Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

There are quite a few complex issues there. The first response I will give is to Deputy Danny Healy-Rae. He raised his concerns on Second Stage and I have spoken to him in person. The Deputy's concern is that by including a farm or business asset in the financial assessment at all, it could challenge the future viability of the farm or business as a productive asset that could provide an income for future generations. The proposed amendment would fundamentally diverge from the fundamental principles of the legislation that has been in place since 2009. This change proposes that the family home should be included in the financial assessment of the scheme but that the farm and the business assets would not be assessed at all. It would introduce a clear unfairness that would make the scheme less equitable and more open to legal challenge. It is not accepted that the productive assets are a class of assets that should receive unique treatment under the Act and that they should not be subject to any financial assessment for any period of time. If that were the case, we could have somebody who just lives in a principal private residence, who might have a pension, for example, and who might want that to be excluded. The whole premise of the fair deal scheme is to make access to nursing home as fair as possible. To put it simply: the more you have, the more you pay; the less you have, the less you pay. In this Bill, we are correcting the anomaly, in place since 2009, that anybody who has a small farm or a small business will be treated the same as somebody who just owns their own home, for example, or who has a private pension. This is to respond to that anomaly.

There is no prohibition on leasing arrangements in the Bill. However, assets that are leased will not be covered by the Bill, and both the value of these assets and the income derived from the leasing arrangements will be assessed as part of the financial assessment for the scheme on an ongoing basis. The whole premise of what we are trying to do is to protect farm families, keep them intact and make sure that farms stay within those families. What we have been told over many years - and what my officials were told - is that because the cap was not there, many farmers were afraid to enter nursing homes and were being treated differently from the people who avail of the scheme. Let us call it the original scheme. That is what we are trying to rectify. The policy intent of this amendment is to protect farm families and businesses that will remain within the family as a source of employment and income into the future. The policy would not be advanced if income from leasing arrangements were included in the cap. That is where we are in that regard.

Some Deputies raised the issue of the cost if the assets are there for three, four or five years. When a person's assets include land or property, the contribution based on such assets may be deferred. This is an optional benefit of the scheme. It is effectively a loan advance by the State which can be repaid at any time but which will ultimately fall due for repayment on the person's death. It is called the nursing home loan scheme. That is available to people as well.

As for the specifics raised by Deputies Naughten and Colm Burke, we will have to come back to them because there will always be individual cases that are not as straightforward. The case Deputy Colm Burke raised is the third one I have heard of today, and I am aware of some as well. If it is okay with the Deputies, we will refer back to them later. I know Deputy Colm Burke is unsure about one issue and I probably have not given him a very clear answer. If he leaves it with us, though, we will definitely come back to him on it if that is okay.