I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment. I believe it is only right to record that this will be the last item raised on the Adjournment during the lifetime of the 26th Dáil. From that point of view, I suppose there is a certain sense of history attached to the issue. From the point of view of importance and the need for a policy development in the next Dáil I cannot think of any more important issue that should be raised than the carer's allowance. By way of example I wish to refer to the case of a 79 year old lady from my constituency who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease who is cared for at home by her niece and nephew. The cost of maintaining her in a health board institution would be upwards of £200 per week. Because of the nature of the disease, she has required 100 per cent constant care and attention over the past three years. This care and attention has been given freely and gladly by her nephew and niece. Yet, because of the restrictive conditions attached to the carer's allowance, not one penny of support has been given to these carers during that period of time.
It is correct to say that both her niece and nephew are in receipt of social welfare payments — one receives disability benefit while the other receives unemployment assistance. However, they would both be entitled to receive these payments if they never lifted a finger for their elderly aunt who has Alzheimer's disease. They have been an example to the community in the utterly unselfish way they have cared for their aunt and the way in which they have looked after her both during the day and night.
When as Opposition spokesman on social welfare, I proposed an amendment to the Social Welfare Act, 1989, which led to the establishment of the carer's allowance I certainly had in mind that cases of the type to which I am now referring would be covered. At a very minimum a recognition payment should be paid in such circumstances to acknowledge the constant care and attention given, to make some contribution towards the additional costs involved and to provide encouragement to others to maintain relatives at home and, in the process, save the Exchequer the huge costs it would incur in the provision of institutional care. I should say that this woman's nephew and niece will not benefit one penny from the introduction of such improvements in the carer's allowance — their elderly aunt died last month. Their only request to me was that others in a similar situation should get some element of support to help them through the long days of devoted attention and the seemingly unending succession of sleepless nights.
I wish to put three questions to the Minister. First, how can we regard ourselves as a Christian society if we do not have a decent carer's allowance system which gives some recognition to those who have to care for elderly and infirm relatives? Second, does he not accept, from a social point of view, that it is far better for the elderly and infirm to be cared for at home where medically possible rather than put them into an institution? Third, does he not agree that from an economic point of view it would be far cheaper for the Exchequer to make some payment which would encourage and help people to maintain their elderly and infirm relatives at home? If he agrees with me on these three issues we might join in making a commitment to the improvement of the carer's allowance system in the years ahead.
