Vol. 528 No. 2
25 Ms Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the number of people in receipt of the maximum rate of carer's allowance; if any estimate has been made of the benefit to the economy, in terms of lower health provision, arising from the payment of this allowance; if he has any plans to introduce a cost of care payment in the context of the Social Welfare Bill, 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30015/00]
The carer's allowance is a means tested payment for carers on low income who look after people in need of full-time care and attention. Based on the research carried out in the review of the carer's allowance, which was published in October 1998, the number of full-time carers is estimated to be 50,000 people, covering carers of older people and adults and children with disabilities. At the end of November 2000, there were 16,405 carers in receipt of carer's allowance – of this number, 13,543 or 83% are in receipt of the allowance at the maximum rate. These figures indicate that 33% of full-time carers are in receipt of a carer's allowance payment which is an increase of 78% in the number of carers in receipt of the allowance since this Government took office. This large increase is reflected in the expenditure on carer's allowance, which was £36.5 million in 1997 and is projected to be £108.4 million next year, representing an increase of almost 200%.
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.
It was with this in mind that I recently announced a number of additional measures to support carers in budget 2001. I made provision for a substantial increase in the income disregards from £75 to £125 for a single person and from £150 to £250 for a couple at an estimated full year cost of more than £18 million. This will take effect from April 2001 and will enable more than 5,000 new carers to qualify for carer's allowance and almost 3,000 existing carers to receive an increased payment. The effect of this increase will ensure that a couple with two children, earning a joint income of up to £15,100, can qualify for the maximum rate of carer's allowance while a couple in receipt of £25,100 will qualify for the minimum carer's allowance, plus free schemes and respite care grant. The income disregards I have introduced already exceed the income limits for the minimum wage rate for joint income households and ensure that carers receive a maximum allowance.
As I announced in my budget speech, I envisage moving towards what I see as the optimum situation, whereby all carers, whose joint family income is at average industrial earnings, will qualify for carer's allowance at the maximum rate.
I have also made provision for an increase in the amount of the respite care grant from £300 to £400. Respite care is one of the most important services required by carers. Regular planned breaks and emergency cover can assist a carer and reduce the stresses on them. Carers who are caring for more than one care recipient will be entitled to a double respite care grant, that is, £800. These increases in the respite care grant will be paid in June 2001, when the grant is next due, at a full year cost of more than £3 million.
The review of the carer's allowance examined the issue of a cost of care allowance, and considered it to be within the remit of the Department of Health and Children as is any estimate of lower health provision arising from the payment of a carer's allowance.
The many measures I have introduced for carers clearly indicate my personal commitment and that of the Government to carers and are a concrete expression of our appreciation for their valuable role in our society. In addition, my colleagues the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Environment and Local Government, have also brought forward proposals in the recent budget to assist carers. This Government has developed a cross-cutting approach to the needs of carers and I look forward to developing this further in the coming year.
Carers were very disappointed with the provisions in the budget. It is clear from the Minister's figures that of those carers the Department recognises, which is a tiny proportion of the number the Carers' Association say exist, 34,000 do not get anything. Only 25% get the full payment. The majority of carers do not get anything from the State. Does the Minister agree it is time to consider a cost of care payment, based on a needs analysis, for carers in recognition of the work done by them which, in many cases, keeps people out of hospitals, nursing homes and institutions, but often at great personal cost, so that more carers are recognised and financially supported by the State?
The Deputy did not refer to the additional supports given by the State mainly through the Department of Health and Children and the health boards. It would be wrong for her to suggest thousands of people are not getting help from the State; they are, and it would be demeaning to those who work in the health boards to suggest otherwise. As regards income adequacy, carer's allowance was introduced to give support to people on low incomes. That is the way it was designed. Obviously, the very significant changes in the budget, which cost £21 million, will result in more carers being brought in. The carer's benefit, which is now in vogue, will also have a major effect.
A consultancy study has been set up in my Department in regard to long-term care issues. The Minister for Finance indicated in the budget that he will consider tax relief on insurance products, which might assist the issue of long-term care. As regards the continual care payment, both I and the Minister for Health and Children are currently in discussion on how we can progress the issue of needs assessment which must be put in place before we can bring forward a continual care payment based on the need not only of the person being cared for but the carer. My Department cannot put that in place because my officials are not qualified to determine whether one person is worse off than another.
Some 34,000 carers, as the Minister recognises, do not get any payment because of the stringent means test. There is need to address this. There were tax relief provisions in the budget for those in nursing homes but not for those caring at home. There is scope there for further improvement. The Minister should examine that for the social welfare Bill. There is also scope for further improvement in the tax system for carers at home. They are not getting a basic care allowance yet we know the cost of care at home is expensive. Does the Minister agree that, even with the increases in the budget, it is disturbing that the amount we spend on social protection as a percentage of our income is much lower than in other EU countries?
We must proceed to the next question.
There were changes made in the last budget and this budget on tax relief for carers in the home.
The Minister might look at it.
Changes were made.
There is scope for further changes and not just in nursing homes.
There are changes that were not made.
There were more changes made during our time than were ever made when the Opposition was in Government.
This is now; that was then.
Check the record.
There is a surplus and an inflation rate of 6.8%.
We will ask some objective person to look at the record.
The electorate.
Question No. 26. Deputies are using up the time for the next question.
