Vol. 525 No. 4
9 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will introduce a cost of care payment of £50 per week towards the additional costs of caring for a person at home as advocated by the Carer's Association. [24946/00]
10 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he has any plans to co-ordinate research into an adequate database for the current number of carers. [24988/00]
31 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he considers that a major increase is necessary in the carer's respite grant in view of the urgent need of many carers for this facility. [24947/00]
44 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will introduce legislation and a Bill to amend the Constitution to enshrine and recognise the role of carers in society based on the carer's charter of Care Alliance Ireland. [24985/00]
57 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the estimated number of carers providing care for the elderly and infirm; the number of those who can qualify for carer's allowance; and his view on whether the means test needs to be substantially relaxed and the rule excluding social welfare recipients removed. [25073/00]
63 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he has any plans to make provision in the forthcoming budget to allow carers who become widows when they are carers to retain their carer's allowance when qualified for the widow's pension. [22924/00]
129 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the numbers of carers currently in receipt of carer's allowance; the plans he has to extend this number in 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25368/00]
130 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the plans he has to extend carer's allowance to cover a wider spec trum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25369/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 10, 31, 44, 57, 63, 129 and 130 together.
Carer's allowance is a means tested payment administered by my Department for carers on low income who look after people in need of full-time care and attention. Based on research conducted in the review of carer's allowance published in October 1998, the number of full-time carers is estimated to be 50,000 covering carers of older people and adults and children with disabilities. At the end of October there were 16,176 carers in receipt of carer's allowance. These figures show that 32% of full-time carers are in receipt of carer's allowance, an increase of 75% in the number of carers in receipt of the allowance since the Government took office. This large increase is reflected in the expenditure on carer's allowance which was £36.5 million in 1997 when I became Minister and is projected to be £78.3 million this year, an increase of 115%.
As with all other social assistance schemes, a means test in which the income of both the applicant and his or her partner is assessable is applied to carer's allowance to ensure limited resources are directed to those in greatest need. The means test has been eased significantly in the past few years, most notably with the introduction of disregards of income from employment and other sources.
When was the means test eased?
Listen on.
Not in the Minister's time.
The effect of these changes means that a couple with two children could have a joint annual income of £9,152 and qualify for the maximum carer's allowance while a couple with up to £19,500 could still qualify for a minimum carer's allowance and also receive an annual respite care grant, introduced by me, and the free schemes.
The review of carer's allowance noted that the allowance is an income support payment and not a payment for caring. It examined the means test and considered that it should be maintained as a way of targeting resources towards those most in need. The estimated cost of abolishing the means test and extending carer's allowance at existing levels to all full-time carers would be in the region of £179 million annually. In view of the wide range of services required, including community and respite care, to support carers in their caring role, it is doubtful if a payment to all carers, regardless of income, could be considered the best use of resources. However, the position on the means test will be kept under review.
The primary objective of the social welfare system is to provide income support and, as a gen eral rule, only one social welfare payment is payable to ensure limited resources are not used to make two income support payments to any one individual. The review of carer's allowance concluded that this practice should continue. Persons qualifying for two social welfare payments will always receive the higher payment to which they are entitled.
One of the many innovative measures I introduced in 1999 was a new annual respite care grant and in budget 2000 I made provision to increase this grant from £200 to £300. This grant is payable to all carers in receipt of carer's allowance and carers caring for recipients of a constant attendance or prescribed relative's allowance to use in whatever way they choose. There has been very positive feedback on this payment and I will keep its operation under review.
The review proposed the introduction of a non-means tested continual care payment to recognise carers providing the highest levels of care and to promote care in the community. It envisaged that this payment would be made, irrespective of income or social welfare entitlement, to carers caring for those in the highest category of dependency.
In order to differentiate between the levels of care and care needs the review considered that a needs assessment encompassing both the needs of the care recipient and the carer should be introduced and that the continual care payment could be introduced following the introduction of such an assessment. It was considered that a needs assessment would separate care needs from income support needs and could be used by all State organisations which provide reliefs or grants for those in need of care.
Establishing a pilot system of needs assessment for carers and people needing care was identified as a priority in the Government's review of its action programme. This area is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children. I understand the Western Health Board agreed to undertake this pilot project in its area and the results of this study are being considered by a working group. Developing the needs assessment system to encompass the type of database suggested or a cost of care allowance would also be a matter for the Minister for Health and Children to consider. On data generally, I understand from the Central Statistics Office that the next census will collect information on carers, something we would all welcome.
Government policy is strongly in favour of supporting care in the community. The many measures I have introduced in recent budgets 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 for as long as possible. It is considered unnecessary to introduce legislation or a constitutional amendment to recognise the valuable role of carers and the appreciation we must all have for their role in society.
The question of further improvement to 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.
On Question No. 10 and the total numbers of carers, is it not extraordinary that the Department and the Department of Health and Children have made no real effort to date to find out how many carers there are? How on earth can we frame policy for one of the most vulnerable sectors of society if we are not prepared to compile statistics? According to the Minister, the Central Statistics Office will do wonderful things next year. Apparently, there will be a Dáil revision if the Government survives until 2002.
It will.
Is the Minister not deeply embarrassed by the report of the Western Health Board which shows that in that small part of the country there are 20,000 full-time carers? The Minister still does not give carer's allowance to that number of carers in the entire country. Are we talking about 50,000, 100,000 or 150,000 people? Anecdotal evidence would suggest that there are far more carers than the Minister is prepared to give credit for.
The Deputy's time has expired.
The Deputy seems to be a recent convert to the carers issue. I would invite anyone to objectively compare this Government's record on carers with that of any other Government. It stands on its own. When I became Minister, only 9,000 people were in receipt of carer's allowance whereas 16,200 people receive the allowance today.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Here we go again.
That is an increase of 75%. The budget has increased from £36 million to £78 million, a 115% increase in three years. All the people in receipt of carer's allowance are now in receipt of free schemes, something which did not happen under the former Government's seisin. When Members of the Opposition criticise this Government, they should check the record but they are biased.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Is the Minister not?
It was Fianna Fáil which introduced the carer's allowance in the first instance and the best developments in this area have taken place under Fianna Fáil Governments.
We have all had first hand experience of caring and I do not need to hear the Minister's smart and snide comments.
I was making a political point, not a personal one.
Question No. 9 relates to a long-standing demand of the Carers Association and Care Alliance Ireland. Carers are faced with a plethora of costs in regard to providing necessary supplies. Will the Minister, in his fourth budget, introduce a cost of caring allowance?
On Deputy Upton's question on legislation, our British colleagues have introduced what is effectively a constitutional amendment guaranteeing carers' rights to their own health care, respite care and adequate income. Why will the Minister not do the same here? Will it be incumbent on the Opposition to introduce this legislation? I have introduced five or six Private Members' Bills to the House which should have been introduced by the Government but all of them have been defeated.
The Deputy seems to be very busy on that side of the House. He did not introduce many Bills when he was on the Government side.
I was not allowed to.
The Deputy supported a Government which did not achieve any substantial amendments to the carer's allowance, certainly none comparable to those which have been introduced since this Government took up office.
That is not true. The Minister is misleading the House.
The other issues relating to carers are primarily the responsibility of the Department of Health and Children. The Minister for Health and Children and I have generally discussed the issue of care. The carer's allowance is a social welfare payment and, ultimately, any social welfare payment is targeted at the less well off. If we were to do away with the income disregard, we would effectively end up giving a non-means tested payment to everyone who considers himself or herself a carer. Many people, who would otherwise be well able to afford to care for their loved ones, would receive the allowance and that would merely serve to dilute the available funds.
The Minister misled the House when he said that no substantial improvements were made under the former Government and should amend the record.
I did not mislead the House.
Following the last budget, the Carers Association was very disappointed at the Minister's failure to do anything for its members. Of the 16,200 people in receipt of carer's allow ance, how many receive the full rate of the allowance?
I do not have that figure.
I understand the figure is approximately 8,000. The Minister has been in office for three budgets; what has he done to improve the income cut-off limits?
All of the substantial changes in regard to carer's allowance—
The Minister is waffling; he should answer the question.
—have been made-—
Answer the question.
The Deputy should allow the Minister to reply.
—-during this Government's seisin.
All of the recommendations of the carers' review which was published in 1998, with the exception of one, have been implemented by this Government. The vast majority of those recommendations were implemented in the 1999 budget. The changes in carer's benefit and a number of other changes in regard to respite care were made in the last budget. The Carers Association will always say it does not get enough but even its members must acknowledge that huge changes have been made.
The Carers Association is very annoyed with the Minister.
The review did not recommend changing the means disregard but I have stated during previous Question Times that now I have delivered on virtually all of the recommendations made in the review, I will consider the means disregard in future budgets.
The Minister is a waffler.
There has been a number of improvements in the carer's allowance. However, does the Minister accept that in a time of economic prosperity such as we are experiencing, it is unacceptable that such a small proportion of those who care for people in their homes receive any income whatsoever from the State? The proportion of people in receipt of financial support is very small. The Carers Association estimates that up to 150,000 people care for people in their homes, yet the carer's allowance is provided to a very small group. Does the Minister accept that more money should be channelled towards people who are providing caring services in the community which would cost the State a fortune were people to go into residential care? Does the Minister accept that the means test, which is quite stringent at present and which excludes the vast majority of carers, should be eased? Carers have enormous needs. Does the Minister accept that a continuous care payment is essential given the costs of caring?
I stand on my record. I accept that more money should be directed to this area. The carer's allowance was introduced by Deputy Woods in 1990 when he was Minister for Social Welfare. At that time, £100,000 was provided in the Estimate for the carer's allowance. Ten years on, the Estimate includes a provision for carer's allowance of more than £78 million. The amount of money provided has increased from £36 million to £78 million since I became Minister and it will increase substantially again in any future budget during my term of office.
I asked the Minister a reasonable question.
It is important to emphasise that a relatively low social welfare payment will not ever repay people who care for their loved ones at home, nor is it intended to. That emerged in the carers' review, should the Deputy care to read the review.
I have read it.
No matter who was Minister, the means test would not be abolished because people appreciate that that would effectively mean the payment would be given to all and sundry.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): With all the generosity of spirit I can command, can I ask the Minister if the following lines of poetry were written for him?:
My name is Ozymandias,
King of kings,
Look on my works ye mighty,
And despair.
The Minister is constantly bragging about his accomplishments.
I have a good story to tell.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): He never refers to the fact that we have a £2 billion budget surplus and he constantly makes odious comparisons. Will the Minister consider easing the regulations to allow a neighbour who looks after another neighbour to qualify for carer's allowance as, by doing so, people will be kept out of hospital? I am aware of a case in my constituency which went through the appeals procedure but was turned down. Neighbours may not live in the same house but they should be recognised for the work they do. If they are giving care, as they clearly are, they should be recognised for that work.
I ask the Deputy to give me the details of that particular case as within the past few weeks I have received consent from the Department of Finance to do away with the test of close proximity, one of the tests which was insisted upon in relation to the changes I made in the residency conditions. Each case will be now have its own determination based on whether the person next door or down the road is able to give full-time care and attention.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): In this case the question was not one of proximity but rather that the care was not full-time. While the person was getting meals, the carer was not technically in the house all the time. I thought it was a most absurd decision. I will give the details to the Minister.
I introduced exemptions. Before I became Minister there were no exemptions in this regard.
