Vol. 488 No. 4
18 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the unprecedented sense of hurt felt by carers due to the fact that none of their requests have been responded to; his views on the merits of the case made by and on their behalf; and if he is in a position to give a positive response to the campaign for a fair deal for carers in the home. [6460/98]
The carer's allowance is a social assistance scheme which provides an income maintenance payment to people who are providing elderly or incapacitated pensioners or certain persons with disabilities with full-time care and attention and whose incomes fall below certain limits. At the end of last December 10,330 people were in receipt of a carer's allowance at a cost of more than £37 million in 1997.
Since its introduction in 1990, the allowance has been improved and expanded progressively over the years. As announced in the budget, the weekly personal rate of the carer's allowance is being increased from next June by £5, from £70.50 to £75.50 for those over the age of 66, and £3 for carers under 66 from £70.50 to £73.50.
In addition, the budget also provided for three additional improvements for carers. The first two of these are of a more technical nature and benefit a small number of people. These improvements are a disregard of non-national disability pensions up to the maximum level of the old age contributory pension in assessing means and the payment of carer's allowance for six weeks after death to carers whose spouses were not in receipt of a social welfare payment. The third improvement is the provision of a free travel pass to all those in receipt of carer's allowance in their own right.
Last month I met representatives of the Carer's Association, the organisation which represents the interests of carers in the home. I will meet the association again shortly, as will the working group carrying out the review of the carer's allowance scheme. As part of my commitment to improve the supports for carers, I have recently reviewed the operation of the condition whereby the carer is required to provide the care recipient with full-time care and attention and have decided to adopt a more flexible approach. Carers may now attend educational or training courses or participate in voluntary or community based activities for approximately ten hours per week provided the carer makes adequate provision for the care recipient in his or her absence. These new arrangements come into effect immediately.
In An Action Programme for the Millennium the Government is committed to progressively relaxing the qualifying criteria for the carer's allowance to ensure that more carers can get the benefit and to increasing the value of the allowance in real terms. In line with these commitments, an overall review of the carer's allowance is being carried out in my Department. This review is considering the purpose and development of the scheme, both in terms of its current operation and its future development. It will also examine the potential for the development of provision for carers through the social insurance system and the role of the private sector. The review is expected to be completed by the middle of this year and it will be published. Further developments will be considered in the light of that review.
Does the Minister accept he did not answer the points raised in my question? He did not refer to the unprecedented sense of hurt felt by carers, as outlined in a letter I received from the Carer's Association; I presume he received a copy of letter. He did not touch on the merits of the case made by and on behalf of carers. Will he respond to the three issues raised in my question rather than giving us the bureaucratic gobbledygook prepared in his Department?
At the beginning of this year I met representatives of the Carer's Association who voiced concerns about the budget. I explained that I was in office for only a short time before the budget and that the review had not been completed. The review is based on a scheme introduced by the Fianna Fáil led Government in l990 under the then Minister, Deputy Woods. The general view at that time was that this is a health rather than a social welfare issue. I am not saying the review is trying to push the matter over to the Department of Health and Children, but, because of this general view, my predecessor, Deputy De Rossa, decided to carry out an interdepartmental review of the scheme to determine if the private sector should be involved, if the matter should be dealt with under a social insurance scheme or if the elderly and incapacitated should be cared for in nursing homes. In the short time I had to examine the matter prior to the budget I decided that, rather than make major improvements to the carer's allowance, I would examine the matter in advance of the next budget and I have undertaken to do that. I explained this to the representatives of the Carer's Association and told them I would meet them on a regular basis. I also gave them the unusual opportunity of being part of the interdepartmental group involved in the review. Up to now their views were not part of the process because of its interdepartmental nature. They welcome the fact that they can participate in the review.
I made a number of improvements in the budget. The issue of full-time care and attention is a main bone of contention. I decided to give the 10,330 people concerned free travel passes which they deeply appreciate. We acknowledge that they cannot give 24 hour constant care and attention. I also agreed to relax further the criteria for full-time care and attention and allow carers to take part in other work which will not be taken into account in the assessment.
Does the Minister accept the alleged improvements in the budget are derisory? People who care for the sick, disabled or the elderly on a 24 hour basis will not make much use of a free travel pass. Does he accept the Carer's Association is very disappointed that its concerns were not dealt with in the budget? Does he accept that it is in our interest to encourage the 30,000 full-time carers to continue to provide that care rather than dump people in institutions? Does he accept that carers need more than empty promises? They want a fair deal which would include a respite allowance for the 30,000 full-time carers and a relaxing of the means disregard.
Members opposite do not have a monopoly on the view that those who are paid a carer's allowance do a tremendous job. We all accept that the question of whether people should be put into institutions, paid for by the State, is a major one. When the scheme was set up in 1990 it was considered that there was a need for a review but eight years on when the review started it was considered that rather than tinker with the carer's allowance, we should review all the broader issues and decide whether there should be an insurance based scheme for everybody, to which they could contribute in their PRSI, to avail of a caring regime. This is how the scheme operates in Germany and in some other European countries. Those issues are being examined as well as the involvement of the private sector and the Department of Health and Children in this departmental review which I expect will be available mid year. I have assured the Carer's Association I will look at all these issues in conjunction with the results of the interdepartmental review with a view to bringing forward changes in next year's budget.
I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the review and that many officials in his Department consider this is a health issue. Is the Minister aware that carers cannot receive any payment from his Department, even though they qualify on medical grounds, because the person being cared for is under 65 years of age and does not receive a payment from his Department? Is it fair that the person being cared for must be in receipt of a payment from the Department for the carer to qualify? That is unfair to many people who do Trojan work in looking after parents who are under 65 and not in receipt of a social welfare payment.
Without going into the specifics of the case, over the years a number of anomalies have come to light. In the beginning this was a restricted scheme. I am not saying my Department officials said we should transfer this matter to the Department of Health and Children. In 1990 my Department decided to take this issue on board when, strictly speaking, it was an issue that was to be dealt with in the health area. This raises major issues. It is clear from actuarial reviews undertaken in my Department that in a short period we will have a more aged population and a smaller working population to sustain that older population.
That is not true.
That is absolutely true. I will endeavour to supply to the Deputy a copy of the actuarial review, conducted by independent consultants, which issued from my Department in regard to where we are going as a nation. It is clear we are becoming older and that raises serious issues. We have to plan for that because it is only a relatively short time away. This is one of the reasons the review of the carer's allowance is important and we welcome it. This was recognised by the rainbow Government and was the reason it set up the review.
To give some solace to the carers since they got little from the budget, will the Minister be specific and give priority to the needs in this area, and ensure that extra funding will be available next year, if he is still in office? Will he give substantial priority to carers and ensure some of their requests are responded to positively?
Deputy O'Keeffe will not win this argument. The last budget package at £125 million exceeded the £113 million provided by the previous Government by £11.9 million. I have given an undertaking to the Carer's Association that in conjunction with them and on the basis of the report of the interdepartmental review committee I will endeavour to look again at this area in the context of next year's budget. I assure the Deputy I will be there next year.
