asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of the trend towards community care rather than hospitalisation, he will extend the scope of the prescribed relative allowance scheme to include married women, even in cases where their husbands are earning.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Prescribed Relative Allowance.
12.
The prescribed relative allowance is an increase of the pension payable to an incapacitated pensioner who is receiving full time care and attention from a prescribed relative. One of the conditions for receipt of the allowance is that the relative must not be a married person who is being wholly or mainly maintained by his or her spouse.
Any extension of the scheme along the lines proposed would have serious cost implications and is a matter for consideration in the context of the budget.
The Commission on Social Welfare recommended that "prescribed relatives should be entitled to claim social assistance in their own right and that in this context the prescribed relative allowance be abolished".
Is the Minister considering implementing the proposals of the Commission on Social Welfare, thereby paying the social assistance allowance directly to the caring party rather than the social welfare beneficiary?
Sin ceist eile.
This arises directly from the Minister's reply. Is the Minister considering that matter?
I have answered the question in so far as it applies to me at present. The various State supports for elderly people in their homes are a matter the Government will be considering in the context of the budget.
Is the Minister not aware of the problems arising from paying the prescribed relative allowance to the pensioner rather than to the caring person? In many instances it gives rise to problems within families because the pensioner will not pass on the allowance to the person for whom it is intended. Will he not, therefore, make the change recommended by the commission and pay it directly to the caring person?
Mar a deir an Ceann Comhairle, sin ceist eile.
Could I bring in Deputy Barnes?
This matter arises out of the Minister's reply.
It is a matter to be considered in the context of the budget and the Deputy is aware of that.
I asked the Minister this question arising from his reply——
We cannot argue this point now.
Can the Minister tell us whether he is considering the change which he himself raised in his original reply?
That is an extension of the subject matter of this question. I have called Deputy Barnes.
The Minister referred to the cost implications of allowing a married person to qualify to receive the prescribed relative allowance which, as Deputy Mitchell has said, is at present paid direct to the elderly relative. Can the Minister tell us whether a cost study has been undertaken to see whether it is proving more costly in both human and economic terms to institutionalise elderly relatives rather than paying the prescribed relative's allowance to married people? Would the Minister not agree that it would make greater sense to care for the elderly and the incapacitated within their own communities? I put it to the Minister that it would be cheaper in the long term to do so. Has any such cost study been carried out within the Minister's Department? I am aware of the Minister's commitment to community health.
Measures which are helpful to elderly people in the home will be considered in the context of the budget. These include home helps, public health nurses, social workers and meals on wheels as well as possible taxation benefits and off sets in the case of persons minding elderly relatives at home. The purpose of the prescribed relative allowance is to provide a measure of additional income maintenance to a pensioner towards the support of the relative who is looking after him or her in this way. It is in that sense akin to an increase in pension for an adult dependant except that the rate of the allowance is lower than the adult dependant allowance. Payment of this allowance is based on need and that is the basis for not paying the allowance to a married daughter where a pensioner is living with the family. The social welfare schemes are based on the criterion of providing income maintenance in situations of need.
I accept the point the Deputy has made. That is a matter for consideration in the context of the budget and of what further improvements can be made. I mention as an aside that the Commission on Social Welfare suggested that the whole area should be turned on its head and approached in a different way. Obviously, that is a matter which will have to be considered in any future consideration of this scheme.
The prescribed relative allowance at £26.40 per week is the lowest allowance paid to any social welfare beneficiary. The reason the Minister is dragging his feet on this question is because if the recipients qualify for unemployment assistance they will receive at least £9 per week more. Would the Minister not agree that it would be better to give those people who are doing such essential work £35 per week rather than pay children's allowances to those earning over £25,000 a year?
The Deputy will recognise that that is a matter which will have to be considered in the context of the budget.
What about the selectivity to which the Minister referred?
Order, please.
Can I take it from the Minister's reply that he intends to abolish the prescribed relative allowance? In that event can the Minister inform the House as to what type of alternative allowance will a person who provides full time care and attention for an elderly person receive or what they will qualify for?
In the first instance, the prescribed relative allowance, as I have said, is paid direct to the elderly person. The amount which the elderly person receives in respect of the prescribed relative is £26.40 a week at present.
Can the Minister inform the House as to what type of allowance the person who provides full time care and attention would qualify for in the event of the abolition of the prescribed relative allowance?
The Deputy is getting very technical.
It was the Minister who referred to the abolition of the prescribed relative allowance.
I referred to that possibility because the Commission on Social Welfare made a proposal to that effect. It is not possible for me to know what the circumstances of the people involved would be in the event of such a situation but I would need notice of a question such as that.
Would the Minister not agree that it would be much fairer to pay the prescribed relative allowance to the person who does the caring? In general this work is done by women? Can the Minister also indicate whether he would consider it appropriate, as I do, that the person involved should be eligible to retain her social welfare credits or entitlements? It is a disgrace that a woman could spend upto 20 years looking after an elderly or sick parent and find herself entitled to nothing at the end of that time.
The Deputy will appreciate that if we were to change to that system we would have to take into account its widespread implications throughout the community. We would have to find a way of defining both those who look after an elderly relative and those who are being looked after. From a financial point of view, the cost of such a change could be considerable.
Would the Minister not accept that if those who look after elderly parents were to say they will no longer do so and will instead claim unemployment assistance or in some cases the payment given to a single woman over the age of 58, they would actually receive between £10 and £11 more a week and would he not agree that it would make more sense to pay the prescribed relative allowance direct to the person concerned and at the rate of the minimum unemployment assistance?
While I accept that those who look after elderly relatives are in many cases saving the State the expense of providing institutional care it does not necessarily follow that the State should provide a level of financial compensation to relatives for the services they provide to their elderly relatives.
Does the Minister not accept——
Order, please. Please allow the Minister to answer the question.
——that he is penalising them for looking after their elderly relatives.
Let us hear the reply.
The Deputy realises that in one case we could find ourselves involving a much broader range of population and that we would have to qualify any change we would make and to be able to control the circumstances in which payments would apply.
The Minister stated that this allowance was paid on the basis of the greatest need. Surely, the person who is in the greatest need of this allowance is a married daughter with a young family who is trying to care for an elderly parent in her home? I am sure she does not mind doing this work but it is work that should be recognised by the State. Would the Minister agree that it is now becoming more difficult to place elderly people in State care due to the massive cutbacks and due to the fact that the number of beds available in State homes has been reduced? Elderly parents have to be cared for by——
Let us not stray too far from the subject matter of this question.
The payment of the prescribed relative allowance will be considered in the context of the budget.
We shall now proceed to deal with those questions which have been nominated for priority.
A Cheann Comhairle, I would like with your permission to raise on the Adjournment a matter I gave notice of last week. Due to the widespread concern expressed by the farming community, I would like to raise the present position of the agricultural advisory technical research services provided by AFT-ACOT in Galway in the light of the 43 per cent cut in their allocation in the budget.
I will communicate with the Deputy.