Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 2017

Vol. 953 No. 1

Nursing Homes Support Scheme: Motion [Private Members]

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

recognises:

— the importance of the Nursing Homes Support Scheme, which provides essential financial support for those in need of long-term nursing home care;

— that the participants of the Nursing Homes Support Scheme contribute to the cost of their care according to their income and assets, and that this contribution can be considerable where an individual contributes up to 80 per cent of their assessable income, and a maximum of 7.5 per cent of the value of any assets per year towards the cost of care;

— the uncertainty created for farm families and family businesses by the potentially uncapped liability in the financial assessment of farm and business assets, particularly, when the farm or business has not been transferred or when the asset has been transferred but for less than five years;

— that the 7.5 per cent per annum contribution applies for the duration of an individual's stay in the nursing home, save where a three year cap applies to the applicant's principal residence;

— that in certain circumstances a three year cap can be applied to the assessment of non-residential assets in the case of sudden illness or disability, but that there is considerable vagueness in the definition of ‘sudden illness or disability’, which provides for such a cap; and

— the difficulties and unfairness associated with assessing the notional income from a farm at a rate of 7.5 per cent of the current market value of that farm;

further recognises:

— that family farms make a vital contribution to growth and employment in rural areas, forming the backbone of our rural economy, where it is estimated that farm families spend €8 billion per year in the Irish economy, most of which is spent locally, supporting local jobs and enterprises;

— that family farms are passed down from generation to generation and that it is essential that Government policy support and encourage the lifetime transfer of the farm;

— the adverse impact of the financial assessment on the self-employed and farm families which is affecting the viability of the farm and business for the next generation;

— that there are approximately 140,000 family farms in Ireland with an average size of 32.7 hectares per holding;

— that the Teagasc National Farm Survey shows that the average family farm income was €26,300 in 2015 and that farm family income varies considerably, with 70 per cent of farms earning an income of less than €25,000;

— that the age of the average Irish farmer is 57 years with 25 per cent of Irish farmers aged older than 64 years;

— that the assets farmers and other self-employed family businesses have are productive assets, and are required to generate income and should not be considered as a measure of additional ability to pay;

— that the current financial assessment is not progressive, fundamentally unfair and has a disproportionate impact on low income farm families, where any further dilution of the farm assets could make the farm non-viable for future generations;

— that under the current system farm families fear the viability of their family farm will be undermined or lost in meeting the cost of long-term care; and

— the commitment given in the Programme for a Partnership Government to review the Nursing Homes Support Scheme to remove any discrimination against small businesses and family farms; and

calls on the Government to:

— immediately publish the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Working Group on the Fair Deal Scheme or in the event that this group have not finalised their work to ensure that their work is finalised within three months from this date;

— honour the commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government to remove discrimination against small businesses and family farms;

— introduce a reduced charge on the farm/business assets that removes the uncertainty for farm families and the self-employed which protects the future viability of the farm/business asset for future generations;

— reduce the time an asset needs to be transferred prior to entering a nursing home from five to three years;

— provide immediate clarification on the definition of ‘sudden illness or disability’, which provides for a three year cap to be applied to non-residential assets, and to provide a broadened interpretation of ‘sudden illness or disability’ to include those who have been cared for at home for a period of time prior to seeking nursing home care;

— publish and bring forward the necessary primary legislation required to bring effect to these proposed changes to the Nursing Homes Support Scheme without delay following the completion of the review of this issue; and

— ensure that sufficient funding is allocated in Budget 2018 to allow for these changes to become operational in 2018.

The nursing home support scheme provides essential financial support for those who are medically in need of long-term care in nursing homes. This allows for the balancing of the personal cost of nursing home care for individuals with the financial support of the State. A key element of the scheme is the optional nursing home loan, which facilitates the deferral of payments to be collected from a person's estate after death.

However, there are certain anomalies which apply to farming communities and other self-employed small business operators. There are four anomalies in particular. The first is that the system leads to a significant impediment to the viability of a farm and poses particular problems for farming families. Farms are often not disposed of when the owner dies but, rather, are traditionally passed down through a family line to a successor. The principal anomaly is that there is no cap on the payment for nursing home care when applied to the value of a farm, especially when new owners are carrying on farming as their principal livelihood.

This has the greatest impact on lower income farms, where any further dilution of assets could render the farm non-viable for future generations. The farm is a productive asset which is required to generate income and is not a measure of the ability to pay. A cap of three years should apply to the 7.5% charge, as applies to principal residences for those who are not farmers.

The second anomaly is the definition of "sudden illness and disability". The third anomaly is that an asset has to be transferred for less than five years prior to the application to the scheme. If this is not the case, the asset is part of the financial assessment of the scheme. This should be reduced to one year.

There are also difficulties when a farmer has developed diminished mental capacity, as in the case of dementia, and is not in a position to authorise the transfer of the farm. There is a commitment in A Programme for a Partnership Government to review the nursing support scheme and remove any discrimination against small businesses and family farms. We, as the Rural Independent Group, are calling on the Government to honour this commitment.

We are calling for the immediate publication of the recommendations of the interdepartmental working group on the fair deal scheme. We call on the Minister to introduce a progressive financial assessment system that will reflect the value of the asset and its income generating capacity, which will protect farm viability for future generations, while at the same time making a reasonable contribution towards nursing home care.

The principle of the nursing home support scheme is that participants are assessed on their medical need, income and assets. Some 80% of their assessable income and a maximum of 7.5% of the value of their principal private residence per year, ordinarily up to a maximum of three years, which is a maximum of 22.5% of the value of their principal residence, is assessed. This is usually based on the value of their home, which is normally collected from their estate on their death.

The first €36,000, or €72,000 in the case of a couple, of savings is not taken into account. However, in the case of farmers or small enterprise owners this three-year cap does not generally apply, except if illness is sudden and disabling. The problem for farmers and small business owners is that the value of the enterprise is included in the asset value, even though this valuation may bear no relation to its earning capacity.

The future integrity of farms is essential to allow the next generation to continue to maintain the viability of farms or small businesses. Farmers who continue to farm land do not see a farm as an asset. Rather, it is something they are caretaking for the next generation. The liability of nursing home care costs is calculated on the notional value of a farm. This can jeopardise any chance of handing over a farm intact to the next generation.

The anomaly threatening the viability of a family farm is in urgent need of review, and has serious ramifications for the viability of small farms. Obviously, it is crucial that fines are transferred prior to the need for nursing home care, and this should be part of the financial management of all farms. These anomalies create an uncertain liability on farmers, small businesses and their families and the future viability of small farms and small businesses in terms of being sustainable into the future because much of the asset value could be consumed by the uncapped liability of the charge on nursing care.

If a farm or business has been transferred over five years prior to the need for nursing home care, then the asset value does not arise. However, if the transport has not taken place or has been done inside the five-year threshold, then the asset value of the farm is taken into account when assessing liability. Farms are not usually disposed of after death but, rather, are passed down to the next generation. In this context, the 7.5% charge on farm value applies for the duration of the resident's stay in a nursing home. If this is prolonged, the value of the farm is substantially diminished when the resident dies.

Sudden illness or disability will trigger the three-year cap on non-residential assets, but there is a considerable vagueness in the definition of this term. For instance, the development of dementia over several years resulting in the need for nursing home care would preclude this capping of payments. Thus, fairness, justice and equality of the assessment of farms and small businesses is obviously called into question.

These anomalies in the fair deal scheme make the transfer of farms and small businesses to the next generation very difficult, and could convert what is a marginal income for many farmers into one which is wholly unsustainable and uneconomic. The continued viability of the farm will be undermined or lost in meeting the cost of long-term care.

The average farm income is €26,000, with 70% of farmers earning less than this figure. Consideration should be given to applying a cap on the nursing home charge, which is calculated on the non-residential productive asset, that is, a farm, which is passed on to the next generation.

We call on the Government to introduce a progressive financial assessment that reflects the value of the asset and its income generating capacity in order to protect the traditional Irish farm model for the next generation. We call on the Government to publish the interdepartmental working group report on the fair deal scheme as soon as possible and within at least three months if it is not completed. We call on the Government to reduce the charge on farms and small business assets to reduce the uncertainty for family enterprises. We call on the Government to provide clarification on the term "sudden illness or disability" and to broaden it to reflect disability which is independent of acuteness. It must reflect the needs of the patient rather than the acuteness of the illness. Obviously, legislation will be required to amend the nursing homes support scheme. This should be provided for immediately following the publication of the interdepartmental working group's report.

At the outset, I thank the people working in Deputy Mattie McGrath's office for their work in helping us to prepare this important Private Member's motion. We must recognise the importance of the nursing homes support scheme and understand the problems and difficulties we, as public representatives, have with it. I highlight in particular our private nursing homes and the great work they do in our communities in taking care of those who need it. We have problems and difficulties, however. As Deputy Harty has rightly highlighted, a farm is not an asset as such. The vast majority of people who own farms in Ireland today do not look on them as assets. A farm is something they inherit and work to make what they can before transferring it on to the next generation. It is not like a bundle of cash in a bank. It is not like stocks or apartments and other property. A farm is something unique and different. That is why we have brought forward the motion.

I thank the Minister of State for her engagement with us as a group before we moved the motion. At the same time, the amendment she proposes is, to put it bluntly, unacceptable to us. We are sorry about that, but it is where we are. I acknowledge the great work of Deputy Billy Kelleher, the spokesperson on health in opposition, and the support he has provided on a daily basis. I am anxious that the Minister of State understands that a farm is not something which is like cash. A person is only its guardian for the time being with the intention that it will be passed on. That is why we are worried. Family farms have made a vital contribution to the growth in employment in rural areas. They form the backbone of the rural economy. It is estimated that farm families spend €8 billion per year in the Irish economy, most of which is spent locally to support local jobs and enterprise. The Minister of State knows that herself. The farm is the backbone of everything. When there was very little in Ireland, we had farming. Before tourism ever took off, we had farming. Even though many other things have not survived, we will still have farming. That is why we want the nursing homes support scheme to take into consideration the unique circumstances that apply when it comes to adjudicating what a farm is worth. That must be reflected in the calculation of the percentages as to what exactly the nursing homes support will be.

People who have a stroke in Ireland today face being abandoned by society and the State following their discharge from hospital. While services are provided for those with other life threatening conditions, regardless of cost, stroke sufferers often have to pay for their long-term care with their houses and other assets. The fair deal scheme has provided little or no assistance to keep stroke survivors living in their own homes while in nursing homes there is virtually no access to even basic therapeutic services unless residents can afford to pay extra themselves.

Having said that, I recognise the great service our nursing homes provide in our communities. It is only because of the diligence and work, in particular of the families who founded nursing homes. Through their work, guts and courage, they borrowed money and built up their businesses. They provide health care to the people in our communities. If one looks at the actual sums, nursing homes which are charging €800 or €820 per week are, in fact, operating on a tight budget. They employ people 24 hours a day. Out-of-hours wages cost a lot more and they must meet holiday pay and every other cost, including the cost of their borrowings. It is very difficult for them to actually run their businesses. We owe a great debt of gratitude to them.

There are simple things the State should do when it comes to our nursing homes. The doctor in our parliamentary group knows a lot more about this than I do. Nursing homes have to send patients to acute hospitals for assessment instead of having geriatricians to come to them. That is a cost to the State which should be examined. In looking at the overall cost of nursing home support, we should be examining issues like that. If we can reduce costs on that side, we will have more to give on the other side of the nursing homes support scheme. It is an issue that has been raised with me on many occasions by the proprietors of nursing homes who say it makes no sense that ambulances, taxis and private cars have to take their patients out of their nursing homes to acute hospitals for assessment when it would be so much easier to send one geriatrician to the nursing home to meet many patients at the same time on the same day. Look at the cost of sending all those patients out. The Minister of State has to look at issues like that on foot of the motion. It is very important.

Our motion aims to highlight the fact that while we appreciate the scheme that is in place, we want the Government to look at the problems and issues we have raised. I would like to be constructive so while I appreciate the Minister of State's amendments, we cannot agree to them. I know she respects that. I ask her to look closely at the validity of the motion we have tabled and accept that we are doing this because we are dealing with the people on the ground and know the issues that arise. We are hopeful that she will be able to accept our view, which she knows we put forward in the best interests of the person who is so important at the end of the day, namely, the person receiving the support. I ask the Minister of State to acknowledge the fact that the family farm is a unique asset in that it is not an asset in the way that other people might adjudicate.

I take the opportunity to endorse and support the motion. The fair deal nursing homes scheme provides great assistance and professional care for many older people and their families. Unfortunately, the current form of the scheme is creating uncertainty and anxiety among many farm families and small business owners. The vagueness created by the potentially uncapped liability on the assessment of farm assets and the treatment of income generating assets on the family farm has serious ramifications for many farmers.

Family farms form the backbone of our rural economy and perform a vital role in providing employment and the future development of rural Ireland. There is genuine fear among young farmers who have inherited the family farm that should something happen to a parent within a five-year period, which means they would require nursing home care, the viability of the farm business may be undermined or lost while trying to meet the cost of that care.

Under the current guidelines, any assets transferred from one generation to another, that is from father or mother to son or daughter, within a five-year period is still considered a chargeable asset should the father or mother require nursing home care. The fact a successor to the family farm can be held liable for nursing home costs if the asset was transferred within the past five years is causing real difficulties for many people. The potential effect of the fair deal scheme is not limited to young farmers. The IFA conducted studies on the average suckler farmer of pension age and found the income from the farm as against the liability for nursing home care left a huge deficit that had to be dealt with by the young farmer.

The Government should recognise this is a problem. It should also recognise that in the programme for Government it has committed to dealing with the issue. The potential financial burden is causing distress and anxiety to many farm families in County Tipperary. I have first-hand examples of this in my constituency. The rules and regulations at present are unfair and unjust. The anomalies in the regulations are well known and accepted as fact. After years of evaluation, assessment and agonising it is time for action to remedy the problems. The motion before the House identifies the faults and recommends solutions. We call on the Government to take immediate constructive positive steps to rectify the failings in the fair deal scheme and end the uncertainty and the financial exposure for many farm families in rural Ireland.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"recognises that:

— the Nursing Homes Support Scheme (NHSS) provides financial support towards the cost of long-term residential care services in nursing homes. It is an important scheme, ensuring that long-term nursing home care is accessible to everyone assessed as needing it, regardless of their age;

— with a budget of €940 million in 2017, the NHSS will support just over 23,600 people by the end of the year;

— the time applicants spend on the placement list for funding has not exceeded four weeks since early 2015 and we must ensure that any changes to the NHSS do not impact on this;

— under the NHSS, an applicant contributes up to 80 per cent of their assessable income and a maximum of 7.5 per cent of the value of any assets per annum. The State then pays the balance of the cost of care. Notably, the first €36,000 of an individual’s assets, or €72,000 in the case of a couple, is not counted at all in the financial assessment;

— the NHSS has a number of important safeguards built into it. Among these safeguards is the provision that nobody will pay more than the actual cost of care. Furthermore, where an applicant’s assets include land and property held in the State, the contribution based on such assets may be deferred and collected from their estate. This is the optional loan element of the NHSS, the purpose of which is to ensure that a person does not have to sell their home during their lifetime to pay for long-term nursing home care. A nursing home resident can apply for this deferral at any stage; and

— an applicant’s principal private residence will only be included in the financial assessment for the first three years of their time in care. This is known as the ‘three year cap’;

further recognises that:

— when the NHSS commenced in 2009, a commitment was made that the scheme would be reviewed. The report of the review was published in July 2015. Arising out of that review, a number of recommendations called for more detailed consideration of key issues, including the treatment of business and farm assets for the purposes of the financial assessment element of the NHSS;

— the Programme for a Partnership Government has also committed to reviewing the NHSS to remove any discrimination against small businesses and family farms;

— an interdepartmental/agency working group has been established to oversee the implementation of many of the recommendations contained in the review of the NHSS;

— considerable policy work has been taking place in the Department of Health in relation to examining potential solutions to the issues raised. Proposals for changes to the NHSS are being developed, with the specific intention of addressing and alleviating the concerns of the farming community when it comes to the uncertainty that many farming and business families feel in relation to the annual contribution to the NHSS and the potential impact of this on the sustainability of the farm or business;

— the NHSS is underpinned by primary legislation, and as such any changes made to the scheme will require amendment to this legislation. The issues currently being examined are legally complex, and all aspects of the NHSS need to be taken into consideration. The equitable treatment of people under the NHSS must be borne in mind and we must be cognisant of the constitutionality of any proposed changes in terms of equality of treatment;

— it is essential that any amendments made to the NHSS do not in any way negatively impact on its future financial sustainability. The NHSS is a vital piece of the wider healthcare system, and we must be cognisant of the fact that any negative impact on the scheme would have wider detrimental implications for the health service;

— the important position and contribution of the farming community in Irish society is recognised and valued. The importance of maintaining the farm as a productive asset to be passed down within the family unit is acknowledged;

— the important position and contribution of the business community, particularly small family-run businesses, in Irish society is recognised and valued. The importance of maintaining a business as a productive asset to be passed down within the family unit is also acknowledged;

— the concerns that farming and business families have in relation to the NHSS, particularly regarding the uncertainty of future liabilities based on the farm or business value in cases of family members working the farm or business is acknowledged;

— the NHSS already contains provisions in relation to the treatment of income generating assets such as farms; and

— in particular, the three year cap applies to a person’s farm or relevant business under certain circumstances as follows:

— the person has suffered a sudden illness or disability which causes them to need long-term nursing home care;

— the person or their partner was actively engaged in the daily management of the farm up until the time of the sudden illness or disability; and

— a family successor certifies that he or she will continue the management of the farm; and

calls on the Government to:

— bring forward the proposed changes in relation to this issue in the context of Budget 2018;

— honour the commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government to remove discrimination against small businesses and family farms; and

— publish the necessary primary legislation required to bring effect to these proposed changes to the NHSS without undue delay following the completion of the examination of this issue and decisions in the context of Budget 2018."

I thank the Deputies for the opportunity to speak about the fair deal scheme and the issue of family farms and small businesses and how they are treated under the existing legislation. As outlined in A Programme for a Partnership Government, we are fully committed to introducing changes as soon as practicable to remove discrimination against small business and family farms under the fair deal nursing home scheme. This is something my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, is committed to delivering and I assure the House that work is well under way on this issue.

The Government’s priority is to ensure our older population is looked after, supported and protected. We are living longer than ever before, and, thankfully, the signs are that this trend will continue. This is something to be celebrated and embraced, however, we must also be cognisant of the fact that our ageing population brings about challenges across a wide range of areas, not the least of which is long-term care. We know that most of our older people want to remain in their own homes and communities for as long as they are able, and it is certainly Government policy to support this and something about which we feel strongly. It is a fact, however, that there will always be a cohort of people who require access to quality long-term residential care. We must ensure that this is provided, especially when people are at such a vulnerable stage in their lives. Access to suitable long-term care must be available to people if they require it. To ensure this, we must protect the successful operation of the fair deal scheme, and ensure that it continues to afford that access in a sustainable way.

The nursing homes support scheme, NHSS, or the fair deal scheme as it is commonly known, is a system of financial support for those assessed as needing long-term nursing home care. Participants contribute to the cost of their care according to their means while the State, through the Health Service Executive, pays the balance of the cost. The scheme aims to ensure that long-term nursing home care is accessible and affordable for everyone and that people are cared for in the most appropriate settings. Anyone who is assessed as requiring long-term residential care can avail of the scheme, regardless of age, as long as the person's care needs can be appropriately met in a nursing home that participates in the scheme.

With a budget of €940 million in 2017, the scheme will support just over 23,600 people by the end of this year. In order to manage the available funds within budget throughout the year, a national placement list is operated by the HSE, whereby funding approvals issue to applicants in chronological order. This ensures equity nationally. The budget for the scheme and its successful operation will ensure that the time applicants spend on the placement list for funding should not exceed four weeks. In fact, waiting times for funding have not exceeded four weeks since early 2015, and we must ensure that any future changes to the scheme do not undo this success. This is in the interests of all our older people. The fair deal scheme covers the cost of the standard components of long-term residential care, which are nursing and personal care appropriate to the level of care needs of the person, bed and board, basic aids and appliances necessary to assist a person with the activities of everyday living and laundry service.

A financial assessment is carried out by the HSE to determine how much applicants can contribute to the cost of their care. Applicants will contribute up to 80% of their assessable income and a maximum of 7.5% of the value of any assets per annum. The State will then pay the balance of the cost of care. A person’s level of contribution is unaffected by their choice of nursing home, be it a public, private or voluntary nursing home. It is important to note that an applicant's principal private residence will only be included in the financial assessment for the first three years of their time in care. This is known as the three-year cap.

The scheme ensures that nobody will pay more than the actual cost of care and contains a number of important safeguards. Where an applicant's assets include land and property held in the State, the contribution based on such assets may be deferred and collected from the estate. This is the optional loan clement of the scheme, the purpose of which is to ensure that people do not have to sell their home during their lifetime to pay for long-term nursing home care. A nursing home resident can apply for this deferral at any stage.

Other important safeguards are also included in the scheme. The first €36,000 of an individual’s assets, or €72,000 in the case of a couple, is not counted at all in the financial assessment. An applicant will keep a personal allowance of 20% of his or her income or 20% of the maximum rate of the State non-contributory pension, whichever is greater. This is in recognition of the fact that, although the NHSS covers core living expenses, residents can still incur some costs in a nursing home, such as social programmes, newspapers or hairdressing. If an applicant has a spouse or partner remaining at home, he or she will be left with 50% of the couple's income or the maximum rate of the State non-contributory pension, whichever is greater. If both members of a couple enter nursing home care, they each retain at least 20% of their income, or 20% of the maximum rate of the State non-contributory pension, whichever is greater.

Certain items of expenditure, called allowable deductions, can be taken into account for the financial assessment, including health expenses, payments required by law, rent payments and borrowings in respect of a person's principal private residence. A person's eligibility for other schemes, such as the medical card scheme or the drug payment scheme, is unaffected by participation in the nursing homes support scheme or residence in a nursing home.

I will now look in detail at the treatment of small businesses and family farms under the fair deal nursing home scheme. On Second and Committee Stages of the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Bill, concerns were raised about the treatment of farms, in particular the potential impact of the annual charge on the sustainability of family farms and businesses, and specifically in circumstances where care may be required for a long period of time. It is Government policy to encourage orderly succession arrangements for farms, and this is also endorsed by farming organisations and, I am sure, most public representatives in the House. Revenue has a number of schemes in place designed to protect the value of a transferred family farm, such as tax relief schemes relating to capital gains tax, capital acquisitions tax, stamp duty, capital allowances, stock reliefs, income tax exemptions for land leasing and income tax exemptions for profits from woodland.

In most cases, early succession arrangements in families should ensure that farm assets are transferred well in advance of five years before nursing home care is required, meaning that a levy on the farm asset is, in fact, avoided entirely. The rate of people planning succession in an early manner is still not as good as it should be, and again I take this opportunity to encourage everyone, particularly farmers, to commence, in a timely way, their succession planning. Taking all of this into account, and in acknowledgment that unexpected health events can occur which prevent early succession arrangements, a farm or relevant business can also qualify for the three-year cap.

This applies where the person has suffered a sudden illness or disability which causes him or her to need care services; the person or his or her partner was actively engaged in the daily management of the farm up until the time of his or her sudden illness or disability; and a family successor certifies that he or she will continue the management of the farm.

Concerns have been raised about the treatment of family farms and small businesses under the fair deal scheme. As outlined in A Programme for a Partnership Government, we are fully committed to introducing changes as soon as practicable to remove discrimination against small businesses and family farms. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, is committed to delivering on this commitment. I assure Members that work is well under way on the issue.

When the nursing home support scheme commenced in 2009, a commitment was made that it would be reviewed. The report on the review was published in July 2015. Arising from the review, a number of recommendations called for more detailed consideration of key issues, including the treatment of small family business and farm assets for the purposes of the financial assessment element of the scheme. In advance of the review, submissions were sought from groups or bodies which wished to make a contribution. The Irish Farmers' Association and others made submissions in that context. The submissions were taken into account when the report on the review was being prepared. An interdepartmental agency working group, chaired by the Department of Health and including representatives from the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the HSE and the Revenue Commissioners, has been established and is overseeing the implementation of many of the recommendations contained in the review. The recommendations include improvements to the administration of the scheme; a review of how prices for private and voluntary nursing homes are set by the National Treatment Purchase Fund; a value for money and policy review of the cost differentials in public and private or voluntary residential facilities.

As I said, the treatment of family farms and small businesses is an important matter for consideration by the Department and work on the matter is nearing completion. In fact, as outlined in our amendment, we will bring forward the proposed changes related to this issue in the context of budget 2018 and will honour the commitment in A Programme for a Partnership Government to remove the discrimination against small businesses and family farms. It is important to note that the nursing home support scheme is underpinned by primary legislation and changes made to the scheme will require an amendment to that legislation. The issues being examined are legally complex and all aspects of the scheme must be taken into consideration. Earlier I mentioned the equitable treatment of people under the scheme. We must be cognisant of the constitutionality of proposed changes in terms of equality of treatment and ensure the proposals we bring forward will be legally robust. We are committed to the review of the treatment of family farms. The Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, and I appreciate the concerns of farm and business families about the scheme, particularly the uncertainty of future liabilities based on the farm value in the case of family members working the farm, an uncertainty brought about by not having a cap on these liabilities. These considerations are being taken on board. I again confirm that we will bring forward the proposed changes in the context of budget 2018 and that we will honour the commitment in A Programme for a Partnership Government to remove the discrimination against small businesses and family farms.

We welcome the opportunity to speak about this important issue. I congratulate and thank the Rural Independent Group for tabling the motion which is timely, given that a review is ongoing in the Department and that there is a commitment in the programme for Government to address this anomaly which is causing hardship. The Minister of State is well aware of it, as she outlined in her contribution. In addition, in the amendment to the motion tabled by the Minister there is much that is compatible with the motion. There are just a few areas of slight difference and nuance.

The way farm and small business assets are assessed under the nursing home support scheme is causing great disquiet. When one talks about the transfer of assets, by and large, one is talking about the transfer of wealth. However, in the context of small businesses and farms, one is talking about transferring a working entity or an entity to create income. Assessing the asset based on its value for the purposes of the nursing home support scheme does a great disservice. That is acknowledged in the review and the fact that the Minister of State is examining the issue. We hope and expect the required legislation to be brought forward in the context of budget 2018. Small businesses and family farms are things that tend to be inter-generational. There is a transfer pattern in place. Obviously, one would prefer to see an orderly lifetime transfer of family businesses, but that is not always possible for many reasons and also in the case of a sudden disability or illness, where there was no time for an orderly transfer during the time a person would have been compus mentis. There is a need to address that issue.

The nursing home support scheme is under huge pressure for a number of reasons. The demographics of the population are changing quite dramatically. We are living longer, with life expectancy on the right trajectory. However, that brings huge challenges for society and the State in how to fund health care and care for people who will require full-time nursing home support in the future. It will be a significant challenge for the State. It is something all of us must address and we must accept that we are not facing up to it as robustly as we should. When one looks beyond the horizon and considers issues with dementia and other illnesses that will create huge challenges, we are not putting in place the building blocks and engaging in the planning required to ensure we will have a sustainable system of funding in place, whereby everybody who will require nursing home care will be able to access quality care in a timely manner. That issue must be addressed.

The private sector plays a hugely important and integral role in the provision of nursing home care across the country. Approximately 23,000 people are availing of it and it has a budget of €960 million. A substantial number of people are residing in private residential facilities. We must accept that this is part and parcel of the system. In doing so we must ensure those providers can survive and prosper. Not only must they survive and prosper, there must also be a return for continual development. Otherwise, the full cost will fall on the State which I do not believe has the capacity in the short to medium term to address the huge challenges that will confront it in the future owing to the changing demographics and other factors that are obvious when we look towards the horizon. For that reason, it is important when carrying out reviews to examine the viability and sustainability of the private sector in the delivery of nursing home residences and beds. In that context, an issue has arisen which the Minister might take on board in the discussion on nursing homes - the re-evaluation of commercial rates across the country. That is happening and many smaller nursing homes are being put under pressure owing to the fact that commercial rates on nursing homes have been increased, but the nursing homes are tied into a National Treatment Purchase Fund contract for three years and have no capacity to absorb the unexpected hike in a top-line cost owing to the change in the rateable valuation. The Minister of State is aware of the issue, but we must be conscious of the fact that one cannot expect people to provide the best quality care and care with the best outcomes, as well as meet all of the guidelines laid down by HIQA and the inspections that are rightly carried out, while at the same time being forced to pay an increased commercial rate that was not part of the original assessment when they were dealing with the National Treatment Purchase Fund in drafting contracts. It is an issue the Minister of State should examine.

Another issue that has been raised is the centralisation of offices. I am not sure if it is the case, but we have been led to believe there will be a more centralised nursing home support scheme office system put in place. We are hearing conflicting views, but some counties are very concerned that they might be a long way from the assessment offices under the scheme. Perhaps the Minister of State might elucidate on the matter.

The motion is clear, but the amendment is equally clear. We must have the certainty the Minister of State emphasised.

The amendment calls on the Government to "bring forward the proposed changes in relation to this issue in the context of Budget 2018". That has to be done. It is part of the programme for Government. We will certainly be insisting on that. The amendment calls on the Government to "honour the commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government to remove discrimination against small businesses and family farms". As said by the sponsors of the motion, it is very clear that there is discrimination. Let us be very honest about this. The assessment of a capital asset, a family farm, that is to be transferred intergenerationally, and in respect of which the only income derived is from farming or from the business conducted through it, is discriminatory. It would be different if it were being sold as an investment. The farms are intergenerationally transferred. This is certainly causing great concern and needs to be addressed.

The amendment calls on the Government to "publish the necessary primary legislation required to bring effect to these proposed changes to the NHSS without undue delay following the completion of the examination of this issue and decisions in the context of Budget 2018". This is critical. It has to be part of the budget arithmetic; otherwise we will be talking about this issue again next year, which would create grave concerns. I call on the Minister of State to honour the commitments in the amendment.

Thankfully we are all living longer and most of us will live independently for the rest of our lives. Fewer than 5% of all the elderly require care late on in life and all parties agree that every effort should be made to facilitate this. The nursing homes support scheme, the fair deal scheme, was introduced in 2009 and provides financial support towards the cost of long-term nursing home care. Under the scheme, people who need nursing home care have their income and assets assessed and they make a contribution towards the cost of their care based on assessment. The average age of our population is growing year on year, and in 20 years' time it is estimated that there will be 1 million people aged over 65 living in Ireland. As a society, we need to prepare for the implications of an ageing country, and that means resourcing services, supporting carers and investing in research.

We have to bear in mind that long-term care is expensive and a new and emerging trend in Ireland's demographic profile is the substantial increase in the number of people over 85 years. Fianna Fáil recognises the concerns many families have in regard to the fair deal scheme and how it impacts on their farm. We agree it is vital that the rules around residential care for older people do not undermine the family farm model. The programme for Government recognises the discrimination under the scheme against farm families and small businesses and it pledged to make changes. It is critical that this commitment be honoured. The scheme must work for everyone, including the farm families, small and medium enterprises, the self-employed, the PAYE worker and the retired person.

The Irish Farmers' Association claims the nursing homes support scheme, with the potentially high liability on farm assets, is creating uncertainty and anxiety for many farm families and that the viability of the family farm will be undermined or lost while meeting the cost of long-term care. Many farm families are opting not to avail of the scheme, putting themselves under severe financial stress to find money to cover the cost of care in the short term. Family farms are passed down from generation to generation and no one wants to be of the generation responsible for making the farm non-viable for the next generation. The pressure is immense and must be recognised.

The uncertainty created for farm families by the potentially uncapped liability in the financial assessment of farm business assets, when the farm has not been transferred or when the asset has been transferred but for less than five years, is causing significant stress for older farmers and their families at an already difficult time. Many farm families want to try to take care of a loved one at home for as long as possible, but they are concerned that if they do they will be exempted from qualifying for the three year cap on the farm asset.

When families discover that a family member needs full-time care that involves moving the person into a nursing home, time factors are very important. The valuations required, be it of the principal private residence or the family farm, slow up the whole process. The fair deal currently takes six weeks for a decision once all the relevant paperwork is in place. Fianna Fáil is committed to the development of a national strategy for the long-term care of our older people. This will include an analysis of current and future arrangements for the funding and financing of this care.

I thank the Rural Alliance for bringing this motion forward. As this is nursing homes week, I acknowledge the role played by the private and voluntary sectors as the main providers of long-term care under the fair deal scheme. They are also major employers in local communities.

I welcome the discussion. There are two issues. When a family has to make a decision about putting an elderly relative or other family member who requires full-time care into a nursing home, it is a very considerable and fundamental one. This has been debated many times since the fair deal scheme was introduced. By and large, the scheme has worked extremely well. The issue, however, is the calculation of the value of a family farm or business in the wrong manner. This has been demonstrated time and again. Owing to the draconian means of calculation, people with small businesses or family farms are making detrimental decisions for their loved ones in order that their business or job may survive. Anybody depending on an asset such as a farm for a job regards entering the scheme as a retrograde step.

By and large, the scheme has worked very well but we have encountered some issues concerning the preparation of the balancing statements associated with the estates of persons who did not gain the full amount under the fair deal scheme. This needs to be examined. We need to move away from calculations taking into account the value of farms and ensure there is a speedy resolution of any issues involved concerning the estate of someone who passes away.

I am very pleased this motion has been brought before the House. A commitment has been given in the programme for Government. When the Minister of State was speaking, she made a couple of points. She talked about planned succession. That is grand in a perfect world but, unfortunately, family farms and small businesses do not have the ability to generate the income to support two families. This delays the transfer of assets. In the vast majority of cases, the assets can be transferred only when parents reach an advanced age. It is due to the ability of the assets to generate income. In the world we live in today, marriage breakup is an issue. The older generation fears that if they transfer their assets, they will be lost to the family. This is a huge stumbling block in the transfer of assets. Both of these factors slow down the transfer of farms and small businesses. If we are to talk about a fair deal scheme, we must live in the real world and realise what happens in reality.

As the Minister of State said, the Revenue Commissioners have recognised that when farm assets or small businesses are being transferred, tax reliefs exist to ensure they remain viable after the transfer or succession. When we have got the Revenue Commissioners to recognise that agricultural relief or business relief must be in place, it is incumbent on us that when implementing a scheme for nursing home support, we apply the same principle of fairness.

The bottom line is that family farms and small businesses are a family's means of generating a living, or a livelihood. The family farm or small business just does not have the ability to carry a huge, onerous burden after the death of one member of the family. People are currently opting out of sending their elderly parents to a nursing home because of the way the scheme is designed. This is denying people the best of care in many circumstances. People try to mind elderly parents at home when, in fact, a nursing home might be where they should be. We must recognise that, in modern society, assets are not transferred by parents early in life to the younger generation. A business does not have the ability to carry the burden of a nursing home loan after the death of the individual.

Another considerable worry is sudden illness and disability. If a farmer is struck down by a stroke or another condition, he could be hospitalised or in a nursing home for a very long period.

I hope that the commitments that were given in the programme for Government will be honoured and that we can have a fair deal scheme that recognises the income that an asset can generate rather than its value. We have a saying that a lot of small businesses and farmers will live life as paupers and die as millionaires. That is the truth about family assets. The assets are worth a lot of money, but they are there to generate an income for the next generation. When the Government modifies this scheme, I hope that it will put it in such a way that family farms and small businesses can avail of it and not carry a huge burden on to the next generation.

I compliment and thank my colleagues in the Rural Independent Group for tabling this private Member's motion. On a daily basis, I get representation on a regular basis or even a daily basis from constituents of mine about what I call discrimination against farming families within the fair deal scheme. This must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Currently, if somebody from a farming background survives ten years in a nursing home, under the fair deal scheme as it is at the moment, over 70% of the farm is gone on debt as the 7.5% contribution charge on assets is applied per annum with no cap. There is double counting applied to the farming community as their income is being taken into account and, on top of that, the HSE is taking 7.5% of the value of their land for every year they reside in a home.

Young farmers in such a situation are currently at risk of losing the family farm. For example, if there is an elderly farmer in a nursing home, his son or daughter is working the farm, earning the income, supporting a young family and will one day inherit the farm. However, if the father has not signed the farm over to his son or daughter at that point and passes away in the nursing home after ten years, his farm is gone, or three quarters gone, and has been taken out from under that son or daughter who has been working the farm in his place.

I raised this matter with Mr. Tony O’Brien, the Director General of the HSE, and Ms Angela Noonan, senior official in the Department of Health with responsibility for older people, at a meeting of the Committee for Public Accounts on 9 March 2017. They acknowledged the glaring discrimination and I was given a commitment that they would seriously consider applying the three-year cap on the 7.5% contribution for farm assets. They made a commitment on that day that they would look at it and go back to the Ministers about it. I followed this up with the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, who is present, via a parliamentary question on 29 March last. Her written response displayed no urgency whatsoever in respect of ending this discrimination. Of the 23,000 people being supported by the fair deal scheme, 648 have farm assets. A total of 648 out of 23,000 is not a small number of families. With an ageing population, that figure will increase significantly. This issue was flagged in the review in 2015. The 2016 programme for Government gives a commitment to remove any discrimination against small businesses and family farms. When will the Government’s current review on the scheme be concluded? I think the Minister of State said that it would be concluded for the budget coming. Will a three-year cap be introduced for farm and business assets in respect of the 7.5% contribution charge?

Just as Deputy Cahill said earlier, I am also from a farming background. I inherited the farm from my father. He inherited it from his father. That goes back for generations, we do not even know how far. I am going to pass it on to my son. I would not like to see myself in a nursing home and that farm being taken from under my son, daughter or whoever inherits it because of bad management and bad legislation in this House. I ask the Ministers of State to look at this sooner rather than later. Even by the time of the budget in November, there will be people caught up in this system. Farms, and particularly family farms, play a major role in the contribution to this country, both in terms of wealth and in terms of the exports that we send from this country. They are a part of what we are and a part of our heritage. I ask the Ministers of State to look at it as soon as possible.

Táim sásta an deis a fháil le labhairt ar an rún tábhachtach seo. This motion focuses on the inadequacies of the fair deal scheme for farm families and family-owned businesses. This is an issue I have been acutely aware of for some time now. I have been lobbied and approached by families who quite rightly feel that it is unfair that they are being disproportionately penalised when accessing the nursing home support scheme, NHSS, because they had, more often than not, a small holding of farmland. The IFA has also raised this vexed matter with me.

At present, the cost of one’s care depends on one's income and assets. An individual contributes 80% of his or her assessable income and a maximum of 7.5% of the value of any assets per year towards the cost of care. The 7.5% per annum contribution applies for the duration of an individual’s stay in the nursing home, save where a three-year cap applies to the applicant’s principal residence.

There is no doubt but that this is unfair and it is those with small land holdings that are impacted the most. There are approximately 140,000 family farms in Ireland with an average size of 32.7 ha per holding. The Teagasc national farm survey shows that the average family farm income was €26,300 in 2015 and that farm family income varies considerably, with 70% of farms earning an income of less than €25,000. The motion states that the current financial assessment is not progressive, is fundamentally unfair and has a disproportionate impact on low-income farm families, and I agree. It is for that reason that we will be supporting this motion which calls for, among other things, the commitment in A Programme for a Partnership Government to remove discrimination against small businesses and family farms to be honoured.

The motion also recognises the importance of the nursing home support scheme, and I fully agree. However, it is far from perfect. There is one area that I wish to highlight. Prior to the introduction of the fair deal scheme, older people in Border communities in need of residential care could take up unhindered residence in nursing home facilities north of the Border within their own communities. The money followed the patient. The subvention went with the older person. With the advent of the fair deal, a partition descended once again in our midst, turning lifelong friends and neighbours away from each other in their final years and forcing those whose residence is located south of the Border to look to often more distant locations from their home for residential care in their own county or in neighbouring counties. This is discriminatory and grossly unfair. It also ignores the important role these facilities north of the Border have played and could play again in helping to meet the ever-growing demand of our ageing population. This is an important issue for people in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, particularly for those from communities that do not just run along the Border strip but straddle it, just as they have straddled the inter-county lines over many generations. This issue needs to be addressed to facilitate a right of access to the nursing home of their choice for older people in need of long-term residential care whose home address is on this side of the Border but whose nearest - I emphasise this - or preferred nursing home is situated north of the Border. I could cite several examples of that and expect the Leas-Cheann Comhairle could do so too.

It is important to point to the fact that, notwithstanding the importance of the NHSS, more people than necessary are going into long-term residential care due to the lack of resources for home care packages. A great positive of the fair deal scheme is that if one qualifies for a nursing home place, the State is legally obliged to ensure one gets a bed. However, the same is not the case for those who require a home care package. There is no legal obligation on the State to ensure one gets what one requires. It all depends on the resources available. This should not be the case. The State should be legally obliged to ensure that, where safe, people should have the legal entitlement to a home care package. Investment in this area needs to be increased dramatically.

We need to urgently move to a rights-based system whereby vulnerable citizens can receive long-term care in their home and in the community when needed and thereby reduce the reliance on acute hospital beds and long-term nursing home care.

Having made those points, I have no hesitation in acknowledging the mighty service being provided to our older citizens who are in need of long-term residential care by private and voluntary nursing homes across this State. Quite frankly, we would be in desperate straits without them. It is worth noting that there is a differential of €490 between the average weekly fair deal payment and the average fee payable per resident per week in HSE care. That differential is considerably more than half the average weekly fair deal payment. These points should be noted by the Minister for Health.

With 23,590 people in residence and a staff number of 25,176, the private and voluntary nursing home sector is a significant part of the older person care regime. It is also entitled to a fair deal.

I commend the Rural Independent Group for bringing forward such an important Private Members' motion which my party fully supports as we understand the difficulties faced by too many small farm households across the island. I have recently met representatives of the IFA about this issue and I am aware that thousands of families genuinely cannot afford to pay for nursing home care for their loved ones. There are a number of farm families in my constituency of Offaly which includes part of north Tipperary who are at the end of their tether trying to pay the cost of nursing home care for their loved ones. This causes them great anxiety and is a source of unnecessary hardship. The future of small farms is under threat under the current regime as many have no other option but to sell their land to pay for nursing home care for their loved ones. Small farmers are impacted on disproportionately by the current rules. Uncertainty is created for farm families by the potentially uncapped liability in the financial assessment of non-residential assets. The assessment applies where assets are not transferred prior to a person entering nursing home care or where he or she was transferred in the preceding five years. The definition of the criteria relating to sudden illness provides for a three-year limit to be applied to non-residential assets. These issues combined cause great hardship for farming families and must be addressed.

I am aware that there is a commitment in the programme for Government to tackle the discrimination faced by farmers and small businesses in accessing nursing home care. This commitment must be fulfilled as soon as possible. I welcome the opportunity to send a clear message of support to small farmers and businesses. Sinn Féin wants to protect the future viability of family farms and fully support businesses. I hope all Deputies will take the opportunity to do the same and end this unfair discrimination once and for all.

Clearly, we support the motion which will do exactly what we need to do. I commend the Deputies of the Rural Independent Group for bringing it forward. All of us, from all parts of the country, have been lobbied by many people who have found themselves in this situation. One of the things that strikes me is the length of time that has passed. It has been a year since the programme for Government was produced and it contained a commitment to do something about this issue. We understand things take time, but for many of the people concerned who are in dire circumstances, time is not on their side. That is the reality. About a week ago I spoke to a man whose mother had to go into a nursing home. There is no other option for them and the family farm is still in her name. What are they to do? It will cost an absolute fortune. They are at their wits' end and do not know how they will manage because the mother has dementia. She is very well physically and may live for many years, but she is unable to cope at home.

The issue is proving to be very difficult for many. It brings to mind a matter I raised in this House, on which I received support from many Deputies, namely, rural proofing legislation and measures brought before us. This is an example. It is something that was brought forward for nursing homes across the country, but it had a disproportionate impact on people living in rural Ireland because, simply, it had not been tested. This issue needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible. While the Government's amendment states it will be dealt with in due course, for many of the people concerned, time is not on their side and they cannot wait.

The Government has also recognised the unfairness of the scheme. It is an unfair scheme and we need to resolve the issue very quickly. Another issue, dealt with by Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, concerns the unfairness surrounding home care packages. In many parts of rural Ireland they cannot be obtained for persons who could stay at home if a small amount of money was put in place for them, but it is simply not available. There is also a need to make an effort to ensure people will be able to obtain home care packages as a right.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion on behalf of the Labour Party. I am glad that Deputy Sean Sherlock is here also because he has been very eloquent and outspoken on the issue, particularly as it affects his area of Mallow in the constituency of Cork East.

The nursing homes support or fair deal scheme provides support for persons who need nursing home care and are unable to afford the full of cost of same. The applicant's income and assets are assessed and he or she makes a contribution towards the cost of care, with the State and very often family members also making up the balance. There are clear shortcomings associated with the scheme in that it does not provide for respite care or convalescence. The motion deals with a plethora of issues pertaining to the scheme and acknowledges that participants contribute to the cost of their care, according to their income and assets, and that this contribution can be considerable where an individual contributes up to 80% of his or her assessable income and a maximum of 7.5% of the value of assets per year towards the cost of care.

A key element of the motion refers to the difficulties faced by farmers and businesses where the assets of farmers and other self-employed persons are deemed to be productive assets and required to generate income. They should not be considered as a measure of an additional ability to pay. The Labour Party unequivocally supports the principle behind and the spirit of the motion. We believe small farmers, in particular, should not be categorised in such a manner as to discriminate against them. There is a significant adverse differential which could be construed as discriminatory in respect of contributions and the method of calculating same which are charged against holdings and-or farm and business assets under the nursing homes support scheme when compared to those levied against private residences. They are clearly disproportionate by any construction. The current system of assessment with a likely or potentially high liability on farm or business assets is causing great stress and anxiety for many farm families. One could see the entire family farm consumed as an asset in meeting the cost of long-term care. We are aware of the furore caused by the "dementia tax" across the water in the United Kingdom which has added frisson to that electoral contest. There is no doubt that it would be viewed similarly in Ireland where there is an even worse scenario with the absolute diminution of the farm and-or business asset or land which could theoretically take place in the absence of a cap or limitation to restrict the State's ability to recoup the cost of nursing home care under the fair deal scheme, while the maximum figure that can be recouped against the value of an elderly person's private residence is 22.5%.

The fair deal scheme, as it has operated for a number of years, involves a tripartite funding mechanism. The resident and very often his or her family must contribute, as does the State. In the interests of equity, a cap similar to that applied to the family residence should apply in the calculation of the amount that may be recouped again farm or business assets. In the absence of a clear indication that all assets will be treated in an equitable and similar manner, the current system, if left intact, could see farmers having to borrow to secure their assets. This could have consequential knock-on effects for farmers who are worried about and struggling to meet the cost of nursing home care. It is time to implement the commitment given in the programme for Government and end once and for all the uncertainty and unfairness.

Another issue the motion rightly highlights is the vagueness of the definition of sudden illness or disability. It provides for a three-year limit to be applied to non-residential assets, particularly when some families try to facilitate their elderly parents or relatives by keeping them at home for a short period, notwithstanding the fact that they might be in a poor state of health. This needs to be recognised in the definition of sudden illness or disability. A person may have spent three, four or five weeks being cared for at home which will disqualify him or her under the definition. As a barrister, I have read it very carefully and believe it must be clarified. It would be a shame if a haphazard and ad hoc policy on the calculation or assessment of assets was to contribute to a slowing down or retardation of the process of lifetime transfers of farms which is already too slow. This could slow down such transfers even further.

It must be recognised that farmers' assets and those of the self-employed and other businesses are productive assets. They are distinguished and required to generate income and should not be seen as a measure of an additional ability to pay. I know that farm organisations have made a number of proposals. In particular, the IFA has proposed that a reduced charge which would be facilitated by having a relief mechanism similar to agricultural relief and capital acquisitions tax be introduced to be pitched at a level of at least 75%. This certainly would be a big help to farmers and allay their concerns. Likewise, the period of time in which an asset needs to be transferred prior to entering a nursing home should be reduced from five years to three. Like the other measures referred to, this would create a favourable environment and signal support for the family farm model which is the backbone and essential to the fabric of rural Ireland.

I understand that in the review of the fair deal scheme it was recommended that up to 90% of the value of a farm or commercial asset be excluded when calculating the cost of nursing home care. The real problem for many businesses, including farmers, is that they can be asset rich but cash poor. Therefore, the scheme, as constructed, cannot be construed, in any shape or form, as being fair for farmers or other businesses.

On a wider level, I do not feel there is adequate flexibility in the current scheme. When one goes into a nursing home, there is a fairly demanding application process which can cause consternation for families and be quite serious to have to address. There is an issue whereby in some circumstances - Deputy Sherlock has spoken on this - there can be a lack of availability of nursing home spaces in close proximity to the family home. That can cause issues of disruption and separation for families.

It would be an ostrich that would not recognise that the funding of the fair deal scheme going forward represents a significant challenge with regard to its sustainability, when there are significant demographic changes afoot. It is in that context that I suggest we have to consider a scheme or at least a similar option to permit the provision of home care to the applicant or the home of the person being cared for. We are all aware that the elderly person who might be ill or infirm is far more content living in his or her own home environment among family and neighbours. I found this when I was preparing the report on carers 15 years ago. This will be a challenge, and let no one underestimate the size of the task to devise such a scheme. I have always advocated that we should facilitate people remaining within their own homes with disabled person grants and other things. We want to remove the bureaucratic obstacles, impediments and hurdles, and we could do that at the stroke of a pen. I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, will be successful in this objective. She has the unqualified support of the Labour Party to make this policy objective a reality.

One other issue arises. When people go into a nursing home, many hope they will return to where they were happiest - in their own home. For some, that becomes a reality. Many others do not return home, but the home remains vacant, idle and unused. Some of these have been enumerated in the vacant home statistics. People like to hold onto their homes, particularly in this context. It might be useful for their families, who are trying to pay towards the cost of care, to encourage siblings or direct relatives to lease or let part of these houses, or the full house, to people who have nowhere to live. As an incentive, they could allow €5,000 or €6,000 of any rental income to be earned tax-free. Similarly, the €5,000 or €6,000 would not be assessable as part of the home owner's income and be caught as part of the 80% contribution of a person's total income to the cost of care. It might incentivise the availability of such houses and avoid them being left there. Sometimes they become derelict - let us be honest about that.

We need to be imaginative and innovative about how we look after people who fall ill, get old and require nursing home care in the future. If we do it right, we will only be providing for ourselves in the not too distant future.

I welcome this debate about the fair deal scheme. I agree with the merits of the motion in its entirety. It is imperative that we plan for generational demographic changes which will happen over the next 13 years. The population of over-75s is set to double. One of the hardest decisions anybody could make in his or her life is to send a loved one to a nursing home. That is a very traumatic and emotional time for the family and the person who is going into the nursing home.

There is another narrative here that I would like to bring up about nursing homes generally and the privatisation of nursing homes. At present, 76% of all nursing homes are privately run. It is projected that in the next 20 years all long-term nursing homes will be completely privately run. This was facilitated by two ghosts of the past in this House, namely former Deputy Mary Harney and former Deputy Charlie McCreevy. Former Deputy Mary Harney was the instigator of the fair deal scheme in 2009, and I think its primary purpose was to ensure the privatisation of elderly care in Ireland. We had a debate last night about waiting lists. They are terrible. I stipulated that the reason why so much privatisation is seen in this country goes back to an Act which the Minister for Finance at that time, Charlie McCreevy, introduced, giving serious tax breaks for developers of private hospitals and private nursing care centres. We are living with that legacy today. It is estimated that since 2001 and 2002, those developers have been subsidised by €10 billion in the form of tax breaks in the subsequent years.

All of this removes the duty of care from the State to the private developers. It is quite big business. For example, last year, the ten biggest companies that provide private health care in nursing homes got €53 million from the HSE from the fair deal scheme. We support the motion, but the narrative that I have is that this goes back to the privatisation of public health care. It may be a fair deal, but it is not a cheap deal.

I fully support the motion on the fair deal scheme. It is important, particularly for small farmers and small business people, the self-employed who are being hit with unfair assessments on their income and asset values, in particular when assessed for the nursing home support scheme. The 7.5% cap per year on the asset value is unfair and creates a very serious distinction that has a cooling effect on families deciding whether to put their loved ones that might require care into a nursing home. When that is combined with the lack of home care packages and the availability of home care packages across the country, it puts those families in a really difficult situation.

There is no doubt that there are farmers who are putting themselves at serious financial risk by trying to meet the cost rather than having the nursing home support scheme pick it up by putting their loved ones into it. The obsession the Government has with assessing asset values, particularly for people who may have an asset that has substantial value but can derive very little income from it, is problematic. It is not only in the nursing home support scheme, but also the social welfare system. It is a serious problem. If one takes, for example, a farm that could be valued at €1 million, the income from it might only be €24,000 a year. That is the crux of the problem. A far fairer system would be to assess the income derived from the asset rather than putting the value on the asset itself. Of course, that has a budgetary implication for the Government and that is the reason it has not considered this in the past. It would be a far fairer system and one that could operate very easily and effectively. Farmers and small business people would be preparing accounts and making returns, so the income could be assessed and seen. There may be a temptation to try to hide assets because they are going to have an impact on the ability to pay, whereas on incomes and returns to the Revenue, that situation would not arise and income could be assessed easily.

We have the same situation in the social welfare system, where somebody may own a house that has perhaps belonged to his or her parents, and when that person goes to access social welfare payments, the asset value of that property is assessed and a means is attributed to it which bears no relation to the means that can be generated from the rental income, for example, of that house. There could be somebody with a house with a value of €80,000 given a means of €200 a week from it, while in the rental market in that area, one might be lucky to get €80 or €90 a week for the rental of that property. That is where this asset value assessment comes from. It comes from the social welfare system and it has been knitted into the nursing home support scheme. That is the crux of the problem.

The motion calls for the interdepartmental working group report to be published. It will be interesting to see when it is published how the Government is going to look at treatment of assets. Unless there is a system where the income arising from the asset is assessed rather than the asset value itself, there will always be unfairness in the system and that is the crux of the problem.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about the payments from the nursing home support scheme to nursing homes, particularly community nursing facilities, because the disparity between what they will pay, for example, in Donegal and in Dublin, is causing real problems, particularly for community-owned facilities. I am thinking of Áras Ghaoth Dobhair in west Donegal, a community-owned facility where the community was facilitated by the HSE in establishing the facility many years ago. The community never envisaged that it would still be running the facility at this stage, almost 15 years on. The amount of income that they can get from the nursing home support scheme is restrictive and leaves them constantly in a financially precarious situation where every couple of years there is a financial crisis and the sustainability of the facility is always put in question. It is an important facility because there is no easily accessible public facility and there is no interest from the private sector in providing facilities in that area. This is more marked in rural areas as well because there is no private business for nursing homes. Everyone is dependent on the nursing home support scheme whereas in the larger urban areas there may be possible private business available for the nursing homes from which they can supplement their income.

In debating nursing homes and the nursing home support scheme, I must mention there is also a need to rapidly roll out a construction programme for public facilities across the country because we are heading into a crisis. With the demographic changes, the number of beds required will probably more than double in the next ten years and we need to see those community facilities built and developed as well. Such facilities are integral, particularly in Donegal. The community nursing homes and community hospitals are an integral part of the working of Letterkenny University Hospital where the system operates so that patients are moved quickly out from the university hospital to the community hospitals, freeing up beds and keeping the system working. We must address that building programme as a matter of urgency as well.

In the context of the motion, moving to a system where the income derived from the asset is assessed rather than the asset value is the only way we will have a fair system that people can avail of.

For the SD-GP, there is nobody present.

Cheese and chalk.

No interest in rural people.

We will move on to Rural Independents. Deputies Grealish and Danny Healy-Rae have ten minutes between them.

I thank my colleagues for putting down this motion.

All we are asking for here today is that the nursing home support scheme lives up to its commonly known title, the fair deal scheme, when it comes to farm families and small business owners. I cannot imagine that those who first drew up the details of this scheme could have foreseen the level of distress it would cause to these two groups. We are not talking here about someone with, for instance, a property portfolio for whom the sale of a property here or there will not adversely affect the stability of what remains, but one cannot have a big annual bill mounting up against the value of a farm or small family business without it eventually directly threatening the future of those assets, which are productive assets.

A productive agricultural sector with thriving family farms plays a significant part in the economy of this country. Currently, there are almost 140,000 farms in Ireland. Agrifood is our most important indigenous sector, employing 8.6% of the working population. Anything that threatens to fragment these farms is bad, not only for families and local communities but for the country as a whole.

We had a senior HSE official some time ago claiming that some farm families were keeping elderly relatives in hospital to avoid them being placed in a nursing home and to avoid the fair deal scheme fees. While some farm groups have denied this is going on, it illustrates how much of a problem the scheme is causing for families and the worry that it has brought about by any perceived threat to the family farm. While it is an asset, it will not remain so if there is 7.5% of its value being surrendered every year while someone remains in nursing home care and the amounting bill may leave a family with no option but to sell it off.

Equally, when it comes to small businesses, we need to avoid upsetting the often delicate balance that exists in this sector. They all too often operate on marginal profits and anything that impacts on that fine balance of survival is not good for the country and its economy. At present, in Ireland, small firms employing fewer than ten account for more than a quarter of all employees in the labour market. That is how important they are.

With this motion, we are asking not for special treatment, but fair treatment. There is a willingness in Government to address this issue and bring more fairness to play. The programme for a partnership Government published more than a year ago undertook to introduce changes as soon as practicable to remove a discrimination against small businesses and family farms under the fair deal nursing home scheme but goodwill is not good enough. Farm families and those involved in small family businesses need to see good intentions turned into action. The current Government has already accepted that there is discrimination and it is time for action now to end it.

I am glad to speak here today to raise the unfairness in the fair deal scheme as it is currently being applied to family farms and small family businesses where the owners live in or above the small shop, post office, pub or other similar scenario. Justice delayed is justice denied. The farming community and these small businesses that I am talking about have been discriminated against on a daily basis, by this Government and by previous Governments.

It is criminal what they are doing to the owners of small farms. The ordinary individual is asked to pay 7.5% of his or her family home for three years, that is, 22.5%, but it is an endless amount, 7.5% every year while he is in the nursing home, for the man with a farm, shop or pub. That is totally unfair to the young farmer coming up who is trying to carry on what generations did before him. The fact that, currently, the total value of the farm or shop is assessed when calculating how much these families have to pay means that many families have had to sell or will have to sell the asset from which they generate their income. In most cases family farms have been handed down from generation to generation. Instead of calling it a fair deal, it is actually a lousy deal to take the farm or business off them by this means to pay for the nursing home. The family farm makes a vital contribution to growth and employment in rural towns and villages, forming the backbone of the rural economy. This scheme has a disproportionate and fundamentally unfair impact on low-income farm families and any further dilution of the farm assets could make the farm unviable.

Farmers are different from most people in Ireland in that they are often asset rich and cash poor. Their assets on paper are not an accurate reflection of their ability to pay. It is also common that the family home is centrally located on the farm and if this or part of the farm has to be sold to pay for the nursing home, it would reduce the viability and could mean the whole farm would have to be sold. Many farming families have this genuine worry. As we all know, farmers, almost all working alone, have to work hard. Many finish up in very bad shape and as a result, have to end their days in a nursing home. We are asking that 90% of the family farm or business be exempt from calculating what these families have to pay towards the fair deal scheme.

I am asking the Government as well to honour the commitment in the programme for a partnership Government to remove the discrimination against small businesses and family farms. It should introduce a reduced charge on the farm business assets that would remove the uncertainty for farm families and the family employed which protects the future viability of the farm or business asset for the future generation. This would help to reduce the time an asset needs to be transferred prior to entering a nursing home from five to three years and provide immediate clarification on the definition of "sudden illness or disability".

I am very worried about what the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Corcoran Kennedy, said earlier with regard to protecting the successful operation of the fair deal scheme and ensuring that it continues to afford access to nursing home care in a sustainable way. Surely that does not mean that farmers have to continue paying in the way they have been to date. That is totally and absolutely unfair. I am calling on all the rural Deputies in this House who are asking the farming community for votes, whether they are from Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or no party, to support this motion. I am not so sure about what the Government is proposing and I am worried about the fact it is not supporting our motion today. What we are proposing is fair play for the farming community and the small business owners who have been, and continue to be, discriminated against.

Deputy Michael Collins is offering but I do not have his name on my list. I am happy to allow the Deputy to contribute with the agreement of the House. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am sorry my name was not on the list. I was down in west Cork for most of the day with the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Finian McGrath, opening a CoAction building. My colleagues and I in the Rural Independent Group have called on the Government to implement an immediate reform of how the fair deal scheme is applied to farming families and the self-employed across this State. Although I thank the Minister of State and her Department for considering this motion and proposing amendments to it, I am disappointed by their reluctance to accept the motion as it stands.

The so-called fair deal scheme is very unfair and is unworkable for the vast majority of the fishermen, shopkeepers, publicans and other self-employed people as well as the majority of farmers. Farm families in my constituency and all over the country are being forced out of their livelihoods after generations of farming because of discrimination in how the fair deal scheme is applied. This simply cannot be allowed to continue. A constituent of mine from Skibbereen lives and works on a 30 acre farm. His wife suffers from a severe brain disease and in time, she will require full-time nursing home care. This man fears that he will have to sell his farm to meet the high costs of nursing home care. This is very unfair.

It is also important to recognise the role played by the private and voluntary nursing home sector as the majority provider of long-term care under the fair deal scheme. This sector is also a major employer in local communities. There are at least seven such providers in my own constituency and they are being restrained by the current regulations under the fair deal scheme. The provisions of this motion, if implemented, will enable them to improve their services. Nursing Homes Ireland has also raised a number of other issues with regard to the fair deal scheme, such as the need for the Government to immediately publish the National Treatment Purchase Fund, NTPF, pricing review and to recognise in budget 2018 the significant and sustained cost pressures on the private and voluntary sector, including increased dependency and an aging demographic.

The current programme for Government contains a commitment to "introduce changes as soon as practicable to remove discrimination against small business and family farms under the Fair Deal Nursing Home Scheme". I cannot comprehend how, 13 months later, no changes have been implemented whatsoever. This is a sad sign of this Government's treatment of, and respect for, rural Ireland and the entire farming community.

I am delighted that I was able to accommodate Deputy Michael Collins after his long trip back from Cork.

The Acting Chairman is a great character. We should leave him in the Chair.

We should have a rotating Leas-Ceann Comhairle.

Deputy Grealish is on a high today. I now call the Minister of State, who has ten minutes to respond.

I thank the Rural Independent Group for tabling this extremely important motion on an issue that affects people in each and every one of our constituencies, including my own in County Meath. I would like to reassure Deputy Danny Healy-Rae that as someone who comes from a farming background and who spent the first 15 years of my life on a farm, I fully understand the importance of farming communities and the contribution they make to rural Ireland. I also fully understand the contribution of small and medium enterprises. With that in mind, I want to assure all Deputies that I am committed, along with my Government colleagues, to removing any discrimination that affects farming and small business families. I understand there is some urgency about this issue and every Deputy who contributed to the debate referred to that fact but this time last year the Government was only one month old. I was only one week in office and with all the will in the world, to have something ready for last year's Estimates was just not possible. However, I am giving a commitment now that this issue will be flagged in the context of the Estimates for budget 2018.

The original intention was to establish all of the legislative changes required to the scheme on foot of the recommendations of the review of the scheme which was published in 2015. Obviously, this took into account far more than the issues that are being discussed here today. The intention was to address and implement all the amendments collectively. However, in recognition of the concerns that have been raised by the farming and small business communities, by my own constituents and by many of the Deputies here, I will prioritise and fast-track changes to the legislation to deal with the uncertainty that is being felt by farming and business families and to provide the certainty called for in line with the commitment made in the programme for Government.

I assure the Deputies that I recognise the sentiment underpinning their motion and agree with many elements therein. However, as I have already said, we have been undertaking considerable work over the past while to bring forward developments in this area. The motion calls on the Government to implement very specific policy initiatives to deal with any inequalities within the fair deal scheme in respect of the treatment of family farms and small business assets. I am sure Deputies will appreciate that considerable policy work has been taking place in the Department in terms of exploring and assessing the various approaches to dealing with all these issues. These are complex matters and it is important we wait for the completion of the examination of the issues, which is at an advanced stage, to ensure that an appropriate, sustainable and robust solution is brought forward which has a sound legal basis.

I assure the Deputies that it is my intention to bring this matter to a resolution as soon as possible. However, I cannot commit to the proposed timeframe in the motion because further work is required to bring forward legislative changes. We must also be cognisant of the busy legislative agenda of the House. That said, I have prioritised the issue and have directed that the work on the examination of the matter be finalised as quickly as possible with a view to moving forward with legislative proposals soon. I must stress again that we will bring forward the proposed changes relating to the issue in the context of budget 2018. We will honour the commitment made in the programme for Government to remove any discrimination against small businesses and family farms. I acknowledge that some people are under severe pressure. I am aware that while people can plan ahead to some degree, they cannot plan for the unforeseen and we must take that into account.

I must point out that the future financial sustainability of the nursing home support scheme is of vital importance in terms of ensuring that we can provide the care that our older people need, as well as to the overall continuum of our health service. I want to add my voice in appreciation of those who work in our public and private nursing homes and those who provide care for our elderly on a daily basis. The nursing home support scheme is a vital piece of the wider health care system and it must be allowed to continue to operate successfully. We must continue our work on the overall review of the scheme. I met representatives from nursing homes in County Meath today. They were quick to remind me that this motion refers to small businesses and that there are other small business owners who are affected, namely, those who own and run nursing homes. We must continue with our pricing and value for money review and ensure that it is completed as quickly as possible.

I am absolutely committed to promoting care within the community for older people so they can continue to live in their own homes, with their own families, in their own communities, surrounded by the people they love for as long as they want and as long as is possible. It is my firmly held view that long-term nursing home care should be the last resort after home support and other community based supports have been exhausted. In this regard, my Department is currently engaged in a detailed process to determine what type of home care scheme is best for Ireland. This process will consider the future design of both the funding and the regulation system for these crucial services.

Deputy Kelleher raised the issue of the regionalisation of the nursing homes offices. Obviously, following the review that took place in 2015, a number of recommendations were made separate from those relating to legislative changes and the value for money review. One recommendation was to reduce the number of offices from 17 to 15 in order to improve efficiency and responsiveness and to ensure that there was greater expertise available within the regions. That is being progressed at the moment.

I assure the Deputy that there will be additional support within the acute hospitals and the community to ensure local knowledge is maintained. I can speak to the Deputy about that later if he wishes.

I would like to conclude by repeating that I intend to honour the commitment we have given in our amendment this evening. My intention, and that of the Department, is to remove any discrimination against those involved in the farming and business communities. We will ensure they receive a fair deal. I intend to continue to make progress with the overall review of the nursing home support scheme in the context of budget 2018. I thank the Deputies again for raising this matter. I appreciate the specific proposals they have made. I hope they understand that I cannot accept them while the current process is continuing.

I thank the Acting Chairman for his forbearance in changing time slots, etc. I am delighted to be able to bring this evening's important debate to a conclusion. I acknowledge the presence of our guests from the various farming organisations. We have received support from members of Nursing Homes Ireland, who are keenly aware of the vital importance of reforming the nursing home support scheme for the families of those involved in farming and small business. I acknowledge the genuine good faith of the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee. The comments she has just made are very helpful. The input of the Minister of State and the Department of Health throughout this process is much appreciated. The Minister of State and the personnel in my office, particularly Triona and David, have worked hard to take a collaborative approach to this matter. I thank my colleagues for remaining in the Chamber during this evening's debate.

The motion we have proposed calls on the Government to "honour the commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government to remove discrimination against small businesses and family farms" under the fair deal nursing home scheme. The Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, might not have been present during last year's talks. We were all there. We fought very hard day by day with senior members of the Minister of State's party to end this discriminatory anomaly. That is the essence of the way we are proposing the motion. It is about fairness. It is about removing the perception that people in rural Ireland are second-class citizens, and are soft touches in terms of generating additional revenue for the State. This motion is about finding a just and sustainable approach for farming families and communities. We should not forget that farm families generate almost €8 billion euro for the Irish economy every year. That is not to be sniffed at, especially in the context of Brexit and the way the economy is. When farmers are going well, Ireland is going well. When farmers have money, they spend it. They do not hold on to it.

The amendment proposed by the Government, like the Minister of State, is genuine. However, it is simply not acceptable to the members of the Rural Independent Group. We eagerly await the publication of the findings of the interdepartmental report. I do not like interdepartmental reports. I do not like these things, especially when the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform gets involved because this leads to delays and delays. The needs of farming families are urgent and immediate. The reform of, and introduction of equity into, the fair deal scheme has to happen. It must form a significant part of the conclusions of the interdepartmental group. Farmers and farming families are responsible people. They are eager and willing to pay their fair share as they have always done. However, they are not eager to continue accepting an economic state of affairs in which they are disproportionately penalised and their assets are drained of value.

As many speakers have said this evening, the farm is not an asset, as such - it is a tool of the trade needed by farmers to do their daily work so they can put bread and butter on the table, educate their families and pay their taxes. The family farm is not a business like any other; it is the backbone of rural Ireland and the rural economy. We know that now more than ever with the demise of post offices and local GP practices and the lack of industry and investment. Small family businesses, particularly small farming enterprises, are sustaining rural Ireland. The current arrangement radically undermines the viability of this country's entire farming model. By undermining the family farm, the fair deal scheme is introducing a deeply destabilising element into the wider economy that provides our schools, playing fields and other amenities. Farmers always put their shoulders to the wheel, for example by providing sites free of charge or at a very nominal fee for schools and other facilities. This is one of the fundamental reasons this motion, which deals explicitly with farming families, is deeply linked to everyone who participates or wished to participate in the fair deal scheme.

I repeat that this motion is not about seeking preferential treatment for farmers and small businesses, but about the introduction of equity and fairness. That is what I am about here in my work with my colleagues in the Rural Independent Group. We are looking for equity and fairness rather than discrimination against rural people. We must find a way to balance the family care needs of farmers with their duty and responsibility to nurture the land and maintain the family farm model. It is vital for the land to be nurtured and the family farm model to be retained. We cannot have one conglomerate buying up all the property, as is happening in my county. Small family farms are needed to keep the schools open and to keep the GAA and other sports teams going. If we are to keep the lights on in rural Ireland, there must be people living there.

While we recognise the positive aspects of the nursing home support scheme, we have serious concerns about its adverse impact on farm families. I refer particularly to the viability of farm businesses and other small family businesses for the next generation. As the IFA, the ICMSA and the ICSA have indicated, the assets of farmers and self-employed people with family businesses are productive assets rather than a measure of additional ability to pay. The Revenue Commissioners, which have been mentioned by Deputies during this debate, have accepted this long-standing precedent in their treatment of different aspects of taxation including inheritance tax. I do not know how the fair deal scheme ended up being imposed on farmers in such a discriminatory manner. As Deputy Danny Healy-Rae said, it is not a fair deal at all. It is a pretty poor deal.

The current financial assessment is not progressive. The contribution to the cost of long-term care is the same for a farm worth €500,000 as it is for a farm worth €5 million. We are not talking about those kinds of farms or businesses. We are talking about ordinary small people. The assessment is fundamentally unfair and has a disproportionate impact on low-income farm families, where any further dilution of the farm assets could make the farm non-viable for future generations. The Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, knows and understands this because she was reared on a farm. It is getting harder and harder to keep farms viable. They cannot sustain this penalty. This is a worry for many farmers. Their health is failing as a result. They are suffering from stress and trauma. Farming is now a very lonely occupation. It is not like the days of the meitheal when there were many people to help. It is often the case that there is no one on the farm other than a husband and wife. The husband might be there on his own during the day. The concerns and pressures for those involved comprise one of the reasons we need to address this scheme.

When the president of the ICMSA, Mr. John Comer, commented on the data in the 2016 Teagasc national farm survey, he referred to the decrease of 9% in farm incomes, including a reduction of 17% in the dairy sector. Those of us who live in rural communities have seen the knock-on effects of those reductions, including the lack of business being transacted and the lack of investment in communities. As I have said, farmers spend their money when they have it. The Acting Chairman, Deputy Eugene Murphy, knows this because he comes from a rural background. Mr. Comer went on to say that the collapse in milk prices in 2015 and 2016 affected those who had made investments in the hope of getting better milk prices. The farmers in question got back on their feet to a certain extent, but some of them are staggering badly. I ask the Minister of State to take note of this because it demonstrates clearly how hard it is for farm families to keep their farms and their homes together. These important and wonderful institutions - farms and homes - have been the bastion of our society over the decades. We do not want factory farms and big conglomerates. They are no good to rural Ireland. They are no good to anywhere.

Mar focal scoir, we need reform now. We need this to be done. The Minister of State is talking about an interdepartmental review. She has referred to research into which the IFA and others have fed. Many farmers were not aware of that. They are not aware of such matters because they are so busy. They do not see all these advertisements. The Department does not reach its tentacles into where they operate. As I have said, farmers can be lonely and isolated. They need common sense here. I accept the Minister of State's bona fides when she says she wants to deal with this matter in the Estimates and in budget 2018. It has to be in the budget for 2018. Farmers have been discriminated against for long enough at this stage.

I have to pay tribute to the management and staff in the nursing home industry. I am talking about private people who borrowed money to make these investments. It was a scandal for Deputies from the AAA-PBP to speak as they did. I refer to the anti-everything group who say "won't pay, can't pay". They pay for nothing. They want everything off the State. How dare they criticise the entrepreneurial skills of the entrepreneurs who have built nursing homes up and down the country to provide places for sick people? What do they want us all to do? I do not know what they want. Do they want anarchy? The Deputies from the Social Democrats and Green Party never even came in to speak in this debate. That shows the interest they have in rural Ireland, the small business people of Ireland and the small farmers of Ireland, who are the backbone of our society. I think it is shameful. I hope the people will know they did not participate in this debate. We are here and we make no apology for it.

The Rural Independent Group is here to represent the people of rural and urban Ireland. When I say "rural", I mean everything outside the Red Cow. We are representing those people. We listen to those people. We are of that community. We listen to it and we represent it. We have a duty as Teachtaí Dála to represent rural people. We are not all living in this mad city where one cannot get a house, sustain a living or get a school place.

We have the schools, the infrastructure and enthusiastic people who want to work, to diversify their farms and to keep their small businesses going to give employment to the people in the community. We know the pressures on shopkeepers and post offices. We want to keep them all in business. If there is further discrimination against farmers and small businesses, we will close down rural Ireland. The six or seven members of the Anti-Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit group might hire an eight seater van during the summer holidays and go down the country. We will show them what goes on in rural Ireland and the dedication of the people and the communities that make the place tick. I refer to people working on farms, working with clubs and engaged in everything else that is good about Ireland. Those Members should not be anti-everything. They do not want anyone to invest in anything. I do not know what kind of a country they want. We would have a barren wasteland where they could fly around with their placards and zone in and zone out. They are not zoned into rural Ireland. They have no interest in it. I do not come up here to bash the working class people of Dublin. I represent them also. We have to represent all creeds and none, and all types of people in whatever employment they are in or whatever lives they lead. We have to represent our diaspora also, who will have no one to come home to if those Members get their way because we will have nothing.

I ask the Minister of State and her colleague, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Mitchell O'Connor, in whatever role they are in next week after the big day-----

That is the second time the Deputy said that.

-----and who I wish well-----

-----to continue this work. I ask the Minister of State to implement what she said she would do this evening. Words are cheap. I am not dismissing her genuine words but we need provision for this in the Estimates and in the budget, and we need action on this. She mentioned that such legislation would be difficult and complex. We need provision for this in legislation. I know it takes a long time for legislation to be passed. These people cannot wait because their farms are being diminished. Their ability to earn is being diminished and it is just not fair. All we want is parity of esteem. I thank the Acting Chairman for his forbearance.

Amendment put.

In accordance with Standing Order 70(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Thursday, 1 June 2017.

Top
Share