Carer's Leave Bill, 2000: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Ardagh:

An employee is required in sections 9(1) and (2) to give six weeks' notice to his or her employer about the commencement of carer's leave. In subsection (2), where it is not reasonably practicable to do so, the employee should give notice as soon as is reasonably practicable. This is very woolly and perhaps some certainty can be given. At times, the reason a person needs care, such as a stroke, happens out of the blue and the carer of such a person would not have the opportunity to give six weeks' notice to his or her employer before the proposed commencement. Subsection (2) states: "Where it is not reasonably practicable to give notice in accordance with the period specified . . . [the six weeks] . . . the [carer] shall give that notice as soon as is reasonably practicable". That implies that, if it is not six weeks, it would be a certain time before the commencement. However, as I said, it is often the case that events happen which cause the carer to have already left employment. That provision should be tightened up.

Section 9(4) states that, when an employee has not given six weeks' notice or has not given notice as soon as is reasonably practicable: "the employer may, at his or her discretion, treat [the] leave as carer's leave". The employer has this discretion but does he or she also have the discretion to decide that the employee has quit his or her job if proper notice has not been given? Is this the type of case on which a rights commissioner can adjudicate? Would it not be reasonable in this case for an employer to be able to go to a rights commissioner to obtain some certainty in that matter?

Section 9(6) states: "An employee who is on carer's leave shall, not less than 4 weeks before the date on which that employee proposes to return to his or her employment, give notice in writing to the employer of the intention to return to work". Can an employee not give a progress report of the care on a monthly basis to the employer to keep him or her informed of the prospective situation concerning the employee's return to work? That means the employer is kept in the picture and he or she can make tentative plans regarding the employee's return to work. Obviously another person has filled the job in the interim and consideration must also be given to him or her. A monthly report or a timely progress report may be the correct approach to take.

Sections 10(2) and (3) relate to the confirmation document, one copy of which the employer must prepare, sign and retain and give another to the employee who must also retain that copy. Many conditions, duties and responsibilities are attached to that confirmation document for both employer and employee. How will this be made known to them? It is another part of the bureaucracy for an employer. To remember all this, he would need a training course in the Irish Management Institute.

Section 11(1)(b) states: “if the relevant person is in receipt of full-time care and attention from a person other than the employee concerned”, the carer's leave shall terminate. What is the position if this happens earlier than the date signed up for and agreed in the confirmation document? If it happens that full-time care in a hospital or nurs ing home is given to the person cared for substantially prior to the date on which the carer has stated in the confirmation document he or she would return to work, is the employer obliged in such circumstances to take back the employee earlier than previously agreed? What is the position on that?

The same situation arises in sections 11(2)(b) and (c) where a deciding officer makes a decision where “the employee will not provide or is not providing full-time care and attention”, for example, the person cared for is not a relevant person, or “the employee is engaging or has engaged in employment or self-employment”. There is a question, especially where the person cared for is not a relevant person and the employee does not provide full-time care attention, of what happens in that case. Does the employer take the employee back six months earlier than the date in the confirmation document?

In Part 3, section 13, which deals with the protection of employment rights, what is the position regarding statutory redundancy should a business fail? Is the carer's leave period included in the number of years taken into account in the calculation for statutory redundancy? What about special or top-up redundancy payments made over and above statutory redundancy payments? Is the carer's leave time also included in that?

Section 15 relates to the conditions under which an employee returns to work. Under section 15(2)(b), “the terms or conditions of the contract relating to the place where the work under it is required to be done” are not to be substantially less favourable to the employee. However, what happens if the company has moved location and the new location is substantially less favourable? I know of cases where, for reasons of economy, such as the raw materials being at a better location or a greater availability of employees, a business may move from Dublin to Castlebar. What is the position in relation to that carer-employee if they are not to be in a substantially less favourable employment location? That matter needs to be addressed.

Section 21 deals with redress which may be ordered for the party concerned as the rights commissioner or tribunal considers appropriate, but in cases where the decision is that the employer has been wronged in some way, what sanction may be specified in his or her favour? While the tendency has been in all employment legislation to date to place the emphasis on the employee to his or her benefit – rightly so – should there be a case where for any reason the employer has been badly wronged, can an award of compensation be made to him or her for determined negligence or wrongness on the part of the employee? I am not saying that this would happen regularly, but it could happen occasionally. I am delighted that the Bill has been introduced and look forward to it being adopted and many people using and benefiting from it.

In a major development it was announced in the budget that the income disregard was being increased for a single person from £75 to £125 and for a married couple from £150 to £250. This will benefit and provide a great boost for 5,000 people at the lower end of the pay scale and who are not doing as well out of the economy as others. I am delighted that it has come into being. They represent a significant portion of the total number of carers in the country. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Currie:

It is proper that the Bill has been welcomed on all sides of the House. I join those who have welcomed it. We have been told that it is unique to us. The Minister of State said, "This Bill is a first, not just in Ireland, but I would confidently say in Europe". He may be right; if so, I welcome that fact as I am all in favour of initiative, but did the Minister of State check the position in New Zealand? One often finds that measures which have not been tried before in Europe have been tried in New Zealand. When Minister of State with responsibility for children, I was very surprised to find just how radical they had been in New Zealand. It may be the case that they have thought of this also.

Mr. T. Kitt:

I will check the position for the Deputy.

Mr. Currie:

I am tempted to say a poor thing but our own, but that would not be fair. It deserves a better welcome than that.

Anything to do with assistance for carers is welcomed in the House – rightly so. The more affluent we become, the more we require carers. Strangely enough, the more affluent we become, the less caring we are in some respects. When I used to live in the North, while it was still not enough – we are talking about Thatcher times – much more money was available over a long period in all sectors. When I made the transition to the South I found that we were dependent on the voluntary sector to a much greater extent; that people in the North received payments on items on which people did not receive payments here.

This was forcefully brought to my attention soon after my arrival when electioneering in Dublin West. When I knocked on a door in a working class area I was appalled by what I saw. As a small frail woman attempted to talk to me, the door which she had left slightly open was wrenched backwards and she was almost pulled off her feet by a young man who was obviously mentally handicapped, about three times her size and perhaps ten times her strength. This startled me. She had great difficulty in stopping him from getting out. When I contacted her later by telephone I found that she had not been out of the house for four months, not even to go to mass. She had a husband who was useless and who spent most of his time in the bookies and the pub. She was left to look after the young lad in ques tion. I was appalled to find that she was not receiving any assistance. That would not have happened in the North. It drew to my attention the discrepancies between North and South and the extent to which people who were incapacitated and disadvantaged in this State depended on voluntary effort, for which I express my appreciation.

I have also noticed that, as we have become more affluent, fewer people are involved in voluntary effort and more and more appear to be demanding payment for work which, just a short time ago, they were prepared to do for nothing. I am not suggesting that people should have to perform many of these tasks for nothing, they should be paid for them, but it appears that the effect has been that, as we become more affluent, we are less community-minded in terms of voluntary organisations.

To qualify for carer's benefit an employee has to meet a list of criteria, the first of which is that he or she must be 16 years or age or over. The Bill enumerates a further seven qualifications. Is it necessary to stipulate that a person must be 16 years of age or over? Is it possible for a person to be just over 16 years of age and qualify under the other criteria? What is the youngest age at which it will be possible for a young person to satisfy the requirements? Is an age limit of 16 years required?

The Bill is consequential on social welfare commitments. Three conditions were laid down in the Social Welfare Bill – sufficient stamps, a medical examination conducted by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and spot checks to provide proof that full-time care and attention are being provided. The most that anyone can receive is £96. For someone who has taken a year or 15 months out of permanent employment this could amount to a substantial drop in income. Given that the employee may be taking time off to look after a person who in other circumstances would have to got into a hospital or a home, there are considerable savings. Is £96 the most that can be paid considering the savings that are being made? A sum of £96 is not a big deal.

There are not any EU directives in this area and Ireland is taking the lead in this respect. I am surprised there is no EU directive. I wonder why that has not been the case in terms of the social objectives that the EU continually emphasises.

IBEC has raised certain objections to and ICTU has certain reservations about carer's leave. IBEC would like to extend the qualifying period while ICTU does not want any such period. Perhaps that should be examined on Committee Stage. I assume the Minister has had representations from both sources.

Job sharing is another matter which arouses my interest. Could difficulties be created in this regard? An employee can be a carer during the week and somebody else, presumably a relative, can do the job at the weekends. An employee who has taken carer's leave is entitled to spend up to ten hours doing other work but to qualify under the legislation the second carer must work 38 hours per fortnight or 19 hours per week.

Is it possible for a person to take leave from his or her permanent job to become a carer and then take up another job?

Mr. T. Kitt:

I will check that.

Mr. Currie:

I referred to the health dimension of the provisions in the legislation and the saving that will accrue in terms of the cost of placing a relative in a nursing home, for example, and I ask the Minister to examine the £96 payment again in that context.

The provisions in the legislation are particularly useful and attractive in cases of terminal illness. That aspect appeals most to me. For example, if a close relative of someone working in the Civil Service has a terminal illness he or she would be able to take time off work and be with their relative whether it is for a matter of weeks or months. I entirely approve of that humanitarian aspect of the legislation. I assume in those circumstances that the requirement for prior notice will not apply. It would be a nonsense, if one were notified that a close relative had a terminal illness, to have go through the procedure of giving weeks of notice and would defeat the purpose of the exercise. I absolutely take that for granted and I expect the Minister to reply in the affirmative.

There is a difficulty in regard to bank and public holidays. An employee seeking carer's leave in the normal course of events is entitled to payment for such holidays or is given another day's leave for working on those days. There is a difficulty in applying that fully in the case of those who take carer's leave. Provision will only be made for such payments for the first 13 weeks and it is unfair that only the first 13 weeks are counted in this regard. Will the Minister of State examine that?

I refer to the position of a carer returning to his or her permanent employment because there may be some gaps. For example, what effect would taking a year or 15 months out have on redundancy payments? Is this covered by this or other legislation? What would happen, for instance, if an employee took a year off under the legislation and then returned to find the firm had gone bankrupt in his or her absence? He or she could not be offered an alternative job. Presumably, there is a right of claim to the rights commissioners. I read sections 15 and 21(2) in this context but it is still not clear where responsibility would lie. What would the redundant employee's entitlement be in those circumstances? Would redundancy be paid out of the social insurance fund, for example, or would he or she have any entitlement? I will tease that matter out on Committee Stage.

There are people in this community who can be deviously minded. What would be the position if someone recognised that his or her firm was in trouble and likely to go bottom up and took carer's leave under the provisions of this Bill? There is a recognition that he or she would inevitably have to sign on but if they took carer's leave they would be entitled to £96 per week and also, possibly, some other entitlement under the redundancy terms. Ever since I read about Daniel O'Connell and the coach and four or coach and six I have been a great admirer of people who are able to find their way around these entitlements. However, I still believe there are circumstances where we ought to do our best to stop them.

By inclination and experience I tend to be on the side of the employee rather than the employer. However, the provisions of this Bill could create considerable difficulties for small employers. The difficulties could also arise at short notice, for example, with regard to the most valuable part of this Bill which is the provision for an employee to take carer's leave to care for somebody with terminal illness. In those circumstances and at short notice, considerable inconvenience could be caused to an employer. In a small firm where two or three people are employed, somebody leaving at short notice could cause more than inconvenience, it could be a serious crisis for the employer. While my sympathy lies to a great extent with the employee rather than the employer, I recognise that serious difficulty could be caused for small employers. That should be borne in mind.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill. I look forward to the Minister's reply to this debate and to further discussion on Committee Stage.

Mr. M. Kitt:

I wish to share my time with Deputy Martin Brady.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. M. Kitt:

I congratulate the Minister of State on introducing this legislation. The Bill provides a new entitlement for employees to avail of temporary unpaid carer's leave to enable them to care for persons who require full-time care and attention. It is a worthy ambition.

There are two Departments involved with carers but principal responsibility lies with the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. Everybody is familiar with the carer's allowance and carer's benefit schemes which were introduced by the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern. One of the welcome announcements in the last budget was that the income disregard for a married couple is to be increased from £150 to £250.

This Bill is a natural progression in the arrangements for carers. It is an important measure. Deputies encounter issues relating to carers every day. One restriction that applied to carers in the past was the requirement that the carer must live in the same house with the elderly relative or the "relevant person" as they are described in the Bill. In recent years this restriction was removed and the carer had only to live near the elderly relative. That allows the latter to continue to benefit from the free schemes which, although they will now be available for all people over 70 years, irrespective of who is living with them, were not necessarily available to people under 70 years of age.

Given that the current nursing home subvention is £120 per week – it will be increased in April – it is important to keep the carers system under review and, hopefully, increase the carer's allowance and benefit to the same rate as the subvention. The Ombudsman spoke about this recently in the report on subventions. The system was rightly described in the Seanad yesterday as requiring more accountability and responsibility. There was a presumption, the Ombudsman said, that young people would always look after their elderly relatives. That is no longer the case and there is probably a strong case for abolishing the means test for carer's allowance. I hope the Government will examine those issues.

One attractive aspect of the Bill is the flexibility with regard to the 65 weeks entitlement. The time can be taken over a continuous period or in separate periods. There should be greater flexibility in relation to the number of elderly people who are turned down because they are not regarded as sick and do not qualify on medical grounds. This issue has been the subject of many appeals to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. That Department will still be responsible for assessing whether a person is in need of full-time care and attention. It is important to ensure the best medical advice is available in that regard and that people will benefit more from the carers system.

Section 15 provides that on the resumption of work following a period of carer's leave if it is not reasonable and practical for the employer to permit the employee to return to the same work he or she did prior to the leave, suitable alternative work and terms and conditions not less favourable to the employee shall be provided by the employer. That is an important provision. We have seen what happens when people go on career breaks. I am thinking, in particular, of teachers within the vocational education system who may not get back into the same school and might be required to work different hours.

We should be careful with the arrangements that are put in place for people who might get alternative work. People might already have child care and travel arrangements and the ideal situation would be for the person to return to their original employment. However, that is something which should be dealt with weeks before the person returns to work.

There is also the issue of financial implications. As there are two Departments involved, there will obviously be much negotiation between them. There will be the issue of employers having to recruit temporary replacement staff while the employee is on carer's leave. There might be difficulties for employers in that regard and that will require discussion and negotiation. Again, we will have to be on the side of the employee. It should be possible to resolve that difficulty for the employer.

Another matter of concern for employers is being given sufficient notice before an employee commences carer's leave. The Minister said the employee must be in continuous employment for at least 12 months. That might appear harsh but I presume the reason is to give the employer sufficient notice. However, there is also the situation where an employee might change employment. This is happening more frequently now. Employees frequently change employment in this era due to the myriad job opportunities which exist. Perhaps the Minister would consider reducing the 12 month qualifying period for those employees who wish to apply for leave.

Some carers may look after more than one person. The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs recognises this through the provision of an increased payment in such circumstances. However, the value for money being obtained must be borne in mind. The cost of nursing home care for two relatives would be significantly higher than that for one person and the carer's allowance should reflect the level of additional cost involved.

The legislation refers to circumstances in which an employer may refuse without reason to permit an employee to take carer's leave for a period of less than 13 weeks. IBEC has pointed to some difficulties in this regard. Conflict could arise between employees and employers and I would welcome some clarification from the Minister on the rationale behind this provision. I am sure most employers will facilitate employees in taking leave.

The question of what constitutes full time care and attention has been the subject of much discussion within the Department. Alarms, security pendants, telephones and other devices are now available to elderly people and it has been established that carers do not have to provide 24 hour care. Social welfare legislation provides for breaks for carers, to which they are properly entitled. It is important that the best use is made of new technologies for elderly people as they will also benefit the carers on leave from employment.

Mr. M. Brady:

I thank Deputy Kitt for sharing his time. I compliment the Minister and his officials for producing this timely, comprehensive and socially important Bill. The legislation is a further building block in the construction of a new Ireland as set out by this partnership Government in the programme agreed following the last general election. It also delivers on the promises made in the Fianna Fáil manifesto prior to that election and the Government's commitment to social partnership enshrined in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.

The Bill is an element in a wide-ranging and comprehensive Government plan to improve the conditions of carers who provide a vitally important social and community service to people who, through ill health or incapacitation, cannot take care of themselves. The Government has done much to improve financial and other supports for carers because it values the contribution they make to society. The Bill is a further Government measure to promote social inclusion among all walks of life, particularly disadvantaged categories.

In a society in which formal community and family support structures and values are declining, the Bill seeks to support and underpin the position of those who care for people who cannot care for themselves. The Government wishes to improve the quality of life for all citizens and will not allow itself to be deflected from this objective, certainly not by any trivial gossip. The Government has been repeatedly criticised, wrongly at times, for what is perceived as its obsession with reducing tax rates and a failure to spend money on health services, etc. The reduction of the tax burden on ordinary workers is completely justifiable as it allows them to retain an ever-increasing proportion of their income and spend it as they wish. It is vital that people are allowed to exercise freedom of choice in regard to the manner in which they spend their money. This Bill will allow people to leave work for a particular period of time to work as carers and to return to employment thereafter.

I am concerned by some of the Bill's provisions. Some companies offer share options to staff but, in certain cases, if an employee is not working on the day the deal is signed, he or she cannot participate in the ESOP. I am sure the Minister will tighten up any similar provisions in this Bill.

The lot of carers has significantly improved under this Government. Some 16,000 carers are currently in receipt of carer's allowance. In 1998, additional benefits such as free travel passes were provided through the budget for carers over 66 years. The 1999 budget provided free telephone rental to carers and the relaxation of the full-time care and attention rules permitted carer's allowance recipients to take up paid employment for up to ten hours per week. That budget also extended the allowance to carers caring for people between 16 and 65 years of age and to those caring for recipients of the domiciliary care allowance. It also provided a respite grant of £200. The respite grant was increased to £300 in the 2000 budget. A back to education allowance was also extended to carers whose caring responsibilities ceased. A carer's benefit scheme was introduced and a free electricity and telephone allowance was extended to all carers in receipt of the carer's allowance. The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs has commissioned a consultancy study on the financing of long-term care in an effort to shape future policy direction in this area.

The recent budget increased the carer's allowance by £10 for those over 66 years and by £8 for those under 66. The income disregard for the purpose of means assessment was increased from £75 to £150 for single people and from £125 to £250 for couples. Many carers welcomed that provision which they saw as an appreciation of their role. The respite care grant was further increased to £400 and two grants will now be paid to carers who look after two or more people. These are practical and caring measures and it is important that supports and benefits continue to be allocated to carers. With the increase in the nuclear family and the consequent fragmentation of the extended family with its traditional culture of care, more and more people, particularly those with duressed conditions, are being cared for in hospitals and nursing homes rather than in their homes as was referred to by Deputy M. Kitt earlier.

This places extra pressure on scarce facilities for which demand always exceeds supply. Many of the people receiving institutional care of one type or another would be perfectly capable of being cared for adequately in their homes. If a personal carer, either family or friend, was available to them, this would be the way to do it and it would take significant pressure off the system.

Arguably, many of them, if this were possible, would enjoy a better quality of life as well arising from being in their homes and receiving personal attention from a dedicated single individual. There is as much psychological as well as physical comfort to be derived from such an arrangement by those who are cared for. Additionally, an increase in the numbers of those personally cared for in their homes would free up the scarce beds in hospitals and other institutions for those for whom personal care is not an option. Ireland can only benefit socially and economically from an extension of arrangements like this.

This Bill is welcome as it enables those who wish to care for designated persons in need of care for an extended period while retaining the comfort and security of knowing their jobs, referred to earlier, will be there for them when they return from completion of their period of caring. The legal employment protection conferred on employees under the Bill strikes a fair balance between the needs of the individual, the employer and society. I have read that and there is no need for any of those parties to worry about it.

It could be argued that the protection placed increased burdens, as Deputy Currie referred to them, on the employer in a tightening labour market. I am sure, however, that the Minister of State will examine the points made and that they will be rectified.

I congratulate the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Kitt, and his officials once again for a job well done. I commend this Bill to the House.

Mr. Belton:

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I congratulate the Minister of State on his efforts to face a significant problem and a real life situation. Most representatives in the House will agree that some of the hardest things they hear in their clinics and so on are from people in the business of caring for a relative.

It is not easy, most of the time, to care for someone that needs care. It is an emotional and stressful time. When we speak in terms of the Celtic tiger and so on, it often strikes me, and I am sure it occurs to the Minister of State and everyone else concerned, that it means little to these people. The problems they must face, sometimes on a 24 hour basis, day in, day out, are such that they feel frustrated and left out of this world of great development and economic figures and so forth.

While this Bill is welcome in the sense that someone in employment wants to take time off and that this must be put into legislation for that situation to happen from the employee's point of view, it highlights again that the area of carers and caring is one of the major issues in society today. Much has been done in the recent past but overall a substantial amount must still be done. Allowing someone to take time out from their permanent employment recognises that, not alone is the person that needs to be cared for an immediate problem, but that the carer has taken this necessary decision to take time out.

One of the toughest problems we must deal with is that of a person in receipt of social welfare benefit who is also a carer. The social welfare benefit of which they are in receipt immediately rules them out of entitlement to carer's benefit. That is an outrageous situation.

It is a cop-out by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs in the sense that a person is getting a benefit or a pension and that that is it. If that person wants to care for someone it is up to them after that, for, as far as the Department is concerned, they are in receipt of a benefit from that Department in their own right, whether they care or not. Immediately, once they care for someone they are ruled out of an entitlement to carer's allowance.

Some extensions, until 1 April, are in vogue to broaden the income limits for carers. This is welcome but when one examines the overall situation it becomes clear that this is not really known. Most people agree that over 100,000 people are carers. When one goes down the list one reaches the figure of approximately 15,000 people who are in receipt of carer's allowance. Of that 15,000, approximately half are on the full allowance.

While the overall situation is recognised, I hope the Government, in whatever time it has left, will pursue and complete the situation as regards giving every help and recognition to the carer. Nothing in health care is more important than helping, recognising and subsidising – which is more important again – that situation where a person cares for someone in their home on a full-time basis and that the carer feels the State indicates that it is thankful, that they do a good job and that it cares about carers. Who, however, really cares about the carers? That is the important situation.

Again, the technicalities of this Bill will be teased out on other Stages. It is a recognition of the overall situation and of the ongoing problem in health care, care for the elderly and carers for people with disability. That is also an important aspect.

I again compliment the Minister of State for introducing the Bill. I emphasise that it is important for the Government to recognise in real terms the plight of carers.

Mr. Collins:

With your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I would like to share my time with Deputy Noel Ahern.

I too, compliment the Minister and welcome the Bill. Since this Government came to office in July 1997 it has prioritised the needs of the less well off and disadvantaged in our society at every opportunity. While there has been much economic progress in recent years, there is a moral and legal obligation on legislators to help those who do not have broader opportunities in our society. This Government has brought about the largest and most substantial changes in our social welfare code in modern history.

The largest increase in social welfare benefits in the history of the State was announced by the Government in the budget of December last. Increased moneys are now being allocated across a range of social welfare initiatives and programmes. I support this policy. We must continue to increase social welfare payments on an ongoing basis.

I will recall briefly the key changes in our social welfare system which were announced in the recent budget. These included an expansion of the free schemes programme; improved support for our children by increasing the level of child benefit; an expansion of the free medical card holders scheme; lowering the higher and lower rates of income tax; widening tax bands to further reduce the level of income tax that has to be paid by PAYE and self-employed workers; a weekly increase for pensioners aged 66 or over; disability benefit has been increased by £8 per week for a single person and £15 for a couple; tax relief is now also available to an individual in respect of medical expenses incurred on behalf of a dependent relative; and there will be increased financial support for new nursing homes.

I welcome the extension of the free schemes programme, which includes electricity and gas allowances, a television allowance and a telephone allowance, to all persons over 70 regardless of their income or who lives with them. I also welcome the fact that the entitlement to a medical card has been extended to all people over the age of 70. These are extremely innovative and constructive changes in our social welfare code as medical costs increase as people grow older.

From the perspective of my constituency, I have held extensive discussions with the Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, and with the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, and his predecessor, Deputy Cowen, on the need to secure greater financial resources for St. Ita's Hospital in Newcastlewest.

Mr. Deenihan:

Hear, hear.

Mr. Collins:

I organised a recent visit by the Taoiseach and both Ministers to meet officials, administrators and patients at the hospital. I am confident that increased moneys will be made available to St. Ita's Hospital in the near future.

I am also in contact with the administrators of the hospital and the Mid-Western Health Board to ensure that the new unit for the elderly infirm at St. Ita's Hospital is constructed as a matter of urgency. This will improve the quality of care for elderly infirm people who will be patients in this hospital. The Government has allocated £550,000 for the construction of this unit.

All employees will be better off when the budget 2000 tax measures come into effect from April of this year. PAYE taxpayers, particularly from the lower and middle income earning brackets, will be the primary beneficiaries of the income tax changes announced recently. The budget 2000 income tax changes will mean a significant improvement in the take-home pay of all employees. A married couple earning £20,000 per year will now gain up to £71 per month in take home pay. A married couple earning £25,000 will gain up to £86 per month in take home pay.

The Carer's Leave Bill currently before the House for our consideration and for which I have commended the Minister is an intrinsic element of the Government's Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. It is designed to give effect to a carer's benefit payment and a parallel rise in carer's leave. This is part of the ongoing Government programme to bring forward new measures to help the less well off in our community. The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for a new entitlement for employees to avail of temporary unpaid carer's leave to enable them to care personally for a person who requires full time care and attention.

Since this Government came to power, it has focused on the need to give greater financial support to carers who play such an important role in caring for those who are unable to care for themselves. In the budget of December last year, it was announced that there would be a change in the means test for the carer's allowance which will ensure 5,000 extra carers will qualify for this benefit. The annual respite care grant is also to be increased by £100 to £400. Carers who are looking after more than one person will receive a respite care grant of £800. That tax relief will now be available to an individual in respect of medical expenses incurred on behalf of a dependent relative will also help reduce financial outlays committed by carers on a weekly basis.

Carer's leave is reckonable for the purposes of employment rights other than superannuation and certain public holidays. Disputes about certain entitlements under the Bill are in general referable to rights commissioners with the right of appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Issues arising in relation to this matter will focus on whether a person in respect of whose care the leave is taken is a relevant person to benefit from the provisions of the Bill and whether an employee is providing the full time care and attention as required by the Bill.

Under section 9, at least six weeks prior notice in writing is required from the employee to the employer outlining his or her notice of intention to avail of the entitlement to carer's leave. The terms of leave will be constituted in a document which is known as a confirmation document. Generally the leave terminates on the date specified in this confirmation document. The leave may also terminate on another date specified in the agreement between the employee and the employer concerned.

Part III of the Bill deals with employment rights for the employee on carer's leave. Section 13 states that an employee on carer's leave will be treated as if he or she had not been absent so that all of his or her employment rights will be unaffected during the leave. A period of probation or apprenticeship may be suspended during the carer's leave if the employer considers that its continuation would not be consistent with the carer's leave. Periods of carer's leave are not to be reckonable as any other type of leave.

Mr. N. Ahern:

It is good to see legislation like this before the House which gives a legal right to employees to take time off although, as public representatives, we probably deal more with the carer's benefit in our constituencies rather than the legal right. Up to now, when sickness hit a family, the person had to depend on the good will of the employer to co-operate with time off or whatever. Some employers would have been helpful, others would not and a formal right in legislation for employees is welcome.

Society has changed. People always looked after those who were ill in their families. Those people do a great service. Traditionally, that care was given by more women than men who took on the responsibility and the work but now that more people work outside the home, there is a need for such legislation because in many homes there is no one to provide the support when problems arise in the house.

In some respects my comments will be similar to those of other speakers who referred to carer's benefit as well as carer's leave because they are intertwined. The payments are not great and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs should have been more innovative when introducing these schemes and offered optional extras. For example, a parliamentary question tabled last year suggested that an additional 0.1% or 0.01% in PRSI would give up to £100 extra in widow's pension to women who find themselves in this unfortunate position. The same case can be made for those in receipt of carer's benefit. I do not know why the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs has not been more innovative and offered employees the option to pay an additional 0.1% or 0.01% in PRSI in case they need £50 or £100 in carer's benefit in ten, 15 or 20 years. If employees were given this option I believe they would take it up.

The Bill provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the leave will terminate when the employee ceases to personally provide the full time care and attention to the relevant person. Many sick people who are cared for at home may need to go into respite care or hospital for a month or six weeks. I hope confusion does not arise in this regard. It is simple enough if a person receives respite care for a week but in some instances the case may be complicated and the period may be longer. I hope this is covered in the Bill.

The Bill provides that the employee must be in continuous employment for 12 months. Why is this the case? The two Departments are trying to align their schemes but this provision seems to have been copied from the rules governing some other social welfare benefit. If I was an employer I would be much more worried about giving leave to a person who had worked for me for ten years than I would be about giving leave to a person who had worked for me for six months. A person who has worked for a company for six months is not an integral part of it and his absence would not have an earth shattering effect on operations, whereas the absence of a person who has worked for a company for a longer period would upset the employer and affect operations. This provision was probably suggested by IBEC but I wonder if it is necessary as giving leave to such people would not be a problem for an employer.

Why is it proposed that only one employee may be on carer's leave in respect of the person being cared for at any one time? This is daft. The carer's scheme may have gone off the rails in some respects. Some people are receiving £80 or £90 in carer's allowance under what I would term the rent a granny scheme. These people care for their grandmothers at home but in most cases they do not need care and would be living at home in any event. We all know of cases involving seriously ill people who need 24 hour care. If the health board was involved there would be four carers working eight hour shifts. In cases where people are seriously ill I fail to see why two members of a family cannot be allowed to take leave so that one could do the day shift and the other could do the night shift. I am talking about cases where there is a major medical need and not about what I flippantly referred to as the rent a granny scheme. Given that the average industrial wage is £300 nobody will look for leave or apply for carer's benefit of £80 per week for the fun of it. They will look for leave only when there is a severe and immediate need at home and they believe the care, love and attention they can give to a loved one is better than what they will receive in an institution. The people who work as carers are doing society and the State a favour; they are not spongers. If they walked away from their responsibilities it would cost the State much more to look after them in an institution. I hope this provision is changed so that people who are critically ill and need 24 hour care receive it and that more than one member of a family may take carer's leave to look after them.

I am worried about the provision which will enable an employer to refuse, without reason, to permit an employee to take carer's leave for a period of less than 13 weeks. I would like to see this provision watered down. The logic in having such legislation is because some employers are not reasonable and will not play ball with their employees. There may be other provisions which are not as stark as this one and which provide for exceptions. I do not understand why a person who has taken leave to look after one parent must have returned to work for 12 months before he take leave to look after his other parent. This is a bureaucratic decision, wherever it came from. In some cases couples can get sick at the same time and die within a short period of each other. It could very easily happen that a person who had taken carer's leave for 65 weeks to look after one parent may need to take additional leave because his or her other parent does not have the will to live and becomes sick very quickly. I fail to see why this provision is being included as it might be better from an employer's point of view if an employee took a second period of leave fairly quickly after returning to work rather than waiting for 12 months when he or she has become an integral part of the company. I do not pretend to have an insight into the mind of IBEC but I find it difficult to believe that this proposal was put forward by an employer's group.

I am also concerned about the provision under which six weeks notice must be given. People do not get sick to order. Many of the people who avail of carer's leave have had an ill parent at home for a long time and have been managing and getting by. Then in a crisis the parent goes into hospital for a spell and is then deemed well enough to go home. That constitutes the crisis which is not something that has happened overnight but has been happening slowly for a while. I understand, too, that an employer needs time to organise things and replace the employee.

Generally the legislation is very welcome. It is necessary. If one could rely on employers being sensible, it would not be needed. There are a few aspects of it which I would like to see sharpened up. I hope that will happen on Committee Stage.

Mr. Deenihan:

I propose to share my time with Deputy Finucane.

This Bill gives us the opportunity to look at the issue of carers. I compliment the Minister on bringing forward this innovative Bill. It is unique as there are no similar models in the rest of Europe, and Ireland might be leading the way in this whole area.

The recognition of the importance of carers here is a new phenomenon. For years the work of carers and their commitment to family members went unrecognised. People were expected to do it and it was taken for granted. Now, at last, society is recognising this work and Governments are recognising that carers must be rewarded and supported for very good economic reasons as well as for social reasons. It is estimated that there are about 200,000 family carers in Ireland at the moment and these figures vary as well. Of these, it is estimated that between 12,000 and 16,000 receive a carer's allowance. In his budget speech the Minister for Finance said that provision for a new means test would bring 5,000 more carers into the net, but that means there will still be a large number of people caring for family members and relatives and, in some cases, non-relatives, who will not receive any benefit from the State.

An issue that increasingly comes to my attention is that of respite for carers. Somebody who is house-bound for whole days with an Alzheimer's patient who requires constant care needs a break occasionally. At the moment there is no provision to allow people to take a break just to relax and re-energise themselves. This is serious because looking after someone who has Alzheimer's is very demanding on the person who is doing the caring because the person who has Alzheimer's requires constant care and attention, especially if they are mobile. In such cases, there should be provision in the system to allow the carer to get a break.

The National Carer's Association is becoming more effective as a lobbying group. It needs more funding at national level to develop a network of carers' resource centres across the country. Where such centres are in existence and are well funded, they are very effective. However, large areas of the country are without carers' resource centres, and funding should be provided, through the National Carer's Association in co-operation with the health boards, to set up such centres.

The contribution of carers to our society is now being recognised and this Bill is a response to that. This Bill is very important from a rural perspective. A large number of people working in Dublin come from rural areas. They include both single people and those with families in Dublin. Some of them have left a parent at home and they are continuously under pressure to get back at weekends to care for them. I am aware of a number of single people who come back to various villages and rural areas in my constituency every weekend to care for an old person. While the benefit provided for in this Bill is not adequate, it at least allows them take a break from work to care for their elderly parent, and now that it exists it can be improved upon. People can be happy they at least made the effort to help a mother or a father. If they can spend that year with them it might prepare them to go into residential care because the parent would see the great sacrifice being made on their behalf and might consent to go willingly into residential care. There are people who just do not want to leave their own hearth and look on it as the last step if they have to do so. This Bill will facilitate the transition and encourage a change in the attitude of old people to the prospect of moving from their house. In that sense the Bill is very important.

A number of speakers mentioned the saving to the State. Alzheimer's residential care centres charge up to £350 a week. They need that amount of money in order to provide adequate staffing and to care properly for these patients. When one compares the benefit in question, which is £96, and the cost of keeping somebody in residential care, the saving to the State is considerable. The case for increasing the benefit has been made by other speakers.

A number of studies reported recently in The Irish Times show that, despite the efforts being made and which I welcome, large numbers of people receive inadequate services. One study by the National Council on Ageing and Old People, which was launched last December, stated that there are about 32,000 people suffering from dementia and their carers get little help from the social services. It warns that although old people want to stay at home, the failure to provide an effective community care system means that more and more people are going into nursing homes. If there were more care workers, including nurses and other support services, working in the community fewer people would be in nursing homes. The study outlined that there are an estimated 97,000 households where a carer looks after a person aged 65 or older and these carers are mainly women. This area poses a major challenge to Government. We will have an ageing society and that will demand a response from Government.

Mr. Finucane:

I welcome the Bill which is a step in the right direction. The emphasis on care is extremely important. As Deputy Deenihan said, with an ageing population there will be much more pressure on our systems. In many cases people will be cared for at home. That is the ideal response.

The recent budget relaxed the means test for carer's allowance to some extent. It was envisaged that an additional 5,000 people would be eligible for carer's allowance. There is a rigidity to the means test which sometimes is not sensitive to the applicant's circumstances. For example, a person with a severely mentally handicapped young child is eligible for a domicilary care allowance of £114 per month, that is about £26 per week. In many cases, in order to look after the child, the carer gives up his or her job. The concept of individualisation and giving extra rewards to people who are at work compared to those who stay at home was introduced in the previous budget. People in that position have no choice other than to give up their job because they love their child so much they want to give full-time care to the child. A system that does not allow flexibility to respond to such a case is most unjust.

The health boards should respond to cases. I was approached this week by a young woman who is trying to look after three young children. Her elderly parents came from another county to live with her. One is aged 87, the other 83. She is trying to maintain and care for them. They are not in good health. She wishes to look after them in her own home. She wants to get a hoist from the health board but it could take a considerable time before she receives it. If such people had to be cared for by the State it would be far more costly. This person is not eligible for carer's allowance because of the means test but we should be able to respond to such cases by at least giving carers whatever they require to assist them.

Deputy Collins referred to Alzheimer's disease and St. Ita's Hospital, Newcastlewest. I live in Newcastlewest and am aware of the tremendous work that is done there. We had three tours recently, to the facility in St. Ita's Hospital, Newcastlewest – one by Deputy Cowen when he was Minister for Health, one by the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, and one by the Taoiseach. The Government is conscious of the facilities there. The hospital has been looking for a new Alzheimer's unit for some considerable time. Perhaps a positive response will be forthcoming when an election is imminent. There is a great advantage in being from a marginal constituency – there will be many grand tours by Ministers, Ministers of State and the Taoiseach. We are probably unique in west Limerick in having three senior Government people visit this facility. However, the time for visiting is over. Now is the time for action. The design tender is with the Department of Health and Children. It must respond and provide the finance to let us get on with building the facility. At the end of the day, we cannot have the position, as exists at St. Ita's Hospital, where there is a dedicated Alzheimer's unit yet many other patients are locked in to cater for others who suffer from Alzheimer's disease.

Look at the Jack & Jill Foundation and the work it does for people with serious handicap, those with multiple sclerosis and so on. The health board will say that a person has a long-term illness card but must pay for doctors' visits and so on because the family does not satisfy the means test. I wonder at the degree of rigidity and inflexibility that exists. Is there a lack of awareness of the great work that is done by those caring for others at home, be it elderly or young people? Such carers are unsung heroes. This hideous means testing debars many people for consideration for carer's allowance.

We do not have an effective community care system. In areas where there is a home help system in operation, the number of hours is limited to two, three or ten as the case may be. The home help organiser operates within a budget and has limited flexibility regarding the number of hours she can offer to people living on their own who wish to avail of the service. At the same time we see phenomenal layers of administration and bureaucracy in health boards. It is time to have a root and branch review of the health care system to ensure that we respond to the needs at the coal face. That is not the case at present. We do not only need to talk about waiting lists, patients waiting on trolleys and all the other difficulties but about the community care aspect and what can be done to respond to cases where people are being looked after in their homes. Those who respond with love, dedication and commitment to looking after people in a home environment get very little support from the State. There is a time for flexibility. I have cited some cases but every other Deputy could give examples of where a response should be given.

Ireland has changed dramatically recently. We have what could be regarded as full employment. In many instances there is no longer the extended family and there is pressure on the system. There has been a growth in nursing homes. It is my understanding, although it has not yet been clarified by the Department of Health and Children to the health boards, there was funding in the budget to increase the subvention to private nursing homes. My local health board has told me it may be introduced on 1 April and that the three different subvention levels will be increased by about 25%. It is imperative that the Department of Health and Children make an announcement now that the nursing home subvention rates will be increased. Many people are put to the pin of their collar to pay the differential between the present subvention rate and the private nursing home charge. It is important that people know the level of subvention has been increased. That would help in filling the gap between what they are paying and what the nursing home is charging.

Mr. B. Smith:

I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, and his officials on introducing this important and progressive Bill. For 70 years Fianna Fáil has been at the forefront of introducing pragmatic and progressive social legislation and this Bill fits into that category very well.

For a long time since the foundation of the State our nation was beset by poverty and we were not able to pay for all we wanted for our people. However, lack of financial resources was never seen as a sufficient excuse to deny assistance to those in the community who needed it most. It is surely fitting that at a time when the country enjoys an unprecedented level of economic success, Fianna Fáil retains its commitment to social legislation by aiming to use our wealth to help those who are sick, old, disabled or unable to enjoy the fruits of prosperity.

It is also fitting and appropriate to seek to reward all those who wish to provide care and from that commitment the decision to institute a carer's benefit scheme arose. Such a scheme is worthy and long-awaited. There are many people in our community who have contributed over the years to building today's society. Age and hardship have taken a heavy toll on many of them, necessitating constant or near constant care. Similarly, a disabled person may need constant attention. In other cases there may not be a permanent need for constant care. For example, a serious accident or bout of illness may lead to temporary incapacity which, when followed by a sufficient period of convalescence combined with care, will allow the person to look after themselves again or at least not need constant care.

All current medical thinking favours the ideas of supporting care outside medical institutions and of promoting care within the community. That can be done most effectively in a home setting. Hospitals must and should be resorted to when the need arises but in many instances an adequate standard of non-medical care can be provided outside a hospital setting, often in a person's own home, where a person feels happier and more content.

The introduction of the carer's benefit scheme, a laudable innovation in itself, has led to this Bill. We are fortunate as a generation to live at a time when the workforce has grown at an unprecedented rate and the financial inducements to those wishing to make a living outside the home are so tempting. The Government has shown its commitment to family-friendly legislation, especially in the area of employment, where there is a constant need to retain and, where possible, nurture a balance between the demands of the workforce and the needs of home. There can hardly be a more pressing concern than that of a close family member, parent or child, who needs to be looked after constantly. All Members know of people who have given up employment permanently to look after an infirm or disabled relative. This has always been a great sacrifice and often went unrewarded or under-rewarded. A person lucky enough to be in the right profession might get a pension, yet even in this scenario the person making the sacrifice probably turned his or her back on promotional outlets and better pay.

Legislation was needed to complement the carer's benefit scheme, which sought to assist and reward those who make such an important and worthwhile gesture but who naturally wish to return to the workforce at the end of the 65 weeks period for which the benefit is paid. This Bill gives legal protection to the employee's right to leave but more importantly, it cements the employee's right to return to a job as he or she left it, as far as possible. In short, the status of an employee who has the desire and compassion to take leave in order to provide for the needs of a person, probably a close relative, will be no different from those of his or her colleagues who remain in employment.

The Bill contains some very sensitive provisions. Section 11 provides that the person being granted leave may continue that leave for six weeks after the death of the person for whom they were caring. This is an exceptionally humane measure, particularly when the subject of care may have been a parent or child. It recognises not only the practical aspects of mourning but also the psychological elements of personal loss and must be welcomed by society.

Another example of the Bill's realism and pragmatism is the provision allowing the carer to engage in limited self-employment or education while receiving benefit; it would be rare for even the most dedicated carer to be expected or physically able to provide assistance for 24 hours of every day. Also, the carer's entitlement for payment for 65 weeks will continue even if the subject of care changes to another person. An example would be if the person being cared for dies and a close relative or spouse needs assistance.

The legislation provides some very effective guarantees for workers who take carer's leave. We are constantly told that we live in a fast-changing world, so it is probable that the type of work performed by an employee prior to their departure on carer's leave will have changed when they return. Section 15 provides that when this happens, the employee is to be offered work as similar in nature to their previous type and conditions of employment as possible.

This Bill has emerged from the spirit and policy of partnership which has been the cornerstone of this and previous Governments' economic and social policies. Its provisions have been worked out with both unions and employers' organisations. Both sectors are supportive of its aims, provisions and objectives. It is possible that a rogue employer might try to penalise an employee contemplating taking carer's leave through redundancy, downgrading of employment or the threat of either or both. I am glad the Minister of State has provided for this and that employees' rights to protection against this are clearly spelt out. Furthermore, carer's leave will not be confused with the employee's rights and entitlements to other forms of leave. Where a dispute emerges between an employee and a boss concerning carer's leave, the employee will have a right of appeal to a rights commissioner and, ultimately, to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The legislation aims to safeguard the rights of those in employment who want to avail of the carer's benefit scheme while ensuring the system is not abused and that the rights of the employer are not taken for granted. Rogue type employers are an unrepresentative group. The response of the vast majority of employers to employees seeking carer's leave is one of understanding and sympathy. As a result of the slight delay in the introduction of the carer's benefit scheme and the passing of the legislation on carer's leave, it is noteworthy that quite a number of applications for leave have already been submitted, the vast majority of which have been handled with pragmatism by individual employers. Far from wishing to interfere or curtail the right of an employee concerning carer's leave, it is realised in the legislation that employers may want to go beyond the provisions available, say, in the amount of leave they may wish to give to their employees.

This Bill was prompted by the introduction of the carer's benefit scheme, but it should be seen as far more than a mere legal appendage for it introduces the right of employees to carer's leave independent of the carer's benefit scheme. If an employee does not qualify for the payment for whatever reason, he or she is still entitled to take the stipulated 65 weeks' leave in order to provide constant care for a person found to be in need of it by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. That person's employer is not bound to pay the employee during that time, but the employee is entitled to re-enter the workforce in his or her former place of employment with the same rights as a person who has received payment of the benefit.

This legislation establishes important rights for people in employment who want to help those less fortunate than themselves. It continues a fine Irish tradition of seeking to help people who make such important sacrifices. The benefits of this legislation will be felt for many years by all those who are able to avail of the help, companionship and care perhaps of a relative or close friend. For them the very existence of somebody on whom they know they can rely is invaluable.

This Bill demonstrates that prosperity as a nation can be combined effectively with continued humanity and the introduction of further progressive social legislation, particularly to help the less well off and those in ill health.

During the lifetime of the previous Dáil, the Acting Chairman chaired the family affairs committee which produced a valuable report under his guidance. That report called for the introduction of many of the measures that have been introduced by the Government by way of this legislation introduced by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, by a number of measures introduced by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Ahern, and the Minister for Health and Children.

Deputy Finucane rightly called for further improvements in regard to income, particularly income disregards in the means test for the carer's allowance. I hope those income disregards can be progressively improved over the next few years.

I congratulate the Minister of State on introducing this important legislation.

Mr. Killeen:

I wish to share my time with Deputy Pat Carey.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGrath):

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Killeen:

I welcome the Bill. It is a wonder ful provision that a maximum of 15 months' leave would be available for carers. It is a recognition of the wonderful and unsung work that has been done by so many carers over many generations. Perhaps that work comes more to attention in some respects in an era when there is so much pressure on people to work outside the home, so many other demands on people's time and a different ethos in relation to how people want to conduct their lives. Much of that is welcome and a good deal of it is positive, but there are some negative aspects. It is extremely important that every attempt should be made by the State as a player to balance the needs of the workplace with those of individuals and their families. Every Deputy will have come into contact with families who have suffered enormously as a result of the burden of caring. In the majority of the cases I have dealt with, people who have undertaken the role of caring have done so in a great spirit of life and ability and not in a complaining, negative manner. That is one of the great aspects of caring in a family situation or in a professional milieu, which is not always adverted to and it is very seldom credited to people that they undertake the work with such a great spirit.

This legislation is greatly important to many people. It is long past time recognition was given to the provision of the option of having leave from work to undertake the difficult but wonderful work in human terms of caring for another human being in need. Only in recent years have we come to recognise formally and in a meaningful way how that impacts on people's lives, the role of carers and the need to make monetary and other provisions to ease the caring burden on families.

As some previous speakers said, the Carers' Association has become a good deal more active, politically vocal and critical of many of us. Some of them might think we would look askance and unwelcomely on that, but the opposite is the case. The case it makes is one that needs to be made by people who have experience of being carers, as many of us have not had personal experience in our families of being in a caring situation.

I am almost afraid to mention the range of people involved, as in trying to refer to some I would inevitably omit some categories of carers and categories of people in need of caring.

In every community there are MS suffers, who are frequently young people. I mention young people, not to divert attention from the needs of elderly people but to draw attention to the fact that generally speaking we have talked about carers in the context of their caring for older people, but that is changing rapidly. That is partly due to diseases, such as Alzheimer's and MS, that appear to be more prevalent than they were in younger age groups and partly due to the large number of those involved in accidents, particularly road accidents.

I dealt with a case recently of a husband, a farmer, who has cared for his wife, an MS suffer, for more than 20 years and he has also had to do his work during that time. The introduction of a few minor measures could address some of that family's difficulties The means test, as it stands, has an absolute disregard for those caring for chronically ill people. I appreciate there are costs involved in extending it but surely it would be possible to extend the limits for those caring for people in need of 24 hour care. In the case to which I referred, the cost of homeopathic drugs, which are not covered under the medical card scheme, is about £75 a month. It is one of the minor matters that could be addressed, that would ease the burden on that family, although there are other major elements to their burden which would be difficult to address. Some respite care would also be of assistance in that regard.

I am aware of another case where a young father in his 30s is an MS sufferer, his illness is at such an advanced stage he cannot be cared for in the home and is being looked after in a nursing home for the elderly. I have no doubt that, with the will and a little financial expenditure, provision could be made for a person such as him to spend a considerable period at home, perhaps even most of his time, with some care elsewhere. I have experience of people who are victims of accidents. I have amassed a great deal of information over the past two years about people to whom I did not advert in the past in terms of the poor provision for individuals who are victims particularly of brain injuries and of other physical injuries arising from accidents. Tremendous work is being done in that regard.

I recently received figures from one of the associations involved regarding the total number of people admitted to hospitals with head injuries over the past five or six years. In each year, the total is in excess of 10,000 people. Not all of those individuals will end up with chronic long-term brain damage or be unable to participate fully in society. However, that will happen to a percentage of them and there is a need for a range of services for them. Almost 70% of them are young males aged between 17 and 25 years. This huge number of people all have a normal life expectancy and they will need to be cared for over a long period. Sadly, due to road accidents, this number is increasing rapidly.

A number of organisations have been active in this area and I thank the Minister, Deputy Martin, and the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt, for the enormous help they have given particularly regarding the millennium grant towards the provision of a hostel adjoining the national rehabilitation hospital in Dun Laoghaire. This will be of enormous assistance to families who suffer as associates and relatives of those who have been injured. Tremendous progress is being made, but occasionally one cannot help but feel that it needs a better direction and a handle put on it to ensure all the agencies and Departments work together.

I appreciate that the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, has particular responsibility in the area dealt with in the Bill. However, it extends over so many areas that one needs to draw attention to the fact that other agencies are working in a similar and related field. Perhaps one of the great aspects of the Bill is that the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, has recognised the needs of people in an area which, in many respects, is different from his area of responsibility. I welcome this and we should be open to the experiences of people in other jurisdictions. In that regard, the practices-challenge-respond initiative is under way in Northern Ireland and people are seeking to bring it to the Republic in the area of support services, particularly accommodation. They have a wonderful record abroad and they have offered their expertise to various Departments and agencies in this country. I am glad the Department of the Environment and Local Government and others have taken note of what these people are prepared to do.

We must accept that we depend hugely on the willingness and capacity of individuals within families to take on a caring role. We need to support them, as is the case in the Bill, but we must also recognise that sometimes the job is too big. Occasionally there is a need for respite care and outside support. There is a need for a national network of agencies which help people with regard to respite care and occasionally long-term domicillary care. We are heading in the right direction, but carers need us to move more quickly.

Mr. P. Carey:

We have moved from a state where the pitch was abandoned to a situation where there is an invasion of the pitch.

Mr. Creed:

We might need to call a few more.

Mr. Penrose:

They are all sturdy players.

Mr. P. Carey:

They are tried and trusted. I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Bill. It is welcome legislation and I compliment the Minister and his Department on its introduction. It has been said that it is unique in Europe. There are times when we are lectured by our colleagues in the European Union about the need to take directives on board. As a member of the Committee on European Affairs, a fortnight rarely goes by without us being handed down various diktats from Europe. Perhaps Europe could learn from us in this area.

There are various measures regarding parental leave, maternity leave and the national minimum wage in addition to the proposed legislation on the protection of part-time employees. This body of legislation is a product of the consensus – some might say it is unwelcome – that exists between the social partners, voluntary organisations, etc. Much of the debate on this welcome legislation has centred on the social welfare provisions with regard to carers. Over the years, thousands of people throughout the country have, in the spirit of neighbourliness, friendship and family, worked voluntarily without any recognit ion or assistance. In recent years, the boundaries have been pushed out in terms of recognising such people in the social welfare code. Measures such as the increase in the respite care grant, back to education opportunities and other allowances are extremely important and make a huge difference.

One aspect of the Bill concerns me – my colleague from Dublin North West also adverted to it – and this is the requirement that six weeks notice must be given when an employee is making an application for leave from an employer. As Deputy Noel Ahern said, people do not get sick to order. Will the Minister reconsider this matter in conjunction with IBEC, which, I presume, is driving this proposal? I hope it is being driven to a lesser extent by the trade unions. Perhaps a greater degree of flexibility could be introduced into the measure. I understand where the six week requirement might prevail in a large operation, but it might be possible, in circumstances where there is a good working relationship in a small company in a town or city between an employer and an employee, to reconsider how the application for leave might be processed more quickly.

The Minister mentioned medical certification and it is included in the explanatory memorandum. However, I am concerned about this matter and I hope it can be streamlined. There is a danger that good legislation can be stymied by bureaucrats. We are all aware of cases where matters are referred to a deciding officer under an appeals system. However, cases can be kicked around and this type of legislation could land in the lap of the Ombudsman very quickly. In many cases people must take leave to look after a person who suddenly becomes ill. I am aware of a case involving a young man who is suffering from MS – he tells me he is the youngest patient in Europe with the disease.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. P. Carey:

The MS sufferer who was recently diagnosed, to whom I adverted, is only 25 years of age. His carers in the family will undoubtedly require several extended periods of leave. Perhaps as the use of the legislation evolves, there may be a need to amend it to take account of such cases.

When people must take leave from work to look after one parent, often the second parent subsequently loses the will to live and the period of 12 months has not passed before the second parent requires assistance. That is another aspect of the Bill which needs to be looked at. Perhaps the flexibility to which the Minister referred in this speech may take account of that.

There was a reference to the great work done by the Carer's Association. There is no doubt but that it is provoking further progress in the area of caring. At long last it is being recognised that there is a need across a range of Departments for a greater level of interventions. To a certain extent, some Departments are more ready to respond than others. I laud, as I have done several times, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs for the way it has adapted and now the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is doing so through this legislation. However, there are Departments, such as the Department of the Environment and Local Government, as illustrated in the way the disabled person's grant scheme is devolved down to local authorities, which are not as flexible or as responsive as they ought to be. I recognise that the maximum grant was increased in this year's budget but building costs have increased astronomically. Whereas building costs vary in different parts, in the Dublin area where I am based it is now impossible to get a house extension built for a disabled person for less than about £35,000. That is an area which Government needs to look at.

There are other small aids like smoke alarms, intruder alarms, bus passes, etc., which we need to look at providing as of right, to carers and people who are being cared for. We sometimes are inclined to think that we can pigeonhole all these issues and that we will be hunky-dory if there is an annual incremental increase in each budget.

The means test is a contentious issue. The case of the Carer's Association in that regard has been well made and I am satisfied that the Government's commitment is evident in the way it has expanded it.

I welcome the Bill. It is an enormous step forward in the area of employee legislation. It is enlightened. It is innovative. I hope it will be implemented in the spirit intended by the Minister. Since it arises out of social partnership, there is a better chance of that happening. I would ask the Minister to look at the two points of concern to me: the requirement to give six weeks notice to apply for leave; and the length of time which must elapse before one may apply for a second period of leave. Apart from those two reservations, I am very happy with the Bill and commend it.

Mr. Penrose:

I am glad to get an opportunity to contribute to this important debate. While I welcome the Carer's Leave Bill, I am somewhat disappointed by the restrictive nature of it, which will present difficulties for many carers who would like to take time out to look after their relatives who are seriously ill. Deputies Carey, Killeen and others referred to that here, and my colleague, Deputy Broughan, the Labour Party spokesperson, referred to it yesterday.

We will seek to have the Bill significantly amended on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, who is a country person, will see to it that some of the amendments which I, and I am sure Deputy McGrath and others will table, will not be taken in a spirit of begrudgery but seen as attempts to enlighten the Bill and ensure that the welcome thrust of the Bill is achieved as we all hope. We have well founded concerns which have been set out here by other speakers and I hope the Minister of State will engage in that process in a spirit of openness and embrace the amendments put forward.

It would be remiss of me not to refer to the carer's benefit, which was introduced in the Social Welfare Bill, 2000, and which came into effect last October. Recent figures indicated that the uptake of it has been abysmally slow. While one welcomes these measures and initiatives, if they are not being availed of, something must be wrong. Perhaps the time lag between the introduction of the carer's benefit and this Bill has something to do with this poor take-up. Up to mid-December, only a dozen out of 75 to 80 people whose cases were with the Department had availed of it. That is very low. While all parties in the Dáil promote legislation as stridently and stringently as they can, it is important we make progress and that we do not introduce legislation which does not have a positive impact upon people's lives, especially those involved in the caring profession and who care on a 24 hour, seven day a week basis.

I cannot let this opportunity pass, and I am sure, neither will my colleague, Deputy McGrath, without reflecting the concern of carers who have been neglected by the Government. The Government is tinkering at the edges of the carer's allowance and let no one resile from that fact. It is a way of saying that we will let another 5,000 or 6,000 through the eligibility trapdoor this year but that we will not let anyone go further. There have been no real benefits for carers and I will elucidate on that point later.

We know from carers and their representative bodies that there is acute and palpable disappointment at the failure of the Government to address the real issues, concerns and needs of those carers who perform tremendous work. We all laud the work and that is part of the problem. We may laud it, but it is the action that counts. We are supposed to be a cash rich society, which is illusory for the most part for the great bulk of people. There is a point blank refusal to give this group, which comprises the unsung heroes in society, the acknowledgement and, more importantly, the recognition it deserves. As my colleague, Deputy Broughan, already said, caring is a universal experience. We have all been cared for at some point and some of us will have to be cared for again. I trust that we will have some experience of caring at some stage.

For people involved in the provision of care, it is a 24 hour, seven day a week job. Their tremendous work ensures that, rather than having to be placed in institutional care, which would happen if those people did not provide the care, the elderly relative, be it a mother, father, uncle, aunt, cousin or whatever, or the young relative is kept within the home environment where he or she is happiest. Recognition for this role should be enshrined in legislation and in the Constitution. Instead there has been an orgy of rhetorical flour ishes in support of the concept of community care, but we have not matched the verbal commitment with the legislative or monetary input which carers deserve.

I believe wholeheartedly in providing that input and it is a fundamental belief of mine. I would hold the same view were my party in Government. It is not a political point. I strongly and wholeheartedly believe in it because of the tradition from which I come. So strongly do I believe in it that, if I thought a 1% increase in my taxes would solve the problem for carers and give them the £150 million or £200 million, whatever the calculation may be, I would readily espouse that cause. Why should we get into this selfish view of society that it is only the "me" that counts rather than the "we"? We should widen it to ensure that people who are less well off and who provide a tremendous service for society by caring for others are rewarded. I hold that belief strongly and I am not happy with the rush towards greed. Taxation cuts to look after the "me" are the prevalent mood. We should ensure that money is raised for people who provide such a worthwhile service.

It is high time a White Paper on caring and the role of carers in society was prepared so that the most appropriate constitutional and legislative basis for underpinning the role of carers can be formulated and put in place. One of the problems the Minister of State's colleague, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, has probably met is the lack of information on carers and a dispute as to the number of carers. Both I and Deputy McGrath have encountered this dispute as to the number of carers. The information is scant and all over the place, and there is an obvious need for an adequate database of detailed information on carers. The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs does not have an up to date database on the number of carers and a breakdown of the people involved in providing care. About five or six years ago it was clear that about 70% of those providing care were women. We do not know how that statistic has changed in the interim, if at all, and the information is scant. That would be a very important point from which to begin.

A recent study by the Western Health Board revealed that there were more than 20,000 carers in its area. If that is extrapolated to the country as a whole, the Carers Association's view and its definition of a carer would surely be vindicated. It says that there are more than 120,000 carers. The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs says there are between 50,000 and 60,000 carers. Deputy McGrath is the Fine Gael spokesperson in this area and he would be more au fait with the exact figures in that regard. The review of the carer's allowance published in 1998 estimated that about 50,000 people were involved in the provision of full time care, incorporating care of elderly people and adults and children with disabilities. The Carers Association, which has done great work under its general secretary, Eddie Collins-Hughes, recently estimated that there were about 120,000 family carers.

Whatever the figure may be, the travesty is that, as of one month ago, only 16,000 people were in receipt of the carer's allowance, despite the relaxation in the disregard and the increases and whatever. We all appreciate that it is a 24 hour, seven day a week job, which is why there is a critical need for respite care and other resources. However, if 16,000 are in receipt of the allowance, that is less than 15% qualifying, and they are put through the wringer to qualify. They jump through many hoops and negotiate many obstacles and impediments to receive it. When they receive the allowance, it is like the marathon runner hitting the wall, in that they receive a pittance. It is about 50p an hour, one tenth of the national minimum wage. It is scandalous. We stand indicted as a society in asking anyone to do the valuable work carers do while at the same time paying unlimited lip service to them and making rhetorical flourishes that would make some of the great orators who have adorned this Chamber return and wonder what is happening. Despite this, we engage in it.

We are penny pinching and saving and that is what riles me. As I said, if that shortage of money exists, I am prepared to say that I do not mind if my tax rate is increased from 42% to 43% to cover it. If that is what it takes, that is what I am prepared to pay. I believe in something like that. If we are ever returned to Government and I am part of it, this will be a fundamental point for me. I will not go through the lobbies unless something is done. That is a strong commitment but that is the way I feel about it. It is not the money but the principle which we should acknowledge as a society. I know men who resigned from their jobs at 60 years of age to care for their elderly mothers, and Deputy McGrath and I have a friend who did that. These people never sought nor received a penny.

The means test is a critical issue for carers and for the carer's allowance. The eligibility criteria must be smashed. Even if this is started on a phased basis and even if it costs £200 million, let us dismantle them. If there are 100,000 carers, it would cost about £320 million at current payment levels. If there are 50,000 carers, it would cost about £160 million. We have to get the figures right. That is the reason it is important to establish a database. As I have no doubt Deputy McGrath will say, the carer's allowance is derisory. This is an issue about which I feel strongly.

One can add insult to injury. One in eight gets through the loop and receives 50p or 60p an hour, but lo and behold who is waiting at the far end but the Revenue official? Have we gone mad? It seems we are grappling to collect every shilling. I know of people who are of the view that they have been let down by the State. They were put through a triple loop before eventually being granted the allowance. We should cut out the nonsense and if it costs £320 million, so be it. Some day we will be old, and I hope someone will be in a position to care for me if I want to remain in my own domestic environment where I am happiest.

There is a need for an adequately funded respite care service. Most carers are on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Let us be honest, the level of service is inadequate. A decent annual respite care grant should be provided and an adequate number of respite care places made available, both day care and long-term.

As the Minister of State will appreciate, the lack of public transport presents a huge problem in rural areas in terms of accessibility. While it should be acknowledged that the Government has extended the free schemes to carers, giving free bus passes is of no use in rural areas where a public bus is a mirage. It is time, therefore, to change to a voucher system under which vouchers to the value of £300 or £400 would be available each year for use on public-private partnership services, private bus services, urban taxi services, now to be found in all our major towns and which service rural areas, as well as rural taxi services. That is the way to proceed.

Deputy McGrath and I have taken a great interest in the Centres of Independent Living. There is such a centre in Kinnegad, to which Deputy McGrath will refer. Even though they provide a tremendous and worthwhile service, funding is provided on an ad hoc basis. The result is a lack of certainty. While those who operate the community employment programme through FÁS do their best, the centres in question are not sure what the next year or two will bring. It is also becoming more difficult to attract qualified applicants to participate in community employment schemes. Deputy McGrath and I have asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to try to place this service on a more solid funding base which, as everybody knows, is essential. There should be no uncertainty, it should be clear as crystal that the centres will be funded. I ask the Government to provide the necessary funding to enable the centres to employ the necessary supervisory and other staff to provide this essential service. Deputy McGrath is working at health board level to ensure this will happen in the case of the centre in Kinnegad.

Deputy Carey is correct that the disabled person's grant has been increased, but there is a need to make a change to the scheme. If an applicant's general practitioner recommends that he or she is a qualifying applicant, this should be accepted by the local authority as proof of eligibility. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is aware, the person concerned is examined in minute detail by his or her general practitioner before submitting the relevant form which, once they put their name to it, should be seen as authenticating the person's illness. This should be seen by the local authority as meeting the qualifying criteria. People have to wait far too long for payment of the grant.

I concur with the comments made about section 8, subsection (2) of which states: "An employer may refuse, without reason, to permit an employee to take a period of carer's leave which is less than 13 weeks duration." This is extraordinary. I presume the employee concerned would already have secured a decision from a deciding officer under the Social Welfare Act, 1993, granting him or her carer's benefit. Under subsection (2) an employee whose elderly parent or child only requires six or seven weeks' full-time care and attention may be prevented from taking leave and the employer will not have to give a reason. In practice, the provisions of section 8 will operate against employees who will have to avail of carer's leave to care for an extremely ill parent, spouse or child. Subsection (2) will place an obstacle in the way of employees who will have to try to meet urgent and serious caring needs. At the very least, the refusal of an employer to allow an employee to take a period of carer's leave which is less than 13 weeks' duration should be the basis for a referral by the employee of the matter to a rights commissioners.

Given the reality of the lives of many carers who are on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the provisions of section 8(3) which provide for a prohibition on a further period of carer's leave until a period of six weeks has elapsed are unduly restrictive. As my colleagues said, one does not get sick to order. All carers are familiar with the fact that those suffering from a serious illness have both good and bad days and are prone to sudden relapses. It is extremely important that the Minister of State agrees to amend the Bill to allow carers to take a further period of carer's leave in exceptional circumstances where a period of six weeks has not elapsed.

While it is welcome that section 7 provides for a change in family circumstances – it often happens that two elderly parents need full-time care, either contemporaneously or in swift succession – it seems section 8(4) will negate the caring efforts of employees in such circumstances. It states that when an employee has completed a period of carer's leave in respect of one relevant person he or she will not be permitted to commence a further period of carer's leave in respect of another relevant person until a period of 12 months has elapsed since the termination of the first period of carer's leave. I have no doubt the Minister of State will give due consideration to the amendments we will bring forward.

Mr. Callely:

As the chairperson of the Select Committee on Enterprise and Small Business and the Eastern Regional Health Authority, I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this very important Bill which provides for a new entitlement for employees to avail of temporary unpaid carer's leave to enable them to care for persons who require full-time care and attention. I endorse what the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, said, that this is innovative social legislation, which should be acknowledged and welcomed as such.

The contributions of Members display their deep interest and concerns for those less fortunate in our society in terms of their health and well-being. Ireland has always been regarded as a caring society and it is right that, despite our new found wealth as a result of economic development, we should not forget about or allow to disappear from our culture one vital and important aspect of our lifestyle in which we can justifiably take pride, namely caring for each other.

Ireland has had the benefit of a tremendous army of volunteers for a considerable time, who ensured that communities throughout the land continued to tick over. It did not matter to them whether they received paid or unpaid leave. The bottom line was that they were caring for people in their communities. I salute and pay tribute to all those over the years who have been involved in providing care. No Department or agency could provide the service and supports that have been provided in the past by volunteers and, in particular, by carers.

There is pressure on the numbers of volunteers because of changing lifestyles and demands. I have witnessed this in my constituency of Dublin North Central where tremendous work is done by volunteers. For example, there is great pressure on those involved in the meals on wheels scheme, not just because of their lifestyles but because of the pressures which have led to legislation such as this. There is a double edged sword in this regard because when the House passes legislation on health, safety or welfare it may have an impact on volunteers in the community, such as those involved in the meals on wheels scheme.

Heretofore it was possible to assemble a group of volunteers to prepare and cook in a local kitchen and deliver the meals in their cars. It is likely that will not continue because of legislation and other regulations that have been put in place. This will cause serious difficulties and problems. One cannot argue against the regulations because one expects certain standards in regard to the preparation, cooking and delivery of food. One cannot have one set of rules for one group and a different set for another.

The House should recognise such difficulties are being created by legislation and funding should be allocated accordingly. The funding for meals on wheels amounts to £1.10 per plate. That is extremely good value and I am embarrassed on occasions when the figure is mentioned. However, if circumstances change everybody will agree that it will not be possible to provide a good, hot, solid meal to any group at that rate. It would cost a minimum of three to four times that figure. The general managers in the new system introduced by the Eastern Regional Health Authority will need to adjust their budgets accordingly. A tremendous group of volunteers participate in the meals on wheels scheme and they should be recognised and congratulated.

I was delighted to be invited recently to a function to acknowledge the role of the Killester social services committee which was paying tribute to a group of women who have provided meals to residents in a local authority complex and additional meals for the local meals on wheels service for many years. The woman with the longest record had worked for 32 years as a volunteer preparing, cooking and delivering meals three or four days per week. She never sought recognition for her voluntary contribution. She had a tremendous record and two other women had 30 and 31 years of voluntary service. However, their service reflects their age profile and we are running into problems regarding the cycle of volunteers. There are different demands and pressures today and the same numbers of volunteers are not coming through, which is unfortunate. I hope we will be able to tackle these issues, which are relevant to the Departments of Health and Children and Finance.

This is innovative legislation, which has not resulted from an EU directive, and I acknowledge the role the Minister of State and his officials have played in this regard. Ireland is setting an example to other member states in regard to legislation in this area. The legislation is probably not going as far down the road as all of us would like but it is a strong starting position and as years go by I have no doubt it will be amended and developed to meet the needs of the time. I will not make any major recommendations for change but I have no doubt the Minister of State will take on board the contributions of Members and amendments will be made on Committee Stage which will improve the legislation.

At the end of the day we all recognise that there are issues, particularly in relation to nursing homes. That issue was before other authorities recently and some recommendations were made but all of us are aware of the escalating costs of this type of care. The cost of a stay in a nursing home can range from £400 to £800 per week for people who require specialised care such as those who suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's disease. Whether it is the £400 to £500 or the £700 to £800 per week care, it can be a costly process and a huge strain on families.

The cost can vary depending on one's circumstances. One might be fortunate enough not to have the family home taken into consideration. Where it is taken into consideration there can be a huge variance according to the differences between families and whether it is the siblings of those requiring care or an individual or a couple. There is tremendous strain on family incomes particularly if prolonged care is required. Often families will pool their resources to cover the costs and in other instances other factors might come into play such as revenue from the family home.

Recognising this and having regard to the longer life expectancy of people, I am pleased the Government announced in the budget its intention to introduce from October 2000 a carer's benefit scheme. The benefit allows people to care for persons who are so ill as to require full-time care and attention. It came into effect last October in recognition of the valuable and important role of carers in society. It also acknowledges the fact that the vast majority of people would prefer to stay at home for as long as possible rather than enter long stay institutionalised or private nursing home care. This type of temporary unpaid carer's leave might also help people get over a particular hurdle when care is required and avoid a process that is hard to reverse, that is, entering institutionalised long stay care.

The carer's benefit scheme and Carer's Leave Bill combined with the increases provided in the recent budget are clear evidence of the Government's commitment to improving the general environment for people who wish to care for an elderly parent, relative or friend in what are usually their final days. During that time they wish to remain in the privacy of their own homes and surroundings. This can be beneficial for both the carer and the person receiving the care.

It is important that we give recognition to carers. Often the carer might be a friend of the person requiring care. It can be a difficult process not alone for the immediate family but also for the carer when the person is sick for a considerable time and eventually dies. The family might be able to get on with life but it can be difficult for the carer, who has been wrapped up in caring. That is extremely demanding and might involve working 24 hour days, seven days a week. When the sudden end comes we should look not just at that line but beyond it for a period. It should be recognised that the carer might be going through greater trauma than anybody else, regardless of who the cared for person is. We should put down a marker in this regard now and, at some stage in the future, look at little further beyond that line.

The introduction of carer's benefit and carer's leave, combined with the increasing number of people working part-time, will change dramatically how we look after future generations of elderly people requiring full-time care and attention. Apart from the clearly recognised benefits, there will be financial benefits for the parties involved and for the State. However, that should not be the focus of our discussions.

The Minister outlined the provisions of the Bill in detail and I do not intend to go through them again. They appear to be practical given the Government's decision that the carer's leave and carer's benefit schemes should be harmonised as much as possible. I compliment the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on working in harmony with the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs to ensure the harmonisation of the two schemes. This is an example of good government and co-operation between Departments.

It behoves us to move with haste to ensure the early passage of this Bill. The Select Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, of which I am chairman, will be happy to accommodate Committee Stage of the Bill as soon as is practicable. It would be my intention and that of the committee to facilitate its swift passage. I will take the opportunity on Committee Stage to tease out some of the issues which may not necessarily be included in this legislation but which warrant consideration in the broader context of the tremendous work being carried out by the carers in our community and the benefits that accrue from it. All we need do is take other innovative and practical measures, similar to those contained in this Bill, in other areas. They need not just involve one Department but, as we have seen with this legislation, two or more Departments could work in harmony to achieve tremendous benefit for the participants, the people receiving the benefit, the community at large and the State.

I congratulate the Minister, his officials and the Government on this innovative legislation. There is general support in the House for the Bill so let us move forward as quickly as possible.

Mr. McGrath:

This Bill will receive support from across the House, as previous speakers have said. Amendments will be put down on Committee Stage and I am sure that Deputy Callely, the chairman of the select committee, will facilitate plenty of discussion. Hopefully, the necessary amendments can be made.

There has been reference to the difficulties involved in having to give six weeks notice prior to taking carer's leave. While it is understandable that the employer will want as much notice as possible, there has to be recognition that from the carer's and cared for person's point of view a person cannot get sick on demand. There has to be flexibility in that regard. There also has to be flexibility in relation to the duration; perhaps it can be loosened somewhat.

Generally, this is a good and welcome innovation and, as others have pointed out, it is unique in Europe. However, we must focus on the demographic trends in Ireland. We must heed emerging demographic trends and ascertain whether we are planning properly for the future of elderly people. Perhaps a Government subcommittee should be established to draw up plans for the future. In 1995, some 400,000 people living in Ireland were over 65 years of age. An informed projection to the year 2020 predicts that the figure will be in the region of 700,000. That is a dramatic increase. We must take account of such projections and the services which will be required to cater for the increased number of people over 65, of whom I hope to be one.

Nursing homes have mushroomed throughout the country because commercial interests have recognised that the number of elderly people will increase dramatically. Yet, the public sector is reducing the number of beds in old people's homes which are funded by the health boards. I object strongly to that. While I welcome the additional nursing homes, we must closely guard the numbers in the public sector and, where possible, increase them.

I do not believe sufficient inspections are car ried out on nursing homes to ensure they meet the requirements of the nursing homes regulations. Regular checks should be carried out in these homes. Elderly people are often vulnerable and unaware of their entitlements. Issues such as heating, which may appear insignificant to us, can be very important to elderly people who may be bedridden or have limited mobility. Inadequate heating systems could have dire consequences for their well-being. The regulations provide for controls in this area but I wonder whether their implementation is scrutinised. Frequent on-the-spot checks should occur. If advance warning was provided, I have no doubt that heating systems etc., would be working at their optimum level.

I am in the process of reading the Ombudsman's report on the contentious issue of nursing home subventions and its contents are quite frightening. Our legislation states that all citizens are entitled to free hospital beds and in-patient care. What will happen if there is no room for elderly people in nursing homes or the local county home? Where will we put them? We must focus on the future provision of services for the elderly.

Like Deputy Penrose, I commend the Carers' Association for its tremendous work in co-ordinating services and providing back-up facilities. The Mullingar Carers' Association has a local office which serves as a focal point for information provision, meetings and general support services. The Carers' Association estimates that there are between 100,000 and 130,000 carers in Ireland yet the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs only puts the figure in the region of 50,000. It is obvious that there are at least 50,000 carers although the number is probably higher. Of the 50,000 carers recognised by the Department, only 16,000 receive any form of financial recognition for their work. Some of those 16,000 people do not even receive the full carer's allowance.

Many people do not qualify for the carer's allowance because of the operation of a means test. I recognise that for the first time in five years, the income disregard was increased in the recent budget to £250. Why have a means test at all? Carers do a very important job in caring for people in their own homes or in the homes of the people being cared for and save the State millions of pounds. If an elderly person is institutionalised, either in a public hospital or old people's home, the minimum cost is in the region of £500 per week. Nursing home subventions are even more costly and there should be a complete overhaul of this system in view of my earlier comments about people's entitlement to free hospitalisation.

The argument made in favour of the means test is that people who are well off do not need the carer's allowance. However, many middle income earners – essentially anyone whose income exceeds £350 per week – do not qualify for the carer's allowance. That is not fair. Why not remove the means test altogether as happened in regard to higher education fees? The children of very wealthy people do not have to pay college fees. The means test for medical cards for people over 70 years is to be abolished and, while I welcome that, we should recognise the tremendous work carers are doing and abolish the means test.

The carer's allowance stands at approximately £88 per week. For that amount, people are expected to care for people 168 hours per week. Essentially, carers are being paid 50p an hour. I welcome the increase in the respite grant from £300 to £400 but Fine Gael suggests that all carers should qualify for the respite grant, irrespective of whether they receive the carer's allowance.

This point was made by Deputy Penrose earlier. There are so many caring people and if they could be given the respite grant, if not the full payment, it would be a help. If they meet the medical assessment of the person in need of care, they should qualify for the respite grant.

What will one get for the respite grant, at £400? If one wanted to take a break or a holiday, could care be got for someone for £400 a week? It would not. The Minister of State should make a decent payment of £1,000, once a year and let them have that as a minimum. It would be worthwhile to do that.

The Carers' Association should be given greater powers, resources and help to co-ordinate services for carers and the wider sector of the community. Deputy Penrose mentioned it in relation to the disabled person's grant. In County Westmeath it can be months before an application for a disabled person's grant is processed. The major hold up is at health board level as they do not have doctors to assess it.

The point made earlier about the GP being able to make that assessment should be carried through. It would speed up the process as GPs are in touch with their patients, know what they need, are in regular contact with them and know the urgency of the situation.

In County Westmeath, a person who had a stroke and needed his home modified would be lucky to get approved for the disabled person's grant in six or eight months. Before then he cannot start looking for a contractor to do the work, which is totally unacceptable. It is not fair and we are not treating those people with care. Perhaps the Minister of State would consider beefing up the Carers' Association to enable them to take that under their remit and be a pressure group to get that seen to and done on time.

The argument regarding free travel was well made. In rural areas having a free travel pass is a laugh for many people. Where would one go on free travel? Even if one could go, the buses are not wheelchair accessible and disabled people cannot get on them.

They should be allowed to use the passes with local taxis and operators. There is a precedent for that as there is a special concession for people who live on islands. They can use their travel passes in other ways besides on special transport. They can be used for flights in and out of the islands. The precedent exists and it should, perhaps, be brought along further.

In relation to the taxation of the carer's allowance, the general principle adopted by this and previous Governments was that all social welfare payments are taxable. On the face of it one might agree. The carer's allowance is an allowance for work done. Someone is being looked after by a person, therefore it is work done. Why not give that person the basic PAYE allowance which would mean they are registered as doing a job? In that way they would be given an allowance towards that payment which would probably mean it is not taxable.

It is all right if that person is single and using the allowances in their own way. If, however, the person is married, has been means tested and qualified for the allowance, then the husband will be penalised in his tax. It would be a small gesture, if the good work they were doing was recognised and they were given that PAYE allowance. It can be justified on the basis that they are being paid for work, albeit that the pay is small and not of great advantage.

I was shocked by Deputy Callely's assertion that the meals on wheels service is currently under threat. That is the first I heard of it. It makes sense in that, as regulations change, kitchens and so on where these meals are prepared will have to be changed and brought up to standard. The question of transporting food in cars must also be examined. The kitchens of which I am aware are certainly up to standard. The new one built in Mullingar, which will open shortly, is state of the art.

I recognise that we must have a good service and reach hygiene standards and so on but could the Minister of State bring it to the attention of his colleagues to ensure that the meals on wheels service continues? It is a lifeline to many people. Not only does it give them a wholesome, hot meal once a day, ensuring they have something to eat, it can also be a vital point of contact.

Very often the only point of contact some elderly people living alone have is when the person comes with the meals on wheels. Relationships and friendships are established. It is something we need to continue. If the Minister of State is going to change that, if the service ceases or people would have to travel for the service it would be frightening.

Will the Minister address that as a matter of urgency and bring it to the attention of his colleagues to examine how we can get around it? We are good at getting around things in Ireland. Let us not get to the situation where an announcement is made that "all meals on wheels are now closed unless. . . " and so forth.

The Minister should try to pre-empt that position and ensure there is a smooth transition to a new acceptable system. That valuable service must be kept.

Mr. U. Burke:

I welcome this Bill and the opportunity to contribute to it. Having taken the lifetime of the Government to introduce it, and despite the oft-quoted concern shown by the Government with regard to this section of the community, we should have done better by its production in this instance.

There are many shortcomings in the Bill in so far as there is no recognition in it of the many young people who provide care. Research by University College, Dublin, a year and a half ago clearly indicates that, within a stone's throw of this building young people under 18 years of age, many as young as ten, provide care for a relative or a family member.

It is sad that those people have not been recognised under the provisions of this Bill. They will always have to be there as, unfortunately, many people need care and assistance, maybe not full-time care on an ongoing basis due to serious illness or disability, but, for instance, for half an hour in the morning or an hour in the evening. They have been overlooked and that is regrettable. We are missing an opportunity to recognise that some family members are providing continuous lifetime care.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 8 Feb 2001

Carer's Leave Bill, 2000: Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 8 Feb 2001