Alan Shatter
Question:8 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs his plans to introduce a continuous care grant for carers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26894/01]
Other Questions. - Social Welfare Benefits.
Brian O'Shea
Question:21 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the discussions held with the Department for Health and Children regarding proposals for a carers payment for long-term home care of the elderly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26832/01]
Breeda Moynihan-Cronin
Question:22 Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will report on the Mercer consultancy study on the future financing of long-term care; and when the publication of this report will occur. [26846/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:25 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will amend the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 1993, to allow a person claim a carer's allowance while also receiving a widow's pension. [26855/01]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:46 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the latest estimate for the cost of the abolition of the means test for the carer's allowance; the expected numbers of workers availing in 2001 of carer's benefit; and the cost of carer's benefit in 2001. [26843/01]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:52 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will improve payments and broaden eligibility for carer's allowance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26857/01]
Liz McManus
Question:66 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he intends to relax the regulation whereby a portion of carers allowance is not paid concurrently with survivor's contributory pension or lone parent benefit since many carers are adversely affected by this rule. [26845/01]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:157 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the plans he has to improve and extend the availability of carer's allowance to cater for a greater number of qualified applicants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27176/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 21, 22, 25, 46, 52, 66 and 157 together.
The carer's allowance is a means tested payment for carer's on low income who look after people in need of full-time care and attention. In addition to the substantial weekly rate increases of £8 for carers aged under 66 and £10 for carers aged over 66, I also announced a number of other measures to support carers in my budget speech for 2001.
I made provision, in particular, for a substantial increase from April 2001 in the weekly income disregard in the carer's allowance means test from £75 to £125 for a single person and from £150 to £250 for a couple. The effect of this increase ensures a couple with two children earning a joint income in the region of £15,100 will qualify for the maximum rate of carer's allowance while a couple in receipt of £26,000 will qualify for the minimum carer's allowance plus the free schemes and the respite care grant.
The means test applied to the carer's allowance is one of the more flexible tests in terms of assessment of household income and the measures I have introduced further enhance the qualification criteria for this scheme. As I announced in my budget speech last year, 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 the carer's allowance at the maximum rate. Given the many supports required by carers, particularly in the community care and respite care areas, I do not consider that the abolition of the means test at a cost in the region of £132 million is the best way to support carers or the best use of resources.
The review of the carer's allowance, published in October 1998, considered the purpose and development of the carer's allowance scheme both in terms of its current operation and future development. It examined a wide range of issues, including the payment of carer's allowance in conjunction with another social welfare payment. In this regard the review estimated that approximately 65% of carers qualifying for carer's allowance were in receipt of another social welfare payment in their own right or as a qualified adult on their spouse's payment. This is not the position today due to the increased income disregards I have introduced that allow carers on the higher joint family income to qualify.
The review examined the purpose of the carer's allowance and concluded it is an income support payment and not a payment for caring. It noted that the primary objective of the social welfare system is to provide income support and, as a general rule, only one social welfare payment is payable to an individual to ensure resources are not used to make two income supports payable to any individual. The review concluded, therefore, that the two income support payments should not be made in line with current practice. A person qualifying for two social welfare payments will always receive the higher payment to which he or she is entitled.
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 is envisaged such a payment will be made irrespective of income or social welfare entitlement to carers caring for those in the highest category of dependency. The review considered that a needs assess ment 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 to differentiate between the levels of care and care needs. It was considered that a needs assessment would separate care needs from the income support needs and could be used by all State organisations which provide relief or grants to those in care.
Establishing a pilot system for needs assessment for carers and people needing care was identified as a priority in the Government's review of its action programme. This areas is the responsibility of my colleague, Deputy Moffatt, Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children.
The carer's benefit scheme became effective on 26 October 2000 and there are now 350 claims in payment. The scheme provides financial support for 15 months to a person who gives up employment to care full-time. As it is based on a person's PRSI contributions there is no means test. The scheme also allows carers to avail of a job protected leave of absence for a period up to 15 months. Legislation to protect the employment rights of the carer was introduced by my colleague, Deputy Tom Kitt, Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, on 2 July 2001.
I expect there will be approximately 400 carer's benefit claims in payment by the end of the year at an estimated cost of £1.7 million. It will take many years before this scheme reaches maturity but it is expected that there will be between 500 and 1,000 recipients under the scheme in the first number of years at an estimated full year cost of £5 million.
A study 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 has commenced. The study, which is being carried out by Mercer Ltd., will examine the strategic issues involved in the financing of long-term care. This involves an assessment of alternative financing and funding approaches and their feasibility in the Irish context. The study will encompass the financing of personal long-term care needs both in the community and in institutional care and the potential of the private sector or a combined public private sector approach to develop initiatives in this area. The study has been undertaken in consultation with the Departments of Health and Children and Finance. It is expected it will be published before the end of the year. There are ongoing discussions in Government regarding long-term care issues in the context of the health strategy which, according to my colleague, Deputy Martin, will be published shortly.
The development of the range of supports for carers will continue to be a priority for the Government and, building on the foundations now in place, we will continue to develop the type of services which recognise the value of the caring ethos and provide real support and practical assistance to those who devote their time to improving the quality of life of others.
The question of further improvements in the carer's allowance and for carers generally will be considered in the context of the forthcoming budget, taking account of our key priorities in the care area, as set out in the review of the action programme.
Is the Minister stating that he is not opposed in principle to the introduction of a continuous care payment and that the decision would have to be made about who receives this payment, and the various component payments, depending on need? Would he accept the need for the introduction of this payment on the basis that significant costs arise outside the giving of time to a loved one, family member or friend, including heat, food and associated costs? Will he state that he is not against such a payment in principle?
How many people are in receipt of the carer's allowance, given last year's changes in the income disregard? In light of the forthcoming budget, would the Minister accept that a proposal to increase the income disregard to £350 for a married couple would significantly increase the number of people eligible to claim the carer's allowance and would bring the number up to 30,000 or 32,000? His Department suggests the figure is close to 55,000.
I am not opposed to a continuous care payment. I have indicated that I am in favour of such a payment. As regards the delivery of the carer's allowance scheme, my Department would not be in a position to determine who would or would not be entitled to a continuous care payment. As indicated in the 1998 report, there is a requirement for a needs assessment system operating in all health board areas.
The Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt, carried out a pilot project on this issue in his health board area, but this would have to be extended to all areas. Discussions on the health strategy include those on the more long-term issue regarding this area. I agree with the Deputy. I am in favour of this proposal and I appreciate the difficulties which exist in the area of caring.
The Minister's one minute is up.
What about the increase in the numbers receiving the carer's allowance?
We estimate that the number will reach 22,000 by the end of this year. At present about 19,000 people have qualified as a result of the changes we made last year.
Raising the disregard would cause difficulties for those existing on a social welfare income. The more one increases the disregard, the more one favours those who have a non-social welfare income. I have to be aware of this issue.
The Minister will anticipate my question. A continuous carer's allowance should be extended to those who become widows and continue to be carers. Those who become widows qualify for the widow's pension of £85 per week, but lose the carer's allowance, despite the fact that they are caring for a doubly incontinent, bed-ridden patient. Will the Minister not accede to the case I have made for two and a half years that those who become widows and continue to be carers should qualify for the widow's pension and the carer's allowance? The means test income limit is £125. Why is nothing being done about this anomaly in the carer's allowance system?
I replied earlier to the issue of those in receipt of two payments. It is not a feature of the social welfare system that someone can be in receipt of two primary payments. I have some sympathy with the Deputy's point and I have examined this issue closely over the past year or so. This issue is not off the agenda. In view of the issue of equality, one could not restrict the payment to widows. One would have to include those on a single income lone parent allowance which would have greater implications than if the payment was restricted to widows.
They would not get the full payment.
People who join this category are already carers. It is very simple, but the Minister will twist it every way.
Is it not the case that the Minister has badly failed carers? This is mostly due to the fact that he did not even carry out the fundamental research. All recent studies, including those by the South Eastern and Mid-Western Health Boards, identify a wide ranging problem with which the Minister has not come to grips. Why did the Minister not carry out the research and set up a register?
Would the Minister agree that there is a view among all agencies which operate in this area, such as Care Alliance Ireland, the Carers Association, NAMHI, Age Concern and so on, that we should do away with the hated, abominable means test? The Minister suggested this could be done for £132 million. Why will he not do so, as suggested by the leader of the Labour Party at our recent conference? Why will the Minister not give full recognition to the job of caring?
The Minister referred to the carer's benefit. The carers leave legislation was introduced two and a half years ago, but only 350 people have taken advantage of it. Surely this shows that the Minister's development of carer's benefit has been a failure.
Will we receive an interim report on the Mer cer consultancy study in which this side of the House is interested? Has the Minister any intention of following, for example, the German model regarding a long-term care strategy?
Unlike the Labour Party which spends its time in government contemplating its naval, this Government is one of action.
Watch us next time. We will leave this Government in the shade.
The Deputy's concentration is on research. There is plenty of research by the CSO and others to show the number of carers.
We do not know the numbers involved.
Any improvements in the carer's area were made when my party, and not the Deputy's, was in Government. My party brought forward the carer's allowance. I will again place on the record the improvements made over the past four year.
The provision for carer's allowance increased from £38 million in 1997 to over £100 million this year.
The Minister should listen to carers, not lecture them.
The number of people in receipt of carer's allowance has gone up from 9,000 to probably over 20,000.
Stasi propaganda.
None of the free schemes were available to those on carer's allowance when the Deputy's party was in Government.
The Minister should listen.
This Government delivered the free schemes to all carers. Despite all the Deputy's bluster and blunder, I challenge anyone outside this House who has an objective bone in his or her body to examine who did most on social welfare issues.
Let us have the debate.
I do not agree with the Deputy that I have done nothing for carers.
Deputy Crawford wishes to speak.
The Deputy should ask carers, who will say that more has been done. We introduced the respite care grant which we increased three years in a row.
I am afraid that most of Deputy Crawford's time has been taken up by interruptions from his side of the House. I will allow Deputy Crawford to ask a final supplementary.
Since many questions were asked under this heading I do not think time is that scarce. I welcome any change to the carer's allowance. The previous Government made changes which boosted the figures mentioned by the Minister.
Does the Deputy have a question?
My first question is simple. A respite care allowance is available to those who were carers on or about 5 June every year. There is an anomaly whereby someone who cares for a neighbour or friend will be left on the carer's allowance for six weeks after the death of the person for whom they cared. If someone dies within the six week period before 5 June, the carer will continue to receive the respite payment. A widow or widower who loses their spouse and who is a carer will not get that. I understand there are changes. I just want a commitment from the Minister that will be finalised and that anomaly will be removed.
The Minister said the widow issue is not off his agenda.
A question please, Deputy. Your minute has concluded.
I ask the Minister to ensure not only that it is not off his agenda but that it is firmly on it. One of the cases relating to a British pension and involving a widower—
I have to call the Minister who has a minute to answer all those questions.
My working relationship with Deputy Crawford is excellent and I can assure him that both issues are on my agenda. In relation to the first issue, I am aware of difficulties in that area but these difficulties would not have arisen if I, as Minister, and this Government had not brought forward the respite care grant in the first place.
We are so grateful.
The Minister is so good, we should keep him.
Thank you. Can I quote the Deputy during the election? Deputy McCormack wants Fianna Fáil to continue in Government.
Question No. 9 answered with Question No. 6.
Phil Hogan
Question:10 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he has con sidered amending the Social Welfare Acts in order that the parents of adopted twins can obtain the special twins child benefit allowance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26893/01]
Provision is made in the Social Welfare Act, 1998, for the payment of child benefit at 150% of the normal rate in the case of twins. In addition, a grant of £500 is payable at the birth of twins and further grants of £500 are payable when the twins reach the ages of four and 12. The purpose of these payments is to give recognition within the child benefit scheme of the special nature of such births and the additional costs associated with them. These payments apply to all parents of twins, including adoptive parents.
The Deputy is no doubt aware of the intensive investment in child benefit initiated by this Government since coming into office, culminating in the three year investment programme launched in this year's budget. The first phase of increases paid in June raised child benefit by £25 per month for the first two children and £30 per month for the third and subsequent children. Similar increases over the next two years will raise annual expenditure on child benefit to £1.5 billion by 2003. Any further extension of the scheme would have to be considered in a budgetary context, having regard to available resources and Government commitments.
In relation to the ongoing anomalies that exist for the parents of mulitple births, triplets and the like, this issue has come up repeatedly at budget time. In advance of the budget and the Social Welfare Bill, will the Minister once again look at clearing up the anomalies that exist for the parents of mulitple births? I accept what he says in respect of Deputy Hogan's question on adopted twins but anomalies exist in the operation of child benefit for the parents of mulitple births. It is an area which is relatively insignificant in terms of cost and I hope in the run up to the budget and the Social Welfare Bill, the Minister will consider this matter in greater detail.
I have said on previous occasions that this Government, particularly my party, made commitments before the last election in relation to multiple births and we delivered on the commitments.
You did not.
We did in relation to twins.
Will the Deputy address his remarks through the Chair?
The Deputy is absolutely wrong. I will ensure after Question Time that the Deputy sees the commitments made by my party before the last election. In our first budget, we delivered on the commitment in relation to multiple births. As I have said before, over the period of this Government, I have endeavoured to fulfil all my commitments. Any objective analysis would show that we have delivered on literally every commitment we made. Obviously the issue of mulitple births is still under consideration but, as I said, the Minister for Finance indicated in last year's budget that over a three year period starting last year, we would be investing £1 billion in child benefit – a record increase. The issue of multiple births will be up for consideration, among other things, in the forthcoming budget.
If my memory serves me right, I remember the Minister and some of his colleagues—
A question, please.
In the run up to the 1997 election, the Minister's party brought the parents of twins into this House and they made commitments to them in relation to twins, triplets and mulitple births. They did not keep that commitment.
We did.
Deputy Broughan, a question please. You have one minute and if you do not ask a question, then we will—
It will be in our publication on the broken promises of 1997.
The Deputy had better double check it.
Please, Minister, allow the Deputy to ask his question.
I, as I am sure the Fine Gael Deputies do, get the same request to amend the Social Welfare Bill every year. The Taoiseach was good in that he tried to put people into the slots in which they were in Opposition but commitments were made which were broken.
I do not accept that – the Deputy is wrong. We committed ourselves to delivering 150% in relation to twins and that is exactly what we did. I have it in writing and I will show it to the Deputy. It is in our policy documents. I will pass it on to the Deputy. Perhaps he might correct the record next time around.