Vol. 517 No. 6
53 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will expand on his recent comments that the Government must look at public private partnership models in the context of future caring for our ageing population. [10542/00]
55 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the timeframe for the introduction of carer's benefit in view of the fact that legislation is necessary from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to guarantee the employment rights of recipients of this benefit. [10534/00]
65 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the specific measures planned for a co-ordinated approach to address the needs of carers, in view of the commitment in the review of An Action Programme for the Millennium; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10520/00]
74 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the plans, if any, he has to expand the respite care benefit, in view of the grave difficulties endured by older carers of people with Alzheimer's disease and other serious medical conditions. [10543/00]
82 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the proposals, if any, he has to allow full-time carers, who become widows or widowers, to retain the carer's allowance when they qualify for the widow's pension; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10548/00]
As three of these questions are for oral answer, time not exceeding 18 minutes will be available for them.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 53, 55, 65, 74 and 82 together.
As part of the Government's commitment to carers, as set out in An Action Programme for the Millennium, an overall review of the carer's allowance was completed by an interdepartmental committee, chaired by my Department, and was published in October 1998. Arising from this review, I introduced major improvements to the carer's allowance scheme in the 1999 and 2000 budgets.
At the end of March 2000, there were 14,981 carer's allowances in payment. This represents an increase of over 60% in the number of carers claiming the allowance since this Government took office. Expenditure on carer's allowance was £36.5 million in 1997 and is projected to be £78.3 million this year, representing an increase over the three years since I became Minister of 115%.
In the review of An Action Programme for the Millennium, the Government pledged to put in place a co-ordinated approach addressing the needs of carers. One of the key priorities is to develop a partnership model to facilitate the development by the State, in conjunction with the private sector, of an improved system for meeting long-term care costs.
To this end, one of the remaining proposals arising from the review of the carer's allowance will be examined this year. A consultancy study will be undertaken to examine issues relating to long-term care, both in terms of cost and possible partner ship approaches, and the possible role of the PRSI system in this regard. In budget 2000, I announced the introduction of the new carer's benefit scheme which recognises that leaving employment to provide care is a contingency broadly similar to other contingencies under the social insurance code and, as such, the benefit will fill a gap in the social insurance system. The new carer's benefit scheme, which will be of 15 months' duration, is specifically intended to support people who must leave the work force to care for someone who is in need of full-time care and attention.
The scheme involves two central elements. The first is a weekly income support payment to be operated and paid by my Department. This will be based on PRSI contributions paid by the carer. The second is the protection of the carer's employment rights for the duration of the caring period. The carer's benefit scheme will come into effect from October this year. My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Tom Kitt, is currently drawing up legislation on the employment rights of carer's benefit recipients.
In budget 2000 I also extended the free electricity allowance and free television licence schemes to all carers in receipt of a carer's allowance, and to carers who are caring for recipients of a constant attendance or prescribed relatives allowance. These extensions ensure that carers will qualify for all free schemes from October. In addition, I have made provision for an increase in the amount of the annual respite care grant for qualified carers from £200 to £300.
Another of the key priorities identified in the Government's review of its action programme is to establish a pilot system of needs assessment for carers and people needing care, to be operated by the health boards. This area is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Health and Children. However, I understand that the Western Health Board has agreed to undertake this pilot project in its area and that needs assessments will commence in the near future.
With regard to the issue of allowing widows to claim a widow's pension and carer's allowance concurrently from my Department, the review of the carer's allowance – which came out in October 1998 – noted that the carer's allowance is an income support payment and not a payment for caring. It examined the issue of paying the carer's allowance in conjunction with another social welfare payment, and concluded that the practice of paying only one allowance should continue.
The review noted that with very few exceptions, this is a fundamental feature of all social welfare payments and is designed to ensure that limited resources are not used to make two income support payments to any one individual. A person qualifying for two social welfare payments will always receive the higher payment to which he is entitled. However, the review recommended the payment of a "continual care" pay ment to recognise all carers who were providing the highest levels of care. This would be a non-means tested payment available to all carers, including social welfare recipients, regardless of their income. In order to provide this payment, an assessment of the care levels being provided would be required. This proposal will be examined further when the pilot project on needs assessment has been completed.
The question of further improvements to the carer's allowance and for carers generally, will be considered in a budgetary context, taking account of our key priorities in the care area, as set out in the review of our action programme.
There is some confusion about the last part of the Minister's answer concerning the carer's allowance for a carer who becomes a widow. I have been pursuing this matter for some time. If a carer qualifying for the carer's allowance because her husband's income is less than £150 per week, and caring for a doubly incontinent bed-ridden patient, unfortunately becomes a widow she then has to suffer the loss of her husband along with his £150 weekly income. She then qualifies for a widow's pension which is about £70.23 but she will lose the carer's allowance despite the fact that she continues to care for the husband's doubly incontinent relative in her house, who is bedridden 365 days a year. Should that person not be entitled to the carer's allowance as well as the widow's pension? Could we not have some regulation that would allow that to happen in the very few instances where carer's unfortunately become widows?
If the Deputy has a particular case in mind we can have that examined. However, various lobby groups had an input into the October 1998 review of the carer's allowance which came up with the strong recommendation that there should not be two payments. This was because the social welfare system would not be recognised as a system for paying for care for people. The carer's allowance is designed to assist those who are on a low income. It is means tested and the question of whether or not we should abolish the means test is one of the issues about which Deputies are being lobbied.
The Minister did nothing with it anyway. He did not make any improvement. Shame on him.
If one were to abolish the means test it would cost a severe amount. If my memory serves me correctly, it would be about £200 million.
Forty million.
We must try to target whatever resources we have at those who can least afford it.
He did nothing about it so far.
I have already suggested that I will look at that type of increase in the disregard in forthcoming budgets. It is the only other issue we can look at in this regard and I will do so.
The Minister has not answered either Question No. 53 or No. 55. In a recent response during the debate on the Social Welfare Bill, the Minister said he was considering some sort of public private partnership context for funding pensions. He has already admitted today that one quarter of our senior citizens live in poverty. He has not disputed the ESRI report and he has admitted that the gap is growing. Ordinary income is growing at 3.5 times that of senior citizens. Is it not necessary, therefore, for the Minister to turn his attention urgently to the management of the social insurance fund and the reserve fund to see what he can do about this? A few weeks ago, the Minister made this comment in a throw-away remark but he has failed absolutely to answer it today.
As regards Question No. 55, can the carer's benefit be introduced on time? It looks as if we will have a frantic rush, as we had with the Minimum Wage Bill, or it may not happen on time at all. It seems to be quite a complex matter to hold the jobs, particularly of women who would give up their jobs for 15 months to look after people.
The Deputy should at least give me credit for bringing in the carer's benefit – something the Deputy's party did not do when it was in power.
When I see it.
Give us some credit for bringing in the carer's benefit, which we are doing.
When it comes in, next year.
We are getting extremely complimentary remarks from all the social partners for bringing it in. The Deputy does a lot of talking about examining issues but we take action. The Deputy knows quite well what the reality is – that the carer's benefit can not come into being until the end of the year. That is because one cannot introduce carer's benefit without protecting the employment rights of those who will be benefiting from that allowance. The legislation has to be passed by the House.
Where is it?
It is easy to announce a scheme but one has to legislate for it. As I said in my reply, the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, is already preparing that legislation.
He has had five months to do so.
Please allow the Minister to reply. Other Members also wish to ask questions.
He has already stated in the House that he will have it in place. The Deputy accused me of not replying to one of the questions but he obviously was not listening to me.
I was listening.
I said that a consultancy study will be undertaken to examine issues relating to long-term care, both in terms of cost and possible partnership approaches, and the possible role of the PRSI system in this regard. The Deputy should withdraw his accusation that I did not answer the question.
I want to put three issues to the Minister. First, he mentioned that 14,000 odd are getting a carer's allowance.
Fifteen thousand.
Less than 15,000.
I gave the Deputy the figure, it was 14,981.
Does the Minister accept that in that situation there are 35,000 who provide full-time care who get nothing? Why is he allowing that situation to continue? Second, why has the Minister not improved the means test? Does he accept that it is because of that means test and the fact that the Government has not improved it, that those 35,000 people are precluded from getting any payment? Third, does he really accept the hogwash and gobbledegook from his report that precludes the poorest section of our people from getting the carer's allowance? They are people such as the widow mentioned by Deputy McCormack and those in receipt of social welfare payments. Does he accept that it is absolutely ludicrous and socially wrong?
The figure of 35,000 the Deputy has referred to is an estimate of people in community care. He says they are getting nothing but the reality is that they are receiving support, primarily from the Department of Health and Children which is responsible for the issue of caring for the elderly in the community through the health boards.
What are they getting?
The carer's allowance was started in 1990 by my predecessor, Deputy Woods, with an estimate at that time of £100,000. Ten years later, it has risen to just over £78 million. The vast majority of that increase has taken place when my party were in Government and not when the Deputy's party was in Government. The Deputy's party did nothing about the means test when it was in office. He is confusing the disregard with the means test.
That is not true. Why did the Minister not increase the disregard?
The plea has always been for removing the means test. I would defy the Deputy or the Fine Gael Party to say that when they come back into Government, if they ever do, they will abolish the means test, because they know full well that if they were on this side of the House they would not. I have given an undertaking through the Chair. The Deputy referred to "gobbledegook" and is doing a great disservice to all those who took part in the review of the carer's allowance, which made many recommendations only in October 1998, 99% of which have been complied with.
We are discussing the poorest of the poor. The Minister does not believe it himself.
I ask the Minister to give way to Deputy McGrath.
Is the Minister aware that when the carer's group appeared before the Joint Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs quite recently, it expressed grave disappointment at the lack of progress made by the Minister on carers? During Committee Stage of the Social Welfare Bill, the Minister indicated that the means test had improved in his time. During his time in office, the income disregard has not changed by one pound. He has done nothing for the additional 35,000 carers.
What is his excuse?
What is his excuse for not looking after those 35,000 carers and for not being prepared to give them any recognition, even by way of a respite care payment, which the Fine Gael party has offered and will give those people?
That will be soon forgotten.
The Minister has not given them a bob – 35,000 people are left high and dry.
The Deputy asked me whether I had done anything for carers.
Ask the Carer's Association.
There has been an increase of more than 60% in just three years in the number of people receiving the carer's allowance. The allocation has increased under my stewardship from £36 million to £78 million, an increase of 115%.
What about the 35,000 people the Minister is excluding?
All carer's are now also getting all of the free schemes.
No, they are not.
That is not true.
It is true. The Deputy mentioned the disregard.
The Minister does not know his own scheme.
I acknowledge the great benefit of the carer's allowance and I acknowledge the Minster's very generous offer that I should write to him about a personal problem. I have been writing for two and a half years and have not received any response. That is the truth and I have all the letters in my files.
The Minister does not respond except to Deputy Jackie Healy-Rea.
My question is quite simple. No matter what figures the Minister gives, I have a reply to a Dáil question which states that less than 100 people who were already on social welfare, applied for the carer's allowance in the nine years of the carer's allowance. Therefore, to say that it cost £250 million is ridiculous.
The Deputy should put a question.
Can the Minister please address the plight of the carer who becomes a widow and not penalise her for continuing to be a carer after she becomes a widow by taking the carer's allowance away from her when she qualifies for the widow's pension. That is all I ask.
The answer to Deputy McCormack's problem, without breaking the principle of one social welfare payment per individual, lies in the increase in the disregard. As I said to Deputies McGrath and O'Keeffe, I have given a commitment, in view of the fact that I have delivered on all 99% of the recommendations of the carer's allowance review which came out in October 1998, that once I had delivered on all of those commitments, which I have done in two budgets, I would then examine increasing the disregard not doing away with the means test.
There is no disregard.
Does the Minister wish to correct the record of the House? He said all carers get the free schemes – that is not true. By his own admissions there are at least 35,000 carers who receive nothing from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. He should put the record straight.
The Deputy knows I was referring to all people in receipt of the carer's allowance. All of the people who received the carer's allowance during his time in Government are now receiving the free schemes as a result of changes made by me.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
