Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Senator for tabling this amendment, whose purpose is primarily to allow debate on the matter. It would not be normal to insert into legislation a requirement to issue a report. I have no difficulty in adhering to the spirit of the amendment requiring me to report to the Houses on the means test for carer's allowance, which I am happy to do. While it does not require an amendment in the legislation as such, I know it has been tabled more for technical purposes.

Some 23,700 carers are in receipt of carer's allowance and carer's benefit, which represents an increase of 157% since June 1997. Total expenditure has increased by 310% from €46 million to €190 million. Substantial resources have been given to carers and I am committed to this area. This budget produced more than €40 million for carers. Recipients of carer's allowance and carer's benefit are entitled to the rate increase of €14 per week announced in the budget. I also made provision in the budget for an increase in the income disregard for the carer's allowance from €250 to €270 for a single person and from €500 to €540 for a couple. We estimate this will allow a further 1,000 carers to qualify for the carer's allowance. Some 2,400 carers will receive an increased payment.

This increase will ensure that a couple with two children with a joint income of approximately €30,700 will qualify for the maximum rate of carer's allowance. A couple with two children with a joint income of approximately €49,200 will qualify for the minimum rate.

Both Senators asked me for the cost of abolishing the means test. It would cost an estimated €160 million each year to abolish the means test and pay the maximum rate of allowance, including the respite care grant and the free schemes, to the 9,170 who are estimated to be providing full-time care and are not currently receiving the carer's allowance or carer's benefit.

Members may be aware of a recent CSO study which provides a breakdown of the number of carers by the number of hours during which they provide care. The statistics provided are interesting and if my officials can supply them, I will place them on the record of the House.

I expressed the view on Second Stage that I am committed to the cause of carers and that I have produced a strong package this year which makes eight separate improvements for carers in terms of thresholds, allowances and the capital assessment. The level of capital disregarded before the means test comes into play has been increased from approximately €12,000 to €20,000. I would argue that we have made substantial efforts in respect of carers, particularly in terms of the new respite care grant of €1,000. The latter has been extended for the first time to people who are not in receipt of carer's allowance. Those who will qualify for the €1,000 are recipients of carer's allowance and carer's benefit, those who are in receipt of other social welfare payments and, most importantly, carers who are not currently in receipt of any payment.

Senator Terry referred to the example of a particular person. As I understand it, the individual in question will qualify for the €1,000 respite grant. I accept that this is not the same as the full carer's allowance. However, the allowance was meant for those not in receipt of other payments in order to enable them to provide care. We are considering how it might be possible to top-up the payments received by those on a widow's pension. I decided to deal with the matter this year by extending the €1,000 respite grant to people such as the individual to whom the Senator referred.

The Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs informed me that the greatest need identified by family carers is the need for a break from caring in home respite and respite for the independent person. I took the committee at its word and decided to focus this year on the issue of respite. I have, therefore, chosen to give the respite grant to people in receipt of widow's or widower's pension and those who are not in receipt of social welfare benefits. As already stated, this will not be as good as their receiving the full carer's allowance. To extend the latter to them would prove extraordinarily expensive.

This matter needs to be studied carefully, particularly in light of the fact that almost 1 million people receive some form of weekly benefit from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. We must be careful in terms of moving towards a position where people would be permitted to claim multiple benefits. I am not stating that this cannot be done. I keep an open mind on these matters because I want to help the people we are discussing. However, we could not rush into paying multiple benefits because of the enormous implications it would have across the board. I accept that people play roles. One of the reasons for extending the respite care grant was to try to help them in this regard.

I wish to place on record a set of figures to which I referred in the Dáil. It has been variously stated that there are 150,000 or 50,000 carers in this country. The Central Statistics Office produced recent data which indicates that there are 84,000 carers providing up to two hours unpaid help per day, 15,000 carers providing care for over two hours but less than four hours per day, 8,000 are providing care for over four hours but less than six hours per day and 40,000 are providing care for over six hours per day. If one takes six hours as representing a good day's caring, the figure for carers is 40,000. There are currently over 22,000 people in receipt of allowances from the Department. The extension of the respite care grant will be paid to over 33,000 people which shows that we are almost there.

If one takes the figures for people who provide care for two or four hours per day, one will arrive at the figure of 150,000 carers which is so often quoted in the media. However, if one takes a sensible figure of six hours per day in respect of the provision of care, then there are 40,000 people who are providing care. If one includes the figure for those providing care four hours per day, it rises to 49,000. We are currently dealing with approximately 33,000 of these people so the gap is not as wide as is sometimes stated.

I do not have a major difficulty in keeping an open mind on the means test. I am of the view that I should keep an open mind on all these matters. I am not in favour of abolishing the means test this year. If one had €160 million, one could increase rates for people across the board, focus it on existing carers and provide these people with larger allowances or increase the thresholds to include additional carers. Does the Senator not agree that this is far more sensible than extending the allowance to people who clearly do not need the money, whose incomes far exceed the means test criteria or who are in receipt of salaries similar to mine and his? If I had €160 million to spend, I would prefer to focus it on people who clearly require it. The €1,000 respite grant, which will also be paid to people who are well off, is a recognition by the State of the work of carers.

In addition to other aspects, the means test issue involves an element of philosophical debate. Some people believe that everything should be means tested because the money will go where it is needed as a result. There are others who believe in universality. Child benefit, for example, is a universal payment and every child in the country is eligible for it, regardless of whether his or her parents are millionaires, members of the boards of the major banks, etc. There are still others, of whom I am one, who believe it should be focused. I will remain in that category until such time as I have adequate funds at my disposal to allow me to change my position. At that stage, I will certainly revisit this issue.