asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider introducing a separate allowance which would be paid directly to those engaged full time in looking after an elderly or ill relative in the home; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Prescribed Relative Allowance Extension.
8.
The prescribed relative allowance is payable to incapacitated pensioners who have living with them a prescribed relative who is providing them with full time care and attention. The allowance is paid as an increase in pension and is intended to assist the pensioner in meeting household costs.
There is no scheme in operation at present under the social welfare code whereby an allowance is paid directly to a person providing full time care in the home to an elderly or ill relative. An allowance for the domicilary care of severely handicapped children is payable, through the health boards, to the mother of a severely handicapped child maintained at home who needs constant care and supervision substantially greater than that normally required by a child of the same age.
The Commission on Social Welfare in their report recommended that persons providing full-time care and attention for relatives should have entitlement in their own right to an assistance payment in lieu of the prescribed relative allowance. This would involve a significant change in present arrangements and the possibility of introducing such an allowance should be examined in the context of the payments being made to pensioners generally.
The National Pensions Board are currently examining all the payments made under the social welfare system to pensioners with a view to establishing whether or to what extent these adequately meet their needs and what changes are required. As part of this examination the board are considering the position of pensioners requiring constant care and attention. I will be giving priority to the board's recommendations in this area when I receive their final report which is due to be completed before the end of this year.
One of the disappointing aspects of yesterday's budget is that the only attempt to deal with this issue was to increase by 80p the prescribed relative allowances. Would the Minister not agree that it would be far more costly for the State if the relative did not care for the elderly person and the elderly person was admitted to a health board or a private home where the health board had to pay a portion of the cost and that one such case would cost from £300 to £500 a week? Would the Minister not agree that it would be far better to immediately look at the question of converting this prescribed relative allowance into payment for the carer who is generally a woman?
The cost of paying the equivalent of the prescribed relatives' allowance to all pensioners receiving full time care and attention, which was also proposed by the National Council for the Aged, would be £31 million in a full year. The Deputy will appreciate that that would be a very substantial cost. The question as to the prescribed relative being paid separately is being considered in relation to pensions generally. I will consider it as a priority once I have the report of the pensions board in that area.
Would the Minister not agree that the carers, generally women, have no rights at all in relation to social welfare? In order for the pensioner to qualify for the allowance the relative has to give full time care and attention and because of that the carer is not entitled to unemployment assistance or any other kind of assistance from the Department of Social Welfare. This is intolerable especially as these women are saving the State possibly hundreds of millions of pounds.
The Deputy is talking about a different scheme. That would require costings and the full implications of it would have to be examined. That is part of the study which is being done by the pensions board.
The Minister quoted a figure of £31 million and this may be somewhat misleading. My understanding with regard to costings is that if we wanted to establish a separate payment for people now entitled to the prescribed relatives' allowance, or the carers, and if we wanted to increase that figure to £45 a week, the total cost would be less than £2 million. That is based on the figures supplied by the Department. Will the Minister clarify his figure of £31 million?
That was in relation to the report of the National Council for the Aged. The Deputy is making a different proposal — just paying the existing payment at the higher rate to the prescribed relative. That would cost less than £2 million.
I accept the Minister's point about the £31 million. However, we should consider that the savings that would occur in the Department of Health would far outweigh the £31 million. People on unemployment assistance, taking care of an elderly relative are automatically disqualified from receiving unemployment assistance, if they declare it, because they are not available for work. They have to take care of a relative without payment and that is a severe hardship. They are saving the State, as Deputy De Rossa said, about £300 to £400 a week per relative, and yet they are being victimised.
I want to help the Deputy but we must proceed by way of questions.
I sympathise with the points made by the Deputies. These matters will be considered further.