Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Jun 2006

Vol. 184 No. 6

Adjournment Matters.

Social Welfare Benefits.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, to the House. I recently called to a constituent who explained that her daughter was born with a serious birth defect. She literally requires 24-hour care, seven days a week. She made a simple point to me. In her case, where she must constantly supervise her child, would it not make more sense for her to be given extended paid maternity leave? If she had left her baby in hospital to be looked after, she argued, it would have cost the State a fortune. Instead, she was doing the State a service by taking on the enormous responsibility of looking after her daughter, constantly. Yet the State is, in effect, giving her a slap across the face by not giving her extended paid leave.

As it happens, she works for the health board, so that she is in a better position than many other people might be in the circumstances. I thought it was a very valid point she raised. I do not have any children, but I am appreciative of her position, based on the experience of my sister, whose son has a serious allergy complaint. He required an enormous amount of supervision and care for the first few months of his life. It would make sense in the case of a baby born with a serious birth defect that the normal paid maternity leave should be extended to allow the mother or father to look after the child properly.

She also made the point that the domiciliary allowance is a pittance relative to what she should normally be getting. I want to put on record the fact that she is saving the State money by minding her baby at home. The Government should give serious consideration to this proposal. It does not necessarily affect her personally because she is a public sector employee and is lucky enough in that sense. I was struck by the amount of care and effort she put into looking after her child. The State should recognise that and should allow people the option of getting paid maternity leave in such serious cases. She has not slept a full night since the baby was born. The State should look seriously at this proposal.

I thank the Senator for raising this issue and I apologise on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, who cannot be here.

Entitlement to maternity benefit is contingent in the first instance on entitlement to statutory leave. The right to statutory maternity leave is established under the maternity protection legislation, which is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Where women have accrued the requisite number of contributions required to establish entitlement and they are certified by their employers as entitled to statutory maternity leave, maternity benefit is paid for 22 weeks of their absence from work. Any changes in the duration of maternity leave and the circumstances under which the duration could be extended are for the Minister to consider in discussion with the Minister for Finance. Entitlement to maternity benefit would normally follow.

The question of entitlement to maternity leave in situations where a new baby is hospitalised for an extended period after birth, and the implications arising from that situation where entitlement to maternity benefit and maternity leave is of a defined duration, was considered by the social partners in the context of a review of the maternity protection legislation in 2001. They recommended that in the event of hospitalisation of the child, the employee should be able to return to work after a minimum of 14 weeks maternity leave, retaining her entitlement to take the balance of her leave when her baby is discharged from hospital. With effect from October 2004, the legislation was amended to provide for these situations. Where maternity benefit has been in payment for a minimum period of 14 weeks, payment may be postponed where the baby has been hospitalised. The legislation requires that an application to postpone payment must be made in writing; that the maximum postponement of benefit will be six months, and that payment will resume within seven days following written notification of the baby's discharge from hospital. Payment will then resume until the full duration of the benefit is completed.

The question of extending the duration of maternity leave to cater for children born with particular needs who require full-time care for the first year of life was not specifically considered by the social partners. However, the Department already operates a number of schemes that cater for the needs of carers in these circumstances.

The carer's schemes provide both means-tested and social insurance-based payments. Carer's allowance is a means-tested payment directed at carers on low incomes who live with and look after certain people who need full-time care and attention. This includes those needing care due to advanced age, disability, chronic illness and the circumstances considered in this case. Carer's benefit is a weekly social insurance payment that supports those who are entitled to statutory carer's leave to give up their job temporarily in order to look after someone requiring care. This payment is based on the social insurance contributions paid by the worker who becomes a carer. Maternity and carer's benefit payments serve as a non-means tested income transfer in lieu of earnings foregone during a period of statutory leave.

As with all other social insurance based payments, the criteria for eligibility require a recent link to the labour force, as reflected in the minimum number of contributions paid, and a number paid or credited in the period prior to claiming the benefit. Women who have accrued the required number of PRSI contributions at class A, E, H or S may establish entitlement to maternity benefit. Carer's benefit is available to those workers who pay PRSI at class C, D, H and E. Where care is provided beyond statutory entitlement to leave, there is no provision for the payment of insurance-based maternity or carer's benefits.

Starting from this month, the number of hours per week that a carer may work and receive a carer's allowance is increased from ten to 15. The duration for payment of the carer's benefit scheme is being extended from 15 months to two years, with an associated increase in entitlement to the statutory carer's leave scheme. Improvements have also been made to the respite grant. Significant improvements have been made in the rates, duration and qualification criteria relating to the carer's and maternity schemes. The Minister is satisfied that the levels of income support available represent a reasonable response to the income needs of women who are on maternity leave and caring. Any further improvements to the schemes would have to be examined in a budgetary context.

I would like to make two quick points.

The Senator knows we cannot debate this matter.

I know that, but I would like to make two quick points. The Minister of State referred to babies being hospitalised and the payment being temporarily suspended. My case refers to a child taken out of hospital and based at home who still requires round-the-clock care.

The scheme is based on stamps, but the person may not have the necessary stamps. If someone is to look after her baby at home on a full-time basis and the child needs 24-hour supervision, then the State should help that person. That person ultimately saves the State money because it would cost ten or 15 times more if the baby was kept in hospital.

I will convey that to the Minister.

Port Development.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Transport to the House. I raised this matter on the Adjournment almost 12 months ago when he was a Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Since then, the responsibility for our ports has been transferred to the Department of Transport under Transport 21 and I welcome that. It might bring coherence to the issue.

Our ports are very important as Ireland is a small trading nation and huge volumes of goods pass through Dublin Port. For the past 30 years, Dublin Port has proposed to increase the size of its berthing by reclaiming 52 acres along the foreshore at Clontarf. However, these proposals have not progressed one iota in 30 years. Ping-pong has been played between the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Dublin City Council. I have had discussions in the past 12 months in order to develop a policy document on this issue, and it is clear that a game of cat and mouse has been played. The loser in all of this has been Dublin Port. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has stated that it cannot give Dublin Port a foreshore licence until it gets planning permission. Dublin City Council has stated that it cannot give permission until the authorities at Dublin Port produce a foreshore licence.

I am aware that the Minister of State has said that there are no plans to move Dublin Port. I concur with that sentiment completely. However, I would like to see direction given to Dublin Port. It has operated for the past 30 years on the basis of plan A, which was to increase its trade berthing area by 52 acres. There was no plan B and it still does not exist. However, the capacity is fast running out due to the huge increase in the volumes of trade in recent years. I had discussions last week with representatives of Dublin Port and they seem to be resigned to the fact that they are being given no direction.

Our ports are under the Department of Transport since last January. There has been no definitive statement on where the Department will take the ports and that is why I have raised this matter on the Adjournment. I ask the Minister of State to address the issues I raised tonight, especially those regarding the direction of the Department of Transport for our ports and, in particular, Dublin Port.

I thank Senator Morrissey for providing me with this opportunity to report to the Seanad on certain matters concerning Dublin Port Company. As indicated in response to Parliamentary Question No. 155 of 3 May 2006, there are no proposals to move Dublin Port from its current location, which the Senator has welcomed. As the Senator is no doubt aware, Dublin Port is a State-owned company established under the Harbours Act 1996. It is the country's premier port in terms of throughput and turnover and, as such, is of vital strategic importance to our trading economy. Some 99% of our goods go through our ports, which makes them and Dublin Port, in particular, so important. The 1996 Act provides that the principal objectives of the company include the provision of such facilities, services and lands in its harbour for ships, goods and passengers, as it considers necessary. The company is required to take all proper measures for the management, control, operation and development of its harbour. Decisions regarding the use of the land within the port estate are primarily a matter for the port company.

One of the key challenges that lies ahead for our commercial ports, including Dublin, is the provision of adequate port capacity to meet growing demand, particularly for unitised trade, such as containerised trailers and roll-on, roll-off trucks. In January 2005, when responsibility for ports policy was with the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, I, as Minister of State at that Department, launched the Government's ports policy statement. The policy statement aims to better equip the port sector and its stakeholders to meet national and regional capacity and service needs and sets out a framework to ensure that capacity needs are identified, planned and progressed in a co-ordinated manner.

As part of this process, in September 2005, that Department appointed a firm of consultants expert in this field, Fisher Associates, to carry out a capacity study. They were to invite detailed project submissions from the commercial ports and evaluate those submissions in advance of the Department's recommendations to Government. The purpose of this process is to help determine whether the anticipated capacity requirement to 2014 and beyond can be efficiently and adequately met by the port sector without recourse to the Exchequer. Seven submissions were received from ports around the country. The submission from Dublin Port Company included a project related to the proposed reclamation of some 21 hectares of foreshore in the port, to which the Senator referred. The final report of Fisher Associates was delivered to the Department in early June 2006 and the findings of the study will be reported upon to Government shortly.

In 1999, Dublin Port Company applied for approval under the Foreshore Acts for the proposed reclamation of an area of some 21 hectares of foreshore. This application is still before the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, which has responsibility for foreshore licences and is not a matter for the Department of Transport. I understand that full consideration of the port company's application would involve a process of public consultation comprising making available the environmental impact statement and other information concerning the application, and an opportunity for interested persons or bodies to make submissions or observations on the proposal. Dublin Port Company's proposal would also require planning permission pursuant to the Planning and Development Act 2000. This is a matter for the local planning authority, which in the case of Dublin Port is the Dublin City Council.

As indicated in response to Parliamentary Question No. 471 of 21 April 2006, there are no plans to alter the ownership status of Dublin Port Company. The Government's policy is clearly outlined in the ports policy statement, which I launched in January 2005. It is a reflection on the successful economy and the growth of recent years. All the information was made available to Fisher Associates and we will report to Government. I expect that developments will take place in some ports standing alone or perhaps in amalgamation with other ports. We cannot stand by and allow the economy to grow without providing the necessary infrastructure. Some 99% of our goods are imported and exported through our ports. The matter is very fluid at the moment; I am monitoring it very closely and hope to make recommendations to Government in the near future.

I call Senator Morrissey and ask him to be brief. As I said to Senator Browne, we cannot debate the matter.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Dublin Port Company sought permission for its foreshore licence in 1999 and no progress has been made yet. However, we are told of a huge capacity problem, as the port will reach full capacity by 2008. As the Department of Transport now has responsibility for ports, I hoped that it could throw some light on the status of this foreshore licence and bring some element of co-ordination to the matter. I issue a word of caution to Dublin Port, which needs direction. Should it continue to be industrialised or should a process to de-industrialise it commence? The capacity constraint, which is the Dublin Port tunnel, is the responsibility of the Department of Transport.

The Senator may not go into that matter now.

The gateway to the port will be the limiting factor to the future growth of Dublin Port. The ships bring goods to the country in big containers. We need to resolve the matter. The wait since 1999 is too long. The Department of Transport, Dublin City Council or the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources must take the issue by the scruff of the neck and find a solution.

The Seanad adjourned at 8 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 28 June 2006.
Top
Share