Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 May 2001

Vol. 537 No. 3

Carer's Leave Bill, 2000: Report Stage.

Mr. Broughan

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, line 18, after "including" to insert "a member of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces or".

Amendment No. 1 refers to the interpretation section and, specifically, the queries that have been raised among carers and their representatives about some of the definitions in this Bill, particularly whether the definition of "employee", including a civil servant within the meaning of the Civil Service Regulation Act, would cover members of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. Both these categories have been included in the Parental Leave Act and in employment equality legislation. It seems strange that in this most vital legislation to extend health and relief to the estimated 120,000 carers, these important categories are not included. More than 25,000 families would not be able to gain the protection of this Bill.

I have been asked to ask the Minister of State to specify how exactly he would define the term "carer"– in other words, how does he see "carer" operating in terms of the Carer's Leave Bill. How does the Minister of State interpret the word "reasonable" which occurs many times throughout the Bill? How would he categorise a "relevant person" ?

It is very welcome that we have reached this stage with the Carer's Leave Bill. I thank the Minister of State and his very hard working officials from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, who I welcome here today and who have worked very hard on this legislation, particularly on and after Committee Stage. I welcome the fact the Minister of State accepted a number of Labour Party amendments on Committee Stage, specifically the commitment to have a system of review which is now in section 34. I welcome the steps the Minister of State has taken but I would encourage him to take a few more small steps, particularly to deal with some of the continuing restrictive elements of this legis lation which we have highlighted in a number of the amendments before us.

So far, only 186 people have applied and qualified for the carer's benefit. A major advance was promised in the Government's programme for Government four years ago, that was, to introduce an insurance based system where people engaged in full-time caring duties for an elderly relative or child could take time off work with the full protection of the law. The carer's benefit was introduced in late 1999 so it has taken nearly 18 months for us to reach Report Stage of this companion legislation, the Carer's Leave Bill. People have been applying for the carer's benefit through the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. The carer's benefit has been in place for a year and a half but we still do not have the protection of the law for workers who have taken time off to avail of the carer's benefit. So far, approximately 190 workers have availed of the carer's benefit. I ask the Minister of State to look at the situation in which that couple of hundred workers find themselves in relation to this legislation.

After the definition of "employee", I ask the Minister of State to insert the words "a member of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces", as in parental leave and other equality legislation. I would like to hear his views on the definition of a "relevant person" and on the term "carer".

Mr. Perry

I support Deputy Broughan's amendment. The inclusion of the words "a member of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces", in this section, as proposed in the Deputy's amendment, is important, as their inclusion is not established. That is an omission. The Deputy's points regarding the definition of a carer and a relevant person are important. I am anxious to hear the Minister of State's position on this matter.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. T. Kitt)

I am pleased we are finalising this legislation and I appreciate the constructive approach Deputies opposite have taken to bring it to fruition. This is important legislation as we are breaking new ground and that has been acknowledged by Members on all sides of the House.

Deputy Broughan's amendment seeks to include a reference to a member of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces in this section. As I said on Committee Stage, and I again confirm, I am satisfied the Garda and the Defence Forces are included under the provisions of the Bill as drafted. Neither category is specifically mentioned in the text as being excluded, which implies they are covered by the provisions of the Bill. I do not, therefore, propose to accept the amendment as it is unnecessary.

Deputy Broughan asked for information on who would be defined as a relevant person. The term "relevant person" is not defined in the Bill because it is referred to in the Social Welfare Act. Section 8(2)(a) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993, as inserted by section 10 of the Social Welfare Act, 2000, defines a relevant person as meaning a person other than the person in receipt of an increase of disablement pension under section 57 in respect of constant attendance who has such a disability that he or she requires full-time care and attention.

In response to Deputy Broughan's last question, I got the following figures only this morning on the carer's benefit scheme as of 25 May. A total of 512 claims were received for carer's benefit, 214 claims were awarded, 177 claims were refused, 15 claims were terminated due to the death of the person being cared for, 22 claims were suspended where the carer returned to work, 5 claims were withdrawn, 79 claims are on hand, 41 claims related to non-resident people and 14 claims were refused which would have qualified for carer's leave. Figures on the claims awarded per county are as follows: Carlow, 5; Cavan, 3; Clare, 4; Cork, 20; Dublin, 51; Galway, 25; Kerry, 10; Kildare, 6; Kilkenny, 1; Leitrim, 3; Limerick, 5; Longford, 3; Louth, 5; Mayo, 12; Meath, 5; Monaghan, 3; Offaly, 11; Roscommon, 4; Sligo, 8; Tipperary, 6; Waterford, 4; Westmeath, 6; Wexford, 4; and Wicklow, 10, making up a total of 214. Figures are still being compiled.

It is interesting that many people are availing of carer's leave and it is important that we are dealing with this legislation today. Members have been helpful in trying to make sure the legislation is enacted as quickly as possible. This legislation will provide a new service in the home for people who need full-time care and attention and I am pleased my officials have processed it as quickly as possible. Many members of the public would appreciate the introduction of a new measure of care and a new opportunity for people to be cared for in the home by those who wish to take a break from the workplace.

We will go through the legislation section by section. I listened to many of the contributions made and I accepted some Opposition amendments on Committee Stage. We are finalising the Bill today and this is productive work.

Mr. Broughan

I welcome the information the Minister of State has given. More than 214 people have applied for carer's benefit, but they will not have the protection of this legislation. On the basis of the statistics given by the Minister of State, does the Department have any indication of the number who may eventually take up the carer's benefit scheme? The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs speculated that eventually 5,000 may apply for this benefit. Members on all sides of the House agree there are at least 50,000 full-time carers. Of those, some 17,000 are in receipt of the carer's allowance, a few hundred are in receipt of the carer's benefit and presumably that number will grow, but the majority of full-time carer's are not in receipt of any State supports. Such carers seek to avail of this type of scheme, the carer's allowance or increasingly they call for a new carer's payment. Has any progress been made on addressing that group of carers?

I welcome the Minister of State's definition of a relevant person. He did not include a definition of carer in the Bill. While he might say those definitions are covered in social welfare legislation, workers and their trade union representatives are anxious that those definitions should be included in this legislation or that we find out on the floor of the House who the Minister of State considers is a full-time carer to ensure there is no ambiguity when a case goes to a rights commissioner or beyond.

Mr. T. Kitt

We are introducing legislation in relation to the workplace to allow the rights of the worker who wishes to give full-time care and attention to a person to be protected in law. The definitions the Deputy seeks to include in the legislation are part of the social welfare legislation. Effectively, a carer will be a person who looks after a relevant person and that carer would have to be in a position to give that person full-time care and attention. The Deputy will have heard from the statistics I quoted that some people did not qualify for the carer's benefit.

Mr. Broughan

Does the Minister of State agree that the carer does not necessarily have to reside with the person being cared for?

Mr. Kitt

Yes, that is the case and that will be provided for. The person being cared for will need full-time care and the person providing the care must be in a position to provide that full-time care. All adjudication on who qualifies for what are made by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. The relevant points the Deputy made, which he also made in committee, relate to that Department. I will share with the Deputy any information I have on that area. Our job, as legislators, is to ensure the rights of workers who wish to take time off work to care for persons are protected under the law. The Bill covers carers who do not reside with the persons they care for.

Mr. Perry

I welcome the comments of the Minister of State regarding the number of people seeking this entitlement and that this Bill will be enacted as quickly as possible. I have received several calls regarding the urgent need to introduce this legislation. In the absence of it being in place can employers avail of this legislation, in theory, so to speak, by granting such leave on a discretionary basis? Some employers are doing that, which is to be welcomed and encouraged. Employees have approached their employers to seek carer's leave in the absence of this legislation being in place, which I hope will not be the case for too much longer. It is important that a clear commitment is given in order that people can avail of this provision which is currently at the discretion of employers. It is important also that there is a good relationship with employers and co-operation between the State, employees and employers in the long term. Regardless of the enactment of the legislation, it is important that this is a workable document. Companies should have a role to play in regard to job creation because they depend very much on having a good workforce. A good understanding of when people can take leave is also important.

Mr. Broughan

I welcome what the Minister of State said and his good faith on these issues. He has covered the definition of "relevant person" and given us some guidance in the legislation, including the social welfare legislation, on what is a carer. I would prefer to specify "a member of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces". Given that this was done in the parental leave and other equality legislation I do not understand the reason it cannot be the case in this legislation. I notice there are other restrictions in the legislation by comparison with the parental leave legislation. I ask the Minister of State to consider these two words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Mr. Broughan

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, line 22, after "Act" to insert "including regulations applying to persons whose period of leave commenced prior to the passing of this Act".

This amendment relates to the statistics given by the Minister of State. I heard my party leader, the Taoiseach and the leader of Fine Gael on the Order of Business discussing what was done in regard to tax affairs in the past. In general the House finds it difficult to retrospectively consider legislation. The issue here is the couple of hundred people and their families to whom the Minister of State has alluded who, through no fault of their own, have not been given the protection of the Carer's Leave Bill which is extraordinary. I exclude the Minister of State from this but, in general, the Government has been lethargic in regard to the legislation concerned, that is, the Social Welfare Act, 2000, and the Carer's Leave Bill 14 or 15 months later.

There have been many promotions and leaflets from the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs. I have in front of me a publication entitled, Information on Carer's Allowance: Keeping You Informed, from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. This document which was published last year includes a very helpful page on carer's benefit. It refers to the 65 week period and the conditions relating to PRSI and the employment period, one of which is at odds with the legislation. In my Labour Party role, I have been chasing the Minister, Deputy Ahern, in relation to providing information on how to receive carer's benefit and so on. The document is very clear, well written and a tribute to the civil servants in the Department. The net effect is that it will have encouraged workers in dire circumstances looking after elderly parents or severely disabled teenagers. Some of these cases came to my attention when I addressed the Care Alliance Conference of Ireland a few weeks ago. It indicates that we have an obligation to those who have applied for carer's benefit but do not have the protection of carer's leave.

Deputy Perry is correct when he says that the legislation will be most effective in well run companies and businesses where workers, supervisors and managers have a friendly, co-operative and efficient working relationship. In some of these companies managers will have already indicated that they will adhere to the essential conditions of the legislation. Nevertheless the bottom line is that a couple of hundred citizens, a number which is growing, will not have the protection of the Carer's Leave Bill. My amendments, Nos. 2 and 3, seek to give the Minister of State a chance to make some provision for the protection of these citizens who have applied for carer's benefit and met the conditions of the Department and the Social Welfare Act, 2000 but do not have the protection of this legislation. I ask the Minister of State who has taken a sympathetic role throughout these discussions to accept my amendment.

Debate adjourned.