David Norris (Independent)

Senator Corrigan anticipated my first remarks, which were to the effect that the tributes paid earlier to the late Nuala Fennell constitute a highly appropriate context in which to have this series of statements. I wish to front-load my acknowledgement that this Minister of State is decent and that the economy is bad. Having got that out of the way, I will review the present position. The Minister of State's speech contained some interesting stuff, as well as a certain amount of padding and public relations spin. As for free travel, everyone is entitled to it. I will be getting it at the end of this month and consequently, there is no need to congratulate anyone on that score. That is an old chestnut.

As for home care packages, there is much concern in this regard. They are available for the securing of the services of commercial companies and this often is unsatisfactory. The employees of such concerns may not be able to speak English properly or may not have an understanding of the condition and it is a monetary transaction which varies. I raised this serious question on the Order of Business in some detail on 19 November 2009. The Minister of State's advisers might look up this contribution because it was in the context of a particular case that was drawn to my attention. At that time, I noted that the National Economic and Social Forum had stated that care workers were sent into people's homes without being the subject of Garda checks and that the HSE had confirmed this was the case. Moreover, private companies had acknowledged that they had never been inspected and that there was poor or no supervision of staff. When I sent a copy of my contribution on the Order of Business to the woman who wrote to me, she replied by sending me details of how the situation had deteriorated further. She concluded by expressing her gratitude to me for taking up the matter but that she would appreciate if I were to avoid giving full details about her sister, as the family believed she would be boycotted by the agencies and that they were all getting older.

The Minister of State continued her contribution by discussing social services, meals on wheels, day care, home help and so on. However, these services are routinely removed and I wish to discuss this a little further. As for respite service, the Minister of State is aware of the demonstrations outside the gates of Leinster House in recent days. All Members heard the agonising stories of the impact on carers, for example, in Galway on foot of the additional €2 million that the HSE tried to slice off the budget of the Brothers of Charity and what this would do to both carers and the cared for. As I stated in respect of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill, Members ought to concern themselves with the children in such situations and that the welfare of the child should be paramount. In respect of policy on this area, the welfare of both the carer and cared for should be the primary concern. At the end of her speech the Minister of State said, "This Government is well aware of, and values, the contribution made by carers". While it is okay to say that, we ask her to demonstrate this, even in these difficult times. There are 161,000 carers in the State, 40,000 of whom are providing full-time care. Their impact is to save the State €2.8 billion per year. The Minister of State should compare the money paid to carers – it is paid quite grudgingly and every effort is made to restrict payments – with the awards made in legal cases where compensation is sought for devastating injury that might replicate some of the conditions of people being cared for.

Senator Corrigan mentioned, in a quite delicate and understanding way, the failure to publish the national carers strategy. Will the Minister of State commit to its publication and state the date on which it will be published? Will she retain the half-rate carer's payment and the respite care grant? The homemaker's scheme continues not to recognise time spent caring before 1994. Will the Minister of State retain the home care packages at their current value?

Let me consider the impact of the habitual residence condition on family carers. This condition does not recognise the unique position of family carers returning to Ireland to provide care and, therefore, it discriminates against them unfairly. I have been asked by the Carers Association to urge the Minister for Social Protection to waive the condition in respect of persons returning home from abroad to provide full-time care for a family member. Perhaps the Minister of State will be kind enough to pass on my request.

The provision of care is of real service to the State. The application of the habitual residence condition causes great and unnecessary difficulty. It also causes financial hardship for people who return from abroad. One should bear in mind that those affected have not chosen caring as a career. It is a task they have been forced to do by family circumstances. One ought to remember that the action of carers serves to take pressure off long-time respite facilities, hospital wards etc.

In 2009, 35 Irish people were denied grants on the basis of the habitual residence condition. The condition was put into effect to protect us against welfare tourism. I accept this but the condition does not always act as desired; it can act against the interests of Irish citizens. Consider the case of Paul, for example, who returned from the Untied States in 2009 to care for his elderly parents. His mother had Parkinson's disease while his father had Ménière's disease and both needed full-time care. Paul has a property in the United States and, for that reason, was denied any support. He has no income and is living on a small amount of savings. Since he is now living with his parents, the home help hours the parents had have been withdrawn. The authorities give with one hand and take away with another. This is wrong and unfair. The home help co-ordinators assured Paul some of the home help hours would be reinstated if he returned to the United States, in other words, if he broke up the family. Instead of paying, the Department is saying it will withdraw benefits unless Paul goes back to the United States. Paul now feels that coming back to Ireland to look after his elderly parents has militated against their interests and he is considering returning home. The welfare of those cared for should be paramount.

One's centre of interest has a bearing on one's eligibility for an allowance. This is a very complex matter given that so many people took properties abroad, for one reason or another, during the boom years of the Celtic tiger. Consider the case of Brendan, example. He returned from Spain early this year to give full-time care to his mother, who has Alzheimer's disease. She was refused the carer's allowance because his centre of interest was deemed to be in Spain, even though the property he owns there is a small holiday apartment and the business he leased there for five years has been wound up. The man lives at home with his mother and has no income. That is the reality.

One must consider the length of time it takes for the Department to make a decision or consider an appeal. Terry, for example, came back to Ireland from the United Kingdom because she was concerned about the level of care her elderly parents were receiving. When she did so, the HSE removed the home help hours and meals on wheels that her parents had been receiving. Thus, she felt bullied into becoming a full-time carer. These are the points to which the Minister of State referred to in her speech. I am pointing out that the impact on somebody who returns home to look after a parent in intuitive ways is such that benefits are taken away. That is the nonsense behind the Minister of State's fine words. The first reaction of the system seems to be to reward the altruism of the returning people by systematically stripping away all the benefits, which is appalling.

A carer living in County Cork returned from Egypt with her family in 2009 to care for her elderly parents, both of whom were extremely frail and could not live independently. The carer is not eligible for the carer's allowance because she is not considered habitually resident. The family is struggling to cope, has no income, and is without many basic services. The family is now considering putting both parents into a home. What would this cost the State? Would it not be more decent, prudent and economical to redress the case in the manner I have outlined?

The Carers Association has asked me to request the Department to apply a common-sense approach to the assessment of persons returning home. While I acknowledge that financial circumstances are poor, I urge the Minister of State, whom I know is intelligent and caring, to waive the habitual residence condition applying to those returning home from abroad. The Minister of State should do the decent thing. People should not be punished for returning home. Applying the condition to them is not even in the economic interest of the State.