Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I support my colleagues' comments on carer's allowance which has been a festering sore for so long, not so much in the amount paid which is never enough, but in terms of the people who qualify. We must turn to individual assessment. The double income assessment is an insult to carers, many of whom are women who are assessed on their husband's salary for extra work they take on, in many cases on behalf of the State. It is an insult for that reason alone. The amount involved is not large.

Deputy Enright raised the issue of the early child care supplement which was introduced to help parents with the high cost of child care. It was linked to child benefit. It was not envisaged that it would be payable to children not resident in the State. It was an honest mistake but we must admit it is not acceptable to pay this money to children not resident in Ireland. It was not designed to deal with that problem. It is reasonable that children of parents who work and pay tax here should receive child benefit no matter where they live, but not the child care supplement which is specifically paid in respect of child care in Ireland. It was all right to pay it during the years of plenty but those days are gone. Child care costs are extremely high and there is still a need for two parents to work if they are to pay the high cost of mortgages. Those costs may become even more crippling in the months and years to come as the value of houses may drop. I hope that does not happen but it may. This is a significant issue which we should examine.

I raise the anomaly of pensioners who seek to remortgage their house or avail of equity release schemes. I have raised this issue with the Minister through a parliamentary question. These are recipients of non-contributory pensions, often elderly widows or widowers. If they sell their house to downsize to smaller premises, they are allowed to keep up to €190,000 of the difference between what they paid for the house and what they sold it for. However, some cannot sell their house, or they decide not to for good social or family reasons, or for economic reasons such as where it is difficult for people to sell their house without making a significant loss. If such persons remortgage their house or avail of a partial equity release scheme, it is regarded as means and they lose their pension rights.

This issue was raised by an elderly constituent of mine who tried to sell her house but could not get anything near its value and in response to the advertising of equity release and remortgaging schemes decided to try to get money in that way. Many elderly people live in a house they may have been able to afford when they were working. Now they may be widows or widowers and not have the same income. They may need to upgrade the house by installing central heating, improving the heating system, rewiring or doing basic, essential repairs, and it is not possible to do that work on a non-contributory pension. It is an anomaly.

I can understand if people have a huge house that the Government does not want to pay them a non-contributory pension. However, these schemes are not being engaged in by persons who are wealthy or have lots of houses. It is the family home and it runs contrary to practice in other areas where the family home is always excluded from many other assessments. In the new nursing homes Bill the home is protected even when it is no longer needed. It runs contrary to what we are doing in other welfare and health areas. I ask the Minister to do something about this anomaly. I do not expect the whole value of the house to be disregarded, but at least as much as is disregarded in a case of downsizing.

See this speech in context