Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me raise this issue and I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, who will respond.

Although the case I will outline is one I know well, it is probably a mirror image of many other cases around the country. I have come across similar instances previously and I wanted to raise the issue because of my disgust at the way many of these carers are being treated by the Department.

I want to paint a picture of the circumstances of a person in my constituency with which I am sure the Acting Chairman, Deputy O'Shea, can empathise. I speak of an 82 year old widow living on her own in a house rented from the local authority. As the years go by, she becomes less mobile and more dependent and she has nobody to look after her. Therefore, her daughter, who is living in London, decides that she will do what is right and come home to look after her mother for the necessary period, be that a number of months or years. Her daughter has voluntarily come home to look after her mother.

This 82 year old widow has given good service to the State. She brought up her family to respect the State and get on with their work. She never abused the State or did anything like that. She played her part and was an honourable member of society.

At this time in her life, she should be at the stage where the State is responding to her needs. She would need a home help and sooner rather than later may well need care in a nursing home.

That care, which should be provided by the State, is being provided by her daughter. Having given up her position in London, she came home to look after her mother and applied, in the normal way as an Irish citizen, for carer's allowance. This application, the processing of which took quite a long of time, was met with a refusal.

When we investigated why the application was refused, we were told it was because of means. As this lady had provided all the necessary information, we investigated further and discovered the lady in question has an apartment in London. Having lived there much of her life, obviously she would have acquired an apartment. This apartment is mortgaged. When she came home to live and look after her mother, she could not afford to pay for the mortgage in London — which is quite obvious given that she did not have an income — so she rented the apartment. The rent on the apartment in London is covering the mortgage, which is reasonable in the circumstances.

The Department has told her that because she has this property in London, it must be valued. Even though she receives no income from it, it is because she has this apartment that she is now being refused carer's allowance. Did the House ever hear such a ridiculous scenario? This person gave up her lifestyle, her friends and her position in London to come back and look after her mother, to do what is honourable. What do we do to her when she is providing a service to the State? We give her a kick in the teeth. We say that because she is wise and has her own apartment in London, we will not give her carer's allowance. How ridiculous can we get? I have come across many other such cases. I have met people who have come home from America having lived there for years to look after elderly parents and they are treated in the same way. I am sure the Cathaoirleach has also come across this issue in his constituency.

This is fundamentally flawed, particularly in the way it affects the provision of care. What better care can an elderly person get than the care of his or her own family in his or her home? Why are people being treated like this? Does the Government want to fill private nursing homes or put more people into institutions? I call on the Minister of State to examine this case, which is one of many, in a sympathetic way. I hope, having heard the story, he will empathise with it and will deliver good news.

Tim O'Malley (Limerick East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The debate relates to the social welfare entitlements of a particular individual. Under social welfare legislation decisions on claims or entitlements are made by deciding officers and appeal officers. These officers are statutorily appointed and I, as Minister of State, have no role in making such decisions. The person concerned applied for carer's allowance. The principal conditions for receipt of the allowance are that full-time care and attention is required and being provided and that the means test that applies is satisfied. Additionally, the requirement to be habitually resident in Ireland was introduced as a qualifying condition for certain social assistance schemes, including carer's allowance, with effect from 1 May 2004. All applicants regardless of nationality are required to be habitually resident in the State to qualify for the allowance. The basis for the restriction containedin the new rules is the applicant's habitual residence. The restriction is not based on citizenship, nationality, immigration status or any other factor. Each case received for a determination on the habitual residence condition is dealt with in its own right and a decision is based on the application of the guidelines to the particular individual circumstances of each case.

While the person concerned satisfies the habitual residence condition, the medical eligibility and provision of full-time care and attention requirements, she did not satisfy the means test applicable to carer's allowance. Under social welfare legislation the capital value of property owned but not personally used or enjoyed, where it is rented to a third party, is assessed as means in accordance with a formula set out in legislation. The property in this case is let and was previously the home of the person concerned but that is not relevant in the context of the means test. Such a property cannot be disregarded as "your own home" in cases where that property is let. Property must be capable of being sold, let or put to profitable use before a capital value assessment is applied. In the case of property that is let, the amount assessed as means is the notional assessment provided for in legislation, not the rental income.

The income assessed as means in this case consists of €930 per week derived from the capital value of the property and income from an occupational pension of €2l8.72 per week. Following the application of the €270 income disregard that applies the person's weekly means equate to a net €878.72, which exceeds the qualifying limit for receipt of carer's allowance. A deciding officer decided accordingly. On 8 March 2006 the person concerned was notified of this decision and the reasons for it and of her right to appeal to the independent social welfare appeals office. Following a review by a deciding officer, the decision remains unchanged. A revision to the existing means test that applies would have to be considered in a budgetary context.

In budget 2005, the respite care grant was extended to all carers providing full-time care and attention. The grant is paid regardless of means but is subject to certain employment-related conditions and the provision of full-time care and attention. On 25 April 2006 the person concerned was notified that she may have an entitlement to the respite care grant for 2006.

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister of State agree that it is ridiculous in this case to take the value of the property into account given that the woman will return to it?