Vol. 440 No. 1
5 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he intends to implement immediately the Commission of Social Welfare's recommendation contained in Forum report number 3 that a substantial means disregard should be introduced into the carers allowance scheme.
14 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of persons receiving the carer's allowance as on I January 1994.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 14 together.
Report number 3 of the National Economic and Social Forum recommended that:
"... a substantial means disregard should be introduced into the current carer's allowance so that this allowance can genuinely become a supplement to support the work of the carer."
The report referred to the effect of the means test on the amount of the carer's allowance in cases where the spouse of the carer was employed and it pointed out that no carer's allowance was payable where the working spouse was earning more than £120 per week.
The social welfare Bill which is before the House at present provides for the introduction of a significant improvement in the carer's allowance. I am particularly pleased to be able to provide in the Bill an earnings disregard of £100 per week in respect of working spouses with effect from next July.
This means, for example, that a carer whose spouse has earnings of £160 a week and who is not, therefore, entitled to any allowance at present, will receive a weekly carer's allowance of £34 a week from next July. In terms of numbers, this improvement in the means test means that an extra 500 full-time carers will qualify for the allowance while a further 350 existing carers will get an increase in their weekly payment.
Carers will also benefit from the general 3 per cent increase in weekly payments which will bring the basic allowance to £61 per week. In addition, the initial £2 means disregard for entitlement to the full allowance is being increased to £6 a week. Furthermore, a pensioner being cared for by a recipient of a carer's allowance will, in future, retain entitlement to the free telephone rental allowance where previously it would have been discontinued because the living alone condition would no longer have been satisfied.
At the end of December 1993, allowances were being paid to 4,748 carers.
Will the Minister not agree that of nearly 50,000 applicants for the carer's allowance less than 10 per cent received it? Will he not also agree that elderly people are being forced into institutional care because of the inadequacy of the three existing schemes, namely, the carer's allowance scheme, the nursing home subvention scheme and the home help scheme which is basically a slave labour scheme? Under that scheme many women are being paid £2 per week and some of those women are present in the Gallery——
There should be no reference to persons in the public Gallery.
Does the Minister propose to introduce a scheme which will empower people dependent on the carer's allowance by paying the allownace to the person cared for rather than the carer? Will he extend the definition of the scheme.
The scheme was introduced to give the carer an allowance. This matter was debated in the House at length. It would be a major change to revert to the old system of giving the allowance to the person being cared for.
The total number of applicants refused the allowance was 5,034. Of that number 38 per cent were refused because their means, including any social welfare payments, exceeded the income limit set in the scheme. In 24 per cent of cases people were in receipt of social welfare payments. In 38 per cent of cases the principal reason for refusing the allowance was that their means included additional income. In many cases the other spouse was in receipt of income. In the budget we have made special provision for that group of carers and we will consider if the scheme can be improved further in the future. A number of important improvements are currently being made. The scheme is an important one and I accept the Deputy's point in that regard.
Will the Minister consider with his colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin, a co-ordinated approach to the issue of carers and bring forward a scheme combining the concept of institutionalisation and that of caring? The Minister evaded my first question. How many applications were renewed for the carer's allowance? Will the Minister consider a combination of a carer's scheme and an allowance for those receiving care to provide empowerment for the handicapped?
I do not have details of the total number of applicants.
It was 50,000.
It could not be that figure. The Deputy is referring to the total number of people who might be caring in one form or another. I have given the Deputy the number of people who have been refused the carer's allowance and the grounds on which their applications were rejected. Twenty-seven per cent of applicants were refused because they were in employment. The Deputy would have to table a question to obtain information in respect of the total number of applicants.
Surely the Minister has the figure?
That is another question.
