Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Curim fáilte riomh an Aire Stáit. It is not an exaggeration to say that the increasing care needs of our growing elderly population are probably one of the most urgent social crises looming over the Irish State in the next 30 years.

Our ballooning national debt may be at dangerous levels, but it can be inflated away and renegotiated. Climate change, for all the attention it gets, is a problem which will affect people in much poorer and lower lying countries long before it will affect Irish people directly in a serious way, although I do not make light of that. We owe a great debt of solidarity to people in those countries. Even the pensions time bomb, as it is described, is something which may well be manageable with proper State policies and responsible private provision by citizens. However, the reality is that no matter what we do, the demographic make-up of the Irish population is not something that can be changed by legislation. It is a fact of life that the proportion of the population that is elderly and in need of care is going to rise dramatically in the decades to come. The inherent human dignity of our elderly population and the love and respect we feel towards our elders demand that we do the best we can to care for them in old age. This moral duty will exist 30 years from now, as it does today.

Our collapsing birthrate will exacerbate the scale of this challenge, since there will be even fewer people of working age in 30 years' time than there are now, as a proportion of the population, meaning less resources to pay for increasing care needs. The number of births in Ireland fell from 61,000 in 2018 to 56,000 in 2020. We do not talk enough about the implications of those kinds of statistics for our planning of national life going forward.

I welcome the provisions in this Bill. They will go a long way towards alleviating the circumstances of families who face the prospect of their family farm or business being dissipated due to the contributions required under the fair deal scheme. It seems fair to apply the same three-year cap to farms and businesses as applies to the principal private residence or family home of the person in care.

Only a third of Irish farms are profitable and it is far fewer than that again in the west. The same is true for family businesses in the west which, no matter what the sector, are less financially lucrative than in other parts of the country. In order for a family to qualify for the cap, the family successor, who may not own the farm but is still working it, has to demonstrate a six-year commitment to the farm on his or her part. Is that not a very high bar for many people to clear, given that two thirds of farms are not profitable and so many younger farmers now supplement farm work with second jobs?

I have another question that perhaps the Minister of State can answer. It is a question rather than a statement. In terms of the ability of the family successor to qualify for the cap to apply to the farm, family business, country pub or whatever it is, does most of their income have to come from that farm, family business or country pub during that period? The Minister of State is indicating that that is not the case. That is important. It seems that when people talk about rural life, one of the realities is that people have off-farm jobs. The country pub might be a pastime or a means of keeping the family tradition alive and the rural community going. The owner would not necessarily be in it for the money, but there may be all sorts of other motivations for wanting to keep the family business going. The same applies to family farms.The reality is that, for an off-farm job to work, most of the money will have to come from it, while most of the individual's time will be devoted to maintaining the way of life on the small family farm, which may not be so profitable. I detect from the Minister of State's body language that this has been addressed. I will be delighted if it has. It is important that the criteria according to which a person qualifies take into account the fact that the bulk of the earning activity might be from the activity that is not the subject of the cap.

I read an excellent paper last week by Ms Maria Dillon, a solicitor in Galway who is an expert on the care needs of the elderly and vulnerable and their legal rights. She points out several ways that the 2009 Act could be improved. For example, she highlighted a 2016 judgment by former President of the High Court Peter Kelly in the case of M. L. v. D. W., a dispute that centred on the sale of a family home by the person who had enduring power of attorney over the affairs of an elderly person in full-time care under the fair deal scheme. The house was empty, falling into ruin, and had been broken into, and there were still bills for insurance, property tax and so on. The house could not be rented out without imposing further burdens on the owner's family, none of whom lived nearby. The problem, as the Minister of State will be aware, was that selling the house would have converted it into a cash asset, thereby removing the three-year cap and exposing the proceeds to being eroded over time under the terms of the scheme, which was clearly an enormous disincentive to selling. It occurred to me that there must be a large number of families in this position. Surely we should make provision for such circumstances. It is bad for the affected families and bad for society because houses that might otherwise be sold or rented out are lying empty to protect their value. This appears to be addressed in an amendment the Minister of State has tabled but it is a matter I wanted to highlight as one that needs to be addressed.

Another problem, which has only recently begun to emerge, concerns what are called life loans, or what we would know from television advertisements as equity release arrangements. Much of the activity in this area took place 15 to 20 years ago during the height of the most recent property bubble. Essentially, individuals released equity from their homes to assist their children with house deposits. This was called "the Bank of Mam and Dad", but now Mam and Dad are reaching old age and require full-time care. Equity release involves a legal charge being placed on the property, and the small print often requires that the house must be sold if the owner goes into long-term residential care. Therefore, the same problem arises since the home would then be converted into a cash asset and the three-year cap could not be availed of. I believe this is being addressed. If so, I welcome it. It is important to allow the principal private residence to be sold in such circumstances but for the proceeds to be subject to the three-year cap. It is important that rental income from renting out an empty residence be exempt from consideration according to the criteria covering a cash asset. These would be small changes that would not damage the financial viability of the fair deal scheme.

The cost of long-term care and the burden on the families of those in care are going to increase significantly in the years to come. This will inevitably lead to greater contributions being sought from those in care and their families. Therefore, we need to do all we can to alleviate pressure on the scheme and on applicants and their families.

I mentioned the "Bank of Mam and Dad". The caring role I shared in recent years with members of my family meant I saw a certain amount of daytime television at weekends. I deepened my affection for Lieutenant Columbo and others who are regularly shown on certain channels. I frequently saw advertisements for the "Bank of Mam and Dad". How tasteless I find it when I see individuals being encouraged to save up for their funerals so as not to be a burden on those they leave behind. I wonder sometimes when watching some of the advertisements what kind of message they send to older people in society. They are told they need to be selfless enough to make sure they will not cost their loved ones anything when they go. While I accept it is not within the scope of this Bill or any other to deal with this, my observation was a cultural one I thought I would make in conclusion.