Vol. 508 No. 4
40 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will change the system whereby carers of the elderly or the disabled lose their widow's pension or other social welfare payment if they qualify for the carer's allowance. [19175/99]
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.
Following a detailed examination of the review of the carer's allowance, which was published in October 1998, a range of measures was introduced in the 1999 budget at an additional annual cost of over £18 million, to improve and develop the position of carers. The estimated expenditure on carer's allowance in 1999 is almost £60 million, which is an increase of almost 40 per cent. At the end of September 1999 there were 13,605 carers in receipt of the carer's allowance compared with 11,100 carers in receipt of the allowance at the same time last year.
How many?
There were 13,605, as opposed to 11,100 this time last year. This number is expected to increase to almost 15,000 following the package of measures introduced for carers in the last budget.
The review of the carer's allowance examined the issue of paying the allowance in conjunction with another social welfare payment. The practice of paying only one allowance is a feature, with very few exceptions, of all social welfare payments and is designed to ensure that limited resources are not used to make two income support payments to any one individual. The review concluded that this practice should continue.
I assure the Deputy that where a person in receipt of a widow's pension applies for a carer's allowance, she will receive the higher payment – there is no loss of income. In the majority of cases persons in receipt of a widow's contributory pension would be better off remaining in receipt of this payment and the Department will ensure that this is the case.
The measures introduced in the 1999 budget clearly indicate my personal commitment and that of the Government to carers and the appreciation we must all have for this valuable role in our society. In addition, my colleagues, the Ministers for Finance, Health and Children and the Environment and Local Government also brought forward proposals for assistance to carers in the last budget. The Government is conscious that such a cross-cutting approach is required and needs to be developed even further.
Does the Minister accept that it is economically sensible and socially wise to develop the carer system further so that we can encourage more people to be looked after in their own homes? Furthermore, does he accept that pending the introduction of a carer's allowance without a means test we have to look at the worst cases? Does he accept that one of the cruellest cases of all is that of a woman who is looking after her father or father-in-law and whose husband dies? She should get the widow's pension, but if she gets it she loses the carer's allowance. Surely that is a very cruel system. Does the Mini ster accept that in the next review of the carer's allowance, which hopefully will occur coming up to the budget, this issue should be looked at? The absolute rule that there should be no double payment from the Department should be looked at seriously and the examples such as the one I have given should be addressed. A woman in that position should be entitled to both the carer's allowance and the widow's pension or at least more than just one of those allowances.
I agree with the Deputy that it is an issue of concern and again I go back to the measures I brought forward in the last budget. That was the first major change in the carer's allowance and, as I said, there was a 40 per cent increase in funding for the scheme. The review I referred to looked at the issue of the introduction of a new non-means tested payment for carers called a continual care payment. This was to recognise those providing the highest level of care and to promote care in the community. The review did consider that this continual care payment, if it was to be introduced, would have to follow on from addressing the issue of needs assessment. I have responded to previous questions on needs assessment by citing the committee under the chairmanship of the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt, to examine the issue of needs assessment. One of the main arguments in the review of future issues for carers is that we need to identify the requirements of each carer and each person cared for, and that could only be done on a one to one basis. At present, we do not have a system of needs assessment and we need to put it in place. The question of a continual payment such as that referred to in the review will be examined in that context.
In nearly all cases carers are women. In the case of widows, does the Minister accept it would not cost much to introduce the change I suggest? My colleague, Deputy Creed, received a letter from the Minister's Department yesterday which indicated that only 214 people have been refused this payment because of duplication? We are, therefore, talking about a small number of people. If the spouse of the carer is working there is a disregard of £150 and if the carer—
The time for this question has now expired so we have to proceed to Question No. 41.
May I have a commitment from the Minister that he will focus on this issue in the next review of the carer's allowance?
I will focus on the issue of the carer's allowance, but while the figures may be small, a principle in relation to making two social welfare payments has existed since the start of the social welfare system, with few exceptions.
Change it.
