of advice. I have not been able to determine this, but perhaps committee members might ask questions of FÁS, if it is still in existence-----

It is called SOLAS now.

Mr. Michael O’Halloran

We cannot do it in the same way as the committee which has the authority to do so. SOLAS should be asked what it is doing to respond to these issues. I worked in an industry about which the Chairman jeered me one time. I worked in a bakery for a long time as a young man and there was no retirement age. Men of 80 years of age were working there. I know a good deal about that issue.

The second point relates to a small matter I did not raise, but seeing as everyone else is doing so, I will indulge in it, too. HIQA is an interesting organisation and doing a great job. I was a member of the committee which drew up the standards. There should be standards for surgeries, as well for private medical practices. There are inadequate surgeries which are dangerous for old people. They are located on the top floor of buildings, which means people with disabilities have to climb stairs. It is absolutely disgraceful. There are no standards in place.

Mr. Liam Doran

The point we are trying to make about HIQA is that it should have stronger regulations; there should not be light touch regulation. We would like to see its remit being extended to the arena of staffing and to measure acuity and dependency. Without boring the committee, I could have 20 residents, for whom I would require X number of staff to look after them fully, but I could have ten other residents, for whom I might require more staff because of their level of dependency. Our hearts are sometimes broken when we are told we always had 40 patients, we still have 40 elderly patients and we are asked what our problem is. The acuity, dependency and needs of those 40 people could be ten times what they were ten years ago, because of the nature of their illnesses, their mobility and so on. HIQA needs to have more teeth and not fewer. It needs to involve users of the service to determine needs.

I note the point about public service agreements and about working more for less. The point I was trying to make about 28 February is that we have a number of relatively small facilities with perhaps only 30 staff. However, ten nurses might decide to walk away from one such facility on 29 February. We cannot manage that situation and have a safe service on 1 March. I do not mean to be flippant when I say not even Michael O'Leary - and I have some disagreement with Michael O'Leary's way of running the world - would say anyone he employs can retire, regardless of grade, group of category, on 29 February and suggest he could fly a full airline on 1 March. He would not do it, but the public health service is putting itself in that position. It is not a question of more for less. Redeployment is there and we must deal with it, but no amount of redeployment will maintain safe care when such a quantum of staff is lost on a Friday night and patients and residents need to be looked after on the following Saturday morning.

I thank the delegates for their excellent, distinct and informative presentations. I thank Mr. Michael O'Halloran, in particular, for bringing Aristotle into the proceedings. Aristotle also said all virtue can be summed up in doing justice. He also said it was unbecoming for young men to utter maxims, so perhaps I should be careful.

With regard to doing justice, Mr. Liam Doran spoke about closing a care setting and the further injustice done to people who have grown accustomed to their circumstances. This arose very controversially in recent months. Is Mr. Doran satisfied with what is in place? What is the way forward in terms of HIQA or some person moving in to run such a service? Is that the answer and would it be feasible? What is the answer when there is a scandal, or an investigation proves either that people are at continuing risk or that a risk has suddenly arisen? I felt very unhappy about the idea of a place being closed down, with the consequences that would have for the people who had come to call it home. Where are we at in this regard, in Mr. Doran's view?

I thank the delegates. I can safely say this is the best day I have had in my four years in the Seanad. We began this morning with former President, Dr. Mary Robinson, here and we are ending with these delegates.

Later, we will debate the Water Services (Amendment) Bill.

Yes, we have septic tanks to come.

I did not say the best is yet to come, because I doubt it.

This is a reflective session. Ms Conboy, Mr. Doran and Mr. O'Halloran have brought so much wisdom to bear in two or three hours, this session is like a PhD in older people, in terms of all they are giving me. I am also hearing this from my colleagues. The delegates are giving us much and we are hearing their priorities. I am on the Government side in the Seanad and I want to ensure that the delegates' key priorities are implemented. Could they find common ground and list their three top priorities? That might be an unfair request.

We have heard several references to legislation this afternoon. There was reference to the proposed mental capacity Bill, to an amendment to the habitual residency requirement and to the right to community care in the Health Act of 1970, giving people the right to age well at home. It would be easier for Senators to act if there was common ground among spokespeople for elderly people. That would ensure that we could deliver something.

I am one of the new patrons of the Institute of Community Health Nurses, and I am learning a great deal. Has Mr. Doran's organisation done any forward planning with regard to his members? Is he checking who is leaving the profession? We need this information now. It will be too late on 28 February. Not even Michael O'Leary could deliver any kind of service, not to speak of a safe service, on the following day. These matters are critical and now is the time to get us that information so that we can intervene.

I thank the delegates for the depth and breadth of their contributions. Like Senator Healy Eames, I feel I have had a PhD in the afternoon, for which we are extremely grateful.

There have been several rumours about the number of people who will leave the public service before the end of February. I would like to hear Mr. Doran's estimate of those figures, even as they stand.

Ms Conboy referred to the audit of community care services. I cannot believe there has not been one. Does Ms Conboy know why? Did someone attempt one and it did not work?

The question about rural transport gave Mr. O'Halloran the chance to tell us about how long he has been trying to get taxi vouchers. We could start a fresh round of lobbying all over again.

I have one question for Mr. Doran. Some members of my family are in the nursing profession and I am acutely aware that many people will retire in February next. No permanent jobs are available because of the moratorium on recruitment. Is it economically viable that the same level of work will be done on an agency basis, possibly by some of the retired nurses? A great deal of agency work is being done in hospitals. I know this is the case in Bantry Hospital, which is very close to me. Staff, who have been working in hospitals for 20 or 30 years, are now proposing to retire, for a number of reasons. Either they will not be replaced or they will be replaced by agency workers. I do not say agency workers are not qualified. Younger nurses, who are not permanent, are being replaced by agency workers, some of whom have retired and taken a retirement package. Does it make sense for the State, on behalf of the taxpayer, to train young nurses and have them replaced by retired nurses who are employed by agencies?

I thank the organisations which made written and oral submissions to the committee. If we can progress some of the issues raised the process will have been worthwhile. Members of the committee will do everything we can to ensure the process will be worthwhile and that at least some of the issues will be acted upon in early course.

Again, I thank the delegates for coming.

Mr. Liam Doran

I was asked some specific questions about 29 February. I will come back to them.

Senator Mullen referred to HIQA and conditions in nursing homes. We are at a complete loss as to why a HIQA inspection which says there was a poor physical environment in a facility would lead to the closure of the facility. This makes no economic sense in our view, because the residents must be dispersed throughout other areas of the health system. The investment being made now will be needed when the age demography takes us through to a time when a higher proportion of people will require facilities. We can talk about construction, investment, refurbishment and jobs, but there is a return on those.

Everyone is for HIQA and it is absolutely necessary, but say no more about light touch regulation. We want strong regulation, both in the public and the private sector. However, what we do not want is for HIQA to come in and for the public sector, because of the economic climate, to use that as an excuse to shut a service and diffuse the cost of providing care to those people into other areas. That will not work and will come back to haunt the public service. In the end, the level of acuity of a segment of the older population will always require public provision because the private sector will not want to take on that segment because of the staffing demands and so on. HIQA is a force for great good and we want it to be seen for that rather than as a reason to walk away from a service or to scale it down.

Public health nursing positions are of interest. The design with regard to public health positions was to ensure there would be one public health nurse for every 2,500 of a defined population. Currently, the ratio is 1:4,000. We had 135 training places per annum, but that number has now been revised downwards to about 60. This is not near enough to maintain the cohort of staff and we have gone backwards in that regard. The public health nurse is the most qualified positioned centre of excellence that a community service could ever wish to have in an embodiment of the human person. If we just give them the resources they will, undoubtedly, keep people out of hospital, aided by their community nurses.

On the issue of retirement, the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation ran retirement seminars recently and up to 720 people came to the evening seminars to inquire about their rights. Senators want the figures. We lose approximately 750 nurses and midwives per annum on average because of the age profile. There is a very high turnover of nurses vis-à-vis other grades. We estimate that from 1,250 to 1,300 will leave between now and February, but the problem is they will primarily or potentially be located in mental health, public health and in continuing care facilities. Therefore, there will be a disproportionate hit to those locations if we do not do something for them. In fairness, the system has asked for people to give three month’s notice, but nursing contracts say there is only need for one month’s notice. We are trying to wrestle with this with the HSE. People think we are always at loggerheads with the HSE, but not all the time. The HSE has a very difficult job at this time. The rules of the game make it almost impossible to manage and the figures I have given indicate the type of loss we could face. Do not quote me on this, but acute hospitals may not be that badly hit because the age profile in those hospitals is different. However, other places could be severely hit because of the age profile.

The Chairman asked how we have got to this position. If I am blue in the face talking about one thing, it is about the madness of this country training 1,600 graduates every year to put them on the train, boat or aeroplane within 48 hours of qualifying. These nurses are an excellent resource. We have been pleading with the Department to come forward with a post-qualification employment initiative. We are prepared to sit down with the Department and discuss this issue. These young nurses would be cheaper because they are the lower end of the scale. The Government introduced the new entry scale, which is 10% lower still. Therefore, new entrants have been hit with a 26% decrease in salary vis-à-vis what salaries were two years ago. Nobody will take us up on this. These people are qualifying and emigrating and are lauded when they arrive in London and Manchester, but if ever a health system needed to keep these nurses, it would be ours. They would be cheaper than agency nurses, because agencies involve commission fees, VAT rates and so on and bring money into the private sector from the public sector. We should keep our own, grow our own and retain our own. That is the solution.

Mr. Michael O’Halloran

I disagree slightly with my colleague on the issue of nursing home closures. If a nursing home is being closed, the question must be asked as to why it is being closed and what conditions led to that decision being made. The fact that older people may be dispersed to places they do not want to go to is an issue and is inconvenient. However, in the long run it is better for them to get away from an unsafe environment. An environment can be unsafe for many reasons. Perhaps there was abuse in the nursing home, or fire safety was inadequate or perhaps there was one of 101 other reasons. It is down to why a home is being closed.

What should be done with regard to closures is that a proper system should be agreed between the HSE, HIQA and nursing home managers as to how to go about closures with the least inconvenience to older people, rather than informing them when the decision is done and dusted and they are moved almost overnight. That is what is wrong with the system. HIQA is only one of the players in this. A multiplicity of people are involved and they must all come together on this. I am sorry for going on about this, but I feel strongly on it.

Ms Patricia Conboy

Senator O'Keeffe asked specifically about the audit. This has been on the agenda for a long time, but I cannot honestly say I know why it has not happened, probably partly due to change on the part of people who asked for it and partly due to change on the part of people within the system who might have responded. There are models in terms of how audits have been done and the Hospice Foundation gave us an example of how it worked in partnership. The reason we focus particularly on HealthStat is that we see it as a good initiative on the part of the HSE and as something we could build on. Perhaps the committee should consider what models would work best in terms of advancing that model.

Senator Healy Eames asked about priorities. We believe that Make Home Work and the Right to Age Well at Home have the agreement of the eight member organisations of the alliance. However, I recognise that each member organisation here focuses on specific issues particular to its mission and objectives. Therefore, drawing up the priorities in that wider field is more challenging.

Before we conclude, I thank the various groups who attended for their professionalism and on the manner in which they presented their case today. This work has been engaging and thought-provoking. I enjoyed hearing the presentations and have taken on board the serious issues the groups have advocated. I also thank the members of the Public Consultation Committee. I am delighted they are all here and thank the Seanad Leader and Senator Zappone who have been the fire engines behind this particular meeting. I thank other Members of the Seanad who attended in their own time and participated.

At 2.30 p.m. next Tuesday, the committee will hear a presentation from Professor Gerard Quinn of NUIG on the value of a United Nations convention on the rights of older persons. We will also have a presentation from Professor Rose Anne Kenny of Trinity College Dublin. If any of our guests have the time or wish to come in and observe that meeting, they are quite welcome, although they will not be able to participate. I thank everybody sincerely for their attendance. We have made a wonderful start and thank all who participated.

The committee adjourned at 5.40 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, on 29 November 2011.
Top
Share