asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider including a brother-in-law and a sister-in-law as qualified persons for whom an increase in pension for a prescribed relative can be claimed.
33.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Prescribed Relative Pension Scheme.
32.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of pensioners in County Clare who are in receipt of an increase in pension under the prescribed relative scheme.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 32 and 33 together.
The inclusion of a brother-in-law and a sister-in-law as specified persons for whom a prescribed relative allowance may be paid is not contemplated at present.
The number of persons in County Clare in receipt of an increase of pension under the prescribed relative scheme is not available.
Would the Minister not consider that a brother-in-law, a sister-in-law or a person who is not a relative at all could look after a person the same as a son-in-law or a daughter-in-law could?
The range of people who would qualify is pretty wide. It was very confined at first but now I think it includes about six different types of relations. Whilst I would have sympathy with what Deputy Daly more or less proposes in his question I do not think I would be prepared to do it in the present year anyhow.
Could the Minister explain what the particular difficulty is in including a brother-in-law or a sister-in-law?
I would not see any difficulty in employing anybody as a matter of fact, but a substantial amount of money has been provided this year for social welfare and I am afraid I do not know how much this would cost; I have no idea, and there is no such provision for the inclusion of a brother-in-law or sister-in-law.
Does the Minister think it would be of any great consequence financially?
Frankly, I do not know. I will inquire. I see merit in what the Deputy suggests and, if it is possible within my budget, I will certainly give it consideration.
Would the Minister agree that any extension of this scheme to include even outsiders could in effect mean that people who would otherwise have to go to instistitutions could be cared for at home and would he not see a saving in that respect?
Consideration was not given to it until Deputy Callanan raised the question. I am not making any promises. I will see what is involved and, if it can be done, it will be done.
Might I ask the Minister in his consideration of this not to confine himself to looking at relatives of any description, inlaws or otherwise, and to consider the greater merit that there is in neighbours, who are unrelated to such people, taking care of them? Unrelated people taking care of them are surely more meritorious than those who, through their relationship, may have some responsibility for them. In other words, there should not be any limitation by way of relationship but really a question of the actual case itself.
I agree with what the Deputy has said, but there are other considerations and other qualifications apart from the designation of the particular people. They must be available to give this sort of attention before they can qualify.
I am not asking the Minister to open the door so wide that this could be turned into a racket. I am talking of genuine cases conforming to the terms of the regulations but debarred solely and simply because of the fact that they are not related within the terms of the regulations and I am asking the Minister to consider that those, who are unrelated and have no ties whatsoever and are doing this, should be considered more meritorious.
I really shall have to pass on to the next question.
There is a point and, if it were possible to get such a person within the extra categories mentioned and this would be a means of keeping these people out of institutions, that might constitute a saving rather than an expenditure.