——but is deemed to be of neutral value, at best, if not of negative worth, a few years later. We must certainly change this attitude. If people want to work in the conventional workplace beyond the age of 65, we must make provision for them.
I heard the Minister for Social and Family Affairs talk about ageism last week and he tied it to the issue of pensions and perhaps deferred pensions. This subject requires in-depth study. The Pensions Board may be considering the issue at present and I hope it will be positive in its recommendations and allow people to work for as long as they are willing and able.
The concept of step-down retirement must be taken on board. Consider the position of those who lose their jobs, be they in their 40s or 50s. We rightly feel very sorry for those who go to work on a Friday and are redundant or unemployed on a Monday. We try to offer them resources and supports, including financial supports, and also retraining to prepare them for employment elsewhere. The very same problem is faced by those who have to retire from work at 65 or 66 because of their age. On retirement they are consigned to some sort of economic scrapheap. This is very unfair and needs to be addressed.
Care of the elderly is a separate subject but requires further study in respect of ageism. Many studies have been carried out and I agree wholeheartedly with attempting to allow people to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. Every report published promotes this concept but we do not do so at a political level. The Opposition is either asking for extra money to be poured into the nursing home subvention scheme or the Government side is telling us about the money being provided or about the extra beds, including public beds, that are being made available. These should only comprise a small part of the solution and we should be trying to concentrate on services for people who wish to remain at home, be it through additional home help payments or changes to the means-testing system to allow the carer's allowance to be paid to a greater number of family members. Society would benefit to a degree that we do not wish to quantify from having an increased number of elderly people looked after in their own homes by their own families. This should be our political priority.
The nursing home and public hospital bed solutions are poor second-bests. They represent something of a political excuse for our failure as a society to promote the idea of allowing people to remain where they are undoubtedly happiest, that is, at home with or near their families and in their communities, supported by their neighbours. Any initiative to achieve this will have my full support.
Housing issues obviously affect the elderly. When we make inquiries on behalf of middle-aged or elderly people looking for local authority accommodation, we get the distinct impression that they are not a political priority. Those who are advancing in years still have housing needs, as well as human needs, and we must try to be more generous. It is a question of attitude and not just of valuing the contribution the elderly have made to building our nation. It is a matter of recognising and anticipating the ongoing contribution they make to society in all its aspects.
Senator White referred to the voting turnout among various age groups and warned that we should take strong political note of what is called the "grey vote". This concept is now universally accepted and we should take note of it. We should do so not just because of some sort of political threat but because of the benefits that would accrue to our country from ridding society of ageism and valuing people for what they are worth and what they can contribute, regardless of their age.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This is a very interesting debate and is probably the sort of debate the Seanad can engage in best. There is no political division and it is a question of our trying to combat ageism such that everybody, be they 25, 55 or 75, can play a full role in society. All age groups can do so. Although not everybody in the House might agree with the politics of Ronald Reagan, they should note that he became President of the United States when he was 70 and was re-elected at 74. This demonstrates that people sometimes allow limits to be imposed upon themselves. We should try to break down the mental barriers and say that age is no limit.
