The carer's allowance section is a little like the curate's egg, good in parts. There is a huge problem with confusion, expectation and the very restrictive means test. On Second Stage I argued that its presentation as an increase from £27 to £45 was misrepresenting the case, and that is putting it as gently as I can. The number of people who would receive that kind of increase would be fewer than the current number in receipt of the prescribed relative's allowance. Other than that, they are persons with no income at all and where they are to come from I do not know. Either they have a private income or an income as a dependant of a married person who will now be included, or they have a social welfare income either as a dependant themselves or as an individual. If such persons are individual social welfare recipients the allowance will mean a net loss in income for them. If they are dependants it could mean an increase, depending on what their rate of benefit, from £16 to as low as £6. There will be more people in receipt of this benefit but the additional amounts will be a great deal smaller than the presentation of £27 to £45.
Had it been presented in that modified fashion we could have welcomed those increases, but there is a great expectation that carers are being acknowledged and the rigidity of the means test or the exclusions therefrom really have not hit home.
The categories of people who would qualify are widened and that is welcome. I would like the Minister to clarify my reading of that — that there are now no exceptions. If you are residing with somebody and providing full-time care nobody is excluded, relative or otherwise. That is a very welcome major reform.
The Minister has amended the scheme, as we asked him to do on Second Stage, to include recipients of DPMA and has broadened significantly the categories of people who qualify for care. I regret that he has not taken on the other proposal I made in my amendment that he also consider persons in receipt of other income such as occupational injuries pensions who themselves require full-time care and attention and whose incomes might be no greater, or only marginally greater, than those who are being considered at the moment. These people do exist. People have had to retire from teaching with psychiatric illness and people retire in other walks of life through various disabilities. If we are to apply this scheme comprehensively, this group should be considered also. Perhaps the power the Minister is giving himself under the regulations will allow him to meet that situation.
The single most limiting factor in this proposal is the means test. The Minister said he picked the most generous means test but, as Deputy Ferris said, there is no such thing in the social welfare system. Under our general amendment means which have stood at the same figure since 1974 should be updated. This is very relevant.
There are improvements that we welcome. It is not sufficient to acknowledge the 66,000 people who are providing whole-time care. Had the Minister taken on my proposal in relation to carer's benefit it would have included as of right at least one group not means tested. Under my proposal if the person who had a benefit entitlement similar to a unemployment benefit or if he would qualify for unemployment benefit or disability benefit and gave up his or her employment to provide full-time care, hence creating another job in the workforce, the cost to the State would be insignificant. Extension of the provision to such persons would be an acknowledgement of the value, to which we give lip service at least, of the kind of care these people are providing. If the Minister is not willing to take that on board this year he might look at it for the future.
Given that it is ruled out of order as an amendment because of the charge on the Exchequer, the question of maintaining the prescribed relative's allowance alongside the new carer's allowance is something the Minister might take on board. The prescribed relative's allowance is not means tested, I understand. Once you prove that you are providing full-time care and are not working outside the home or engaged in other employment, you can qualify for it. It will mean only a small number of additional people and it would broaden the scope of the proposals.
While we welcome the improvements we are concerned at the very limited scope, the impact of a very rigid means test and the huge level of disappointment and let down that will be felt throughout the community as the restrictive nature of the scheme as proposed becomes more broadly known to the people who have great expectations of benefiting from it.
