John Connor
Question:7 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will review the requirement under the regulations governing the carer's allowance that stipulates that the carer must reside with the aged or infirm applicant.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Carer's Allowance.
Martin Cullen
Question:10 Mr. Cullen asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his Department has had any consultation with the Department of Health regarding the possibility of making changes to the restrictive means test which applies to eligibility for the carer's allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Pat Cox
Question:21 Mr. Cox asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his Department has had any consultation with the Department of Health regarding the possibility of making changes to the restrictive means test which applies to eligibility for the carer's allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Liz O'Donnell
Question:41 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his Department had any consultation with the Department of Health regarding the possibility of making changes to the restrictive means test which applies to eligibility for the carer's allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Bernard Allen
Question:51 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare the proposals, if any, he has to raise the eligibility limits for carer's allowance in view of the small number of persons who qualify for this allowance.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 10, 21, 41 and 51 together.
The carer's allowance, which I introduced in November 1990, provides a direct payment to carers on a meanstested basis. The scheme was originally designed for people on low incomes who were providing full-time care and attention to elderly or incapacitated social welfare pensioners.
In July 1991, I extended the allowance to people providing care for recipients of disabled person's maintenance allowance from the health boards or recipients of an equivalent social security payment from another EC country or a country which has a bilateral social security agreement with Ireland.
At the end of August this year there were a total of 4,613 allowances in payment. Carers received a special increase in this year's budget of £6.20 per week bringing their payment up to the long term rate of £59.20. This improvement represents an increase of almost 12 per cent compared to the general increase of 3.5 per cent provided for in the budget.
The scheme is specifically designed for carers on low incomes who are providing full-time care and attention and who are residing with the pensioner. Any extension of the scheme to include carers who are not residing with the persons needing care would have substantial cost implications. In addition, the question of relaxing the means-testing arrangements would also have significant cost implications which could only be considered in the light of available resources and in a budgetary context.
I am liaising with my colleague the Minister for Health, regarding provision for carers generally. I recognise the essential contribution made by carers and I made provision this year for a fund of £500,000 for grants to organisations providing respite care facilities and services to full-time carers.
Applications for assistance under this scheme are being considered and I am confident that this initiative will help to bring about important improvements in the position of carers in our society.
The Minister does not need me to tell him that the scheme is highly contentious and unsatisfactory. Will he agree that in many cases the carer may live next door to the person being cared for? I do not accept this argument that substantial costs would be incurred by including people such as family members who live next door, in the neighbourhood or, in the case of the countryside, within easy distance of the person needing care. Will the Minister not agree that hundreds, if not thousands, of people are being denied the service because of this pernickety requirement?
The scheme was introduced with those conditions for people living in the same household and to extend it beyond that would not include only the person next door.
What about small farm families?
There are many cases in which extra people could become qualified. In those circumstances budgetary approval would be required and extra funds would have to be allocated in the budget. That matter will be given further consideration as the scheme develops.
Will the Minister agree that if this provision took 2,000 or 3,000 elderly people out of our welfare institutions over a given period, an extra cost would not be incurred? The Minister was kind enough to tell us that there are now 4,613 recipients, but will he tell us what percentage of the total number of applicants that represents? I suggest it represents no more than 30 per cent of the total number who applied.
Regardless of the way the scheme is extended once it is extended extra costs will be incurred.
But there would be a saving on the other side.
I listed some of the improvements we carried out this year in extending the scheme to the long-term rate. That was a significant improvement and automatically made the scheme available to more people, as it is means tested. However, any further extension or development of the scheme is a matter for the forthcoming budget and the scheme will be considered in that context.
What percentage of the total number of applicants does the 4,613 recipients represent?
I will endeavour to facilitate all Deputies who are offering, but they should be brief.
As the Minister stated, everybody welcomed the improvement in the scheme. Nevertheless, would he not agree that if he extended it to people not living on either side of the person requiring care, but to those willing to care for the elderly, we would be saving on other services? Will the Minister make more of a commitment than merely telling us he will examine the matter in the forthcoming budget? Will he tell us that this is the way we should proceed as a matter of policy?
It is estimated that an extension of the type mentioned by the Deputies would incur a direct increased cost of approximately £13.5 million. I accept Deputy Keogh's point about the savings element, but that matter will have to be developed further and I am open to discussions along those lines. I will be discussing how the scheme can be further developed and improved with the Minister for Health, bearing in mind the savings that could be made. I agree in principle with Deputy Keogh's point, but at budget time we would have to seek further moneys and prove that the scheme would bring about real savings. To prove such a case would require a great deal of homework but, in principle, I agree with the Deputy.
If the Government is serious about community care, will the Minister consider extending the scheme in the manner suggested by my colleague? We are all aware that many elderly people prefer to stay in their homes for as long as possible and that, frequently, the support of a carer can mean the difference between staying in their homes and going into residential care. That does not necessarily mean somebody who resides with the person needing care, but who lives nearby and is willing to visit the person involved each day. I am surprised at the Minister's initial hesitancy about this matter, although he appears willing to reconsider the matter. Surely such a provision would incur budgetary savings given the cost of residential care compared with supportive community care such as this.
I am the Minister for Social Welfare, not the Minister for Health.
The Minister would want to get his act together.
I introduced a means tested scheme for people with particular difficulties. That scheme has been very successful and involves a great deal more expenditure at present than was envisaged initially. Nevertheless, such money is well spent. Community care is not my brief, it is not under my control.
Of course it is.
I will liaise with the Minister for Health to facilitate him in respect of the savings and requirements involved in such care. The provisions range from home help to various other nursing supports.
At £2 an hour.
I will continue to liaise with the Minister for Health, but all steps will have to be considered in a budgetary context as such care involves substantial costs.
I appeal for brevity as many Deputies are offering and I want to facilitate them all.
It is an important question.
I agree with the Deputy and I will gladly facilitate him.
This is an important question and the Minister's sectionalised attitude in regard to his brief is appalling. Will he get his act together and, in conjunction with the Minister for Health, introduce a comprehensive carer's scheme involving home help and a carer's allowance? The Minister should recall the comments made by the Taoiseach last week when he shed crocodile tears about the elderly and introduce a scheme whereby if an adult goes to live with an elderly person such a person will not lose his or her electricity and telephone allowances. Will the Minister agree that even increasing the eligibility limit by £10 would cost only £1 million in this budget year and £2.3 million in a full year? In view of the cost of institutional care, will the Minister agree that there would be an overall saving to the Exchequer by introducing a comprehensive scheme and we would be delivering a much better scheme to the elderly?
I want to facilitate Deputies but I cannot permit a debate on this subject.
I am amused at the Deputy because, while he does not want the variety of schemes I am trying to introduce, for the unemployed, students and others, he wants endless schemes in this case.
They were meaningless schemes, the Minister should address the question.
In so far as the overall question is concerned, as I stated in my reply, I am considering the position in conjunction with the Minister for Health and we will be eager to make any improvements in the context of the resources available to us.
Is the Minister aware that many of those carers work 24 hours a day 365 days a year? In reply to an earlier question the Minister asked the Deputies to have patience in regard to this matter, but would he not agree that the 56,000 carers who have not qualified for the carer's allowance have considerable patience? Could the guideline in relation to the carer's allowance be based on the carer's income rather than that of the household? Sometimes people cannot qualify for the carer's allowance because their husband or another member of the household is in receipt of income. How many of the 60,000 carers in the country are in receipt of the full time carer's allowance of £59.20?
The Deputy's question is very specific.
I am sure the Minister will be able to reply.
The number of carers in receipt of the allowance is slightly more than 4,600.
Out of the 60,000 carers?
The figure of approximately 4,600 represents those who qualify under the means test. People on higher incomes who are carers are entitled to a tax allowance.
Of up to £110 a week, but it costs £200 a week to care for a person.
A mechanism exists for claiming tax allowance which is more appropriate in those circumstances. There is also a tax allowance for a carer to call to a person's house to provide care. I am aware of the difficulties.
The Minister should do something about the matter.
We have taken another step to improve matters by providing respite care.
(Interruptions.)
The interruptions must cease.
We are providing respite care assistance and will shortly be able to allocate funds for such assistance. Such measures will provide breaks for full-time carers.
As Deputy McCormack stated, I am sure the Minister will agree that many thousands of dedicated carers receive no recognition for their work. They are saving the State many millions of pounds because those people would otherwise have to be looked after in residential care. Would the Minister consider restructuring this scheme which was introduced a number of years ago? It was somewhat misleading in that all carers thought they would be entitled to the allowance whereas only a minority are in receipt of remuneration for their great efforts.
The scheme was not misleading.
It was a tricky-dicky scheme.
Fine Gael did not provide for carers when they were in office. It did not introduce any scheme to provide assistance or support for carers.
This scheme originated with the Soroptimists.
I introduced a number of schemes and we are now providing respite care.
(Interruptions.)
If we cannot have orderly supplementary questions I will pass on to the next question.
Deputy McGinley's home county of Donegal is exemplary in relation to the care of the elderly. During the years there has been a great input into the provision of day care facilities and other facilities that are needed. I appreciate that work and I trust the added provisions under the carer's scheme will improve matters.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Will the Minister give a commitment to deal with the assessment by considering the income of full-time housewives who are carers as being half that of their husbands? By not considering their income many full-time carers who are doing great work and providing the State with a free service will not qualify for the allowance. It is farcical to talk of a carer's allowance without considering the conditions necessary to qualify for such an allowance.
I am sure Deputy Browne is aware that income in respect of a spouse cannot be included in the assessment. But there was a breakthrough in that position at one time and I am sure Deputy Browne will be on the record as approving that change at the time. The Deputy has had a long interest in this area.
Why are only 4,600 people receiving the allowance?
That is the position because of the income levels and the number of people that come under the long term unemployment rate.
We appreciate the Minister's genuine effort in regard to carers. He made slight changes when he entered office and I am pleased he is committed to reconsidering the position. In rural areas families may care for an elderly relative who lives nearby and such carers are placed under enormous financial burden as they are not entitled to any assistance. I have a letter from the Department of Health in my area. It outlines the case of an elderly person in need of care, the availability of home help but the elderly person's desire is to be cared for by his relatives who are not entitled to any assistance.
I am sure that is adequate, Deputy.
The Minister's predecessor said on radio that the carer's allowance promised to be good but in reality that was not the case.
It is a reality and 4,600 people benefit from the allowance. They are the people who are in a position to qualify for the allowance because their income is as low as the long term unemployment rate. It was worthwhile introducing the scheme and I do not agree with the comments made by the Deputy. I would like to see the scheme improved but it is subject to the availability of resources.
People expected that the introduction of the carer's allowance would provide some benefit for the carers. I am sure the Minister will agree that the scheme was disappointing and because of the means testing requirement many carers will not qualify for the allowance. I received a letter recently from a person who came home from England to look after her elderly mother. She was disappointed at the attitude here towards assistance for carer's allowance. If a person sacrifices a position in England and comes back to Ireland to care for a relative and is not in receipt of any income, what criteria are applied in respect of the means test of that carer? The Minister sympathetically referred to the day care facilities in Donegal. A day care centre in west Limerick has applied for financial assistance and will the Minister be sensitive to applications for assistance from day care centres from any part of the country?
That should be adequate.
Deputies will be aware that many voluntary grants have been given to various day care centres which strictly come under the responsibility of the local health boards, but due to the shortage of funds we have supported those centres when funds were available. The introduction of the respite care approach will be an important development for many of the carers referred to by the Deputies. There is no easy solution to this matter; it requires resources. We have provided a basic scheme and have extended eligibility to include those in receipt of an income on a par with the long term unemployment rate. Steps beyond that will have to be considered but as Deputies know every Minister is bound within the budgetary context in making any commitments.