Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 1 and 9 are related and may be discussed together.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 7, after "2009;" to insert "to amend the Mental Health Act 2001;".

This amendment concerns the addition of the Mental Health Act 2001 to the Long Title of the Bill to take account of amendment No. 9, which amends section 48 of the 2001 Act. It is a relatively minor amendment to change the length of time a person can serve on a mental health tribunal operated by the Mental Health Commission from the current term of three years to five years.

The commission wrote to my Department requesting that this amendment be made in an existing Bill, if possible, as it will shortly begin a recruitment campaign for the appointment of tribunal panel members. Each recruitment campaign costs in the region of €250,000 and is administratively burdensome for the commission. The amendment was originally proposed to be included in the forthcoming mental health Bill. However, the size and complexity of that Bill mean it would not be possible to enact and commence the relevant provisions prior to the commission's recruitment process. Work is intended to commence on the mental health Bill in the coming months. For very practical reasons, I propose to make this legislative change now in order that the extended term can be incorporated into the forthcoming recruitment process. This will have a direct impact by delivering savings for the Exchequer and reducing the administrative burden on the commission.

I am happy to confirm to Deputies that the mental health Bill, which is expected to be more than 200 pages long, is in the very final days of drafting. I will seek approval from the Government to publish it later this month.

As I have outlined, amendment No. 1 proposes to amend the Long Title of the Bill to reflect the proposed amendment to the Mental Health Act 2001 contained in amendment No. 9. I hope Deputies will support it.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 2 to 8, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 18, lines 7 and 8, to delete "first cousin, great-grandchild, great-nephew or great-niece" and substitute "great-grandchild, great-nephew, great-niece or first cousin, or a child, grandchild or great-grandchild of a first cousin,".

This is one of a group of identical amendments I intend to move to expand the definition of those eligible to be considered as the family successor to a family farm or productive business assets under the nursing home support scheme. The definition of “family successor” appears in several sections of the Act, which has led to the need for these identical amendments.

As Deputies will be aware, in 2022 I introduced the changes to the nursing home support scheme that extended the three-year cap that applied to the applicant’s principal private residence to the family farm and business assets where a family successor was appointed. This family successor must continue to run the farm or business for at least a period of six years and have at least consistently applied to running the family asset for at least three of the last five years. This was a really important change to safeguard and protect the viability of family farms and businesses and ensure more family farms and businesses would be handed down to the next generation.

Since introducing these amendments, it became clear that there was a small group of individuals with no close relatives who had sought to benefit from the relief but who could not do so because they did not have a person who met the eligibility criteria for a family successor provided for in the legislation. This was not intended; it was an unintended consequence, and it is important that it be rectified.

The published Bill already includes a provision to expand the definition of “family successor” by including a great-grandchild, great-nephew, great-niece or first cousin. The amendment I am proposing seeks to broaden the definition of first cousin to include more blood relatives in the grandparental lineage to include a child, a grandchild or a great-grandchild of a first cousin, commonly known as first cousins once, twice and thrice removed. This is to address those instances where the choice of a family successor may be limited to a first cousin who is of similar age to oneself and is not in a position to take on the responsibilities associated with running the family asset. This amendment will facilitate the inclusion of younger second- and third-generation relatives in the successor scheme while still remaining under the first-cousin parameters. It is important to emphasise that this is a measure for all family businesses, which we all know are so important to local communities around the country.

In proposing this amendment, I want to emphasise that the role of a family successor under the nursing home support scheme is completely different from that associated with inheritance. By appointing someone as a family successor, they do not become the owner of the farm or business, and there are no implications or changes in terms of inheritance law.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to speak about amendment No. 4, in my name, and also the amendments of the Minister of State. I thank the Minister of State for her engagement on this issue. It dates back nearly to the time of the original nursing home support scheme, which dates from 2009. Very soon after the enactment of the legislation on the nursing home support scheme, we found an anomaly concerning family businesses and family farms. A huge financial burden was being placed on families as a result. We are all well aware of cases in this regard. I am aware of one not too far from where I live, in an adjoining county. It involves a man with a very successful dairy farm whose wife, sadly, contracted a long-term illness and ended up in long-term nursing home care as a very young woman. The man, who has a young family, has had to sell off parts of his farm to pay the nursing home bill. The amendment introduced in 2021 was to address the anomaly, not just for family farms but also for family businesses. The anomaly jeopardised the viability of many family businesses by burdening the owners with the cost of the nursing home as well as the day-to-day operational costs of the business.

There is a very significant commitment tied to this in that the person designated as taking over the farm or business has to run it for the next six years. That is a very substantial commitment. The difficulty arose very quickly after the amendment was made, which I remember. I was dealing with the case of an individual whose second cousin once removed, or the son of a second cousin, the man’s nearest living blood relative, had taken over the operation of a farm and was rearing a young family on it. He took it over on the basis of the provision coming in and I assured him that the legislation was robust regarding the matter because it clearly stated in black and white that the person taking over the land had to be either the partner of the person in long-term care or a relative. Not only did the individual comply with this but he was actually the nearest living relative of the person in long-term care. The legislation went further because it implied not only that the individual was eligible but also that his spouse was eligible. A difficulty has arisen because the HSE has taken a very rigid interpretation of the law.

I did not raise this case at the time, in 2021, because the law then provided for it. Sadly, although I realise the Minister of State’s intention is to expand the definition already in primary legislation, the amendment she is proposing is in fact restricting it. The difficulty is that the interpretation of the HSE is very different from that in black-and-white legislation, causing great hardship for the family I referred to, who have now been paying a substantial fee for long-term nursing home care every single week for over six years.

A second case involves a first cousin once removed who will be eligible under the new restricted definition. However, in my amendment I have tried to redraft what was set out in the original legislation, enacted in this House in October 2021, making reference to a relative. I want to see the cases of the small number of individuals affected, where they comply with the other very rigid provisions in this legislation, dealt with. This legislation goes far further than what is set out by the Revenue Commissioners as the responsibility to farm the land. According to the Revenue Commissioners, one must commit to farming the land for the subsequent five years. In this legislation, the period is six years. The difficulty is that should something happen to an individual, such as passing away or illness that makes him or her no longer able to farm, the clock starts again. A very limited and finite number of people can avail of the relief, but, sadly, a small cohort of unmarried people with land in rural Ireland are caught in that they do not have any siblings and therefore no nieces or nephews, meaning they have to look to first and second cousins. In the case in question, the cousins are the ones who have taken over the day-to-day operation of the farm and who took care of the older person until they went into long-term nursing care, yet they are being penalised. While the HSE’s interpretation and the Government’s original legislation did allow for first cousins, the difficulty is that, if we ask a 79-year-old man to take over and commit to farming the land for the next six years for his 83-year-old first cousin who has gone into nursing home care, it will not work.

I welcome the Minister of State’s engagement and thank her for her assistance to date. Reluctantly, though, I have significant reservations about the restrictions that are being proposed. They are being forced upon us because of the HSE’s interpretation of legislation that was passed in 2021 with a specific purpose.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am concerned about the fair deal scheme. I highlighted my concerns when we originally debated the Bill. Nothing will ever change my opinion that assessing the farm for the fair deal scheme is wrong. In every other instance, only the dwelling house is assessed. If the Government were to be fair, only the dwelling house on the farm would be assessed in these cases. This decision is putting a burden on the young person who is trying to run the farm. It need not even be a large farm. For example, a farm could be valued at €500,000. At 7.5%, that is €37,500 per year. Most farms are valued at between €700,000 and €900,000. This decision will make the farm worthless in the end and place a noose around the neck of the young fella or whoever is trying to run the farm. It can be a spouse or whoever. What the Government is proposing is too much and it is being unfair, democratic and selective towards farmers. In every other instance, only the dwelling house is assessed. I cannot understand how the Government cannot see that and is continuing with this decision to rope more people in and ensure it gets its claws into their land as well. The Government is going to make farms unviable. A farm is a livelihood. Many people confuse it with being an asset that is worth a certain amount of money, but that is not the case. If people do not farm it and make money out of it, they cannot pay for and hold onto it. I ask that the Government reconsider this decision. We would not be discussing cousins, uncles, grandchildren of cousins or whoever else otherwise. What the Government is at is ridiculous. It will be difficult for Revenue officials to go after this, it will cost more than will be gained and it will put people under savage pressure. If they have to pay €37,500 per year on €500,000 farms, for how long will the Government be able to take that money from them if they have to be in homes for three, four or five years? It is unfair and undemocratic.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government is accepting dwellings in every other instance, but where the dwelling house is on a farm, it wants the farm and all. That is not right.

I will provide an example of something that happened today. Invariably, I take elderly farmers – recently, I even took a young farmer of 50 years of age – up to Belfast to get their cataracts removed. Today, the HSE has reduced the reimbursement to patients from €1,918 to €863. Many people will not be able to foot this bill and will have to wait two, three or four years for the system in the South to have their cataracts done, be that in Cork, Tralee or wherever. Deputy Michael Collins and I got this going in Dublin in 2017. Since then, we have brought hundreds of busloads up to Belfast to treat people’s eyes. The story is still the same now, with people in the Twenty-six Counties on waiting lists for two, three or four years. Today, the Government cut the reimbursement from €1,918 to €863. I must remind the Minister of State that many of the people going on these buses have to get bridging loans from their credit unions to facilitate their trips. They have to beg, borrow and steal to make up what they have to pay. A 98-year-old woman from west of Dingle got on a bus at 4 a.m. and went off to Belfast. People like that lady, who was determined to save her sight, will be denied that service from now on because they will not be able to match the cost. Will the Minister of State find out what is happening and reverse the HSE’s decision? The HSE’s pricing unit has ordained this change, but it did not do so without the Government’s approval. The HSE could have signalled its intention to make this change from 1 January, but it did it at this time of the year. Deputy Collins and I have arranged for three buses between now and the end of July, but the Government is jeopardising these people and could cause them to go blind. It is not fair.

I appeal to the Minister of State. I supported her in the past and liked various things she said, but I am against her inclusion of farms in the assessment for the fair deal. I appeal to her to do something about the HSE’s decision on reimbursements. I was notified of it today. How it is being done is unfair. It looks like the Government is just trying to stop the scheme at all costs. Maybe it is doing that to help Government candidates get elected and so on. There is some ulterior motive. I ask the Minister of State to look after this.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I respect the fact the Minister of State inherited the fair deal scheme, but it can cause great difficulties within families. I respect that she is trying to make changes to it and I am not here to over-criticise. I have watched people go into beautiful community hospitals. We have many stunning community hospitals and nursing homes in my constituency. People have told me that it is unfair they are being charged for it, but a charge has to be applied. Common sense has to prevail and I will not say they should be in those hospitals or homes for free or the price of their pensions. However, there are difficulties, particularly for farmers. I had two people in my clinic this week – maybe three, but definitely two – who had issues with and concerns about the fair deal scheme. It seems to attack the people who have been careful and – I will not say “honest”, as no one is being dishonest – prudent with their finances all their lives. I was told recently about a couple who grew their own produce, baked their own cakes and did everything at home, happy together, only for one to get sick. All of a sudden, it was like they were going to be robbed, with their savings taken out of their pockets at what was the end of their time.

Not so long ago, I was called in to meet someone in a nursing home in Clonakilty. When I did, he told me that he had worked hard all his life and given all his money to his family, but that he had a very good contributory pension. Combined with the old age pension, it reached the level where he had to pay €60 or €70. He had not realised that his friend, whom I hope is not listening, was in the same nursing home. They had not met for years and the man I spoke to thought the other had passed away. When he asked his friend how much being in the home was costing him, his friend – a man who had enjoyed life, had a shot of pint every day, smoked cigarettes, had had a good life and had no savings and no money other than his pension – told him that 80% of his pension kept him in the nursing home and he got 20% back. The man I met said he was up at 6 a.m., worked very hard for all of his life, was honest, paid his taxes and did everything by the book but now he was being fleeced because he did all of that whereas if he had stayed at home and enjoyed life, the situation would have been different.

Has Michael Collins found the balance? To be honest, I have not found that balance that needs to be found. I keep going back to what Phil Hogan said when he was a Minister inside here, that he would follow people to the grave for their money. That is the unfortunate advice I give people. When they come into me, I advise them to get rid of what they have before they need what could be the fair deal. God almighty, it is terrible advice to give people, but if they do not do so, somebody else will take it from them. People might criticise me but that is a fact and that is the way it is. The system is built wrong to a degree. It supports people who did not care, could not give a damn, and had a bloody good life. For those people, 80% of their pension will be taken and they will get 20% back, but the people who were careful and did everything by the book end up having to pay top dollar and lose the little bit of money they put aside. Some people may have a little bit of property, especially farms, and that is a serious concern for them. That farm is only to be passed on. Most people I know very rarely sell a farm. Rather, it is passed on. This system imposes a penalty on them.

I know that the Minister of State is trying to make changes and I respect that. I am not here to criticise but I am certainly here to put forward a point regarding the people I represent. They come in to me and feel that they are being hit from every angle and, at the latter end of their lives, they are now worried about their little bit of savings or the small farm they have and hope to pass on. I do not know what it is like in other countries but Ireland is different. People here tend to wait until death before they pass on their property and their few bob. They save their few bob to give to their children, perhaps their family, their nieces or nephews but now that is gone once they fall into this scheme.

I respect that people have to pay. I was never a believer in not having to do so, especially with the astonishing hospitals and nursing homes we have, such as Schull Community Hospital, Castletownbere Community Hospital, the nursing home in Drimoleague, Dunmanway Community Hospital and all of these hospitals. They cannot keep the doors open and pay staff if patients who have money are being cared for in them for free, but there has to be a better system than the one that is there at the moment. I would like to spend more time on this and get the right experts on board to see how we can put a system in place where everybody is treated fairly. Long ago, it did not matter what you had; you got to keep 80% of your pension inside in a community hospital. That is not afforded to people today. It is not even possible to get the community hospitals. It is mainly nursing homes today. We need to look at this. The people who were honest and fair all of their lives are being punished severely and followed to the grave.

In the minute of speaking time I have left, I concur with what Deputy Danny Healy-Rae said today on cataract procedures. It is an astonishing attack on old people to think that they were reimbursed €1,912 but that has gone down to €863. That is another attack on the elderly. I sincerely hope that the Minister of State, and the Minister for Health, when we get a chance to speak to him, can look into this change. It is an attack. The Government cannot provide the surgery for these people in Cork and Kerry. It is leaving these people there for three, four or five years until they are almost blind. Now the Government is going to take away the one little pocket of hope these people, most of whom are in their 70s, 80s, 90s or more, had, of being able to go to Belfast and get reimbursed. It is going to destroy that hope and let these people go blind. That is an astonishing attack on old people and if this Government stands over it, that needs to be pointed out in the next general election. Who made that decision? People who planned on going up this Saturday or Saturday week in buses are now being told they will get little or no reimbursement. They were looking forward to the operation, which nobody wants to undergo, but which will save their sight. This is very much an attack on them. Basically, the Government is quite happy to let these people go blind. It is bad enough to think they could not have the surgery in their own backyard, which everybody would prefer and there would be no hassle there, but now the reimbursement is cut down to that amount. It is an astonishing attack on old people and it has to be reversed.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, I raise the issue of the fair deal scheme, which I was a great believer in because it was helping and assisting in many cases. As late as last night - I will give the House the sums - an elderly couple's fair deal was assessed. They are not wealthy people and do not have much savings. This married couple both had previous spouses who are now deceased. For the gentleman, the fair deal was assessed at €760 per week. They cannot afford that. One might think there was a large amount of property involved or something like that, but I can tell the House that was absolutely not the case. I contacted the fair deal office today to try to get to the bottom of it. When the fair deal is being assessed, we must take into account people's personal ability to pay back the amount of money they are charged. We cannot have a situation where people need to be in a nursing home - it is not that they want to be there; they need to be there - but paying the required amount is putting them under severe financial strain. We, the Minister of State or previous governments did not call it the fair deal for the fun of it. It was supposed to be a fair deal. Unfortunately, it is now becoming a very unfair deal because elderly people are not able to afford it. I ask the Minister of State to please look at that. I will bring some of my cases to the Minister of State and ask her to intervene directly. The simple fact is that I believe they merit and deserve to be looked at and scrutinised in a stronger way.

Earlier today, the Minister of State was present in the Chamber when I raised the issue of the shock announcement issued today by the HSE with regard to the cross-Border directive, that from 1 July 2024 the reimbursable sum is now €863 per cataract removal, down from the previous sum of €1,912. To say this was a shock announcement is an understatement. I have been running a bus taking Kerry people to Belfast for many years. I have a bus fully booked for another ten or 12 days' time. Those people were told how much they would be getting back. I told them they would get €1,912 back. Today, we have to face notifying these people that it will now be €863. This is an issue that deserves urgent and immediate attention. I have a few very clear questions to ask the Minister of State. Why did this happen? Did the Minister of State know it was happening? Did the Minister for Health know it was happening? The Taoiseach, to be fair to him, said he did not know about it when I asked him today. I do not expect the man to know everything like that. We were blindsided by it ourselves, so I am not expecting him to have known about it. People in the Department of Health, however, surely did know it. People in the HSE knew it. When did they find out about it? How long have they known about it? Why are we told only being told about it now? This is probably one of the most important events in the lives of people whose sight is giving them trouble. They are relying on going to the North, where a hospital appointment has been scheduled for them. They are looking forward to this happening. Many of them are elderly and have to go to the North to have their cataract removed. It is either that or go blind. I am asking the Minister of State in the most sincere way to please come back with the answers to the questions I have just asked her.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Chair, we are meant to be dealing with the Bill.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have to be able to say to these people that they will be able to afford it and will be able to go up. They were looking forward to it. Many of them have gone previously to have one cataract removed-----

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a Bill.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

----- and now they have to go for a second time and they were looking forward to that. I am asking the Minister of State, as I asked the Taoiseach earlier today, to please take this on board and try to ensure these elderly people will have their sight saved and will be able to afford to do so. I thank the credit unions in Kerry, with which I work very closely-----

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Chair, I wish to raise a point of order.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can the Deputy speak to the Bill?

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can we speak to the amendments, please?

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am just finishing this point-----

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Very quickly.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The credit unions have helped those people-----

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are on a point of order.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can the Deputies just let me finish?

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, there is no few more minutes.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Very quickly.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The credit unions have helped to finance these trips to the North. Now they will not be in a position to do so. My goodness, I would not dare interrupt Deputy Shortall.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This has nothing to do with the legislation.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tell that to the people who are in danger of losing their eyesight.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a cheap shot.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can we finish this-----

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would not dare sit here and interrupt Deputy Shortall while she is talking. I would not dare do it.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There has to be some level of order in a debate.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can Deputy Shortall let me finish with the bit of time I have remaining? I wish to speak up for the elderly people in Kerry-----

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would you stop?

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

------who wish to have their eyesight restored.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy talks as if he is the only one who cares.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

An elderly person who needs an operation in the North but cannot afford it-----

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That has got nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----might very well be glad of the opportunity to go there. That person would not like someone sitting inside here heckling someone who is trying to stand up for elderly people. How dare Deputy Shortall go against old people like that? That is wrong.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The one thing I notice is that people from Dublin do not have go to Belfast at all because they are being looked after in Dublin.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Stop that nonsense.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is my time-----

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The people in Kerry are being left behind.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----and I want to finish it. I hate the idea of a person-----

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It does not happen in Dublin at all. People are looked after in Dublin.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy does not know anything about people in Dublin. I ask him to stop that old nonsense.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What does Deputy Shortall know about people in Kerry or west Cork who need to go to the North to save their eyesight?

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know plenty but this is not the time to raise this issue.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At this stage, this over-and-back argument is not serving any purpose.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Shortall has chosen to try to cut me out of making my points.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Enough has been said. The Deputy has made his point.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is extremely unfair and very unprofessional.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Healy-Rae has had plenty of opportunity.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a low thing for Deputy Shortall to interrupt a debate like that.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order and to clarify, the frustration here is that this Bill is on Report Stage. On Report Stage, we can only discuss the content of the amendments in front of us. If the Bill was on Committee Stage, which we had a few minutes ago, the-----

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----colleagues could have contributed within order during that time, but they did not. The issue before us is relevant to a number of older people who are in long-term nursing home care, causing huge financial hardship to them and to their families. They are watching tonight to find out what is happening on this matter, rather than to listen about buses. They are in a desperate situation.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Buses? It is about people's eyesight. How dare you, Denis?

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Naughten should have some respect.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have had enough of this.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Deputies to listen to what I am saying.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Deputy Naughten have any respect for anyone?

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The points have been made.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How do you expect people to go up to the North? Do you want people to walk up or to cycle up?

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Naughten can come down to west Cork to see people go blind waiting five years for an operation. He should be ashamed of himself.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have to order the buses to bring people up because the health service here will not do anything about it.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputies had their opportunity ten minutes ago to bring these matters up.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is enough.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not surprised with Deputy Shortall but I am surprised with you, Denis. I really am. I did not think you would go attacking people for whom we are trying to work.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With all due respect to the Deputy, if he actually listened to what I said-----

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask Deputies to finish this off.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I had a couple of minutes left to finish my point and Deputy Naughten went heckling me in the middle of it.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not think anyone else is coming in. I call the Minister of State.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not know where to start. I will give a quick explanation of the fair deal scheme because some of that has been lost in the context of what has been said. The scheme was introduced in this country in 2009, which was before I entered this House. Deputies Shortall and Naughten were here at the time. I am not sure who else was a Deputy at that time. It was introduced in 2009. The whole purpose of fair deal was that the less people have, the less they pay and the more they have, the more they pay. The criteria for fair deal have not changed since 2009, apart from some amendments made two years ago which I brought in to support farm families and business that were treated unfairly because they were not eligible for the three-year cap.

This year, 22,500 residents in long-term residential care are being supported under the fair deal scheme, at a cost to the State of €1.5 billion, while the contribution made by people who avail of fair deal will be between €300 million and €500 million, which is approximately one fifth of the cost. For a single person availing of fair deal, it is 80% of that person's income, in addition to 7.5% of the value of that person's home, plus his or her assets. Those assets can include cash, a business or farm land. For a married person availing of fair deal, it is 40% of the person's income, in addition to 3.75% of the value rather than 7.5%. Therefore, it is the same for everyone, regardless of whether a person lives in Kerry or Waterford. It is as simple as that. That is the way it works.

Farm organisations welcomed my amendments two years ago because farmers and business were excluded from the three-year cap. There were farmers in nursing homes for up to six years who, unfortunately, had to keep paying the 7.5% of the value of their stock, lands or business. That was the challenge in that regard.

What I am doing today is something very positive. Deputies Collins and Naughten said that. When I brought in the changes two years ago, there was an unintended consequence which meant that only specific people could be appointed as a successor. A bachelor farmer who did not have a wife or a partner, a niece or a nephew, or a brother-in-law or a sister-in-law, was excluded because he might have passed away. What I am introducing is simple. If I get the support of the House on this, what it means for a bachelor farmer or a bachelor farmerette - I was told that term was never heard before, but we use it in Waterford - is that they can appoint a first cousin once removed, second removed or thrice removed to be the successor. I have the full support of the IFA in this regard. I also have the full support of farm families. Like Deputy Naughten, I have come across cases in which an elderly bachelor farmer who never married - he could be 80 or 85 - did not have anyone to appoint as a successor because the successor must be a family member. All I am doing is extending it to include cousins. It is as simple as that. It is actually a positive move. I have not heard anyone say otherwise.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State's time is up.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The clock was not set for me.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Was it not?

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not believe it was. I have to speak to what Deputy Naughten said about the blood relative amendment, which I am not able to accept.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State is taking advantage of my gentle nature.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The clock was not set. It did not go to the seven minutes.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am only joking.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As "blood relative" is not a legal term per se, I am not in a position to accept the amendment. What I am proposing will resolve the issues. I thank Deputy Naughten for his constructive engagement on this matter. We have been speaking about this for 18 months. I have already outlined and proposed amendments to the Bill that will extend the definition of a family successor. It will provide for additional relatives within the first-cousin umbrella to be considered eligible as family successors. This includes children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren of a first cousin. This will make all the difference. There is a clear legal definition for the relatives who will be eligible to become family successors under the fair deal scheme. My amendment does this and it will provide clarity for participants. It also avoids terms that will need further interpretation and determination such as the term "blood relative".

The issue that Deputies Michael Healy-Rae, Danny Healy-Rae and Michael Collins have raised was brought up, as Deputy Healy-Rae outlined, during Leaders' Questions. That was the first time I heard of it. The Taoiseach has given a commitment that it will be looked into. My understanding is that it is being looked into currently.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to say to my colleagues that I was not trying to cause annoyance earlier. There was a lot of scope given. Committee Stage, which took place here just after 7 p.m., would have facilitated that discussion.

The reality is that I know of an older man in long-term nursing home care - he is watching these proceedings - who is in a desperate financial situation because of an amendment we brought forward. All of us campaigned for that amendment for over a decade to ensure family farms would not be infinitely included in long-term nursing home payments under the long-term nursing home scheme. When this was addressed, the legislation clearly stated that when a relative took over the operation of the farm, there would be a three-year cap on the calculation of the capital asset value of that farm. The difficulty is that this is not the way it is interpreted by the HSE. Unless the successor is an immediate relative, the HSE excludes him or her. I know of a constituent of the Minister of State - a first cousin once removed - who is being excluded from this. That individual's 93-year-old first cousin cannot get into long-term nursing home care because of this barrier. I know of a second individual who has exhausted all of their savings because of this. A young family is now paying for the operation of the nursing home scheme in that particular case, which is putting a noose around the neck of that young family. That was never the intention of this legislation.

Sadly what is being proposed is a restriction in relation to what is in the law as it is currently drafted. The difficulty has been that the HSE is not prepared to interpret it as such. We really need to see this issue addressed.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are going to have to stick to the time limits. Does anyone else want to come in on this?

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The case I am making is where a son or a daughter takes over the running of a farm, hoping to keep the farm going and to keep food on the table. If the farm is worth €500,000 and it is assessed, it means the son or daughter will have to pay €35,000 per year for three years. To find that money during the three years is a burden for someone who is trying to keep the farm ticking over. The farm should not be included in the assessment in that kind of a scenario. I feel very strongly about it. There was talk about people with cash reserves or whatever. That is a different story altogether. Where the farm is needed to keep the family going, maybe to keep a mother and other children going, and the young fella running the farm has this bill to pay, it is not fair. In every other scenario only the dwelling house is considered. Why is the dwelling house on its own not assessed in these cases and the farm left out of it when it is providing food on the table for the family? It is to provide for them to keep going and to survive. This is unfair and undemocratic. I have spoken about this several times and I feel very strongly about it.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are going to wrap up now. I will ask the Minister of State for any other points she wants to make.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The fair deal scheme is not undemocratic. It assesses everyone's assets in the same way, whether it is business, land or savings. The first €36,000 is disregarded if a person is single and the first €72,000 is disregarded for a couple. The Deputy spoke about a farmer. If the farmer is married or has a common-law wife or husband, the person does not pay 7.5%, they pay 3.75% and 40% of their income. There is one piece of legislation I know inside out and that is fair deal legislation. I live and breathe it every day of the week.

To return to Deputy Naughten's point, the definition of "relative" is not an interpretation by the HSE, it is in the Act. It is very clear what it is. It is currently limited to a partner, a husband or wife, a common-law partner, male or female, relatives such as nieces and nephews, brothers- and sisters-in-law. That was where the challenge was. I think Deputy Healy-Rae is missing the point. All we are trying to do is to support farm families and businesses if they want to appoint a successor, which does not necessarily mean that is the person who will inherit the farm or business, to keep the business going while their loved one is in a nursing home. All I am trying to do is expand it because there was an unintended consequence two years ago when this legislation came in where bachelor farmers were excluded because they did not have a relative to be appointed as a successor. It had to be a family member to be appointed as a successor. If it is a person's first cousin, for example, more than likely they are around the same age as the person. Now it is first cousin, once, twice and thrice removed to ensure that. This has turned into a whole conversation about farming. It is not just about farming. Fair deal is for everyone, farmers, business owners and ordinary people living in a two-up-two-down house.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 18, line 24, to delete “first cousin, great-grandchild, great-nephew or great-niece” and substitute “great-grandchild, great-nephew, great-niece or first cousin, or a child, grandchild or

great-grandchild of a first cousin,”.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 20, line 3, to delete “first cousin, great-grandchild, great-nephew or great-niece” and substitute “great-grandchild, great-nephew, great-niece or first cousin, or a child, grandchild or

great-grandchild of a first cousin,”.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 20, lines 13 and 14, to delete “first cousin, great-grandchild, great-nephew or great-niece” and substitute “great-grandchild, great-nephew, great-niece or first cousin, or a child,

grandchild or great-grandchild of a first cousin,”.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 20, lines 21 and 22, to delete “first cousin, great-grandchild, great-nephew or great-niece” and substitute “great-grandchild, great-nephew, great-niece or first cousin, or a child,

grandchild or great-grandchild of a first cousin,”.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 22, lines 30 and 31, to delete “first cousin, great-grandchild, great-nephew or great-niece” and substitute “great-grandchild, great-nephew, great-niece or first cousin, or a child,

grandchild or great-grandchild of a first cousin,”.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 24, after line 6, to insert the following:

“PART 4

AMENDMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001

Amendment of section 48 of Mental Health Act 2001

34. Section 48 of the Mental Health Act 2001 is amended, in subsection (6), by the substitution of “5 years” for “3 years”.”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bill will be sent to Seanad Éireann. Congratulations to everybody involved in what is an important piece of legislation.

Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for supporting this Bill and my officials for their support over the past weeks and months in drafting this legislation.