Support for Carers: Motion.

Mrs. Ridge

I move:

That Seanad Éireann condemns the failure of the Government to offer adequate support to carers in our community and proposes that a non-means tested continuous care grant be introduced; the ban on social welfare recipients also receiving carer's allowance be lifted; and the means threshold for carer's allowance be doubled.

I am sure the Minister is in total agreement with this proposal and I am amazed the Government has tabled an amendment to the motion. The Carers Association has lobbied with partial success since that excellent association was founded in 1987. It has some paid workers now, but the genesis of the association was the voluntary work of people who encountered dreadful difficulties associated with caring. I acknowledge and applaud the work of this association.

The informal caring system that was part of our culture has disappeared. When I was a child in Dublin there was a built-in caring system in neighbourhoods. However, to be honest, that arose largely due to large families and housing proximity in the old tenement houses, where up to ten families lived in one large house and there was also someone there to mind the granny. I remember the first time I saw Sean O'Casey's famous Dublin play, The Plough and the Stars. In that play, Mrs. Grigson's daughter, who was always called poor little Mollser and suffered from tuberculosis, was cared for by practically the whole cast, who played the residents of the tenement house.

Happily, Dublin is no longer a city of teeming tenements. I have discovered, however, as I have become older and more experienced, although I do not know if I am any wiser, that solving problems usually has a minus aspect, no matter how good we are at solving the initial problem. In solving the housing and hygiene problems of the tenements, we created a new problem of isolation and lack of access to services. Inevitably, with the arrival of smaller families, society now has a higher dependence on State services.

The typical carer, even 20 years ago, would have been usually the daughter of the house.

Miss Quill

The unmarried daughter.

Mrs. Ridge

I was about to say that it was usually the middle aged and often single daughter.

Acting Chairman (Mr. R. Kiely)

Senator Ridge, without interruption.

Mrs. Ridge

The Senator was only being helpful and was agreeing with me. I hope she will also agree with me when it is time to vote.

Acting Chairman

Senator Quill will have an opportunity to agree with Senator Ridge later.

Miss Quill

I apologise to the Chair.

Mrs. Ridge

The daughter's duty was to care for both or one elderly parent. This system worked on the very noble premise that virtue brought its own reward. However, unfortunately, this was never in a tangible form and many men and women lost contact with their friends and communities because of their unselfish and largely unrewarded sacrifices and dutifully awaited their reward in heaven. How times have changed.

One of the most unequal and unfair practices was when a worker who gave up his or her job to care for a parent lost his or her income, colleagues and lifestyle. I am not blaming the Minister for this quite callous situation that pertained because I do not think we knew how to cope with this transition. However, these people lost their income, colleagues and lifestyle and ended up saving the State the cost of nursing home care.

The cost to the carer was enormous. These people became non-persons. A relative of mine officially did not exist because she was not in receipt of any payment from the State and could not work, but she was saving the State an enormous amount of money by caring for her parent for a number of years. She never returned to work because she was too long away from it. People like that got a very raw deal and were not given even a crumb from the national cake.

Their unhappy lot has changed for the better. Carers, however, particularly the Carers Association, will remind us that they are saving the State £1.5 billion a year. I am sure the Minister has read about this and I acknowledge he must be swamped with pre-budget submissions. I know every group can claim it has the greatest need. However, given the history of carers in our society, their pre-budget submission should be read very carefully. There has to be an improvement in their lot.

The Carers Association says that the number of carers is so high that only one in 15 is in receipt of the allowance. I acknowledge the efforts made by various Governments, particularly the improvements in last year's budget. The Carers Association successfully lobbied for the introduction of the original allowance, the respite fund for voluntary organisations and free travel passes for some carers. Will the Minister give some thought to the fact that carers in some rural areas never get to use their travel passes because there is no public transport in their areas? I was at a meeting of the South Eastern Health Board yesterday in Carnew, County Wicklow where I was told there is only one bus per week from some towns. That is not this Minister's fault but having a travel pass is not an advantage if only one bus per week leaves one's home town.

Relaxation of the rules regarding living under the same roof was a positive step and it could be broadened. Allowance is made for neighbours and so forth but the fact that one is not living in close proximity does not mean one will not be there to look after the person. Time off for carers on allowance for study, training, respite, volunteering and paid employment are other issues.

I am not disingenuous and I acknowledge the improvements in last year's budget. The main subject of the motion is the means test. I read last year's and this year's pre-budget submissions from the Carers Association. They are my main guide, aside from my practical experience, as to how carers feel they are being treated. The association considers the means test to be a mean test. No Government likes to hear that description applied to it. However, it is mean in some ways, probably due to the complexity of how the State pays people rather than to a desire not to treat carers equally. The means test for the carer's allowance should be abolished. The rate of payment should be increased to £120 per week from 1 April 2001.

Like other people who experience ongoing difficulties in their daily lives, carers feel they must fight every day in addition to coping with the prolonged battle of caring for the person who is ill or in need of physical care. They feel they are being passed from Billy to Jack in terms of the number of Departments which must be consulted at various stages. The Departments of Social, Community and Family Affairs, Finance, and Health and Children must clarify whether the carer's allowance is income for the job as carer in the home or a social assistance payment. This is where the injustices are experienced.

These injustices include the following. Although over 78% of carers are women, the means test is carried out on their partners' income in many cases, with the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs insisting on the antiquated notion that a woman "enjoys" half her husband's income. That is not a meaningful way to deal with this. The Department insists that the carer's allowance is a social assistance payment, not a payment in recognition of the value of the carer's work. However, the Revenue Commissioners tax the carer's allowance as income. Some health boards deprive people of medical cards, cut rent allowance and deny carers supplementary welfare allowances for special diets and heating because they treat the allowance as income. Families lose the back to school allowance for clothing and books if the carer is in receipt of the carer's allowance. Some local authorities deny carers the benefit of the differential rent scheme because they treat the allowance as income.

Even though carers work the longest hours of any group of workers, they are never classed as workers under the legislation. Other changes to the carer's allowance should include the treatment of the carer as a person in his or her own right. Equality dictates that only the means of the carer should be assessed. Given the fact that caring is a 24 hour, 365 day per year job, I ask the Minister to take on board the carefully researched proposals of the Carers Association. I will not list the proposals here. Despite the introduction of equality legislation, carers are still not having their needs met.

I am sorry I do not have time to comment on the social welfare aspects of the allowance but I trust my colleagues will do so. I hope the Minister did not find my delivery too rapid.

Mr. Cosgrave

I second the motion. I am a little disappointed that the House must divide over this motion because we are certainly at one on much of it. Given the manner in which carers have been treated over the years, successive Governments have been slow to move their cause along. The Minister has done a certain amount but I am sure he will be the first to admit that he would like to have done more. Some of his predecessors probably did less.

Every Member recognises the role of the carer and the need to get allowances to a realistic level, having regard to the original low threshold. Since its foundation in 1987, the Carers Association has done a huge amount of work. It has presented pre-budget submissions to various Governments with a view to improving the situation of the carer. It is important that we do all we can to support this group working on the carers' behalf. I support the Minister's fight in Cabinet to get everything he can for his Department. There are many needy people, particularly the carers and old age pensioners. The Minister will admit that he could spend every penny and more of his budget on them. There is not the same big lobby on behalf of carers that there might be for more demanding and pressing groups who have more muscle, as it were, but I am aware that the Mini ster is committed to ensuring that the carers' case is kept high on the agenda.

We all know people who fall into this category. They have looked after their relatives for years, be they parents, aunts, uncles or other elderly relatives. This is not an issue on which we should indulge in point scoring. Successive Governments and Ministers would like to have done more over the years. It is important now, however, when the State has an extra few bob, that the Minister should bring allowances to a realistic level. The budget will be announced on this day three weeks. I am sure the Minister had a shopping list as long as his arm—

Mr. D. Ahern

A lot longer.

Mr. Cosgrave

—for various schemes. I urge him to give particular consideration to the carers. For years they were far down the list of priorities of successive Governments, probably because they did not have an effective lobby group.

My party has advocated various measures, including increasing income to be disregarded, introducing a fair system of assessment of income and savings and relaxing residency rules. There must be give and take. In relation to appeals I urge the Minister to take a realistic approach – things must be checked out, but if carers are not available, it will cost health boards more, and more people will have to go into nursing homes. Some people, if they get a certain amount of care, will not have to go into a nursing home. Having visited a few nursing homes recently I am aware that, while there are some very good ones, we should be vigilant about how others are run to ensure they are not run totally for profit and that adequate professional help is available so that people have basic care in their latter days.

Let me sum up by seconding the motion. I ask the Minister to do the best he can in the weeks ahead for a group that deserve our respect and regard. Some of us will, if we live long enough, have a carer looking after us. I hope the Minister, with the Members of this House, will think ahead.

Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern)

I thank the Members of the House for giving me this opportunity to speak on this motion. The Government is strongly committed to supporting carers. Without being overly political about it, I am prepared to stand on my record and on the record of this Government which, on any examination of the changes that have taken place in relation to the carer's allowance, is second to none. Any objective analysis of the improvements that have taken place in this area will show that they took place during the Government's tenure.

The matter we are addressing cuts across the remit of a number of Departments. It encompasses the provision of income support, tax initiatives for people who care for people in the home or who employ a carer, the provision of respite care and other community services supported by the health boards, and the provision of housing supports to assist people in adapting their homes.

A co-ordinated approach is necessary if we are to support care in the community. We are delivering that co-ordinated approach. We must, of course, provide appropriate support to carers through the tax and social welfare systems. The carer's allowance is a means-tested payment administered by my Department for carers on low income who look after people in need of full-time care and attention.

In An Action Programme for the Millennium, the Government 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. As part of that commitment I published an overall review of the carer's allowance in October 1998. The submissions and proposals of all organisations representing carers were considered as part of the review process and are comprehensively addressed in this report.

Based on the research carried out in the review, the current number of full-time carers is estimated to be 50,000, covering carers of older people and adults and children with disabilities. At the end of October 2000, there were 16,176 carers in receipt of carer's allowance. These figures indicate that 32% of full-time carers are in receipt of the carer's allowance payment which is an increase of 75% in the number of carers in receipt of the allowance since the Government took office. It is important to repeat that when I became Minister the number of people in receipt of the carer's allowance was 9,000, while it is now upwards of 16,200. This large increase is reflected in the expenditure on carer's allowance, which was £36.5 million in 1997 and is projected to be £78.3 million this year, representing an increase of 115%. No other allowance or benefit paid out by my Department has increased by so much. These facts clearly demonstrate the good work and progress which has been made by the Government over the past three years.

Arising from the review, I introduced major improvements to the carer's allowance scheme in both the 1999 and 2000 budgets. In addition to increases in the weekly income support payments, I have also put in place many other supports for carers in receipt of carer's allowance or carers who are caring for recipients of a constant attendance or prescribed relative's allowance. These include the free travel pass for all qualified carers. I take on board Senator Ridge's point in relation to free travel. This is a broader issue and something my Department has started to address. In the review of the free schemes, we indicated in relation to free travel that a social transport fund should be set up in conjunction with my Department and a number of other Departments, local authorities and county development boards to provide transport services in areas where there is no public transport. Supports also include free telephone rental allowance, free electricity allowance and free television licence schemes for all qualified carers. All these improvements have been implemented since I became Minister.

An annual payment of £300 towards respite care is payable to all carers in receipt of carer's allowance and to other qualified carers to use in whatever way they choose. The feedback on this payment in enabling carers to have a break from their caring duties has been very good. I have introduced flexibility into the scheme by relaxing the "full-time care and attention" rule to allow carers in receipt of carer's allowance to take up paid employment of up to ten hours per week. I have abolished the residency conditions that required carers to be resident with the care recipient. Instead, each non-resident claim for carer's allowance will now be assessed on a case by case basis. I made this change very recently, doing away with the rule in relation to close proximity.

Other improvements mean that qualified carers are no longer required to satisfy the requirement to have 13 paid contributions when claiming disability benefit. All other carers are credited with PRSI contributions. Carers who have ceased their caring responsibilities are eligible for the back to education allowance scheme and the back to work allowance scheme. More recently I introduced the new carer's benefit scheme. This scheme will be extremely beneficial for those carers who experience the tremendous difficulties involved in caring and working full time. The scheme allows carers to leave the workforce for up to 15 months and receive a non-means-tested payment. In addition, a unique feature of this new scheme will be the retention of the carer's employment rights for that period. This scheme was introduced last month.

As with all other social assistance schemes, a means test in which the income of both the applicant and his or her partner is assessable is applied to the carer's allowance to ensure resources are directed to those in greatest need. The means test has been eased significantly in the past few years, most notably with the introduction of disregards of income from employment and other sources. The review of the carer's allowance recommended that a disregard of £75 per week should be applied to the income of a single carer and a disregard of £150 per week should be applied to the joint means of a married couple. This measure was implemented in August 1999. The effect of these changes mean that a couple with two children could have a joint annual income of £9,152 and qualify for the maximum carer's allowance while a couple with up to £19,500 could qualify for a minimum carer's allowance and also receive an annual respite care grant and benefit under the free schemes.

The estimated cost of abolishing the means test and extending the carer's allowance at existing levels to all full-time carers would be in the region of £179 million annually. To the Senators who raised this, I would nearly guarantee that a Minister from any other political party would not do away with the means test. The strong recommendation from within the Department is that the means test cannot be abolished. I wager there would be no change in that, even if there was a change in Government.

The review noted that the carer's allowance is an income support payment, not a payment for caring. It examined the means test and considered that it should be maintained as a way of targeting resources towards those most in need. A wide range of services, including community care and respite care, are required to support carers in their caring role. It is doubtful if a payment to all carers, regardless of their income, could be considered to be the best use of resources. However, the position in regard to the means test and the disregard will be kept under review.

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. The review of the carer's allowance examined the question of paying the carer's allowance in conjunction with another social welfare payment. It noted that the allowance is an income support payment and not a payment for caring. 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 resources available are not used to make two income support payments to any one individual. The review concluded that this practice should continue. A person qualifying for two social welfare payments will always receive the higher payment to which he or she is entitled.

The review proposes 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 envisaged that this payment would be made, irrespective of income or social welfare entitlement, to carers caring for those who are in the highest category of dependency.

To differentiate between the levels of care and care needs, the review considered that a needs assessment encompassing the needs of the care recipient and the carer should be introduced and that a continual care payment could be introduced following the introduction of such an assessment. It was considered that the needs assessment would separate care needs from income support needs and could be used by all State organisations which provide reliefs or grants to those in need of care.

Establishing a pilot scheme of needs assessment for carers and people needing care was identified as a priority in the Government's review of its action programme. My Department is represented on a working group, which was set up under the chairmanship of my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt – who will speak later in this debate – to examine the feasibility of introducing a new approach focusing on the total needs of the carer and the person in need of care. I understand that the Western Health Board has undertaken a pilot project in its area and the results of that study are being considered by the working group. The Eastern Regional Health Authority is also doing work in this area.

We are also committed to improving the range of essential community supports to carers. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt, will outline the significant improvements that have taken place in that area.

The review group also examined the issue of a cost of care allowance and considered it to be within the remit of the Department of Health and Children. It is similar to the requests for a cost of disability payment, which the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities recommended should be introduced by the Department of Health and Children.

The details of a range of new social inclusion measures were included in the Government's review of its action programme only a year ago. I take this opportunity to reiterate a point that building an inclusive society – one in which everyone feels he or she belongs – is a key objective of the Government. Following from the NESC's call for an increased emphasis on social inclusion, the review of the action programme sets out a range of specific commitments to improve the position of all our people.

One of the key commitments is that a co-ordinated approach addressing the needs of carers should be established, including a new partnership model to meet the needs of long-term care and a pilot scheme of needs assessment for carers and people needing care.

To this end, one of the remaining proposals arising from the review of the carer's allowance will be examined. A consultancy study will be undertaken to examine issues relating to long-term care, in terms of cost and possible partnership approaches and the possible role of the PRSI system in this regard. The study will examine possible future schemes, the effects on the social insurance fund and estimate the number of people who might qualify. It is expected this study will commence before the end of the year.

All the measures I outlined are useless if people do not know of their existence. This year I have undertaken a massive information campaign throughout my Department, which has issued more than 350,000 newsletters to pensioners. More than 100,000 people with disabilities have received an information booklet outlining the support available, not only from my Department but from the various Government Departments.

Only last week I published an information booklet, which has been sent to more than 16,000 carers. I am delighted a number of Members have a copy of it with them. The objective of this information booklet is to advise carers and care recipients of the main social welfare and other entitlements available to them. It also contains information about employment and educational supports that my Department has introduced and a range of services provided by other agencies.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to outline what the Government has done and is doing in this vital area. The facts I presented to Members prove without doubt that the Government has taken many positive and innovative steps towards improving the situation of carers during its term of office.

As Members will have heard, mine is not the only Department that has introduced much needed measures. My colleagues, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government have also brought forward proposals of assistance to carers. The Government is conscious that such a cross-cutting approach is required to successfully tackle the issues facing carers.

We recognise the need to do more and I welcome the responsible proposals that have been put forward in this House and elsewhere to improve the position of carers. As a Government, we are committed to supporting care in the community to the maximum extent possible. People want to live in their own homes with their families. Families want to be able to care for their loved ones at home. We have a great tradition of family support. Public services can never replace the vital work carried out by families and communities. As Minister with responsibility for family affairs, I believe the Government must work in partnership with families. It was with that in mind that I introduced the extensive range of measures in support of carers during my time in office.

The development of the range of supports for carers will continue to be a priority for myself and my colleagues in other Departments and, building on the foundations now in place, we can continue to develop the types of services that recognise the value of the caring ethos and which provide real support and practical assistance to people who devote their time to improving the quality of life of others.

Senators can rest assured that the Government will give careful consideration to all reasonable proposals made in this and the other House and by parliamentary parties in the coming budget and during the remainder of its term of office.

I thank the Members concerned for tabling this motion, as it has given me the opportunity to outline the position up to now. I will bear in mind the proposals they make in this regard in the forthcoming budget, but, as Senator Cosgrave said, the reality is the list I have is much longer than my arm. At a recent pre-budget forum 28 lobby groups, including the Carers Association and Care Alliance – there could have been many more if there had been room to facilitate them – made their demands. The cost of implementing the major proposals put forward amounted to approximately £4.5 billion. I remind Senators that the budgetary increase introduced in my Department last year – the total package amounted to £432 million – was the highest in the history of this State. The position in which I am in reminds me of the story of the loaves and the fishes.

Ms Ridge

Will the Minister do the same this year?

Mr. D. Ahern

That is my problem and I will have to address it.

Mr. Norris

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am not surprised he said he welcomed the opportunity to place things on the record because he has placed a certain number of fairly positive things on the record.

I am not sure that a completely adversarial atmosphere is the best way to address these sensitive issues regarding carers. Despite the fact that I will probably vote with this side of the House, there is a certain charming disingenuousness about Senator Ridge saying she is surprised at the Government seeking to amend the motion. When one puts down a motion that contains the words "this House condemns the failure of the Government", one would need to be a little bit starry eyed to imagine it would not be amended.

Mrs. Jackman

Senator Ridge is always hopeful and positive.

Mr. Glynn

Innocence like that should be preserved.

Mr. Norris

One has to find ways around that. That is perhaps why I am on the Independent benches and not in one of the parties. I will not give a full-hearted condemnation regarding this, but we can use this debate to do something useful.

The Minister has fired a question at the Fine Gael Party and the other Opposition party. He has said he does not intend to remove the means test. I did not believe he would remove it. Let us have an answer on that from members of the different parties here tonight. Would they remove it? Would Fine Gael remove it? Would the Labour Party remove it? The answer would provide a very useful focus for our debate. I would remove it. I do not mind what it would cost. I do not believe it would cost £4 billion. I would remove it because it is very difficult to maintain the position of being a carer, particularly a full-time carer. There is no doubt that if those carers removed their services the bill to the State would be considerably greater, so there would be a saving.

There was something Dickensian about the Minister saying that as in all other social assistance schemes a means test in which the income of both the applicant and his or her partner as acceptable is applied to carer's allowance to ensure that resources are directed to those in greatest need. What about those who have made the greatest contribution? Carers make an enormous contribution – sometimes it is because they are members of a family and there is a little social blackmail involved. Often in rural areas one person, usually a daughter, is left behind to look after old people. Why should they not be paid? If they sacrifice lives, careers or education why should they not be paid a comparatively small amount? I would get rid of the means test and would not care about the cost.

A mistake the Government frequently makes, often by people in the seat the Minister now occupies, is to spend the Order of Business explaining to us how, thanks to the Government's success, the country is awash with money. A good deal more of that money should wash in the direction of the carers. From the campaign of the Centre for Independent Living we knew how vital it is for people to have carers as it opens up all the possibilities of life for them. I would spend as much money as possible on them.

The Minister congratulated himself on his booklet and I go along with that. It is very good and the foreword states that supporting those who support people with disabilities and the elderly is one of the Government's key objectives. That sounds as if it has a ring of cash about it. If it is an objective, let us see where the money is. Something I cannot congratulate him on, however, is the grammar. The fourth paragraph spells "the principle" incorrectly. "Principal" means the main reason, while "principle" means an ethical principle. This is followed by a split infinitive, which is most regrettable.

The Minister's booklet lists the many things that have been done, and a certain number of things have been done – there is an additional increase for parents over 66, free travel pass, an additional payment of £200 towards respite care, extension of free telephone rental, the annual respite grant to be increased by £100, free electricity and television and so on. This is to be welcomed, as is the booklet's most practical feature, the list of addresses and contacts. The Minister was right when he said these services are of no use if people cannot access the information that will enable them to take up the services.

The Minister is not the only person who produces booklets. The Carers Association has also produced a booklet and I am sure he has read it in detail. It is a slight document in bullet points, most of which are fairly convincing. The Minister stated that 32% of full-time carers receive a carer's allowance. That may be an improvement, but it should be 100%. Only one third of carers receive this allowance and the Minister is saying this as if it is a good thing. It is shameful and I would not gloat about it. The Minister is very honest to admit this and I include it to balance positives such as the abolition of the residency condition.

The Carers Association booklet states that regarding 24 hour care, we should allow more than one carer's allowance per carer per person when a person needs more than 40 hours care per week. Why should we limit this to just one? We should make it as practical as possible. I have already said that means tests should be abolished and the booklet calls for individualisation so that the means test should apply to the carer's income only before it is abolished completely. This seems indecent. If someone is giving full-time care why should he or she be penalised if their husband or wife is earning money? I do not see the morality of that.

The booklet also mentions pay in addition to other social welfare payments such as widow's pension or lone parent allowance. Again, why have this penny-paring attitude, taking money away from a widow and disadvantaging her further? The booklet proposes that the full cost of medical costs be met and that, with regard to carer's benefit, the rate should be a proper one – at least £120 per week for up to three years. There should also be a spousal entitlement swap so that benefits could be paid to the partner of an eligible person if the partner is the carer and if the couple so requests and there should be full credited PRSI contributions while on carer's benefit and all other benefits.

Undoubtedly, there have been improvements and it would be mean-spirited of me not to say so but I would extend this further. We are talking about vulnerable people who have given the State enormous service. That service will be more necessary than ever in our changing social circumstances. The family is changing – we no longer have the extended family and we can no longer rely on people to look after the elderly. That is a wonderful privilege.

I spent time looking after an aunt of mine who died a couple of months ago and it was one of the most enlightening and uplifting experiences of my life. It was a privilege but it also ties one down. My aunt in turn looked after her elderly parents in the country and it spoilt her opportunities for a career in university. I am aware of the costs involved in this. We must acknowledge that family structures are changing and we will not get this kind of person any more. Young people will not sacrifice their own self-realisation to look after a relative, even though that may be a pity.

Despite their occasionally blemished records, many of the institutions of the Roman Catholic church have evaporated in the past ten years. The nuns and brothers may have behaved badly in certain circumstances but they also fulfilled an extraordinary role. That support network has now gone and we have people who are professional and who need to be paid properly. I will see if I get an answer to the question I have helped the Minister to put. Would the Opposition parties abolish the means test?

Mr. Glynn

The Senator knows the answer.

Ms Leonard

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"commends the Government on its efforts to provide supports to carers, in particular for the very significant increase in the number of carers entitled to a carer's allowance, which has increased by 75% since this Government came into office and now stands at 16,176; the fact that expenditure has increased by 115% over this period; the increase in the level of respite care and other community based supports to carers and the introduction of the new carer's benefit; and notes that the Government plans to build on this progress in the forthcoming budget."

We all value the contribution carers make to society in enabling people to stay in a homely environment with a carer or in their own homes. I agree with Senator Norris it is disappointing the Opposition used the word "condemn" in its motion, particularly when one hears the Minister describe the improvements in the carer's allowance. We should compliment him on what he has done since taking over in the Department.

The motion condemns the failure of the Government to offer adequate support to carers in our community but the Minister mentioned the changes that have supported carers. There has been a 75% increase in the number of people entitled to carer's allowance. The Carers Association can give one set of figures and, depending on who one speaks to, there are 50,000 or 100,000 carers – the figure can change dramatically but a huge number of people have been brought into the net as a result of the Minister's changes.

In addition, in September 1998 free travel was given to carers who were in receipt of carer's allowance, in 1999 the free telephone allowance was extended to these people and in October of this year they became eligible for the free electricity allowance and TV licences. These are the basic structures, in terms of community supports, that have been improved in recent years by the Minister.

Two years ago, the House discussed a relaxation of the residency rule. A number of people provide care to elderly parents and relatives who live nearby and who were excluded from the scheme as a result of the very strict residency rule. The Social Welfare Act, 1999, relaxed the residency rule and this has made a major difference for those who wish to remain in their own homes and for carers who prefer if their elderly relatives can remain there in order that they can retain some independence. That was a welcome development.

The respite care grant was introduced in 1999 and it was increased to £300 this year. Carers and those for whom they care need a break from each other. As the saying goes, "A change is as good as a rest", and when one is providing care 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year there is no doubt that one needs a break. Not only do carers need a break, those for whom they care need it also. The respite care grant is particularly beneficial to carers. In the run-up to the budget we should consider how it can be improved even more, particularly given that the cost of placing someone in a nursing home has increased dramatically in recent years.

Other Members referred to the abolition of the means test. Senator Norris asked who would be responsible for doing that. I am totally opposed to the abolition of the means test. Is the Senator seriously saying that a person who earns between £50,000 and £60,000 per year is not able to provide care for a loved one? The Senator is equating a person who earns £20,000 per year with someone who earns £50,000. The carer's allowance is not a payment for the care of the individual, it is an income support for the carer. A person earning £50,000 or £60,000 does not need the carer's allowance.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Moffatt, whose Department has established a working group to assess the needs of carers and those for whom they care. That is a more beneficial route to take rather than calling for a complete abolition of the means test. We must look at the individual needs of those who require care. I accept that it is difficult to assess and gauge the type of care people need, but it is more beneficial to consider the needs of those requiring care rather than merely throwing money at them. I am in favour of giving a payment to assist in the care of those most in need of it. Such a payment would go to the person being cared for rather than be used as an income support by the carer. I am totally opposed to abolishing the means test but I am in favour of increasing the respite care grant.

When one is in Opposition it is easy to criticise, condemn and state what should be done. However, the bottom line – I agree with many of Senator Ridge's comments in this regard – is that 20 years ago a member of the family would remain at home to care for elderly parents or relatives. Society has changed in the interim. Families are smaller and many more people have chosen to pursue careers outside the home. In any event, it is not as beneficial to remain at home even if one is on a low income and entitled to receive the carer's allowance.

The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs has taken on board a great deal of what has been said by the Carers Association. That organisation is not the only one involved in caring and the Minister has taken on board the concerns, etc., of many of the other people involved in this area. He has done a huge amount in a short period to improve their lot. No one believes that matters will ever be right for carers. No amount of money will compensate a person who cares for someone in the home. However, with the exception of the abolition of the means test, the Minister has done more than anyone could have anticipated to try to improve the lot of carers.

Carer's benefit was introduced in the last budget and, to all intents and purposes, this has been overlooked. Carer's benefit is of huge value to people who care for someone at home who is suffering from either a short-term or terminal illness. Such carers give up full-time employment for a period to care for sick relatives. In cases where the illnesses are terminal or it is expected that their rehabilitation period will be short – perhaps one year – it is extremely beneficial to allow a person to remain at home to care for an elderly parent or relative. In addition, the person's employment rights are protected. This change has been particularly beneficial.

This is an opportune time to debate carers and the carer's allowance. I wish to make a plea to the Minister. I am completely opposed to the abolition of the means test. However, as the Minister stated, 16,176 people are now in receipt of carer's allowance and we should aim to try to increase the income disregard in the forthcoming budget. At present, the income disregard for a single person is £75 while for a married couple it is £150. In order to allow people on lower incomes to qualify for carer's allowance, we should consider increasing the income disregard. I would not go so far as to state that the threshold should be doubled but it should be increased substantially in the budget.

I am disappointed that the Opposition felt it necessary to condemn the Government in respect of this issue. Anyone who considers this matter realistically will recognise that many changes have taken place which have benefited carers immensely. However, we can always do better and I hope the respite care grant and the income disregard will be considered in the context of the forthcoming budget. We must make it easier for those on lower incomes to care for sick relatives. I do not agree with Opposition calls for the abolition of the means test because this will only benefit the more wealthy in our society.

Mrs. Jackman

There is no issue that has come before the House in respect of which the Fine Gael motion would not have 100% public support. With regard to the changing society to which Senator Norris referred, I accept that the State has saved £1.5 billion thanks to the selflessness of carers, individuals who have put disabled or elderly people before themselves. That has not been the trend in other countries.

In Ireland the Soroptimists have done a great deal to raise awareness of this issue in the mid-west, particularly the Soroptimist club in Ennis which was the first to devise the idea of giving carers a break under its caring for the carers initiative. It won European group of the year for its innovative idea to provide respite for carers. The EU had not previously come across such a caring response by any group which had gone that route and the blueprint was adopted by other countries where there is not the same emphasis on providing care at home for the elderly and physically and mentally disabled. It is important to acknowledge the contribution of this small group of women who knew that carers in remote parts of County Clare never got one minute's break, let alone a day off to meet other carers. The time off has been extended to a weekend. Carers are so thankful for this time off that we can only guess the sacrifices made by them when they make this specific commitment to their loved ones.

In the first instance, we should not be talking about means testing. A figure of £1.5 billion was given as the figure carers save the State. It costs between £600 and £1,000 to care for an elderly person in a nursing home, not to mention the cost of looking after a person with an intellectual disability in a State institution. If one quantified the costs incurred in running a nursing home or institution, the figure would run to many billions of pounds.

The Fine Gael motion is a response to the needs of the most selfless and least rewarded group in society. Regardless of whether we like it, we will all be elderly some day, while some of us may be dependent on a member of our family who selflessly gives up a career to look after us. I am thinking in particular of women who account for 78% of carers. No reference has been made to a woman who gives up a challenging and successful career to stay at home to care for her elderly mother or father or distant relative. It does not matter if her husband earns £50,000 or £60,000, the point is that she may have forfeited a salary of £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000. She is an individual in her own right and her husband's income should not be taken into account in the means test. We have equality laws and there should be no assessment of her husband's income.

Many women carers have given up a lucrative career and this must be taken into consideration when talking about incomes. Many carers have not married, while others have moved to another area. The social sacrifices made by these women cannot be quantified in money terms. This may also be the case for some male carers. We are dealing with a service which cannot be quantified in pounds, shillings and pence and which should be made a priority so that the needs of carers are met. Carers are unselfish people who will not scream and demand extraordinary bonanzas. What they are looking for are very basic rights.

On the issue of residency, I am not sure about the distance involved. The Minister said the issue would be dealt with on a case by case basis. Will there be a cut off point of five or ten miles? What is meant by "adjacency"? When talking about third level grants there can be a huge difference in cost depending on whether one lives within or outside an area. I am very interested in this issue and ask the Minister to spell out the proposal in detail. The fact that a woman has to get up at 6 a.m. to travel a certain number of miles to look after her mother or father for the day must be taken into account.

On the cost of care allowance, carers are asking for £45 per week to meet the additional costs of caring at home. The Minister said that this issue comes within the health and children portfolio, not the social, community and family affairs portfolio. I am very anxious that the Minister for Health and Children takes this point into consideration in the budget.

The Minister said that people would be allowed to leave the workforce for up to 15 months to act as carers and they would receive a non-means-tested payment. What will happen when the 15 month period expires? Who will take over? This proposal is ambiguous. If nobody is available to take the place of the carer will she be able to look for another 15 months off or will the person who needs care be left high and dry and have no option but to go into a nursing home? This point needs to be fully fleshed out.

I may be wrong but I saw no reference in the booklet to the abolition of VAT on care items. This applies not only in cases where the person is cared for at home, it also applies in cases where they are cared for in a nursing home. On top of the basic very high nursing home costs, there are other expensive items an individual may have to buy. VAT on necessary care items, such as incontinence pads, should be abolished. If this is not possible, additional weekly grants should be paid to carers to defray the costs of caring for someone at home.

On a positive note, I compliment the Minister on producing his booklet. However, there are many gaps in it. I hope that, with our support, he will fill these gaps in the budget and give proper recognition to carers and those they care for. Nobody will contradict me when I say they are the most deserving group in society. If they are not treated accordingly, the State will incur a high cost in providing alternative facilities in institutions and nursing homes. The family unit is changing rapidly and we may be without the unselfish services of carers in the future. If this happens we will bemoan the fact that we did not cherish them when they were prepared to care for their elderly relatives at home.

Miss Quill

I am very pleased this debate is taking place. This issue should be debated regularly. The concept of State-assisted care within the home and community is a good one and that is the correct way to proceed. It will be more important in coming years as the number of elderly people in the population increases. It is fitting that we should discuss this issue in a comprehensive manner.

It is indisputable that significant and substantial improvements have taken place in regard to provision for carers, including the carer's allowance, since the Government came to power. That cannot be denied and must rightly be acknowledged but more needs to be done. I hope and I am optimistic that the steady progress made over the past three years will be consolidated, built on and enhanced in the upcoming budget. While much has been done, there is a need to do more and I am hopeful that will happen.

The concept of making provision for carers is relatively new. As Senator Ridge stated, the contribution of carers in the community was taken for granted until quite recently. Often the single woman was kept at home or stayed at home to look after elderly parents or disabled members of the family at enormous cost and sacrifice in terms of her personal and economic life. In rural areas the farm was always given to the son. We are more enlightened now and that is how it ought to be.

The provision made for care of the elderly, the frail and the disabled in the community is the hallmark of a civilised society. However, I want to be fair and I commend the Minister for introducing a number of badly needed improvements during the Government's term of office. For example, the abolition of the residency rule was important, although a question was raised earlier which must be answered on the extent to which it has been abolished. What does examination on a case by case basis mean? I trust that will be explained to the House when the Minister of State replies. I was delighted when I heard it was to be abolished but I am not sure whether that has been qualified. Abolition of the residency rule is the correct course of action.

I was pleased at the introduction of the carer's benefit scheme over the past two budgets. It is terribly important. Throwing money at an issue and thinking it has been addressed is a mistake that is often made when, sometimes, if the issue was examined additional entitlements which would benefit people indirectly could be of much greater assistance and could enable a great deal more to happen. The carer's benefit scheme is good and has a great deal of potential.

I was aghast to discover that only 32% of full-time carers are in receipt of the carer's allowance. I had hoped the figure would be much higher. That raises questions about the threshold for eligibility and how low it may be set. I will refer to them when I address means testing. While I was aghast that only 32% of carers were in receipt of the allowance, I was shocked to discover there was a 75% increase in the number since the Government took office. My capacity to do arithmetic is so retarded that I cannot translate that percentage into the number of people who were in receipt of the allowance when the Government took office but it must have been pitifully low and that is to nobody's credit. There has been a substantial improvement in the number in receipt of the allowance.

Means testing is a live, important issue for everybody but it is a key issue for the Carers Association, to which I pay full tribute for the work it has done to heighten the profile of these worthy citizens who do valuable work which is often not valued by the community. I compliment the association which makes a strong case for the abolition of the means test but I do not agree with that. However, the average industrial wage, for example, could be used as the criterion for a decent, reasonable threshold for eligibility. We might seek to raise the threshold to that level as soon as possible with a view to increasing it in due course.

There are people who can afford to pay huge sums for bricks and mortar, mechanical gadgets and four or five top of the range cars outside their houses but who, at the same time, are not willing to pay for this service. That amounts to a false sense of values. I am not in favour of using taxpayers' money to fund such individuals and, therefore, I do not favour total abolition of the means test. However, there is enormous scope to raise the threshold for eligibility. There must be a reason that only 32% of carers being in receipt of the carer's allowance.

Perhaps individualisation in the social welfare code similar to that in the tax code should be examined so that a carer's income would be assessed in its own right and the allowance would be based on that. The respite fund needs to be doubled. Nobody will ever tell me that anybody can care for an elderly relative at home on £300. It would pay for one weekend in a Ryan hotel. At a minimum carers should receive two breaks on everything. It is the least we should offer to people who do this tough, valuable work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They often are in need of care themselves as many, for example, are ageing women looking after older husbands.

We must demonstrate to them that they are valued. I am proud that the leader of my party, the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, first introduced the concept of making a carer's allowance available. We have a long way to go but I am satisfied we are going in the right direction.

Dr. Henry

I wish to share my time with Senator O'Meara.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Coogan)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Henry

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. However, I am disappointed that the Minister did not refer to the home help service. Much of what I would have said about carers has been said already. If the home help service was promoted many carers would be able to remain in employment for longer, which would result in social and economic benefits for them and support for their ageing or disabled relatives in their own homes. Our aim is to try to keep people in their homes for as long as possible.

While the increase in the home help payment, which had been ridiculous, to at least the minimum wage has been important over the past year, much greater emphasis must be put on estab lishing a proper home help service so that perhaps the home help can manage to be the mainstay during the day and the person who comes home in the evening can take over again. It is an important part of this debate which has not been mentioned to date.

Ms O'Meara

I thank Senator Henry for the points she made about home helps and also for sharing her time with me. As others have said, this is an important debate. As Senator Quill pointed out, it is a debate we should have regularly because the issue of caring is very important. The backdrop against which it operates is also changing. Senator Ridge in her opening remarks made the point of which we are all well aware that the availability of unpaid caring in the community cannot be taken for granted as it once was. Until relatively recently there was an assumption that there was an unpaid female workforce, in effect, which cared for children, elderly relatives or disabled members of the family. As the economic picture has changed, so also has that issue.

It appears to me, and I am sure others would also recognise, that we would never have got around to recognising properly the position of those unpaid carers until two things happened. One was that carers began to demand recognition and acknowledgement for what they do on behalf of the community and the other was that the economic position changed so much that it demanded we as legislators and the Government of whatever political colour should pay some attention.

At the heart of this debate, and the Minister of State referred to this twice if not three times, is the fact that the carer's allowance is not a payment for caring but an income support. Senator Leonard also referred to that. That is the context in which it operates. However, the question is whether the context is still correct. I agree that this and previous Governments have made considerable advances in the area of the carer's allowance and supports for the carer. While such advances on the part of the current Government are to be applauded, the resources available to it are such that, had it not made such advances, it would have been nothing short of a disgrace.

We must now ask ourselves the question, which is applicable in other contexts and not just caring, whether we will go the road of recognising the role of caring in the community and whether we need to examine the issue of a payment for caring rather than an income support. As the Minister of State put it regarding the income support, a couple with two children and a joint annual income of £9,152 qualify for a full carer's allowance. A couple on a maximum of £19,500 receive the minimum carer's allowance. Such figures speak for themselves in the current context. The last I heard, the average industrial wage was around £14,000. It used to be £11,000, but that was a few years ago. My assumption is that it significantly exceeds that now. If the average industrial income is around £14,000 or £15,000, which is not a high income by any standards, and the income at which one qualifies for the full carer's allowance is £9,000, how can one be expected to cope on such an income? Those are the issues constantly raised with us as public representatives.

Until we face up to the issue of giving a payment for caring and affording proper recognition and acknowledgement of caring in the community, we will not move forward. I am sure everyone in the House will have had contact of varying degrees, either in their constituencies or at national level, with carers' groups or even with individual carers. There is a growing demand among those individuals and groups for recognition by the community of their central role. If we continue to stay within the context of the carer's allowance as an income support, we will always have that dissatisfaction on the part of carers. We will also have to ask ourselves whether our response to the issue is adequate.

As I pointed out, the era has changed. I made some inquiries this afternoon about the issue of means testing with economists and people more au fait with costs, figures and analyses, and I am told that there is no agreed figure at present for what it would cost to abolish the means test for all carers. As Senator Quill pointed out, slightly more than 32% of carers, barely a third, qualify for the carer's allowance. In the first instance, we should ask what the real cost would be and not pull figures out of the air, be they £150 million or a few billion. We should find out in the first instance what the real cost would be of abolishing the means test for carers, of establishing a payment for carers and what its cost would be and whether it would be related to tax paid and so on. At the heart, we must ask ourselves as a major policy question whether we will put in place a payment for caring.

Other points I would like to have made have already been made, such as the point about the carer's benefit which, on the face of it, appears to be a very good idea. However, what happens at the end of the 15 months? A person is not eligible if he or she is self-employed or if he or she was a carer before the benefit was introduced. It appears to be a good idea where a person in a family is seriously ill for a short period. Considering the payment gained would be £88.50 a week, it is likely that a family receiving the payment would suffer a major loss of income were they to avail of it. That also needs to be examined. My main point at the heart of the argument is that we should definitely examine the issue of a payment for caring because it is the only proper recognition of the role of caring in its many manifestations in the community.

Mr. Glynn

There is no doubt that carers are the most selfless group of people in society. Carers work instinctively to care for relatives and friends in the community and have given up careers or family life or may attempt to juggle them to carry out their caring responsibilities. They do this voluntarily and, in doing so, make a huge difference to the people for whom they care. We all know that there can be stress and that carers experience social isolation both within their families and communities. However, we should not forget that caring is based on close and intimate relationships and that many carers experience great joy and personal satisfaction in caring for their nearest and dearest. Those who have cared unselfishly for loved ones for many years will say that a great void exists in their lives when the people for whom they have cared pass on to their eternal reward.

The Government could not and should not interfere in those personal relationships. What it can and must do is support carers in the areas which matter most to them and which make their caring duties easier to bear. These areas range from financial support, if necessary, to community care services, respite care and clear and accessible information. The underlying philosophy of Government policy is that people should be allowed to live with dignity in their own homes and that they must be supported by the provision of services for themselves and their carers. This, of course, removes the old concept, which I have never supported, that care can best be provided in institutions.

No one has done more than the Minister to provide for carers and the people for whom they care. The facts supporting this are very clear. To augment the argument, the respite care grant has been introduced. The review of the carer's allowance, which was published by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, considered that respite care is one of the most important services required by carers, to provide the carer with regular breaks and emergency cover. If respite care was not available carers would be in need of care. We can all imagine how desperately a carer, whose life centres on the needs of the person requiring care, would need a break. In response to this need the Government introduced the innovative respite care grant which is payable with a carer's allowance. In last year's budget, the Government increased that amount by £100 to £300. I accept that this grant should be increased but the Minister has taken a very proactive stance regarding the carer's allowance and I am confident he will continue to do so. Carers have warmly welcomed this measure, although I am sure they will be lobbying to have the amount increased.

The residency rule is another matter that has received close attention from the Minister. The original residency requirement that the carer must live with the care recipient was put in place to safeguard the interests of the recipient, but this rule was found to be restrictive. Carers were providing a high level of care but those who were not living with the person requiring care were not eligible for the allowance. This requirement was examined as part of the review of the carer's allowance and it was proposed that it should be relaxed to introduce greater flexibility to the scheme. The Government acted swiftly on that proposal and in August 1999 the residency requirements were relaxed to allow carers living in close proximity to the care recipient to qualify for the allowances. The Government acted swiftly when difficulties arose and, most recently, has abolished the close proximity requirement altogether so that each non-resident claim for the carer's allowance will be assessed on a case by case basis. The examination of claims on such a basis must be extended on an even broader scale. This has been called for by many carers' organisations and it serves to introduce greater flexibility into the scheme while safeguarding the needs and interests of the care recipients.

The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has also made provision for the full-time care and attention rule to be relaxed to allow carers to work for up to ten hours per week. This measure is important for carers, not only for the additional income it provides but also for the therapeutic value it generates to the individual carer.

An extension of the carer's allowance will include more categories of care recipient. When the carer's allowance was introduced it was initially confined to those providing care for certain people in receipt of social welfare payments. It was subsequently extended to include all persons over the age of 66, regardless of their source of income. The Government has extended the allowance to carers of children who receive a domiciliary care allowance from the health boards and carers of people over the age of 16, regardless of their source of income.

It would be remiss of me not to remind Members of the carer's benefit scheme, an important measure which the Minister has recently introduced. The scheme recognises that leaving employment to provide care is broadly similar to other contingencies under the social welfare code and, as such, the benefit will fill the gap in the social insurance system. The new carer's benefit scheme, which will be of 50 months duration, is specifically intended to support those who leave the workforce to care for people in need of full-time care and attention. The scheme involves two central elements. The first is a weekly income support payment to be operated by the Department. This will be based on PRSI contributions paid by the carer and came into effect on 26 October. The second element is the protection of the carer's employment rights for the duration of the caring period.

The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with special responsibility for labour affairs, Deputy Tom Kitt, is currently drawing up carer's leave legislation to reflect the employment rights of the carer. The success of these and many other measures introduced by the Government can be gauged by the growth in the number of carers receiving the increased expenditure on the carer's allowance.

I support the concept that the carer's allowance needs to be improved, but I was amused to hear members of the Opposition saying so. This is because when the Government took office in 1997, 9,216 carers were in receipt of the carer's allowance, but this number has been increased by 75% to 16,126. There has always been a need for carers but only this Government has dealt with it in a meaningful way.

Reference has been made to the number of religious carers and I have never neglected to draw attention to those religious who dedicated their lives to providing such a service on a voluntary basis. There were black sheep but, equally, there were black sheep among doctors, nurses, dentists, solicitors and all the professions. Carers are no different. We should thank the many religious carers who, over the years, dedicated their lives to caring for those who were unable to care for themselves. I commend the Minister on doing a great job. One of the great luxuries of being in opposition is that one can say what one likes because one does not have to deliver.

Mr. McDonagh

Listening to the debate, I am slightly concerned that there is a complacency within the Government parties with regard to the health services being provided at present. I would remind the Government parties, however, of the results of a poll organised by TG4 in recent days in the Galway West constituency. Many questions were posed, including how politicians were performing and what the major issues were. We were informed, however, that people believe that the major issue in the next general election will be health care or rather the lack of it. The Government might be complacent and think it is doing a wonderful job, but I am afraid that people are deeply concerned and dissatisfied with what is being done. Whoever takes power at the next election, we will need a Government that really cares, that says everyone counts and that is willing to tackle the issue.

The great work carers have been doing has been elaborated upon by other speakers and there is no need for me to do so. They are saving the State millions of pounds, but the work they do is not recognised. One of the great problems is the obstacle of the means test. For example, a husband and wife, both pensioners in their 80s, are living outside the town of Athenry and because the husband is very ill, he decided he would have to be committed to an institution. His wife, however, said she would care for him at home. She was in receipt of the old age pension and received an extra £20 by way of carer's allowance to look after her 80 year old husband. Is that an incentive? Is it progress? What would it cost if this poor man had to be taken into care and looked after for many years?

The personal touch is vital. One of the great problems facing old people is loneliness. They need somebody to be there. It reminds me of a poem I learned in school many years ago, which is about a young Donegal fellow coming to Dublin: "Thousands of faces, not one that I know, but the cold of the wind in my face as I go". If that is the way a young lad felt, how do these people feel who are left on their own in old age, isolated in homes and with nobody to care for them?

On a broader issue, I am very familiar with two cases of people who have been paralysed after injury. I am sure everyone in the House knows about Shane Broderick, the famous jockey. He was paralysed two and a half years ago on the day of the Irish Grand National at Fairyhouse when he fell from a horse called Another Deadly. He was rehabilitated in the Dún Laoghaire institute. When he left the care in that institute he was faced with an offer of £70 per week and perhaps two butter vouchers. There would have been nothing else for him were it not for the goodwill and support he received from his friends and the many people in the racing confraternity, who responded in such a magnanimous and generous way. They raised £1.3 million so that he would have a good way of life. There was no other Government funded support mechanism for him.

The second case concerns a young girl—

An Cathaoirleach

I would prefer if the Senator did not name individuals.

Mr. McDonagh

It is very important to bring this issue to light here.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator can bring the issue to light without naming individuals.

Mr. McDonagh

Yes. A young girl in my parish in Galway, who would be known by people in Galway, was very badly injured in a car crash. She suffered similar injuries to Shane Broderick. She will leave the Dún Laoghaire institute very soon and what will happen to her? She will be interrogated with regard to social welfare entitlements and means tested. In the end she may be offered £70 per week. There is no policy in place nor finance provided for independent living centres. These people must rely on the support, commitment and dedication of fund-raising committees.

I salute the people who are trying to raise funds for the young Galway girl. They are working hard and knocking on doors so that this girl might have a meaningful way of life. They are faced with a huge task. They must raise £1 million to ensure that this girl's needs will be looked after into the future. A wheelchair for the people with the injuries I am speaking about can cost between £5,000 and £50,000. There is no mechanism to provide such funding or funding for a van with a hoist. The plight of the people I have referred to is typical of the prevails approach.

I am not being critical. I put forward these two cases as typical examples. These are two young people who were left high and dry, and who would be left like vegetables were it not for the goodwill of wonderful people who are prepared to knock on doors, canvass and raise funds so that they might have a better way of life.

A commission should be put in place to examine the care needed by people who are paralysed or seriously injured. I am not being critical. We all appreciate what I am talking about. It is a serious position when people cannot care for themselves and there is no mechanism that will provide substantial funding and care for these people so that they will be looked after for the rest of their lives. I would like an all-party commission set up to examine the matter and consider what can be done to help people in the same position as the two people I mentioned. The State should set up a support mechanism for them so that they can have some quality of life. It is grossly unfair that they must rely on the goodwill and support of their friends.

If the Minister established such a committee it would be a great development and I would be the first to commend him. We are talking about a very serious matter which should be examined on an all-party basis. I hope that we will do something to care for people who are less fortunate than the rest of us.

Ms Cox

I wish to share my time.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Cox

I reject completely the assertion made by Senator McDonagh when he said that he perceived a sense of complacency on this side of the House. Anyone who has been party to Fianna Fáil parliamentary meetings in the past two and a half years, since we came back into Government, would realise that the one issue that is raised constantly with the Minister of State and any Minister who deals with the matter, is carers, our treatment of them and the need to continually improve the support we give them. They do a fine and wonderful job of caring in the home. It is often a thankless job and for many people it is a 24 hours a day, seven days a week job.

Since this Government came into office, as the Minister outlined earlier, it has significantly improved the position of carers. We significantly improved the benefits available to carers and the way they are able to perform their jobs by giving them additional resources and supports in the home.

No one is saying that it is enough and that is acknowledged. Will we ever be able to give enough? We cannot value the work done by carers 24 hours a day and seven days a week. What we cannot value we cannot pay for. We must state that clearly – we cannot possibly put a price on the work done by people caring for their loved ones. Until we accept that principle no one will be happy with what any Government chooses to do. It would be unrealistic to try to reach a position where we give carers the value or pay them for the work that they do. An earlier speaker referred to a lady giving up a £60,000 job and career. How could we compensate someone for doing that? We could never compensate them for it.

One of the tremendous things about Irish society is that we believed it was based around the family unit. We were a society that accepted responsibility for our families, children, parents, loved ones and members of our community who were disabled or suffered terrible accidents.

We should accept one principle this evening. That is the principle that while we need to continue to improve the lot of carers, we cannot possibly satisfy whatever it is that they deserve. If we accept this principle we can move forward in a proactive manner, continue the work that we have been doing and ensure that we try to make life a little bit easier for them.

Support is an area that needs to be examined. It is not so much a question of the payment for the hours worked from Monday to Friday or Sunday, but the support available. We have situations – and this is not within this Minister's brief but it must be put on record this evening – where health boards throughout the country are rationing basic items such as incontinence wear for old people or people with a disability. We cannot allow that. If we can alleviate some of the concerns and frustrations that people have and prevent them from spending the little money that they have on information and goods like that, then we would be doing something that will make their lot easier. I acknowledge the funding that was ring-fenced for health boards for aids and appliances. I hope to see more money going in that direction.

I commend the Minister on the work that he has done so far. No one knows better than he does the work that is in front of him, the Government and all future Governments in terms of tackling this issue. We must accept the basic principle that we cannot put a value on the work that is being done. We cannot possibly expect, therefore, to compensate it at the level at which it deserves to be compensated. No country could afford to do so.

Mr. Glennon

I thank my colleague for sharing her time with me. I share her view on the suggestions of complacency on the part of the Government parties. In the brief time I have been a Member of this House, I have been most impressed by the priority given to this topic at parliamentary party level and, from listening to him, by the Minister whom I welcome to the House and congratulate on the progress made in his Department on all areas, particularly carer's allowance. I also congratulate him – I am sur prised this has not been mentioned – on the professional manner in which he and his Department go about informing those eligible to receive allowances of their entitlements.

There is an old saying that not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done. If the social welfare code is to be of any benefit to those entitled to receive allowances, not only must the allowances be available, it must be known that they are available. In his time in the Department the Minister has placed huge emphasis on this aspect, and that is to be welcomed. Last week 16,000 copies of his booklet were distributed. It is interesting that in his absence he was congratulated from all sides of the House. That was entirely appropriate.

While I will not condemn the wording, like some of my colleagues, I regret that the motion is adversarial in nature. It is not appropriate that the matter should be kicked around; we should be both compassionate and caring. It is important that the debate is conducted in such an atmosphere.

The statistics speak for themselves. In three years the number eligible to receive carer's allowance has increased from 9,200 to 16,200 while the amount of money being spent has increased from £36.5 million to £78.3 million. This represents huge progress in anyone's language. Not only must we continue to make progress, it must be improved upon.

Deputy Quill referred to the changing face of Irish society and the time when the eldest son always inherited the farm. I recall reading in the dim and distant past that the eldest son entered the priesthood, that it was the second son who inherited the farm and that invariably it was the youngest daughter who remained at home to care for her elderly parents. In this context, there were significant changes under the Succession Act, 1963. There were also significant and, probably, long overdue changes following the introduction of the carer's allowance in 1987. Unlike the Succession Act, which is written in stone, the carer's allowance requires annual review, not only in budgetary terms but also in terms of the rules of eligibility to allow for changes in society.

I congratulate the Minister. I regret the nature of the motion, the amendment to which speaks for itself. The statistics are there for all to see. I look forward to our complacency being justified in the next few weeks when a caring budget with provisions in this area is introduced.

Mrs. Ridge

I have to react to the suggestion of complacency. Senator Cox said that Fianna Fáil was never complacent about these matters, but I am, probably, nit-picking. Let me nit-pick a little further. The pages of the Minister's excellent address are not numbered. Perhaps for the future he will do so, so that I can keep every word for future reference.

Mr. D. Ahern

Mine were.

Mrs. Ridge

Each Member of this assembly has spoken with care and particularly with passion. There is not one Member who does not feel both relieved and guilty that we are not in need of care. It is, probably, inevitable that we will at some stage.

This Chamber is adversarial by nature. The Minister and the Cathaoirleach will agree, however, that there is hardly a less adversarial Member than myself, unless I am provoked.

Ms Cox

We will not provoke the Senator.

Mrs. Ridge

Lest Members opposite think that what we have said is disrespectful, what we have enunciated are the wishes of the Carers Association. There was not a bolt from the blue to enlighten me as to what exactly was needed. I read not only this year's, but last year's submission and would be the first to acknowledge that enormous strides have been made. While Senator Cox's input was very thoughtful in terms of how we will ever be able to substitute the things people have lost in becoming dependent on others, I stand over the submissions made by the Carers Association.

The Minister stated that a consultancy study will be undertaken 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. I look forward to the results of this study.

I take on board what Senator Norris said. Carers have a right to demand the best possible treatment while providing the best possible treatment for those for whom they are caring. I am sorry that Senator Glynn is not present because he almost exploded in self-immolation in adulation of Fianna Fáil and all that it has done. There has never been a Government like this one.

Ms Cox

There has not been.

Mrs. Ridge

That is true because all Governments are totally different. On second thoughts, for someone to state or even think for one minute that any one person, never mind any collective group inside or outside Cabinet, possesses the means to redress all our ills is so unbelievable that it is just as well the Senator is not present.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator should not refer to the absence of any Member from the Chamber.

Mrs. Ridge

I apologise. Mentally, I can still see him.

All in all, I stand over our motion. Regardless of whether we like it, it is our duty to be adversarial, if only to bring out the best in your good self, Minister. I thank the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt—

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. Ridge

A Chathaoirligh, I am speaking directly to the Minister whom the Senator is interrupting and whom she was praising—

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator should address her remarks through the Chair.

Mrs. Ridge

I apologise. Senator Glynn, whom I am not supposed to mention, has me upset.

I thank the Minister. We stand over our motion which we are happy to press.

Amendment put.

Tá

Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cox, Margaret.Cregan, JohnFarrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzgerald, Tom.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Gibbons, Jim.Glennon, Jim.Glynn, Camillus.

Kett, Tony.Kiely, Rory.Lanigan, Mick.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Mooney, Paschal.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Donovan, Denis.Ó Fearghail, Seán.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quinn, Feargal.

Níl

Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Coogan, Fintan.Cosgrave, Liam T.Costello, Joe.Doyle, Joe.Hayes, Tom.Henry, Mary.

Jackman, Mary.Keogh, Helen.McDonagh, Jarlath.Norris, David.O'Meara, Kathleen.Ridge, Thérèse.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.

Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Burke and Ridge.

Amendment declared carried.

Question put: “That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.”

Tá

Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cox, Margaret.Cregan, JohnFarrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzgerald, Tom.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Gibbons, Jim.Glennon, Jim.Glynn, Camillus.

Kett, Tony.Kiely, Rory.Lanigan, Mick.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Mooney, Paschal.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Donovan, Denis.Ó Fearghail, Seán.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.

Níl

Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Coogan, Fintan.Costello, Joe.Doyle, Joe.Hayes, Tom.Henry, Mary.

Jackman, Mary.Keogh, Helen.McDonagh, Jarlath.Norris, David.O'Meara, Kathleen.Ridge, Thérèse.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.

Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Burke and Ridge.

Question declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Finneran

It is proposed to sit at 10.30 tomorrow morning.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 15 Nov 2000

Support for Carers: Motion.

Acting Chairman

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Nov 2000