Vol. 387 No. 8
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has considered the social welfare implications of the recently published report of the National Council for the Aged, Caring for the Elderly, in particular, their recommendation in relation to the prescribed relatives allowance; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
26.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has read the pre-budget submission of the National Council for the Aged; and if he will implement their recommendations.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 26 together.
The pre-budget submission from the National Council for the Aged contained a number of recommendations arising from the council's report Caring for the Elderly which had been published previously. In their report the council examined the present arrangements for providing assistance to incapacitated old age pensioners who are being cared for by another person, through the prescribed relative allowance scheme.
The council recommend that the assistance provided in this situation should operate on the principle of compensation for the cost to carers of lost work opportunities outside the home and also for the additional household costs incurred as a result of their caring role. To this end the council recommend the payment of two separate allowances in cases where an elderly person requires care and attention. These are: an allowance on the lines of the prescribed relative allowance but payable in any case where an elderly person is incapacitated to a significant degree and requires care and an allowance to the carer equivalent to the unemployment benefit or assistance to which they would otherwise be entitled. The council's recommendations would involve a major change in existing arrangements and would have very significant cost implications.
I will keep the council's views in mind in the context of future developments in this area. I have also brought these views to the attention of the National Pensions Board which will be reporting to me later this year on future pension provisions generally.
This issue has become something of a hardy annual and in all the years the Minister has been answering questions in this House he has given us the same answer. Would the Minister accept that there is now ample evidence that a change is needed in the way the prescribed relative's allowance is paid and in the value of the prescribed relative's allowance? The report estimates that there are about 24,000 people in need of full time care. If those 24,000 carers withdrew their services the cost to the State would be phenomenal and we would be talking about perhaps £500 per week per person to cover the cost. Would the Minister not agree it is only fair that the people who provide this care for their elderly relatives should be compensated?
I agree with the Deputy that the people providing such care are providing a very valuable service. The difficulty I have with the suggestion made by the National Council for the Aged is that it would cost £31 million in a full year.
I want to make a suggestion to the Minister. Taking the prescribed relative's allowance payable at present, would the Minister make a start by establishing clearly that the carers are entitled to a direct payment which would not be added on to the pensioner's payment? Secondly, would the Minister not accept that the amount payable to those who at present receive the prescribed relative's allowance is so low at £27 or £28 that at a minimum it should be brought up to the basic SWA level? That start could be made for less than £1 million.
To bring it up to the single rate of unemployment assistance for existing people would cost £1.4 million.
Could the Minister tell us how much the 70p increase which he allocated this year under the prescribed relative's allowance is costing? Could he indicate also the number of people claiming prescribed relative's allowance?
They are separate questions and I do not have that information.
As I pointed out with regard to the 1988 Social Welfare Bill, would the Minister consider relaxing the position in relation to those people on unemployment assistance who take care of elderly people and in so doing lose benefit because under the regulations they are deemed to be not available for employment?
I think the Deputy is thinking particularly of those who because of giving this kind of care are deemed unavailable for work. Generally speaking, the social welfare officers take a reasonably sympathetic view. I have been involved in a number of cases which have been brought to my attention where this kind of view might be taken and it has been taken subsequently
Would the Minister be sympathetic to that type of action?
Yes, I would.
But surely——
I am sorry, Deputy. I want to get to another question.
Is the Minister proposing something which under the Social Welfare Act regulations would be an illegality?
I am going on to Question No. 16. I have given the Deputy much latitude on the matter.
That is the difficulty, obviously.
Well, change the law. That is what to do. Give these people a legal status.
You cannot have it both ways, that is the problem.
