Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to contribute on the Bill. I have been asking parliamentary questions for some time about the Bill's progression, as its provisions may impact on a large number of my constituents. Some Donegal farming families have been in contact with me about this amending legislation and were anxious to see what it would contain. The IFA farm family and social affairs chairperson in County Donegal has been in regular contact with me about it since December. The chairperson was originally in touch last year with proposed amendments to the Bill. A three-year cap was seen as a priority and a number of other issues were highlighted as important for the IFA, including the exclusion of some farms with leased land from the cap. In County Donegal alone, there are more than 32,000 ha of leased land according to Central Statistics Office figures and a large number of farmers will be affected. This would mean that many families would not be able to avail of the three-year cap. The IFA also called for no reduction in the look-back clause.

The IFA was concerned that some people would not meet the criteria for the three-year cap as outlined in the heads of the Bill. For example, the identified successor, usually a son or daughter, may have been working abroad and only returned when a parent was in need of care. Such successors would not meet the criterion of having worked the business or farm for a given number of hours in three of the previous five years.

This week, I met the IFA farm family and social affairs chairperson in County Donegal to hear the IFA's ongoing concerns with the Bill. Despite having raised the issue last December, it seems that leased land is still excluded from the three-year cap. There has been no reduction in the five-year look-back clause either and no change on retrospective charges to 2018. The IFA is still worried about families that will be excluded on the basis that they do not meet the criterion of having farmed the asset for a portion of time in three of the preceding five years. The association raised all of these issues a number of months ago. According to the chairperson, she had been informed that it was unconstitutional,

... to place a Burden/Mortgage on a deed which may have been transferred e.g. within 2 yrs. of a person needing Nursing Home care to a Successor, all taxes paid, the folio/Deed registered in the name of the new owner. The Successor new registered owner becomes responsible for the debt of the previous owner.

The IFA questions whether this complies with Irish and European property rights. The chairperson said:

This burden on the Deed will impede the Successor from borrowing to upgrade as Banks look for a "clean Deed". The Executive has the first call on any loan.

Perhaps the Minister of State will address these issues when concluding.

The chairperson and I also discussed how Donegal was one of the counties with the largest number of farmers receiving farm assist. They do not receive a credit as others do, for example, those on jobseekers' payments. These credits are important, as they are calculated for contributory pension purposes. The Donegal representative of the IFA acknowledges that there is the option to pay €500 annually, but many cannot afford to do so.

The fair deal scheme is to be amended in terms of how farm and business assets are treated in the financial means assessment of applicants. The Bill will extend the availability of the three-year cap to family-owned and operated farm and-or business assets in cases where, for the first three years of an applicant's time in care, a family successor commits to working the farm or business. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill states that the intention of the Bill "is to ensure that, in situations where the farm or business' productive income is being relied upon as a principal livelihood, and the farm or business is being handed down to the next generation, the viability and sustainability of such farms or businesses is protected as a result of having a degree of clarity surrounding the total cost of care." If that is the case, then surely the IFA's concerns should have been addressed by now.

Last October, the review of the fair deal scheme had to be . The review ran into problems in accessing important information that was found to be "sensitive" under data protection laws. Three years ago, the Committee of Public Accounts requested a value for money review to examine the cost differences between public and private nursing care homes. The review was delayed due to legal issues. The sets the maximum prices for private care. It had been hoped to access the data from the NTPF, but this had to be abandoned and accessed instead through Nursing Homes Ireland.

The Comptroller and Auditor General's report into nursing home care found that, in 2018, the average maximum price for private homes was €968 per week compared to an average of €1,564 per week for public nursing homes, a difference of 62%. As usual with many data sets in the Irish economic arena, however, it is difficult to create a meaningful comparison because of the differing methods used to determine weekly rates. The CEO of the HSE stated that the difference in price was due to a number of factors, including pay-related issues, with generally higher staff pay rates and conditions in public nursing homes as well as higher staffing ratios.

In my experience in Donegal, the reason for these cost differences is that public homes tend to have the patients with higher dependency and higher care needs. This is taken into account. Private homes tend to have fewer nursing staff on each shift. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, there are around 10,000 applications for the scheme each year. Something that has not been addressed by the Government is a statutory right to home care and this is the next thing that needs to be looked at.

The Bill before us is lengthy and technical. I note the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, has said a number of Government amendments will be brought forward on Committee Stage. Will she reconsider the issues that I have raised? I will submit amendments to support them. We need to make sure this is done properly. Often, when people are at the point where they are looking into this, they are also dealing with the stress and upset of a loved one needing full-time care.

There are 27 sections in the Bill, which consist of amendments and insertions to the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act 2009. Section 3 provides for the application for appointment of a family successor for the farm or business. Section 4 deals with the charge against interest in chargeable assets. Sections 5 and 6 look at the duties of the Health Service Executive.

On Tuesday in her opening speech, regarding section 5, the Minister of State said:

Persons wishing to avail of the three-year cap must have been in care for three years and have appointed a family successor in respect of relevant assets. The charge on the asset must also be in place. The executive will determine whether the applicant will qualify for the relief, with all the conditions for qualification being outlined.

Will the Minister of State clarify that this means what I think it does? My reading of this, and of the ten detailed subsections in section 5 of the Bill, is that if a successor is not appointed until two years after the person goes into care then that is when the timer starts. This would mean that it would be two years plus the three years, so five years in total would be counted. Equally, if someone did not appoint a successor until two years and 11 months after being in care, then the three years would start after that date. Is this the case? If so, I do not believe this is fair. In the Irish Independenton 19 May, the Minister of State is reported as having said this legislative amendment to the scheme will now extend the principle to cap contributions based on family-owned and operated farm and business assets at three years. This makes it sound like the cap timer starts from when the person enters care. We need clarity on this.

Section 7 requires the HSE to conduct at least one review regarding compliance with the conditions set out. Will additional resources be provided for the HSE to carry out this review? Will there be an appeals process for this provision also? The explanatory memorandum on this section states that where more than one family successor has been appointed in respect of a relevant person the executive will carry out a review in respect of each family successor, even though only one successor is used to assess for payment of the scheme.

Sections 8 and 9 make provisions for the death of the person receiving care or the family successor, or a change in circumstances of the family successor also. Section 10 deals with a change of family successor following the transfer of a particular family asset. Section 23 provides for the Health Service Executive to keep records and prepare an annual report for the Minister. Section 25 amends Schedule 1 of the 2009 Act by repealing some existing provisions on farm and business assets.

As I said, the Bill is lengthy and technical. It is an important Bill and I will support it. I will also try to amend it on Committee Stage. This whole area can be confusing and distressing for people and I am sure many other Deputies regularly assist people and make representations for constituents who are trying to navigate their entitlements. I hope clear and accessible information will be provided in a timely manner to those who have been awaiting changes for many years, particularly where no change will be applied retrospectively. It will also be vital that people are aware this is happening. As the transfer of land is taking place, provision should be made for this. Solicitors as well as the families should also be aware of it so they can work on the basis it will be a planned action. I would appreciate the Minister of State addressing the issue of the timing as to when people enter the scheme when she is summing up.

See this speech in context