Vol. 505 No. 7
12 Mr. McGrath asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the projected number of carers who will avail of the new respite payment announced by his Department; and the qualifying conditions to avail of this payment. [14322/99]
29 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the number of people in receipt of carer's allowance; the benefits that accrue from people been cared for in the community; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14404/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 29 together.
All those in receipt of the carer's allowance on 3 June 1999 will receive the respite care grant of £200. The grant will also be paid to carers of those in receipt of prescribed relatives allowance and constant attendance allowance. It is estimated that almost 12,000 people will receive the grant at a cost of almost £2.4 million. There are no additional qualifying conditions for this grant, which will be paid every year.
Government policy is strongly in favour of supporting care in the community and enabling people to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. However, the State cannot and would not wish to replace the personal support and care provided within the family and the community. Therefore, its primary role is to provide adequate support to carers and to those for whom they are caring, to enable them to remain in their own communities for as long as possible.
The measures I introduced in the 1999 budget clearly indicate my personal commitment, and that of the Government, to carers who enable people in need of care to be looked after in their own homes and communities, and the appreciation we must all have for this valuable role in our society. The budget package, costing more than £18 million, represents a 40 per cent increase on existing expenditure and is a very considerable addition to the £45 million spent on carers in 1998. In total, the expenditure in this area will be £63 million.
In addition, my colleagues the Ministers for Finance, Health and Children and the Environment and Local Government also brought forward proposals of assistance to carers in the budget as part of a co-ordinated response. The Government is also conscious that such a cross-cutting approach is required and needs to be developed further.
I acknowledge that 12,000 people will receive the respite grant of £200. However, does the Minister acknowledge that there are perhaps 40,000 additional carers who will not receive any allowance from the Department either in respect of respite care or other services? Would it not be better to extend the scheme to those who receive nothing from the Department for the tremendous work they do in looking after people who are in need of constant care? Even if this were only a once-off payment once a year, it would be a small recognition of the tremendous work these people do. As it stands, the Minister is giving the £200 grant to 12,000 carers who deserve it. Could he not give something to the additional 30,000 to 40,000 who get no recognition for the services they provide?
I do not have primary responsibility for people's health, I have responsibility for the payment of carer's allowance. Everyone who qualifies for payment of carer's allowance from my Department will also qualify for the £200 grant which they will receive each year in which they continue to qualify. As already stated, this will cost £2.4 million. The Minister for Health and Children has already put in place a number of major initiatives for the provision of respite beds. To a certain extent, these initiatives will cater for other demands in this area.
If we were to give the grant to the 40,000 people – there may be more – to whom the Deputy referred, the cost of £2.4 million would increase dramatically. My Department would find it extremely difficult to discover the identity of those people.
If the Minister were to extend payment of the grant to a further 30,000 people, the cost would rise by a mere £7 million. Does the Minister not agree this would be money well spent and that it would provide some recognition of the work done by those people who care for relatives in their homes on a 24 hours a day basis? These people provide the service to which I refer day after day and week after week.
My Department cannot quantify the expenditure that would be required because the major responsibility in this area lies with the Department of Health and Children. I am not trying to pass the buck and I accept my Department retains responsibility for carer's allowance. As a result of the review of the carer's allowance payment, a report was compiled with the assistance of the my Department and the Departments of Finance and Health and Children which strongly suggested that a needs assessment system should be introduced which could be used to identify the needs of each individual. Ultimately, this will be the way forward. As a result of the review, an interdepartmental committee chaired by Deputy Moffatt was established to investigate the issue of needs assessment. I suggest that this is the route we should take in the future rather than taking a "big sweep" approach which probably catches many people but does not represent the best use of the limited resources available.
I concur with the remarks of Deputy McGrath. Does the Minister agree another avenue of approach to assist the 40,000 plus carers would be to provide a sufficient number of respite care places for the people for whom they care, particularly those with serious illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease etc? The number of such places currently provided is appallingly low. On the northside of Dublin, for example, people were obliged to fall back on using facilities such as St. Ita's. Will the people who qualify for carer's allowance later in the year qualify for a portion of the £200 grant during the period 1999-2000?
With regard to the latter question, my understanding is that the grant will be paid in June of every year. Therefore, once people qualify for carer's allowance in the current year they will receive the grant next June.
Primary responsibility for the provision of respite care services rests with the Department of Health and Children. There have always been difficulties in this area, irrespective of who is in Government, but the Minister for Health and Children is committed to improving respite care services. He introduced a major initiative in respect of the supply of respite care places in the recent budget. On behalf of the Government, I endeavoured to co-ordinate an overall response from a number of Department's in respect of carers. As a result, additional funding was provided by the Department of Health and Children for respite care services and the Department of the Environment and Local Government increased the disabled person's grant from £8,000 to £12,000. The Department of Finance also introduced major changes in tax allowances, primarily at the instigation of my Department, so that the children and extended families of carers would be able to avail of the existing allowance of £8,500 which had previously been available only to spouses.
Will the Minister allow single people, who qualify as a result of the change in the budget, to apply in August for the carer's allowance? That change means their families will not get the £200 allowance this year. If the Minister is still in Government for next year's budget, will he consider increasing the amount disallowed, which is £150, because it has not been increased in the last two budgets? Many people are not able to claim the carer's allowance because the disregard is so low.
The carer's disregard is one of the highest in the social welfare system in special recognition of the difficult job carers do. As I said at the Select Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs, I intend to look at this issue in the context of the budget in December. As regards qualifying and applying for the carer's allowance, my understanding is that the respite payment is made once a year and that people will qualify if they are still on the carer's allowance next June. A once-off payment will be made every year and the recipients will get it when they subsequently apply the following year.
13 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the fact that young people participating in apprenticeships paying the equiv alent of social welfare rates are not eligible for rent allowances; if he will review this regulation given that it may put pressure on apprentices who are not living in the family home to give up the apprenticeship; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14590/99]
The purpose of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme is to provide a basic weekly allowance to eligible people who have little or no income. Those eligible for assistance under the SWA scheme would normally be in receipt of a social welfare or health board payment and would have to satisfy a number of criteria, including a means test. In addition, people with low incomes may also qualify for a weekly supplement to meet certain special needs, for example, rent and mortgage interest payments, or a payment to assist with the cost of any exceptional needs they may have.
The legislation governing the payment of SWA precludes any person in full-time employment from receiving a rent supplement under the SWA scheme. A person is regarded as being engaged in remunerative full-time work where he or she is working for not less than 30 hours a week.
Single people on low pay, such as apprentices and trainees who are in full-time employment, do not qualify for a rent supplement and must provide for their own accommodation needs. I am aware that this can act as a disincentive to work for those on low pay, especially where they have significant housing costs. The responsibility for setting rates of payment for apprentices and ensuring that wage levels for all workers are fair and reasonable is a matter for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The introduction of a national minimum wage will help to address this matter.
Between 1989 and 1998 expenditure on rent and mortgage supplements increased from £6 million to £88 million and is expected to rise to more than £100 million in 1999. The extension of the SWA scheme to include the payment of rent supplement to single people in low paid employment, including apprentices and trainees, would involve a significant departure from the scheme as it currently operates and would have major financial implications.
The operation of the rent supplement scheme will be examined shortly in the context of the Government's commitment under Partnership 2000 to consider a tapering arrangement for SWA housing supplements, in consultation with the social partners. In addition, an interdepartmental committee is examining the transfer of the administration of rent and mortgage interest supplements to local authorities. I understand the final report of this committee will be submitted to the Government shortly. The further development of the SWA rent supplement scheme to address this and other issues can be considered in a budgetary context, taking into account the discussions with the social partners and the con clusions reached by the interdepartmental committee.
It is petty to restrict apprentices to low rates of pay which are equivalent to social welfare rates. Why should they not benefit from rent supplements, particularly in the context of the current housing crisis and the fact that rents and house prices are scheduled to increase by a further 20 per cent this year? This is a disincentive for young people and an encouragement to give up apprenticeships. The Minister should consider this issue as a matter of urgency.
The issue of rent supplement being a disincentive to work has been around for some time and is being considered in Partnership 2000 with the social partners. I have no doubt the issue to which the Deputy referred will be looked at in that respect. To include all people on low income and trainees and apprentices would be a major departure in terms of rent supplement and SWA, which is a safety net for people who are not at work or do not have the ability to work.
The SWA scheme and its delivery was raised at the Committee of Public Accounts recently. That is one of the reasons the Government has initiated this examination of rent and mortgage supplements. The figure has increased dramatically and is now well over the £100 million estimated in 1999. We must look at this in the context of the need to provide housing for people. This situation is no different from that which pertained a number of years ago. I have no doubt this issue is being looked at by the social partners in the context of the Partnership 2000 arrangements.
