Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Dec 2001

Vol. 546 No. 3

Other Questions. - Social Welfare Payments.

Michael Bell

Question:

29 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs when he expects to receive the report from consultants (details supplied) regarding the strategic issues involved in the financing of long-term care; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31593/01]

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

34 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the reason many carers are excluded from obtaining the carer's allowance. [31628/01]

Trevor Sargent

Question:

41 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs his views on the hardship caused for a person caring for a child with special needs in a large family who is denied a carer's allowance once the person receives a widow's pension; and if he will allow receipt of both payments in such cases. [31665/01]

Willie Penrose

Question:

46 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he has given consideration to establishing a national carers database; and if he will involve the Central Statistics Office in this work. [31615/01]

Michael Creed

Question:

50 Mr. Creed asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the estimated cost to the Exchequer of abolishing the overlapping benefit regulations where the overlap relates to the concurrent payment of carer's allowance along with other social welfare payments. [31358/01]

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

300 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the total number of carers here as identified by the voluntary organisations; the number in receipt of carer's allowance; the extent to which he intends to increase this number; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31923/01]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 29, 34, 41, 46, 50 and 300 together.

The review of the carer's allowance, published in October 1998, examined a wide range of issues including the payment of carer's allowance in conjunction with another social welfare payment. The review concluded that the allowance 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 that resources are not used to make two income support payments to any one individual.

Therefore, the review concluded that two income support payments should not be made at the same time. The cost of paying carer's allowance concurrently with another social welfare payment can only be estimated on the basis of the number of claims awarded or refused where the applicant was receiving another social welfare payment. It is estimated that it would cost in the region of £36.4 million annually to pay carer's allowance with another social welfare payment to this group. There are a number of carers who did not claim a carer's allowance because they were already receiving another more beneficial payment. It is not possible to identify this group.

As regards the national carers database, I have no plans to set up such a system at present. However, some work has been done by the Central Statistics Office to identify the numbers of carers providing full-time care and attention. This was done through the census pilot survey carried out by the CSO in September 1999. It is based on a sample of 8,000 households in which persons aged 15 years or over were asked if they provided unpaid personal help for someone with a long- term illness, health problem or disability, including problems due to old age. The survey found that there are approximately 50,000 full-time carers with about 80,000 providing care on a part-time basis. These results are consistent with the conclusions of the review of the carer's allowance and explain the estimate of 120,000 carers used by the carer organisations. I have asked the Central Statistics Office to consider doing a more detailed analysis of hours spent caring when conducting the census next year.

As regards those carers who may not be in receipt of a carer's allowance to qualify for the carer's allowance, a person must be providing full-time care and attention to a person who is certified to be in need of such care. The carer's allowance is also subject to a means test. To date this year, approximately 51% of claims refused were disallowed for reasons relating to the need for or provision of care. Where applications are refused on these grounds, full-time care is either not required or is not being provided by the carer. About 8% of claims refused have been on the grounds of means and 41% of refusals have been for other miscellaneous reasons. This group includes carers who are in receipt of another more beneficial social welfare payment, 3%, carers who withdraw their application, 8%, and carers who fail to reply to requests for further information regarding their claim, 18%.

The Deputies should note that the recently published health strategy commits to developing a co-ordinated action plan to meet the needs of ageing and older people. The Departments of Health and Children, the Environment and Local Government, Public Enterprise and my own Department will be involved in this project. It also proposes a number of measures to support carers such as the appointment of key workers in the context of care planning and the introduction of a respite care grant to cover two weeks respite care per annum for dependent older persons.

I also announced a number of improvements in the recent budget. Carer's allowance rates will increase by £8.06 for carers aged under 66 and £10.03 for carers aged over 66. Carer's benefit rates will also increase by £8.01 per week to £104.51. From April 2002, the weekly income disregards in the carer's allowance means test will increase by £25.42 to £150.42 for a single person and by £50.85 to £300.84 for a couple. This increase will ensure that a couple with two children, earning a joint income in the region of £17,813, will qualify for the maximum rate of carer's allowance or they can earn up to £28,639 and still qualify for the minimum carer's allowance plus the free schemes and respite care grant.

It is estimated that an additional 3,400 new carers will qualify for payment as a result of the budget changes and an extra 2,300 existing carers will receive an increased payment as a result of this measure in addition to the 19,100 carers currently in receipt of carer's allowance. In addition, for the third successive year, I have made provision for the increase in the respite care grant by £100.02 to £500.10 and £1,000.21 for carers caring for more than one person.

In relation to the study to examine issues relating to long-term care, which is being carried out by Mercer Limited, I expect that this study will be published within the next few weeks. As the Deputies are aware, the study is being undertaken in consultation with the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Finance and any policy proposals arising from the report will be developed in conjunction with these Departments as part of the Government's cross-cutting approach to care issues.

As there are more than three oral questions involved, not more than 18 minutes is allowed. The Minister had six minutes and used five of them. That leaves 13 minutes for supplementary questions.

Lots of ammunition.

In relation to the Mercer report, does the Minister agree it is a bit sad that he has had almost five years to issue a Green Paper and a White Paper on caring, that the Government is almost ready to pass on and that all we have is a consultancy study about—

A question please.

Is it not amazing that, after five years, we do not have a White Paper on carers? Does the Minister agree that as a result of the changes last week with an additional 3,500 carers and, I understand, an existing 22,000 carers and based on his own CSO figures, at least half the carers will not receive a carer's allowance and that he and this Government have set their faces resolutely against introducing a carer's payment?

I do not accept what the Deputy has said. I have repeated many times here that the number of carers has increased from 9,000 in 1997 when this Government came into office to somewhere in the region of 25,000 after the budget increases kick in. That is a very considerable increase. There was almost no increase when the Deputy's party was in Government because it did not really increase the disregards.

We doubled the number of carers.

On the money required, the budget for the carer's allowance in 1997 when we came into office was £36 million while next year, the budget will be £132 million – again, a sizeable increase. I do not accept what the Deputy said in relation to the Mercer report which is one aspect of the examination of long-term care.

Where is the White Paper?

The Deputy very conveniently forgets that the health strategy launched by the Minister for Health and Children contains a myriad of proposals on the issue of long-term care for the elderly.

But no funding.

It contains a myriad of proposals and oodles of funding.

The Minister has admitted to the House that about 22,000 people currently receive the carer's allowance. Of that 22,000, how many receive the maximum rate? Would the Minister care to make a distinction between fostering and caring? If one fosters a child, one gets £200 per week but if one cares for a loved one or a friend, the amount one gets will go up to £96.50 per week under the Minister's proposal. What is the difference? A carer is doing a job for which the State is paying but if they were not doing it, the State would have to pay huge sums of money. Does the Minister accept that carers save Ireland plc about £1.8 billion per year because they are looking after their family, relations, loved ones and friends? Why does the Minister make this innate distinction between caring for a child, as in the case of fostering, and caring for an elderly person? Why is there such a distinction in terms of income?

I do not have the figures on the number in receipt of the maximum rate or the differential. If the Deputy tabled a question, we would give him the particular information. Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs payments relate to income adequacy – it provides a basic payment. Since its inception by my predecessor, Deputy Woods, the carer's allowance has not been designed to pay people for caring. It is an income support for people on low income. Progressively over the years, and particularly during the lifetime of this Government, we have raised the disregard to £300 for a couple. As I said earlier, this means that a couple with two children and with an income of over £28,000 can qualify for a carer's allowance. I have already said that creates some disparities. The more one raises the disregard, disparities are created in relation to households which are totally dependent on a social welfare. This Government also initiated the carer's benefit, a scheme designed—

How many people get that?

It is quite substantial. When we started this scheme, it was said that it was an excellent scheme. It was acknowledged by all in this House that this scheme would rise slowly, but substantially, over a period of about ten years when about 6,500 people would be in receipt of the carer's benefit in addition to the 25,000 in receipt of the carer's allowance.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Could I ask the Minister—

The provision relates to—

Will Members listen to Deputy John Browne who is absolutely in order in asking his supplementary question?

The Minister is confused.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister will hear something useful. Will he give an up to date definition of full-time care and what it means? For example, will a neighbour or relation who looks after a person next door, lights the fire, provides meals and puts out the fire at night qualify for full time payment? If not, it means the person who is being cared for will end up in a nursing home or some such place. The attitude to full time care has to be relaxed a bit. It is of some consequence if a person has his or her basic needs attended to and is looked after to the extent that he or she can stay at home.

The Deputy tends to have a short memory. I relaxed the provisions in relation to—

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Will the Minister answer the question?

Allow the Minister to answer without interruption.

(Interruptions.)

The provision relates to full-time care and attention in that, when this Government came to office, the issue—

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister is forgetting to give an up to date definition.

Will the Deputy allow me move on?

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I asked the Minister for an up to date definition of full-time health care.

The Minister, without interruption.

To qualify for carers allowance, one had to be living under the same roof as the person being cared for. I relaxed that on two occasions since that issue arose, to such an extent that people no longer have to be living under the same roof. They can live within close proximity. That was a significant change because there were cases, which were somewhat unfair, in which people were living in two houses on the one site. For example, a mother could have been living in one house and her daughter could have been living in a new house next door. They could not have qualified.

Similarly, I relaxed the provisions with regard to full time care and attention. The requirement that the carer had to be present 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in order to qualify for the payment has been relaxed to allow him or her have a small job or train for ten hours. Again, that was a very significant relaxation. Our officials and the medical referees have to be sure that the recipient of the care is getting full time care and attention if a payment is to be made.

With regard to the Mercer report, does the Minister expect that the example of other countries such as Germany might be looked at in relation to the provision of a system of long-term care through insurance for the population? Will the issue of private insurance be examined given that 40% of us will probably need care in the future? Does he accept that the most angry group of respondents to the budget was the Carers Association, which sent faxes—

I ask the Deputy to be brief because two other Deputies wish to make a contribution and the time allowed for Question Time is almost up.

The carers of Ireland are very angry with the Minister. He has let them down.

Before the Minister answers, we will take two brief supplementary questions from Deputies Hayes and Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny).

Is the Minister in favour of the introduction of a cost of care payment to deal with the escalating costs carers have to face when looking after a loved one and friend, a proposal that has come from many of the carers' associations? He has done nothing about this in the past five years.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister's decision to allow people not living under the same roof is grand. Its implementation and the fact that people can decide that someone does not need full time care cause difficulties.

The Mercer report was begun at my instigation. I asked specifically that those involved investigate what other countries are doing, particularly Germany, in relation to the insurance base issue. We have also asked them to look at the issue of equity release in respect of property that is owned and to look at the experience of other countries. Experiences differ from country to country. It has been successful in some countries and not in others.

Carers will admit privately that nothing substantial was done in respect of the carers allowance, except while this Government was in office.

What about the cost of care?

Allow the Minister to conclude.

I have received numerous letters of congratulations and thanks in the past year or so, which I can show the Deputy if he wants to see them.

What about the cost of care payment?

I am answering Deputy Hayes' question. I very much favour the cost of care payment. It is not true, as the Deputy said, that we did nothing. The cost of care payment is dependent, according to the report that was carried out at my instigation in 1998, on the issue of needs assessment.

Nineteen ninety eight. It is now four years later.

The time for questions has concluded.

Until we instigate a process of needs assessment, we will not be able to bring in a cost of care payment.

We might see it in the manifesto.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Top
Share