Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I do not know where to start. I will give a quick explanation of the fair deal scheme because some of that has been lost in the context of what has been said. The scheme was introduced in this country in 2009, which was before I entered this House. Deputies Shortall and Naughten were here at the time. I am not sure who else was a Deputy at that time. It was introduced in 2009. The whole purpose of fair deal was that the less people have, the less they pay and the more they have, the more they pay. The criteria for fair deal have not changed since 2009, apart from some amendments made two years ago which I brought in to support farm families and business that were treated unfairly because they were not eligible for the three-year cap.

This year, 22,500 residents in long-term residential care are being supported under the fair deal scheme, at a cost to the State of €1.5 billion, while the contribution made by people who avail of fair deal will be between €300 million and €500 million, which is approximately one fifth of the cost. For a single person availing of fair deal, it is 80% of that person's income, in addition to 7.5% of the value of that person's home, plus his or her assets. Those assets can include cash, a business or farm land. For a married person availing of fair deal, it is 40% of the person's income, in addition to 3.75% of the value rather than 7.5%. Therefore, it is the same for everyone, regardless of whether a person lives in Kerry or Waterford. It is as simple as that. That is the way it works.

Farm organisations welcomed my amendments two years ago because farmers and business were excluded from the three-year cap. There were farmers in nursing homes for up to six years who, unfortunately, had to keep paying the 7.5% of the value of their stock, lands or business. That was the challenge in that regard.

What I am doing today is something very positive. Deputies Collins and Naughten said that. When I brought in the changes two years ago, there was an unintended consequence which meant that only specific people could be appointed as a successor. A bachelor farmer who did not have a wife or a partner, a niece or a nephew, or a brother-in-law or a sister-in-law, was excluded because he might have passed away. What I am introducing is simple. If I get the support of the House on this, what it means for a bachelor farmer or a bachelor farmerette - I was told that term was never heard before, but we use it in Waterford - is that they can appoint a first cousin once removed, second removed or thrice removed to be the successor. I have the full support of the IFA in this regard. I also have the full support of farm families. Like Deputy Naughten, I have come across cases in which an elderly bachelor farmer who never married - he could be 80 or 85 - did not have anyone to appoint as a successor because the successor must be a family member. All I am doing is extending it to include cousins. It is as simple as that. It is actually a positive move. I have not heard anyone say otherwise.

See this speech in context