Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Sep 2022

Vol. 1026 No. 1

Saincheisteanna Tráthúla - Topical Issue Debate

Mental Health Services

The proposed reduction in the number of beds in the mental health unit in Bantry General Hospital is extremely worrying. The unit provides a vital service for west Cork in treating people in their own locality. Since the news broke, many people have been speaking about the fantastic help they received in the unit including, in some cases, life-saving assistance. I cannot emphasise enough how important these beds are for west Cork. The planned decrease from 18 to 11 beds is due to a finding from the Mental Health Commission concerning the state of the building and physical infrastructure. The HSE legally has to comply with this ruling.

The management has said that if it had the resources for a viable plan to address the issues, it could make a compelling appeal. No one wants to compromise standards and nobody wants the beds to close. We need the Minister of State to intervene immediately in the situation and work with the hospital and the community healthcare organisation management to put a solution in place. This can be resolved by political will. We are looking at a reduction from 18 beds to 11. The average capacity in the mental health unit in Bantry at the moment is generally between 14 and 16. What will happen to the people who are normally in those three to four additional beds? Presumably the first option is that they will be moved to other facilities or places like Carraig Mór. They will be moved out of acute care for all the wrong reasons. If there was a plan like there is in older people's care, for example, that had multi-annual funding, the commission would know something would change down the line. At this point, what are we offering it? There are no solutions so it is going to reduce the number of beds even though we have exactly what we need at the moment. The commission has to do its job and the HSE has to comply. The Government needs to fund this on a multi-annual basis to ensure we can keep those beds.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing this Topical Issue debate, which is a huge issue for the people of Cork South-West. The Minister of State will be well aware of the recent recommendation from the Mental Health Commission to reduce the number of beds in the Bantry Centre for Mental Health Care and Recovery from 18 to 11. This is a huge retrograde step for mental health services in the west Cork area and one to which I am vehemently opposed. I am disappointed that the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, is not here as she is responsible for mental health, or the Minister for Health. It is a huge issue for us in west Cork.

In 2019, an inspection report from the Mental Health Commission found that the Bantry Centre for Mental Health Care and Recovery scored 88% on compliance. This was an indication that huge investment was urgently needed there. In 2021, the Mental Health Commission again found the compliance rate was 88%. There was no deterioration in the score but, more significantly, none of the recommendations made by the commission had been implemented since the previous findings. Perhaps the Minister of State could tell us why that happened. In response to a parliamentary question, the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, said the Mental Health Commission has made a decision to put a restriction on the registration of the centre, reducing the total number of registered beds from 18 to 11 due to its concern about the size of residents' bedrooms in the centre. She says she has requested a detailed report from the HSE on the matter, which is awaited.

The reply also states the HSE has informed the Minister of State that it is currently examining all options available to it. What are the options here? There is only one option for the people of Cork South-West. The HSE has to appeal this decision immediately. Somebody has made a major cock-up here. Somebody has to put their hand up in the air and say who it is and heads have to roll. We cannot go from 18 beds to 11. The Government cannot walk away from this. The Taoiseach was in Bantry hospital two weeks ago promising the earth, the moon and the stars, while opening an injury unit that was opened nine years previously. I would welcome the Taoiseach coming to west Cork any time. I would never refuse him coming to Bantry hospital but for God's sake, he should come down and give us some good news. He promised there would be no loss of services and here we are two weeks later with the massive loss of a mental health service being proposed.

I thank the Deputies for raising this important matter. As they have outlined, the Mental Health Commission has made the decision to put a restriction on the registration of the Centre for Mental Health Care and Recovery in Bantry General Hospital, given its concerns over the size of residents’ bedrooms in the centre. This decision would mean the centre's total number of registered beds would reduce from 18 to 11. The centre, which is located on the grounds of Bantry General Hospital, provides residents with acute care, rehabilitation and recovery supports for their mental health difficulties. It serves the local west Cork area, including areas around Skibbereen, Clonakilty and Bantry.

The HSE is currently examining all options available to it in light of this decision and is in dialogue with the Mental Health Commission as part of the regulatory process. The Minister of State, Deputy Butler, has requested a detailed report from the HSE on the matter, which is expected shortly and following the HSE's options appraisal. The Minister of State would like to assure the Deputies that she will continue to liaise with the HSE to ensure all decisions and actions taken regarding the centre are made with the best interests of the residents in mind, both from a health and safety viewpoint and with regard to the provision of appropriate treatments.

Mental health remains a key priority for the Government and we are fully committed to the delivery of high-quality, person-centred, recovery-oriented mental health services. Our long-term strategic aim for our mental health services is to provide a consistent, high-quality service for anyone in need of support for their mental health. Mental health residences, such as the centre in Bantry, provide an important step-down service for people with mental health difficulties, enabling their rehabilitation and recovery and assisting them to move towards independent community living accommodation. This aim is supported by our national policies, Sharing the Vision and Sláintecare.

It is our responsibility to ensure the provision of high-quality mental health services that are fit for purpose. The Government acknowledges that mental health services must constantly evolve and develop to ensure they are in line with international best practice and regulatory requirements. It is positive to note that there has been an overall improvement in compliance among approved mental health centres in recent years. However, it is recognised that further improvements are required to ensure mental health centres continue to meet the appropriate regulatory requirements. The Government continues to invest in mental health centres through capital planning. Some €14 million has been allocated to mental health services in 2022 and a further €6 million has been allocated through minor works capital. The Minister for Health has assured us that additional funding will be sought in 2023 to continue to improve premises.

If I were to paraphrase that, the Mental Health Commission is saying the rooms are a bit small and therefore it is going to dispatch people off somewhere else. That is my reading of that reply, although it is not for me to say.

I think the Ceann Comhairle's analysis is accurate. Unfortunately, that was not a very reassuring response from the Minister of State. Rhetoric like Sharing the Vision around mental health services is utterly irrelevant when we are talking about a reduction from 18 beds to 11. Like the Ceann Comhairle said, these people will be moved somewhere else but facilities like Carraig Mór do not provide acute care. People will be moving from acute care for the wrong reasons, because the facility is not up to scratch. What is the plan? Does the Minister of State think the HSE should appeal this decision? On what grounds could it do so? What funding is there to improve the spaces for people in the services? The most important thing here is to move quickly, so it is incredibly disappointing that the relevant Minister of State is not actually here. A strong proposal from her could save these vital beds. If we want to take mental health seriously then these beds are needed. They must be retained and they must be up to scratch. The staff in Bantry hospital do incredible work, not only in mental health services but in essential healthcare for the region. This situation only increases local fears around the future of the hospital. The Minister of State's support, via going to the relevant Minister, would not only help save the service but would boost confidence in the continued role of Bantry hospital.

Despite costly inspectorial reports and recommendations, this centre has had no financial input over the years. The service is vital in catering for mental health care and recovery for a huge population, comprising over 180,000 people. I commend the staff in the unit, who must be working under pressure because there has been no investment in the centre. Now they are worried about their jobs and rightly so. I urgently request that the HSE appeals this proposal. The answer the Minister of State gave does not cut it with the people of west Cork. We are within hours of these beds being closed. We need urgent action. I will be coming back into the Dáil tomorrow and I will ask the same question. I plead with the Minister of State to speak with Deputy Butler so she can work with the HSE and at least take the first steps to set in motion the appeal for the people of Cork South-West. We need that mental health service. I will ask that question here again tomorrow and I plead for the Minister of State to have an answer stating that appeal is at least in motion. Then we will have to look at the funding. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have let down the people in Cork South-West before with the maternity unit in that hospital. Now they are going to do it with the mental health service in that hospital.

Deputy, please.

I am sorry but it is making people very angry. People are very angered over this in Cork South-West.

I know but I ask the Deputy to mind his blood pressure, for God's sake.

I might need Bantry hospital myself.

I hear the Deputies loud and clear. Both the Government and the HSE value the regulation of our mental health services. It provides a framework in which to constantly review and improve our services so they remain person-centred. The long-term strategic aim for mental health services is to provide a consistent, quality approach across all mental health residences. The Government will continue to work with the Mental Health Commission and the HSE to improve our mental health services and to ensure they best serve the needs of our service users. I thank Deputies for raising this important matter and assure them that their views will be taken to the Minister of State. I understand the Minister of State wanted to be here tonight. She had to attend a family bereavement. She will be informed of further developments relating to the centre. The Minister of State, Deputy Butler, will continue to liaise with the HSE to ensure the care needs and preferences of the residents remain central to any decisions made about the mental health care and recovery centre in Bantry. The Deputies stated that they want the Minister of State to liaise with the various stakeholders. I understand that she is doing that. We value the Mental Health Commission. It makes decisions and we have to work with those decisions. The Minister of State is doing everything possible with the Deputies. I thank them for raising this important issue.

Family Law Cases

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this issue. It is an important issue and I thank the Minister for coming into the House to address it. I know this family well. In a family law procedure, both sides have an opportunity to make their case and have it challenged. In the case of this particular woman, she was greeted with a child psychology report, which was accepted without challenge. She was never given an opportunity to challenge it. The Minister and I have been in courts across this country and in our neighbouring country many times. I have never seen a case where a situation was not challengeable by the other side, but it could not be challenged in this case.

The upshot of everything was that the children were taken away from the mother and handed over to the father, who was absent from the house for reasons which had arisen prior. Since last May, that mother has not had an opportunity to meet her children. One of them tried to run away from school. The child is distressed and unhappy. The mother of the children is always regarded as the primary carer. To take the children away from their natural mother is the most appalling thing that can be done to any woman, because it challenges her right to be regarded as a good mother. This woman rejects vehemently all the charges that were made against her. Most of all, in the lead-up to a final decision, she has been prevented from talking to her children on the basis that she might turn them against their father. That is not a good enough excuse.

The mother's rights are being violated. She was in touch with Tusla. I was in touch with Tusla myself. It was very helpful, but it has been barred from intervening by the powers that be. This has happened for some reason, whether due to guardian ad litem rules or some other rule that has not been seen before. I have my own ideas about why this happened. Incidentally, she was obliquely threatened, in the event that she raised this with any public body, including Tusla, or with public representatives. My answer to that kind of thing is that we are glad to hear from the body in question, but we have heard that before, and threats do not count. The most important thing is that the mother's right to be with her children is protected. If the courts decide afterwards, on the basis of evidence which has been correctly challenged by one side or another, then we will accept that decision, but we will accept nothing until that decision comes about.

I thank the Minister for being here to deal with what is obviously a very sensitive matter.

I thank Deputy Durkan for raising this important matter. It is of huge significance to the family involved. I am not aware of any of the circumstances of this case. The question submitted to me related specifically to guardians ad litem, which have a very narrow remit. From what the Deputy has described, I am not sure how much of it directly covers the situation. The situation raised is a broader issue relating to the operation of the family court. Even though it is the family court, it is more a matter for the Minister, Deputy McEntee, than for me. I have prepared an answer relating to guardians ad litem, which I will deliver. I am not sure that it will enlighten the Deputy with regard to this situation, but I will engage with it to the extent that I can.

A guardian ad litem or GAL is appointed in childcare proceedings to inform the court of any views which the child wishes to express and to advise the court on what, in his or her professional opinion, is in the child's best interests. GALs do not make decisions regarding parents' access to their children. Any such decisions are taken by a judge. Court orders regarding children in care are matters for the court and as Minister I cannot interfere in any such decision. However, as Minister, I am working to ensure the law relating to children in need of protection is updated and improved where needed.

I recently brought the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2022 through the Houses of the Oireachtas. It was signed into law in July. This Act provides for reform of the GAL system, and will allow me to establish a new national GAL service with an executive office in my Department. Preparatory work to open that office is under way. I am pleased to inform the Deputy that I plan to commence sections 1, 4, 6 and 13 of the Act next week. These cover wider areas of reform. First, there is a requirement that the court regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration, which is relevant to what the Deputy has discussed. Second, there is a reform that ensures the Child Law Project and any similar projects will have access to relevant court documents and allows officials to attend childcare proceedings for specific purposes.

My Department is also reviewing the Child Care Act 1991, which is the major legislation that deals with taking children into care, whether foster care or special care. I look forward to bringing the heads of an amendment Bill to the Government by the end of this year and hopefully getting that legislation passed next year. The 1991 Act is wide-ranging legislation which, at its core, seeks to promote the welfare of children who may not receive adequate care and protection. My Department has consulted extensively with stakeholders to collect their views on the legislation, including through calls for written submissions and a number of consultation events. That Bill will revise and update the 1991 Act to better reflect changes in child welfare and protection services in Ireland in the 30 years since enactment and the constitutional recognition of children as individual rights holders. It will also allow for positive practice developments to be enshrined in law where needed.

Reflecting on the facts the Deputy has outlined, I am not sure if the GAL is the issue here. I think the issue might be the wider process used by the court. I draw the Deputy's attention to the legislation passed earlier this year. I am about to activate the piece relevant to the principle of the best interests of the child being pursued. That is perhaps of as much relevance to the case that the Deputy has brought to our attention this evening.

The Minister has answered the questions himself. It is imperative that Tusla get involved in the case. The court directing that it is not welcome is, to my mind, a violation of the mother's rights, which cannot be tolerated. I ask the Minister to encourage Tusla to get involved in the case to secure the children's rights. Presumably, the court psychologist's report would back that up, but it did not, because it was only requisitioned on behalf of one side. The other person was not allowed to counter it. I cannot understand how that could happen. If it is an attempt to set a precedent and change the law, I do not understand how that could happen either, because we change the law here. The point is that the law is the law. People will always say that they want justice when they go to the courts but, as I always say, they will get the law. We do not want anything else. The rules are that the interests of the child be put to the front of every argument and debate of that nature. I have dealt with scores of them, just as the Ceann Comhairle and other Members of the House have. In every single case, the rights of the child had to be protected.

In this case there are two children separated from their mother by order. I believe it is a violation of the rights of the children and the rights of the mother.

I thank the Deputy. Obviously, there are clear lines of responsibilities between me as the Minister and Tusla as the agency that answers to the Department. I cannot direct them to take certain actions but perhaps if the Deputy would communicate some details about this case to me I can ask if agency staff have any concerns about the processes here. This is as much as I can do to intervene. I can do that. Obviously, we have to leave their decisions. I am also very aware that this is a court decision. Unhappy as the Deputy is, there is the Executive and Judiciary and there are lines of responsibility there. Maybe in the first instance the details of the case could be passed on to my office and we could have an element of engagement with Tusla to ensure all processes are properly adhered to.

I thank the Minister.

That is a very helpful response.

Proposed Legislation

Our next important matter comes jointly from Deputies Éamon Ó Cuív and Michael Fitzmaurice. They wish to discuss with the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, the reintroduction of the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016. Since they both raised this in the House some months ago, I have raised it at every meeting of the Business Committee since, requiring that the matter be brought forward. I am afraid that the answer I receive has not changed from the start; it is still being looked at in the Department. There is a lot of looking going on.

I thank the Minister of State for coming into the House at this late hour. Having asked about this issue a number of times, with Deputy Fitzmaurice, I had not foreseen on the Adjournment that we would have to come in again. I have raised it under Questions on Policy and Legislation and so on. I have tabled written parliamentary questions and I keep getting the same answer.

I was very disappointed today when the list of promised legislation was published. I read the list and, in particular, the priority legislation only to see that this legislation is not on the priority list. I then looked at the list of all the other legislation for this session, which is a massive list, and found it. It is in the also-rans. All it states beside it in the right-hand margin is that work is under way. I find this extraordinary. My understanding is that the logistical difficulties of bringing the Bill back in have long been resolved and that all the Government has to do is bring it back on Final Stage where it stopped before. A number of amendments were made in the Seanad but 11 were Government amendments so presumably the Government was happy with those. They just have to bring them back in, put them down on the table and say, "Can we agree that they are all passed?" That means we were left with four amendments that had been put forward by Independent Senators and accepted in the Seanad. It baffles me that two and three quarter years later the Minister of State's office and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel have not been able to agree to accept, amend or reject these four amendments.

I concur with Deputy Ó Cuív. I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House, but, to be honest, what is going on is shambolic. I want to know if this is a Civil Service problem. We are sick and tired of this. In fairness, the Ceann Comhairle has gone above and beyond for everyone to ensure that this would be accommodated. Deputy Ó Cuív and I have followed this. I know the consequences of this. I know farmers around the country who want to plant forestry but because it was in a natural heritage area, NHA, it is to be taken out under category 2 and they cannot do it. As well as the farmer losing, the country is losing. It is shambolic what is going on. I want to know who is responsible for this. Is it within the Minister of State's Department where an assistant secretary or a principal officer is responsible? This has to be called out now. It has been going on for too long. The Bill came in here. Deputy Ó Cuív was here and Deputy Kyne was here in the previous Dáil. He came in one evening. We are willing and, to be fair to the Ceann Comhairle, I am sure that he is willing to accommodate it. There is many a Thursday evening here when the Dáil is gone early. I am damn sure, in fairness to the Ceann Comhairle, that he is well willing to do it.

People in their offices do not understand that this is causing untold hardship for people right around the country. It is neither here nor there; it is something that neither is or is not. The minute anyone looks at the map now they say, "Oh, it is an NHA so we cannot go near it." It is constant. When they look at the area they go, "No, it is an NHA." It had indeed been designated even though it was categorised by the Department with scientific knowledge that it was to be taken out. It is scientific knowledge that is behind it. Everyone supported it. Deputy Ó Cuív knows more about it than I do and he has made it very clear that hurdles were jumped and all we had to do was get the Bill in. I want to know who is holding this up because we need to go to someone to find out.

Before I read the reply, it is with regret that we are here again this evening. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his intervention in trying to get this forward. Like you, I want this matter resolved once and for all to give clarity to those landowners the Deputies talk about and to get this important Bill over the line.

As the Deputies will be aware, the Bill was originally presented to the Oireachtas in 2016. The debate on the Bill in both Houses was very engaging, with a good discussion on extending its scope to provide for a review of blanket bog natural heritage areas, NHAs, and later in the Seanad on placing a duty on public bodies to promote the conservation of biodiversity.

The core focus of the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill, as initiated, was to provide for: the making, amendment and revocation of natural heritage area orders; a review of raised bog habitats; and for those purposes to amend the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. The Bill had completed all stages in the Dáil and the Seanad and had been returned to the Dáil so that various amendments made by the Seanad could be considered. However, the Bill, unfortunately, lapsed with the dissolution of the Thirty-second Dáil on 14 January 2020.

As I have previously set out, Standing Order 227 provides that where a Bill passed by the Dáil is subsequently amended and passed by the Seanad, those amendments are then returned to the Dáil for its consideration. Standing Order 228 provides that the Dáil may accept, amend or reject the Seanad amendments. Amendments in the Dáil to the Seanad's amendments may be moved only where they are "consequential upon the acceptance, amendment or rejection of a Seanad amendment". There is no mechanism under Standing Orders to move amendments to a Bill returned to the Dáil under Standing Order 227, other than as set out in Standing Order 228.

The Deputies will recall that we met to discuss this matter late last year and, indeed, they have raised this matter with me in the House since then through a Topical Issue matter. As we discussed then, the restoration of this Bill to the Order Paper is not straightforward.

I would nearly be able to put this to music if I had any musical skills because we keep getting the same answer. For example, "As we discussed then, the restoration of this Bill to the Order paper is not straightforward." It is my understanding that this issue was resolved and that it is straightforward: one brings back the amendments or makes amendments under the relevant Standing Order to those amendments, and then the Bill comes back in.

As I have said, there are four amendments that could be contentious, and the rest are Government amendments. They are not that complex as issues. Amendment No. 2 was tabled by Senators Alice-Mary Higgins and Lynn Ruane to allow the Minister to propose a site for designation by virtue of its role in carbon sequestration or pollination specifically.

That is either accepted, rejected or amended. I do not see the complication there. Amendment No. 13 requires the Minister to commission a report on the guidelines of threshold for turbary rights, including a definition of household dues. It is not rocket science. Amendment No. 14 would effectively require the Minister, before making an order to dedesignate a natural heritage area, NHA, to lay a report before the Oireachtas on the site's condition, restoration, rewetting potential and so on. If the Ceann Comhairle will give me a little indulgence, there is one more, No. 15.

Let us be clear that we are seeking to give the Minister of State the ultimate Aladdin's lamp, because we are giving him new, pristine lands to designate as NHAs in return for degraded NHA bog, and he will not take the Aladdin's lamp when he is getting the new lamp. He must think there is a genie inside.

With the amendment Deputy Ó Cuív spoke about, the science is done already. There were categories 1 and 2. I remember when they were being done at the time. The science has been done by competent scientists. It is there for the Minister of State. No one else has to look at it. He decides then on the amendments. I think turbary rights have been sorted in recent weeks where people have the right to cut their turf, sell it and whatever.

On the science of the bogs, the National Parks and Wildlife Service looked at them. It got in RPS and the head scientist to look at the bogs and there was no way they could be regenerated. That is the bottom line. The service said it would give people a better bog. If I had a bad sheep, there was a really good one over the way and someone said they would give me that one for this one, I would be inclined to jump fairly quick for it. The Minister of State, however, or rather not him, in fairness, but his Department, does not want to.

On the day we sat down with the Minister of State for the meeting, and I thank him for that meeting, I understood from listening to the civil servants talking that every obstacle was gone and everything was sorted, but then we came into the House. In fairness to the Ceann Comhairle and his team, he said anything he could do, he would accommodate it. In our opinion and that of Deputy Ó Cuív, every obstacle was gone out of the way, but tonight, when we read the palaver some civil servant wrote, I wonder if they even looked back or if they just said they would put this answer down for these two guys, it might shut them up after 12 minutes and then they could go home. We are not going to shut up about this. We are going to keep at it until we get this in here and over the line.

Thank you, Deputy. I think everyone in public life recognises the Deputies involved are not going to be silenced. I think we also all acknowledge the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, has been nothing but helpful on this matter from the start.

On the question of process, can I make it abundantly clear that if the Bill we are going to deal with is the return of the Bill that has made its way through the House and through the Seanad together with the amendments that were contemplated, that is completely simple and straightforward. No rocket science or complexity is involved. If the Government, on the other hand, is going to change the Bill radically with a pile of other previously unheard of amendments, that is where the complication would lie.

Yes. That is not the intention. The intention is to try to make it as swift and clean as possible. I appreciate the frustration of the House and both Deputies in particular as well as that of the landowners the Deputy spoke about. I give my assurance that, if it requires it, I will sit down and look at where the obstacles are. I will organise a meeting with both Deputies in the next week or so, if that is okay. We will do that and try to find out once and for all where the obstacles lie in this because I want it resolved. We have a new national biodiversity action plan in train and we really need to move forward in resolving this for the common good. I give my sincere apologies to both Deputies.

Sorry to talk out of turn but, given the Minister of State said he will hold a meeting for Deputies shortly, and, in fairness to the Ceann Comhairle, he has made it clear he is accommodating, and we thank him for that, it would be very helpful if it was possible for a representative of the Ceann Comhairle or the Ceann Comhairle to be available so that we would not be going over and back and that we would have everyone there able to say "Yea" or "Nay" on whether this can go through. Would that be possible and in that way we would finally put it to bed?

If it was useful or was agreeable to the Ceann Comhairle, I think we could.

I will do whatever I can to help.

I appreciate that.

I thank the Minister of State for being here to talk about that particular matter.

Social Welfare Eligibility

This is a bit of a tricky issue. I will give some brief background with a synopsis of this lady's situation. Her name is Margaret. She wrote to me to say she is the mother to her daughter of 36 years. Her daughter has Fraser syndrome and to date is the only one in Ireland with that syndrome. She is deaf, dumb, registered blind and autistic. She explains how she does the hardest job in the world rearing her disabled daughter, which is extremely demanding and a thankless job. Her day starts at 5.30 a.m., showering, dressing, brushing her daughter's hair and tying her shoes. Margaret's daughter is 36 years and she has spent those 36 years as her sole carer. Margaret fractured her pelvis in 2016 and had to give up work. She ended up riding a bike for a year so that she could take her daughter on her very important routine daily walks. In February, Margaret had an operation but had to discharge herself the same day to care for her daughter. If her daughter was in residential care, it would cost the State around €1,000 to €1,500 a week to care for her. However, because of Margaret's position in life, the State has awarded her €4.50 of a weekly allowance to care for her daughter. Margaret wrote that she actually thought she was a good mother but the State had made her feel worthless. She says it is an insult to her and to others who give up their lives and freedom to look after their disabled children.

The letter came from the Department about the allowance being means-tested. I am well aware there are many convenience marriages in the country and, after Covid, there are many more. The couple are living two separate lives but they are being means-tested as if they were together. That means that poor mother has literally nothing. Her sole job is to care for her daughter. To get that news from the Department would break your soul. I know the woman personally. I see her anytime, and it does not matter what time of year it is, she has to take her daughter out for a walk. It is one of the simplest things. She feels so worthless. She said she did not want to come to me and she did not want to complain but it was such a measly amount. She tried to explain to the Department that the husband, or ex-husband, despite being at the same address, only supports the daily household bills. That lady does not have the opportunity to earn money. She is entitled to a carer's allowance, but because it is means-tested, including the husband's income, the State has decided to give her €4.50.

I raise this issue in the House because I raised it a good few weeks ago directly with the Minister through the pigeon hole, as it were, but I have had no response or acknowledgement. It does not look good for me when I am trying to do my job to help people, and that is why I raise it here tonight. There has to be a mechanism where a person can, first of all, talk to a human being in any Department, where he or she has an opportunity to come in front of a board or somebody to explain his or her real-life story, to prove it, and to ask that it be looked on with empathy in order that the assessor can see he or she did not realise the situation. That happens. My biggest problem is that I raised it with the Minister directly and I have not had any response - I am very disappointed with that - and I have nowhere for this woman to turn to fight her case for herself and her child. That is why I raise it tonight. I do not expect a magic answer from the Minister of State tonight, but at least once it is on the record we can come back and revisit it.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. It is a very challenging situation. Unfortunately, in matters like this nothing is clear-cut. The Government recognises the crucial role that family carers play in Irish society and is fully committed to their support through a range of supports and services. This commitment is recognised in both the programme for Government and the national carers strategy.

Carer's allowance is a means-tested payment primarily aimed at carers on low incomes who look after certain people who are in need of full-time care and attention. At the end of July 2022, there were a total of 91,093 recipients of carer's allowance caring for 102,330 people. The projected expenditure on the scheme in 2022 is approximately €990 million.

The system of social assistance supports provides payments based on an income need, with the means test playing the critical role in determining whether an income need arises as a consequence of a particular contingency, be that illness, disability, unemployment or caring. This ensures that the recipient has a verifiable income need and scarce resources are targeted to those who need them most.

The specific means-test conditionality for the carer's allowance scheme is consistent with the overall rules applying to the range of social assistance payments. It should, however, be noted that the income disregards available for carer's allowance are the most generous in the social welfare system and have been recently increased as part of budget 2022.

For social assistance schemes, the total household income is assessed as part of the means test. In the circumstances where a couple has separated but continue to live in the same home, the Department provides that a social welfare inspector may investigate the case and report on the living and financial circumstances of the couple. This report will assist the deciding officer in finalising the decision on the means criteria and whether they should be assessed separately or as a couple. All decisions may be appealed. I am not sure if this has taken place in the case the Deputy has raised.

The carer's support grant is automatically paid to people in receipt of carer's allowance, carer's benefit and domiciliary care allowance in June of each year. Other carers not in receipt of a carer's payment may also be eligible for the grant. The objective of the carer's support grant is to support carers in their caring role and carers may use the grant in a manner that is appropriate to their needs. The grant is paid in respect of each person being cared for to take account of the additional cost of providing care and to recognise the particular challenges faced by these carers. As part of the 2021 budget measures, the rate of the grant was increased by €150. The new rate of €1,850 came into effect from June 2021. This is the highest rate of the grant since its introduction.

On Thursday, 2 June, the grant was paid to 121,000 carers and their families. The overall cost of the grant in 2022 is expected to be over €262 million. I know these statistics are of no use to the mother the Deputy mentioned. I can raise this matter with the Minister on the Deputy's behalf. It was important that he raised it this evening on behalf of his constituent.

I thank the Minister of State for the answer. There is hope and light in his response. The Department provides the social welfare inspector, so at least there is an avenue there. When the information comes back from the Department, it outlines the deadline for appeal but does not state that the person has opportunities if his or her circumstances are different. I welcome that. I got more than I expected because, I suppose, I am a realist.

This woman wanted to stand up because she suspected that there were other affected parents around the country. She told me that at her age, she should not be worrying about it but that a measly bloody €4.50 a week was an absolute insult. She asked how many more people this was happening to and said she wanted to stand up and fight, not only for her child but also for other families to set a precedent. At least I can ring that woman tomorrow and say we can possibly set up a meeting with the social welfare inspector.

These are individual cases and they can be very difficult. They are obviously also private. I do not feel good about bringing the details of somebody else's private life into a public chamber. As I was asked and given permission to do it and this is the last chance saloon for the person, it needs to be done. I thank the Minister of State for his response. I will follow it up with the lady and also with the Department of Social Protection.

This is the correct Chamber to raise such a situation. It is important for the Deputy's constituent to be aware of that. There is a broader issue about making this information clearer to families in that situation. The information should be made clear on the forms and at point of contact, such as websites, etc. Perhaps the Deputy's constituent was not aware of it. I hope he can bring it to her attention. Many people find themselves in a situation of marriage breakdown or whatever and because of those circumstances are denied benefits to which they should be entitled. I hope the response will provide an avenue for the lady in question and her family. I again thank the Deputy for raising the matter this evening.

Cuireadh an Dáil ar athló ar 9.55 p.m. go dtí 9 a.m., Déardaoin, an 15 Meán Fómhair 2022.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.55 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
Top
Share