I wish to share my time with Deputy Fitzgerald.
Order of Business (Resumed). - Carer's Leave Bill, 2000: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
While I recognise the need for the Bill, I am not sure that it can adequately cater for the needs of 120,000 family carers. After the budget, Mr. Eddie Collins-Hughes, the director of the Carers' Association, criticised the package and said it was incredible that only 5,000 extra people of the 120,000 family carers in desperate circumstances would receive any form of carer's allowance. The number of such carers indicates the huge problem that exists in the community and the services that are needed in terms of providing an adequate response.
The Carer's Leave Bill is a response in so far as it recognises the efforts and endeavours of people for which they received no recognition from any Government agency in the past. The Government and the statutory agencies now have an opportunity to recognise such carers in terms of the 65 weeks leave without pay that is available to people to care for family members, spouses, etc. However, although carer's benefit and carer's allowance are available, many of the people who will apply for carer's leave from work will not be eligible for them.
Some categories will be penalised because people on superannuation have been specifically excluded from the terms of the Bill. They will not receive the same credits as other workers for the time taken out. This means they will have a break in service with regard to their pension rights. If a person in the public service takes carer's leave, his or her superannuation contributions may not be made because he or she is on leave without pay. The Minister should examine this situation and ensure that people who decide to look after their loved ones are not penalised. Particular attention should be paid to this aspect because credits will be given to all other workers. However, those on superannuation will not bene fit although they are contributing to their long-term security.
It is difficult to officially address the needs of many young carers, but they should be recognised. Such carers are often under the age of 18 years and some of them are as young as ten years of age. Despite their tender years, they make a huge contribution in a caring capacity. They may perform small tasks, but they mean much to the people for whom they are caring. The tragedy is that often the young people's efforts in providing such care are misunderstood in other areas. Such carers may be absent from school because of the time they devote to caring. Their school records or performance may not be up to standard, but they do not highlight the fact that they are carers to their teachers or others in their schools. As a result, such pupils may be considered as showing a lack of commitment to their education, etc.
If the work of such young people is brought to the attention of the statutory bodies, their efforts should be recognised and supported. There should be some facility for liaison in this area. It only involves a small number of young people, but their efforts are important. Their work is delicate and they need delicate attention rather than a strong arm response in terms of being told that they should not be caring for others, etc. The people in need of care may want it from somebody close to them rather than strangers.
When a person returns to work after taking carer's leave, he or she is not guaranteed the position he or she vacated. It can be difficult for employers, but a person returning to his or her workplace may find another person in their position. This can cause tension in the workplace. Following a person's work as a carer and the trauma he or she may have experienced, it would be regrettable if the pressure on him or her was continued in the workplace when he or she returns. The Bill states that the job of a person taking carer's leave may be filled by a temporary worker, but efforts should be made to ensure that the person has the right to return to the position he or she held before taking the leave.
A spouse or family member often has to care for a person on a 24 hour basis. For example, a person could be totally immobilised or paralysed following a severe accident. The Bill states that the person is allowed one carer, but this measure should be relaxed if he or she needs 24 hour attention. The usual arrangement would be care in 12 hour shifts and the Bill should make provision for a second carer in such circumstances. Facilities are not available for such people throughout the country.
We are lucky to have a facility like the rehabilitation centre in Dún Laoghaire. In my constituency three young adults require 24 hour family care following accidents. While the families have received help and assistance from the health boards the Minister must relax the guidelines where cases have been brought to his attention. I welcome the Bill. It is an advance in some ways but I ask the Minister to address the issues I have raised.
I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government for introducing it. However, it is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the needs of carers. The State's role in supporting carers has been very grudging. This is illustrated by the tiny proportion of full-time carers in receipt of financial support from the State. Some estimates suggest that up to 200,000 people are involved in caring, for example, the recent study in the Western Health Board area pointed to the many thousands involved in caring. If this was to be applied to the rest of the country it is clear that the numbers getting support from the State are tiny.
On the radio this morning parents talked about looking after autistic children and the demands they can place on a family, including the full-time, 24 hour care that is often necessary. One parent described how the services available to him in England 30 years ago were extensive compared with what is now emerging here. We all bear responsibility for not developing enough services to those who need full-time care, be they children or adults. One of the great tasks of this millennium will be to work out the level of State support to be given to those who care for others in their home. It is an enormous challenge, one we are only beginning to address. There is a need to speed up the assessment of how it is to be done.
Yesterday I spoke to a staff member in a health board who told me that a nursing home is charging £600 per week to care for an elderly person. When the costs of residential versus community care are considered huge discrepancies emerge. We expect people to do an awful lot in terms of caring for people at home with very little supports. Those Deputies who have met the representatives of the Carers Association Limited will be aware of the effort they make with very little support. They have great difficulty in accessing aids, be they physical or practical, such as home extensions. They also appear to face a bureaucratic nightmare in accessing the help that would make a difference. There is also a need to look at rates of pay to home helps and nurses in communities to ensure that people have the kind of help that will enable them to stay at home full time.
This Bill is a welcome addition, not only in terms of the carer's benefit but the rights of employees to take leave from work for varying reasons generally connected with family commitments. I ask the Minister to consider the submission made to his Department by the free legal advice centres. It contains six to eight recommendations which are worth considering. Each one is reasonable and if they were accepted they would add greatly to the value of the Bill. A key point they make – we discussed this when debating the Equal Status Bill – is that some aspects of the legislation are too rigid. I agree with that. Given the varied nature of caring and the unex pected demands that can be placed on families due to illness – often there is no warning and things happen very quickly – there is a need to build greater flexibility into the provisions of the legislation, although I accept that could be abused.
There is scope to look at the provision regarding 12 months continuous service. Given the huge job changes and varying career patterns in today's world, people may be excluded by this provision. There should be flexibility here to ensure that the person to be cared for will not miss out.
The free legal aid centres also recommend that the amount of work and earning limits should be increased to a more realistic level to offset the loss of income for carers. This should be considered, especially in view of the contrast in costs between residential and community care.
With regard to the limitation on the number of carers, the Bill provides that only one carer can take leave from work in respect of the same person to be cared for. That is ridiculous and needs to be changed. Often care is a 24 hour task and more than one person may be required to enable someone to stay at home.
The Bill also provides that an employer can, without reason, refuse leave for a period of less than 13 weeks. What is the reason for this? It should be re-examined on Committee Stage.
On the question of leave accrual, the free legal advice centres point out in their recommendations that if a woman can accrue a holiday entitlement during the course of maternity leave surely a person should be able to accrue entitlement during carer's leave. They suggest a right to a portion of annual leave should be available during carer's leave. A formula should be worked out, based on the length of carer's leave in comparison to maternity leave.
I ask the Minister to consider for Committee Stage the recommendations set out in the submission by the free legal advice centres. He also should consider inserting a section to ensure that the legislation is more responsive to the nature of caring, including its unpredictability and the lack of notice people often get. This would greatly improve the Bill. While I welcome it, the Bill is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of providing support for carers.
I am pleased to welcome family friendly legislation on a day of horrific news regarding the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. There has been much talk of the need to ensure that legislation enacted is family friendly and this Bill meets that in allowing people to take temporary leave from their employment for up to 15 months or 65 weeks to look after persons in need of full-time care and attention. It is very welcome and overdue. Plays and novels have been written about people who gave up their livelihoods, including the expectation of marriage, to look after elderly or ill parents without any pension entitlements or payment from the State. Many of these people would have given up good jobs. This long overdue measure is very welcome.
The Minister mentioned that the number of people currently in employment has risen substantially, which is welcome. However, more than 250,000 people are in part-time employment, many of whom are women. There is a need to ensure people in this type of employment can avail of breaks for various reasons. Very often parents, particularly mothers, need to take time off to care for sick children.
The Minister of State does not pretend the legislation is a panacea for what is required to ensure it is more geared towards families. This is one aspect of two pieces of legislation, including a further announcement in the budget. Prior to the introduction of the Protection of Employees Part-Time Work Bill, which is welcome legislation, part-time workers had little or no entitlements. The budget announcement to extend maternity leave has been well received. Unfortunately, those who missed the closing date will be lobbying every Member of the House to ensure they can now avail of it. This is an indication that mothers in particular want to take extra time off to be at home with their new babies. This legislation forms part of these three announcements.
The Minister of State said that people could live to the age of 120 and questioned whether that would be good. I would not wish to hang around that long. I might end up in shady pines long before that, as my children threaten regularly. We have an ageing population. In my constituency of Dublin South Central, including Ballyfermot, Drimnagh and Crumlin, there are large pockets of people who moved to these areas when the housing estates were built in the 1940s and 1950s. One can see the ageing population in these areas. In the urban context, there may be some chance of family support because sons or daughters do not live too far from their parents. In rural areas it is much more difficult to provide this support. Unfortunately, in some urban settings there is not the type of support that one would expect.
The introduction of the carer's benefit scheme is an attempt to foster support for those who need it. This begs the question why does it not exist anyway. Very often, financial constraints mean people cannot give relatives the kind of support needed. I am not suggesting the payment of £96.50 from April to someone caring an elderly relative who may need care and attention is a huge amount of money. Deputy Fitzgerald referred to the cost to the State if that elderly person had to receive full-time hospital care. The payment acknowledges that the State recognises the contribution these people make and the effect on the person being cared for. I know of many elderly people who have been considered for placement in nursing homes but who are adamant they want to remain in the family home with the support of their family. We must make it as easy as possible for family members to support dependant relatives.
Under the carer's benefit scheme, the deciding officer or appeals officer at the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs will decide, on the basis of a medical assessment carried out by that Department and information provided by the person's GP, whether the relevant person is in need of full-time care and attention. I plead with the Minister and the Minister of State to re-examine the criteria for receipt of carer's allowance. If the carer's benefit is to be determined in the same rigid manner as the carer's allowance, a large number of people will find they are not eligible for the payment. Given that the legislation seeks to encourage people to do what should come naturally, that is, stay at home and support relatives who need help, we should not create obstacles and barriers which prohibit eligibility for carer's allowance. In some instances, if one cannot prove the dependant person is totally bedridden and almost near to death's door, one has no chance of qualifying for a carer's allowance. Given that the carer's benefit is an insurance based scheme, if one has the relevant contributions the case may be looked at more sympathetically. I urge the Minister of State to ensure the criteria for eligibility is not an obstacle to those who wish to avail of this benefit.
I would like clarification on the statement that for second or subsequent claims, the employee will be simply required to have been in paid employment for the previous 13 weeks or have been in receipt of carer's benefit in that period. Does that mean one can go on to a subsequent claim if one has been in receipt of benefit? Deputy Fitzgerald queried the sense of having to be in employment for a 13 week period. Can one go on to a subsequent claim after the 65 week period if one has been in receipt of carer's benefit during the 13 week period prior to the claim?
The Minister mentioned the commitment of people in communities. We are lucky that it has always been the practice that people voluntarily give of their time to support their communities. People take part in meals on wheels in local authority housing estates. People also do lunches in community centres every week on a voluntary basis. I spoke yesterday to a man who is very involved in a pitch and put club in his area. He spends part of every week doing voluntary work in the hospice. We are very lucky this type of work is taking place. I have been involved with members of the Alzheimer's Society. Husbands and wives have had to give up work because it was not possible to leave their partner at home alone. There have been impediments to the work being done by these people who have given up paid employment to stay at home and care for their spouses. I know of cases where incontinence pads can be collected only on a particular day. In one case this meant if the home help could not go to the clinic on that day, the spouse had to lock the house securely, and even lock one room, to ensure his wife did not get hurt while he was out. While the intent of the legislation is good, we must ensure the message is transmitted down the line to agencies such as the health boards not put in place impediments for those providing the care. We must also ensure the eligibility criteria do not present an insurmountable hurdle for the relevant persons.
Mr. Moynihan
I thank Deputy McGennis for sharing her time with me.
I welcome the Bill as yet another instalment in the Government's work to achieve a society where the needs of everyone are recognised, especially those of the most vulnerable.
The proposals before us are unique as there are no similar models in the rest of Europe. It is refreshing to note that Ireland might lead the way in this area. Historically Ireland has had respect for the vulnerable and the old in our society and a tradition of caring for the needs of the sick and the infirm. As public representatives, like the medical profession we meet many of the unsung heroes in the community who give freely of their time to care for close relatives, sons, daughters, parents or partners. Historically the burden of this work was carried out by women. They spent a great deal of their time in the home, partly because that was the accepted tradition and there were not the same opportunities then for women to become involved in the workforce. Many people devoted their lives to care for a relative or a parent and when that person passed on they were left with a void in their lives.
The position is different now. It is less likely that a member of the family would be available in the home to care on a daily basis for a relative who falls ill. With the cost of living today, many families consider it necessary for both parents to work to raise a family. There are large costs associated with taking time out to care for a sick relative and the cost may often be too much for a family to bear. With the increase in the cost of caring, the State has recognised that a form of income support is needed to assist or facilitate those people who want to or are required to care for a person on a short-term basis.
Against that background of fostering the culture of caring for each other for future generations, the Government introduced legislation based on the carer's benefit scheme with effect from 26 October 2000. Under that scheme an employee who is entitled to carer's benefit may engage in limited self-employment within the home or employment outside the home for up to ten hours per week. The employee may also pursue an education or a training course or take up voluntary or community work for up to ten hours per week. The scheme provides that employees who have been certified by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs as meeting the eligibility criteria of a carer can take temporary leave from their employment to care for a person in need of full-time care and attention. The new benefit is payable for a period of up to 65 weeks, or 15 months, to those who meet certain qualifying conditions.
This insurance based carer benefit scheme is additional to the carer's allowance scheme, which has been in place for many years. The new insurance based scheme extends financial assistance for carers to a group who would not have benefited previously from the carer's allowance because they did not meet the strict means testing requirements. The new scheme means that any person who has been in employment for a specific period and paid PRSI contributions can qualify for a weekly grant of £88.50 for a period of up to 15 months.
The original carer's allowance scheme was improved in the budget. The weekly income disregard of £75 for a single person and £150 for a couple from means assessment will be increased to £125 for a single person and £250 for a couple from 1 April 2001. That will enable an extra 5,000 carers to qualify for the carer's allowance scheme.
I also welcome the increase from £300 to £400 in the respite care grant from June 2001 and the decision to pay two grants to a carer who cares for two or more persons. People who spend seven days a week constantly caring for someone are entitled to a break. Those measures have been introduced at an estimated cost of £21.2 million per annum. It is money well spent and I encourage the Minister for Finance and the Government to allocate further funds in the next budget to improve the position of carers.
The overall aim of any Government must be to enable all our people to live an independent and fulfilling life. People's spirits are strongest when they are given the freedom to exert influence on how they live their lives. This is why the Government also improved the disability allowance in the budget. A full rate of disability allowance payment will be extended to a person whose partner is in receipt of any other social welfare payment from April 2001. This is also why eligibility for the living alone allowance of £6 per week will be extended from April 2001 to recipients of invalidity pension, disability allowance, unemployment supplement and blind person's pension for persons under the age of 66.
This Bill is cast in the same spirit and it aims to make it easier for people to be cared for in their own homes by people who are willing to give of their time to look after loved ones. For many, nursing homes are a final resort and it is heartening that so many people display the human quality that drives them to take time out of their own lives to care for a relative who has fallen ill.
The Bill complements the Government's financial assistance to carers by giving statutory entitlement to carer's leave. The Bill will entitle employees to carer's leave, protect their employment rights over the period of absence and allow them to return to their jobs. Carer's leave will not only complement carer's benefit but will be a significant independent right. It will enable people to take much needed time out to care for someone who has fallen ill. Up to now when sick ness hit a family a person had to depend on the goodwill of the employer to co-operate by allowing him or her time off. While some employers would be helpful in such circumstances, others would not and, therefore, this formal right in legislation for employees is welcome.
I wish to comment on specific aspects of the Bill. I do not foresee a problem with the requirement to give six weeks' notice to an employer of an intention to take carer's leave. I fully recognise that the needs of an employer must be catered for especially as he or she may have to temporarily fill a position for up to 15 months. However, the need to take time off to become a full-time carer can arise in the event of sudden illness or accident. I ask the Minister to give that aspect of the Bill more attention.
The Bill provides that to avail of carer's leave an employee must be in continuous employment for 12 months. I do not understand the need for this restriction. An employer would be much more worried about giving leave to a person who has worked for the company for ten years than to a person who has worked for it for only six months. A person who has worked for a company for six months is not an integral part of it and his or her absence would not have as damaging an effect as the absence of a person who has worked for it for a longer period.
There are other points I wish to make, but the time constraints that apply do not permit me to go into the detail of them. I welcome the Bill, although a few aspects of it concern me. It is innovative and I congratulate the Minister of State on introducing it.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Gormley.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Bill which I welcome in general, although various elements are restrictive. Unlike the Government, the Labour Party is fully in favour of acknowledging the significant role played by thousands of carers. On Committee and Report Stages we will endeavour to make significant amendments to improve the Bill. Given that in opposition it promised the sun, the moon and the stars to nearly 100,000 carers, Fianna Fáil's failure to reform, in particular, the means test for carer's allowance is another scandal. The Government has merely tinkered with the payment and avoided any substantial reforms to the punitive means test for the allowance. It should also be noted that the net effect of this year's budget, for example, has been to make less than 5,000 extra carers eligible for the allowance.
In preparing my contribution to this debate I was of the view that it was necessary that the views of carers be heard in the Chamber. I have, therefore, decided to read extracts from the contributions of two carers to an edition of the Carers' Newsletter issued by CROSSCARE with which I have dealt, with other voluntary organisations dealing with carers, during the years. I express my appreciation of all the work done by them.
The first contribution entitled, Carers' Needs, is by Eileen Flynn and reads as follows:
It is about time that the Government and Service Providers listened to us Carers, because we are the people who know what we are talking about. It is we who have to deal with the day-to-day problems of caring as they arise. We have become experts in our fields, with knowledge and experience gained the hard way through trial and error and heartbreak.
Most Carers don't choose to be Carers – we usually have that role thrust upon us and are, in most cases, provided with no alternative. We receive no training whatsoever and often we don't know where to turn to for help. There is a complete lack of information available, and unless you are lucky enough to know someone who has experience in caring, you are left completely in the dark. Doctors are too busy to sit and talk and advise you on the best course of action to take. The Public Health Nurses are excellent, but they are very busy people you feel you can call on only when you have reached the end of the road.
This situation is most unsatisfactory. We need advice and information and we need it now. We need it to be given to us without having to ask for it. We need to know that there is somewhere we can go, like our local health clinic, and that there will be someone there to advise us, quietly and confidentially, about handling the present situation and what the future holds. We need assurances that we are not alone. We need that terrible fear of our own inadequacies that we all experience to be allayed. . . Because caring is so draining of the Carer's emotional and physical resources, Carers should be entitled to at least several free medical check-ups a year, and to complete medical cover where needed.
Acting Chairman
Will the Deputy give the date and page number of the document from which he quoted?
It is dated February 2000 and I quoted from pages 12 and 13. The contribution of Mary Briody on page 9 reads as follows:
Who is a Carer?
A Carer is one who is:–
–Constantly on duty
–Owned by someone else
–Not supposed to become ill
–Not able to plan her own day
–Forever rushing home
A Carer
–Joins the library and never gets time to read the books
–Gets the daily papers and just about reads the headlines
A Carer
–Enjoys the company of other carers
–Looks forward to respite.
In the context of the role the State will play in providing for carers in the future this gives a flavour of their inner feelings.
Due to medical advances life expectancy has increased. There are as a consequence many more people suffering from chronic illnesses and with a serious disabilities to be cared for. Carers in the home are expected to care for the chronically ill, the disabled and the independent older person and in so doing are offered very little support or practical help. There are at least 33,000 people suffering from dementia, 3,500 from multiple sclerosis, 5,500 from Parkinson's disease, 20,000 adults with an intellectual disability and over 5,500 wheelchair users in need of care. When one looks at the statistics one will see that there are between 100,000 and 200,000 carers.
There has been a change in attitudes. Until recently the carer's role has been defined largely by traditional, cultural and religious factors incorporating ideas of self-sacrifice, duty and acceptance, but these attitudes are changing. While carers are emerging as persons who want to care for their loved ones, they are increasingly angry at the lack of recognition, services and support in their caring role. Despite the increasing emphasis on the value and importance of community care, expenditure patterns in the health service do not reflect the shift towards community care on which expenditure should be brought more into line with expenditure on hospital services given the savings that accrue to the State in providing care in the home.
There seems to be an erroneous perception that a carer is somebody else. We are all potential carers. Who can say when, if ever, we will experience the emotional, physical or financial effects of caring for a loved one struck down by accident, illness or the effects of old age? Perhaps only then will we recognise what is needed in providing the proper level of care 24 hours a day, 52 weeks a year. That matter must be examined. While I accept that the Bill provides for improvements in the service, there is a long way to go. There have been improvements in rates of pay for those involved in the home help service, but it must be acknowledged that if suitable persons are to be recruited to provide home help, sufficient funds must be allocated to enable the service to expand and attract workers and to pay reasonable wages.
The carer's allowance should be a realistic effort to provide carers with the means to care effectively, not a reallocation of social welfare payments to those on low incomes, as appears to be the case. Carers should be recognised as professional partners providing care within the community and their work given professional status and remuneration.
The services needed at local level need to be examined. More funding should be allocated to provide for an adequate system of community care. This should include the provision of more professional workers such as public health nurses, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, community social workers, care attendants and home helps. A liaison officer who would assess carers' needs and liaise between the carer and statutory services should be appointed within each community care area. A counselling and psychological service should be available to those who are cared for and to carers to help them to cope with the trauma of illness. An ongoing information service should also be provided.
Close consultation between carers, as the primary providers of care, and service providers would result in a more efficient and cost-effective health service. This is only beginning to happen, which illustrates the failure to recognise the value of the carer's contribution to community care. Respite care is vitally important. The carer's ability to continue caring and to cope with life when caring ceases is very much dependent on him or her having a life and interests outside caring. Time off is necessary to enable carers to develop outside interests. Assistance is required in this regard. Carers also need to devote time to the other members of the family.
My contribution highlights the major areas still to be addressed. If the role of the hundreds of thousands of carers in society is to be recognised, the financial contribution they have made must be acknowledged. They have saved the State millions of pounds annually. How is that acknowledged in a meaningful way? The carer's allowance should be dealt with effectively. At a time of unparalleled growth and prosperity it is scandalous that so few carers are in receipt of the allowance. The means test should be abolished. I look forward to contributing further on Committee and Report Stages.
The Green Party strongly supports the introduction of the Bill because it is long overdue. It should have been introduced many years ago. Carers have been a long and lone suffering group. Many are in poor health as a result of the 24 hour non-stop caring regime. As Deputy McGennis said, we know many of them personally. They do a fantastic job, which is unpaid and unrecognised and which takes a great toll on many. Their lives have been ruined because of their work.
The legislation was supposed to have been introduced in parallel with the carer's benefit payment introduced in last year's Social Welfare Act. Why has it taken almost a year for it to surface? Why has there been such foot dragging by the Government? Carers were left for a further year to cope with what are often desperate situations.
It is imperative that proper data are collated regarding the number of carers in society. The Government states that there are 50,000 family carers while the Carers Association states that there are at least 120,000 and perhaps as many as 200,000. A total of 16,000 were in receipt of any level of carer's allowance as of December 2000, of whom only half were in receipt of the full allowance. The bottom line is that an enormous number of carers receive no financial assistance from the State.
Will the Government liaise with the Carers Association and other such organisations to establish an accurate figure for the number of carers in order that the level of assistance and what is required can be analysed and the assistance can be better targeted? For example, the National Council on Ageing reports that 32,000 people suffer from dementia in Ireland and their carers receive little help. It also estimates that there are 97,000 households in which a carer looks after a person aged 65 years or over. What additional resources can be provided to assist them?
There are a number of positive aspects to the legislation such as allowing carer's leave to be taken on a flexible basis and the guarantee that the carer will have a job to return to, but why is leave only available up to 65 weeks? Figures indicate that the average carer's allowance is three and a half years and the Carers Association has lobbied for three years. The Tánaiste and her Department favoured three years, but that was blocked by IBEC. I appeal to the Minister of State to reconsider this issue and allow leave time of more than three years.
The carer's benefit payment is unacceptably low. This will impact on those taking carer's leave. Carer's benefit is to increase to £92 per week, which is less than what is necessary. A carer who takes leave will suffer a major reduction in income. Carers provide a service not just for the individual for whom they care, but also the State. It is estimated that a carer saves the State approximately £300 per week on alternative residential care. The State is saved more than £1.5 billion a year through this alternative social service. The sum of £92 per week is derisory. It is also totally unacceptable that the carer's allowance is means-tested. It is time the means test was abolished.
Why are partners not allowed to swap carer's benefit? The Carers Association has cited this fault, which will mean a great majority of family carers will not be able to avail of the scheme. The Bill also does not make it clear whether an employee's entitlements will be protected if he or she takes carer's leave. I seek clarification of this matter.
We all agree that carers need tremendous support. Many are ill and in need of rest and recuperation. The payment, therefore, for respite care is too low. It is currently £400 per year. This should be increased considerably. Society owes it to them. We must look after our carers. If we are to function properly as a society and provide more social capital, we need to look after carers who provide the service. I hope the Minister of State will clarify the issues raised.
I welcome the Bill which is a move in the right direction. It behoves any state to appreciate the needs of those who require care in hospitals for the elderly, nursing homes or their own homes. The Bill deals with emergency situations, where a family member in need of care will not be admitted to a hospital for the elderly and where nursing home care cannot be afforded and he or she must, therefore, be cared for in their own home. The Bill shows an awareness of such emergency situations. I, therefore, compliment the Minister of State on introducing it.
There is a reference to those in need of full-time care. As no carer can provide full-time care, I ask the Minister of State to exclude "full-time care" from all documents and schemes dealing with carers. No carer can do that. It means that one person must provide care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That is how officials of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs view the provision. Recently I met a constituent who cares for her parent. The constituent cares for her parent, who lives two miles from her house, approximately five hours per day, but the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs turned down her application for carer's allowance because she could not provide full-time care. Five hours per day seven days a week is 35 hours. I ask the Minister of State to replace "full-time" care with "essential" care. If someone is providing essential care for a person who qualifies medically for the scheme and the Department is of the view that the applicant for carer's allowance is providing such care, the carer's allowance should be granted. There should be flexibility for those under huge emotional pressure in providing an indirect service for the State. Carers are looking after members of their families in their own homes. The Department should be more flexible and change the wording from "full-time" to "essential" care.
I thank all speakers for their contributions. I agree with Deputies that this is significant legislation, though the debate pales somewhat in the shadow of the devastating news received earlier from the Cooley Mountains in County Louth, with which the Acting Chairman will be familiar. I appreciate the solidarity and unity demonstrated across the board among those who spoke on this matter. It is unprecedented in my time in the House and very much appreciated. I am not just responsible for labour matters and the issue with which we are dealing, but also international trade and consumer affairs. I will be working, therefore, to redouble our efforts and focus on containing the disease.
The Bill will impact positively on the lives of thousands of people in need of care. I have been looking at many of the suggestions made. Deputies Ryan and Belton raised an issue which relates to another Department to which I will relay their views. We debated the Bill on 7 and 8 February also and contributions have generally been constructive and supportive of its thrust. Like any legislation, there is room for refinement on which I have consulted the social partners. There will be more consultation now we are coming to the final Stages of the Bill.
Contributions confirmed the deep interest of the House in addressing the problems of those in society less fortunate than the majority in their health and well-being. The debate reflected wide support for the intent of the Bill, which honours commitments made by the Government in the 2000 budget and the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. The parallel carer's benefit scheme operated by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs has been in place since October last and the speedy passage of the Bill through both Houses is vital to ensure those employees who wish to avail of this new entitlement to carer's leave, and in most cases carer's benefit, can do so in the knowledge that in their absence their jobs will be secure and can be returned to when the leave period terminates.
Several Deputies referred to the carer's allowance scheme at length. This scheme is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, and the comments on the scheme have been brought to his attention.
Deputy Creed raised several issues relating to the Bill, including the question of whether superannuation rights of employees should be preserved during their absence on carer's leave. I will return to this issue on Committee Stage. Deputy Broughan and others spoke about the perceived effect of the means-testing of applicants for the carer's allowance scheme which has undergone substantial improvement since the Government took office and is a matter for the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. I have brought these comments to his attention. Deputy Broughan also raised the application of the Bill to teachers who are included in the Bill. While the Department of Education and Science has no objection in principle to the granting of carer's leave to teachers, it intends in due course to have discussions with management and teacher representatives to agree arrangements for the implementation of the legislation in so far as it affects teachers.
I thank Deputies Keaveney, Fleming, Ardagh, Michael Kitt, Martin Brady, Collins, Noel Ahern, Callely, Brendan Smith, Killeen and Pat Carey for their supportive comments. Deputy Keaveney stressed the need to balance work and home life. The Bill attempts to reflect this ongoing social change. Deputy Fleming reminded us that carer's leave is a new entitlement and stressed the important point that when the Bill is enacted, leaflets publicising it should be readily available, comprehensive and understandable to the public. That is something we will do. Deputy Ardagh stressed the practical difficulties for small employers in facilitating the absence of valued employees on leave under the scheme while Deputy Michael Kitt raised the possibility of caring responsibilities being shared. Deputy Martin Brady reminded us of the improvements introduced for carers since the Government took office. The new Bill will improve quality of life for those who find themselves in these situations.
Deputies Broughan, Ring, McCormack, Boylan, Neville, Currie, Belton, Penrose and Ahern raised a number of points on important technical issues. They included the proposed 12 months qualification period for carer's leave, the proposal that the leave must be taken in amounts of at least 13 weeks at a time, the length of the proposed carer's leave, the need for a six week notice requirement in cases of urgent necessity, the provision that there must generally be a 12 month break where different care recipients are concerned, the possibility of care responsibilities being shared, difficulties arising when leave terminates while the care recipient still needs full time care and attention, the possibility of annual leave and superannuation entitlements being preserved during absence on carer's leave, redundancy situations arising while the employee is on carer's leave, the right of an employer to refuse an employee entitlement to carer's leave of less than 13 weeks duration and whether this issue might be more appropriate for adjudication by a rights commissioner.
Many important technical issues have been raised and these are appropriate for in-depth examination on Committee Stage. I will discuss them at that time. I am also aware that the social partners, ICTU and IBEC, seek a number of changes to the Bill which require further consideration. I hope to have met both bodies before Committee Stage to discuss their concerns. I will be favourably disposed towards any reasonable proposals which might emerge and which offer the prospect of improving the operation and effectiveness of this new scheme. With goodwill, suitable compromise can be achieved where this can be seen to be in the interests of making the eventual Act as user friendly as possible both for the persons providing full-time care and attention and the persons providing this valuable service.
Deputy Fitzgerald recommended that we look sympathetically at some of the proposals in a submission made by FLAC on the Bill. I will be happy to do this. Deputy McGennis welcomed the family friendly nature of the Bill. It is crucial that the leave scheme be as accessible and family friendly as possible. Otherwise, it will not be taken up. Other points raised by Deputy McGennis are more suitable for discussion on Committee Stage. Deputy Michael Moynihan also welcomed the Bill and I am grateful for his support. He commented on a number of technical issues in the Bill and I will look at them on Committee Stage.
Deputy Seán Ryan was critical of the means test for carer's allowance. This is not relevant to the Bill but I will bring his views to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. Deputy Gormley, while welcoming the Bill, strongly criticised the resources made available to carers generally. I noted his comments. Deputy Belton welcomed the Bill and I will convey the issues he raised to the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs.
Question put and agreed to.