Social Welfare Bill 2022: Committee and Remaining Stages
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“Report on returned carers’ PRSI credit
5. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on options to ensure that those who have returned from overseas who care for a family member are not excluded from qualification for Carer’s Allowance or PRSI credit due to the fact that they do not have PRSI contributions in their previous 2 years.”.
I might not press this amendment because I am not sure it is correctly worded. I was trying to address an issue that arises in respect of qualification for carer's benefit or carer's allowance. A certain contributory element is required for carer's benefit but there is not the same contributory requirement for carer's allowance. I do not think the amendment is perfectly worded. I am trying to get at the anomalous situation with regard to people who might be living abroad before returning home to care for an elderly parent. They will have not been in the system because carer's allowance has an attached habitual residency condition of two years and they will not have the contributory credits for the carer's benefit. They find that they are almost invisible to the system because they have not had a visible presence with contributions in the previous two years. People might come home in that way and may well end up staying at home for five or ten years but not get carer's allowance during that time or, crucially, acquire stamps towards their eventual pension in that time. I worry that come in to perform the carer role, which the carer's benefit and carer's allowance are designed to support, but somehow slip out of the social protection system and do not have access.
That is the issue I am trying to address. I do not believe the amendment is perfectly worded but I would be interested in the Minister's thoughts about how we can address that small cohort of people who face significant consequences of not accessing our safety nets and social supports.
I do not propose to accept the amendment but I get what the Senator is saying. People coming from abroad are not excluded from applying for carer's allowance if they meet the habitual residency condition. It applies across the board. It is a requirement for eligibility for means-tested social assistance payments and child benefits. It is aimed at restricting access to such payments by people who have little or no established connection with Ireland. The habitual residency clause is provided for in Irish social welfare legislation and is in accordance with EU legislation and European Court of Justice jurisprudence. The habitual residency clause applies regardless of nationality or ethnicity. When determining whether a person is habitually resident in the State for social protection purposes, all circumstances of the case are considered, including whether the person has the right to reside here and five factors, which are the length and continuity of the person's residence in the State or any other country, the length and purpose of any absence by the person from the State, the nature and pattern of the person's employment, the person's main centre of interest, and the future intentions of the person as they appear from all the circumstances. Each case is dealt with on an individual basis. The legislative provisions with respect to habitual residency apply to child benefit and to the range of means-tested social assistance schemes operated by the Department. It is in place in accordance with EU legislation and the European Court of Justice's jurisprudence.
The habitual residency condition is eligible under the European laws but it is not necessarily required in the sense that we are able to have nuanced policies in this regard. The Minister listed the kind of criteria used to establish habitual residency, such as length of living somewhere else and length of living in Ireland. The criteria even include future intentions. Often, when people come home, they might think they are only coming home for six months, but it can become permanent. I hope the Minister will look to address certain situations. If people are in a situation where they are caring for a relative and come home to do so, how might they fit with regard to the habitual residency condition? Crucially, is there an opportunity in two years' time for people? If they come home and do not initially qualify for the allowance because they do not meet the habitual residency condition, could we ensure that they are encouraged to apply again if they find themselves still in that situation in two years? Even though that period would not be in the PRSI system, could those two years be recognised?
Some people come, look for support once, do not get it, and then stay outside of the system until they often find themselves in old age and poverty. There may be scope for looking at how that process applies in this particular circumstance and ensuring that those who might not qualify initially are given an appointment or encouragement to come back to be reassessed for the period of care they have done, even though it would not be recognised by carer's allowance or carer's benefit, and recognised as part of their substantial connection to the State.
It all depends on the various different cases when it comes to the habitual residency clause because some people may have lived in the country before or they may have been out only a short time and be back. I would say to people to submit an application. The best thing that anybody can do is just apply.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“Report on care credits
5. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on options to introduce care credits which ensure that periods of time spent caring are recognised not only in terms of pensions, but also when assessing other social protection entitlements or voluntary access to INTREO, Back to Education and other relevant schemes.”.
My amendment relates to carers in the wider sense and their access to social protection entitlements, not carers in terms of those who might qualify for the carer's benefit or allowance. My amendment relates to those who contribute care in other ways that may be recognisable, for example, in respect of qualifying for a pension but are not recognised in engagement with the social protection system.
We will discuss the pensions system later. There is provision within that system whereby a certain period spent, for example, caring for a family or children can be recognised as contributions when it comes to calculating somebody's pension eligibility. I am concerned by some of the limits and how such work is recognised but that is a separate discussion.
I want to discuss the individuality issue. If somebody has spent five or ten years caring for a family, he or she is prior to pension point invisible in the social protection system because most social protection payments or schemes consider a person's contributions for the previous the two years. If a person has been effectively out of the system for five or ten years caring for others or for family members, he or she is treated like a brand new applicant and any previous working contribution he or she has made is not considered valid and has expired in terms of relevance so only the most recent few years are considered. The reason that I am interested in care credits is so that people not just have the period of care assessed when it comes to pension but have the period of care recognised throughout. For example, if someone takes five years to deliver care then he or she should continue to be registered in the system and continue to be given PRSA stops for that period. I mean that it would not just be reflected in his or her pension but it would also mean that he or she has a relationship with the social welfare system whereby he or she could, for example, access back to education schemes, Intreo schemes or any schemes, particularly on a voluntary basis. All this would encourage people who have been at a distance from the system to engage and voluntarily access schemes or projects when, for example, a child enters secondary school and things might become more possible for a person. Historically, many people who were in the system and maybe paying PRSI stamps and who took a period out to provide care end up never going back into the social protection system except as a qualified adult or an adult dependant. That person becomes a financial contribution attached to his or her spouse's payment if the spouse is getting a social welfare payment but the person does not have an individual relationship with the social protection system that allows him or her to access schemes and projects. Again, for many people in making that decision to have that connection, the voluntary nature of engagement, and the fact that one may wish to, for example, start considering part-time employment and so on, are the options that should be there for people. This is worth considering. Seeing as the care period is going to be recognised anyway when it comes to pensions, why not start recognising it earlier so that it can function as a connection between the individuals, who are mainly women, and the social protection system on an ongoing basis? That would mean we would get multiple benefits from something that is going to get recognised when it comes to pensions.
I do not propose to accept the amendment. The carer's allowance is a qualifying payment for access to both the back to education allowance and the back to work enterprise allowance. The back to education allowance is a second-chance educational opportunity scheme. It supports certain social welfare recipients to continue to receive a payment while pursuing an approved full-time education course that leads to a higher qualification than that already held. Participants must continue to maintain eligibility to an underlying social welfare payment for the duration of the allowance. The person being cared for must transfer to a different carer for the period of the back to education allowance claim as the premise of carer’s allowance is providing full-time care and attention.
If a carer wishes to become self-employed, he or she may be eligible for the back to work enterprise allowance. The back to work enterprise allowance scheme is designed to provide a monetary incentive for people in receipt of a qualifying social welfare payment to develop a business while allowing them to retain a reducing proportion of their payment over two years with no restriction on the number of hours worked. A person retains 100% of their payment in year 1 and 75% in year 2.
Furthermore, Intreo employment services are available to any person looking for employment support or advice on a voluntary walk-in basis. Of course, carers can work or study 18.5 hours per week and still retain the carer’s allowance.
My amendment does not relate to the carer's allowance or carer's benefit but to care credits. For example, that is caring for children or family so care as recognised within the pensions system. I understand what the Minister said but many people do not receive the carer's allowance or benefit but deliver care to children in their family. My amendment concerns the disconnect that happens between many women and the social protection system where they stop being individually visible within the system and move towards the adult dependants phase. Again, I am looking at something a little different and understand that there has been confusion in that regard. I am talking about the kinds of credits used for the pension system.
I respect that there is voluntary access to Intreo but I am thinking of the back to work enterprise scheme or the back to education scheme. I want to ensure that women as they come to the end of a period of, say, caring for a child get access to these schemes on a voluntary basis. I want them to have individual recognition in the system rather than be solely attached to a partner's payment.
I recall that in the previous Seanad, departmental officials came in, and while anybody can access Intreo, there have been times where we were told that resources get prioritised and those who work are on a voluntary basis are often not prioritised in access to schemes. Anybody who reaches out on a voluntary basis is exactly who should be prioritised because these are people who are looking to start a connection with the workplace. I am talking about something brand new but it would be constructive and in the spirit of recognising care work in the pensions system.
To clarify, we give credits for home caring periods. In the new pension proposals, anyone who cares long-term, which is more than 20 years, will be taken into account as credits for the person's contributory pension. We have it for the short term and for the long term as well.
I urge the Minister to build on the scheme in terms of other social welfare provisions.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following::
“Report on extension of eligibility for Fuel Allowance
11. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the potential extension of eligibility for the Fuel Allowance to those in receipt of the Working Family Payment, including an analysis of the impact of such a measure on poverty rates, particularly of lone parent households.”.
My amendment seeks a report on the potential extension of eligibility for the fuel allowance to those in receipt of the working family payment and an analysis of the potential impact of such a measure on poverty rates, including those who are in lone parent households but receive the working family payment.
Households that are struggling at this current time.
There are certain targeted measures from the State in respect of them, but they are largely blanket measures. This would enable one of our targeted measures - fuel allowance - to reach families that are known to be under pressure to the point where they are qualifying for the working family payment. Has this possibility been examined? Could it be looked at? There is a big difference between families on low incomes and those on higher incomes. This would allow us to add to the general provisions in legislation a layer of provision that is more targeted to the households that need it most.
If the Senator does not press the amendment, I will agree to do this report. Fuel allowance is paid to social welfare recipients such as pensioners, people with disabilities, lone parents and long-term unemployed people in recognition of their long-term financial dependence on their social welfare payment for all or most of their income. People on long-term payments are unlikely to have additional resources of their own and are more vulnerable to poverty, including energy poverty. It is for this reason the Department allocates additional payments, supports and resources such as fuel allowance to this group of people.
The working family payment is a weekly, tax-free payment available to employees with children. It gives extra financial support to families with children, with rates depending on their incomes and family size. It is not considered a long-term social protection payment. Recipients are in employment and are more likely to have additional resources. A person in receipt of the working family payment can continue to receive the payment for 52 weeks even if their income increases. The payment is set and continues at that rate. While, in general, a household in receipt of working family payment is not eligible for the fuel allowance payment, this is not the case when a person is in receipt of the one-parent family payment and the working family payment together. A lone parent who is in receipt of both of those payments can qualify for and receive the fuel allowance payment.
As part of the overall social welfare budget 2023 package of €2.2 billion, I was pleased to announce a few measures with regard to the working family payment. In November 2022, people receiving the working family payment received a lump sum payment of €500. In January 2023, the working family payment income limits will increase by €40 across all family sizes. Research from the Economic and Social Research Institute has shown that this is the single most important social protection measure the Government can take to alleviate poverty. I think the House will agree that the Government has clearly focused on the working family payment in this budget. That said, a report on this is timely and I will arrange to do that.
I thank the Minister for her agreement to do such a report. It would be useful. We will come to lone parents on the one-parent family payment in a later amendment. I still have concerns about the cut-off age of 14 when lone-parent families who have children are no longer recognised as lone parents within the system and no longer qualify for the transitional jobseeker's payment or the one-parent family payment. Those cohorts are especially vulnerable because the research tells us that, in fact, it gets more expensive when a parent has a teenager. Those parents have heightened expenses because the children will become more expensive at that point but they no longer qualify for the transitional jobseeker's payment or the one-parent family payment. That cohort is especially vulnerable when on the working family payment. It is a small cohort but it is significant. I very much appreciate the Minister will look at this in the report. I ask that she looks to ensure the small cohort of one-parent families who, as we know, are especially vulnerable to poverty but are not under the one-parent family scheme are configured in the examination of the working family payment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11 agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 in the names of Senators Craughwell and Boyhan is out of order as it involves a potential charge.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
I am speaking to section 13 because it relates to the question of new social insurance benefits and rates. I had proposed amendments to this section but they have been ruled out of order. I will speak to them with regard to the general point. I have a very significant concern about the manner in which they have been ruled out of order. That is not a concern for the Minister but I have raised it at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP, and I will raise it again. We have been told that amendments which are explicitly around the question of rates of social welfare, which is the subject of the Bill, have been ruled out of order as not being relevant to the purpose of the Bill. The Social Welfare Bill is the annual review of our social welfare rates. Provisions that relate to those rates are relevant to the purpose of the Bill.
If we start having narrow interpretations of amendments, it means that it is against the purpose of the Bill to discuss any aspect of social welfare other than the proposals made by the Government. That would be completely contrary to previous practice. We would move into an area in which there would never be any scrutiny of the social welfare code or any opportunity to amend the founding legislation. Such an interpretation would be a very dangerous trend. I will challenge this at the CPP. We might look at how we might revise the Standing Orders of the House to clarify this matter. I apologise to the Minister because I know this is not her decision. However, it is a really significant issue. We are in danger of not having proper scrutiny of our legislation if we start to have such prohibitive interpretations.
Section 13 looks at new social insurance benefits. One of my amendments had asked for a report on the potential introduction of a bench-marking link to minimum essential standards of living. One of the best things the Department has ever done has been its work in supporting the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice. I understand the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has now taken up that work in respect of the assessment of the minimum essential standards of living. The minimum essential standards of living are expressed by an independent expert group of academics and others and, crucially, by families. It examines 2,000 items on which households rely. These are the needs - not the wants - of households in Ireland. It gathers very important information from that in respect of what is adequate for different kinds of households to live on.
The Minister will be aware I tabled specific amendments about to the €12 increase in adult personal social welfare because it falls somewhat short of the recommended €20 increase. However, we could look to a stronger link between the minimum essential standards of living and our social protection payments.
The other amendment I proposed to this section related to pensions and the need to examine a universal pension. I know many pension proposals have been discussed. I have a significant concern, which I expressed to the Minister of Finance earlier today, that the Commission on Pensions in its financial calculations did not look to the €2.9 billion spent every year on private pension tax relief when it assessed what the revenues for the Exchequer might be with regard to addressing our pensions system. It is very notable that the approximately €3 billion which is estimated as the cost of a universal pension almost matches perfectly with what gets spent on private pension tax relief. Research has shown 70% of the benefits of this relief go to top earners - those on higher incomes, who are predominantly men - whereas a universal pension would largely address the issue of women and the inequality in our pension system that women have experienced for a very long period of time.
I had looked for a comparative report on these different points. I have very serious concerns in respect of the potential increase in contributory requirements. I was working with older people's organisations and, indeed, subsequently with the Women's Council during the period when we saw the impact of the 2012 change from ten years to 20 years. While the theoretical rate of the pension remained the same, we saw considerable numbers of women fall to a reduced-rate pension. I know that was under the averaging scheme and this is the total contributory scheme. However, I have a very significant concern that if we go not just from a 20- to 30-year contributory requirement, which had been widely and anticipated, but to a 40-year contributory requirement, there is no doubt it will have significant impacts on equity and distribution and large numbers of people will be on a reduced rate pension.
I am very concerned that we will see a widening of the pension gap and more women falling below the threshold if we move to a 40-year contributory pension.
The core of amendment is that we need to have much stronger gender analysis of the difference between a 30-year contributory requirement and a 40-year contributory requirement and gender analysis of the auto-enrolment system. All of these need to be considered alongside a gender analysis of the private pension tax relief. Any new policy decision we make in respect of pensions must narrow the gender pension gap and increase equality rather than potentially take us further into the inequality that women in Ireland have suffered with respect to pensions for decades.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 12 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"Report on adequacy of State Pension
14. The Minister shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the income adequacy, as determined by the Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) methodology, of the Contributory and Non-Contributory State Pensions for an urban older person living alone.
This returns us to the question of the minimum essential standard of living, MESL. The amendment asks for a report on income adequacy. This overlaps with what I was just discussing regarding contributory and non-contributory pensions for the cohort of urban older persons living alone. One of the reasons MESL is very interesting is that it looks at the differences between rural and urban contexts. It looks at the very many real situations in which people find themselves. It suggests there might be a few case study examinations of how adequate the contributory and non-contributory State pensions are in respect of older people living alone in an urban context. In a rural context there are specific extra costs and in urban contacts there are specific extra costs. The estimates are that the shortfall is approximately €17 per week according to MESL analysis. Perhaps it is something that could be looked at.
Amendment No. 6 is related to amendment No. 5 in that it is the same issue with regard to the non-contributory pension in this case. An urban person living alone in respect of the non-contributory pension is forecast under MESL analysis to have an income shortage of €17 per week. I have picked two case studies as examples of how the MESL could be more usefully applied.
Amendment No. 12 is very important. It is one of the issues regarding gender equality in our pension system that is fundamental. The amendment asks that there be a report on options for how applicants for the non-contributory State pension might be assessed on individual means rather than the means of their partners or other household members. This not only addresses the crucial issue of protecting older women in Ireland against poverty but also ensuring they have financial independence. Due to historical inequities, many women in Ireland will not qualify for a full contributory pension and many will qualify for a significantly reduced pension. The contributory pension reduced rate they might qualify for could be less than €100, if they qualify for any contributory pension at all.
Many women will not qualify for the non-contributory pension. In the case of the non-contributory pension the fact their partners or husbands might have an income will stand against them. Many people have adult children living at home who are working. Their income will also be counted against them in the assessment of household means. Many older women in Ireland only feature either as a qualified adult dependent increase on their husband's non-contributory pension or do not have any money at all.
When it comes to domestic violence, vulnerabilities or financial abuse, which we know is a huge issue, a lot of women in Ireland do not have access to independent income. This is why assessing these women for the non-contributory pension based entirely on their own means and making sure they would individually be able to qualify for the non-contributory pension in their own right and have income in their own right would go some way towards reflecting and addressing the issues of income inequality and the lack of financial independence for women. The individualisation of means assessment in this particular way was a specific recommendation of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality. There is a lot of repair work to be done on the pension system but this is a comparatively simple measure that would certainly start us in the right direction.
I will speak to amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 12, which have been grouped together. The Department partly funds the excellent, detailed work of the Vincentian MESL Research Centre and has used this research as a key input into consideration of budget options in recent years. I value the insights this research provides. The Vincentian MESL Research Centre at the Society of St. Vincent de Paul publishes an annual update which already examines the issues raised by the Senator, namely, income adequacy for various household types, including those receiving a contributory or non-contributory State pension, in urban and rural areas. It should be noted that, based on the most recent MESL annual update, older people living alone in an urban area have an income above the cost of MESL. The House will be aware that the Department uses this research, alongside other research from, for example, the CSO and the ESRI, to inform policymaking in a few areas. Indeed, on foot of this research, we have significantly increased the living alone allowance in recent years. In addition, the Government has responded to the report of the Commission on Pensions on a benchmarking and indexation approach to the rate of payment for State pensions. The introduction of the smoothed earnings approach, as recommended by the commission, as a key input to the budgetary process will begin next year. On this basis, I will not accept amendment No. 5.
I also do not propose to accept amendment No. 6 as the rate change in the non-contributory State pension is a matter for consideration in the overall context of the budget. In budget 2023, the largest social welfare package in the history of the State, I announced that all primary social welfare rates would increase by €12, including the non-contributory State pension. Consequently, the maximum weekly rate from January 2023 will be €254. Many of those in receipt of the non-contributory State pension will have received the double weekly payments in October and December. In addition, many will have received the three fuel allowance lump sums this year and the living alone lump sum paid in November.
With regard to amendment No. 12, the review will cover the treatment of income and disregards across schemes generally and will, therefore, include examination of thresholds and their impact for the non-contributory State pension.
Victims of domestic violence automatically get rent supplement. I introduced this measure last year to ensure anybody in this awful position will get the support of rent supplement to enable him or her to acquire other accommodation.
I welcome the work done on MESL and how it is reflected. It enables us not only to look at the general increase but to have targeted measures. That is what I was looking to illustrate. With regard to individualisation, even though I recognise what has been done on rent, if people have no income getting rent allowance in itself is an issue. Many people will stay in a home but it makes a huge difference for them to have financial independence.
The individualisation aspect is important. I will not dwell on it further because I will come back to it in respect of carer's and disability allowances, which are other areas in which it is important that individuals are able to have access to incomes in their own right and in their own names. It is an issue to examine. I imagine we will be considering the matter in the course of the coming year because it is so central to the recommendations of the citizens' assembly. I will not press amendments Nos. 5 and 6, but I will press amendment No. 12 when the time comes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Amendment No. 7 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Amendment No. 8 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 8, after line 32, to insert the following:
“Report on individual means assessment for Carer’s Allowance
16. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on options for assessing applicants to Carer’s Allowance on individual means, rather than the means of their partner or other household members.”.
This amendment addresses the same issue to which I previously referred, namely, the potential assessment of applicants for the carer's allowance on the basis of their individual means rather than the means of their partner or other household members. Research from the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice shows that even before the cost-of-living crisis, income supports for family carers were inadequate to support low-income households and those who are, for example, caring for a child with an intellectual disability. We know from the Indecon report that there are significant costs associated with care. An affected household might be incurring additional weekly costs of €244 compared with a similarly composed household without disability or care needs.
We know that only one in five of Ireland's carers receives carer's allowance due to the strict eligibility criteria relating to the payment. The current income thresholds do not reflect the situation. The situation as it stands is also affected by the housing crisis in that many people may comprise a household. A person who is responsible for the care of a child or older person may live in a home with two or three other adults who are working. Their money is used to pay for normal things. Adult children may be working and living at home and so forth. That household still has care costs. Somebody in the household is not able to work because he or she is required to be available to deliver care but does not qualify for carer's allowance. There is an assumption included there. We disqualify people from carer's allowance on the basis of an assumption that everybody else in the household is pooling their resources to cover the costs of the individual who needs care and the person who is delivering care. We cannot make that assumption because in many cases, those people are saving for a mortgage to allow them to move out. They are not necessarily contributing to the costs of the household.
Such a situation also creates extreme vulnerability in respect of pensions. Caregivers may be using ten or 15 years of their life delivering care while not qualifying for the carer's allowance. They are then dependent on what they may get from other household members. They are the people who have been shown to be delivering care and should, therefore, have access to a source of income and financial independence. All of that is crucial because the value and contribution to the State of care work happens irrespective of what is happening in the household around that carer. If those family carers were not there and delivering that care, there would be significant costs to the State because other options, such as residential care or substantial home care packages, would be required. On that point, I hope we move towards a statutory home care model instead of a residential care model. Carers are making an enormous contribution to the State. However, they are not getting recognition or support from the State because it is assumed that will be outsourced to their wider families.
This also comes back to the independence issue. I am not sure if I have submitted an amendment in respect of the disability allowance but the same issue applies in that respect. It is almost the other side of the care piece. A household comprising five or six people might include one person who does not qualify for the carer's allowance and another who does not qualify for the disability allowance. Two individuals in such a household would not qualify for support because of the incomes of other persons in the household. In the case of the disability allowance, it was also pointed out to me - and this is a strong point - that the idea of means testing the whole household in the context of disability allowance is flawed. Sometimes people with disabilities do not have carers and are able to live alone. However, some of those people might wish to form a romantic relationship and have a partner who they might wish to move in with them. Such people might wish to have a relationship with someone or to have flatmates who live with them but are not their carers. They might wish to have a partner or even a friend live with them but cannot risk doing so because it might jeopardise their disability allowance.
All of these amendments go to the core of ensuring that the circumstances, needs and contributions of every person in this State are individually recognised. The direction of travel should be towards the individualisation of core social protection payments for persons who are caring or seeking a non-contributory pension or who have a disability. I note this was one of the key levers identified by the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality.
I do not propose to accept this amendment. I would like to make the general point that legislation is not the appropriate place for seeking reports. I accept, however, that this is an opportunity for the Senator to raise these matters and discuss them with me. I have made the point about including in primary legislation, particularly legislation as complex as the Social Welfare Acts, commitments to producing reports. I have already committed to initiating a wide-ranging review of means testing in the Department next year. I made that commitment on Second Stage. The review will cover the treatment of income disregards across schemes generally and will, therefore, include the examination of thresholds and their impacts for the carer's allowance. I increased the income thresholds for the carer's allowance last year to €750 per week for a couple. That was welcome because it was the first change in many years. We have a generous income disregard for carers because we also increased the amount of allowable savings to €50,000.
The Senator will appreciate that resources are finite and we try to target them where they are needed most. When we assess means, we assess the means of the entire household because we feel that is the best way of targeting income supports where they are needed most. One is allowed to earn rental income of up to €14,000 per year without any effect to one's carer's allowance or any other means-tested allowance. That applies where a homeowner wishes to rent a room to somebody. It does not affect one's payments. That is useful to people who are able to rent a room in their houses.
The Minister might respond to and clarify the following point. I welcome the fact that there will be a review of means testing but I am concerned that the Minister has said it will only apply to the thresholds involved. I imagine the terms of reference for that review are currently being drafted. I specifically request that the review includes consideration of the issue I have raised. There are times when a household assessment is appropriate. When is it appropriate to apply a means test on a household basis and when might it be appropriate to consider a means test on an individualised basis? Including a consideration of that matter in the review of means testing that will take place next year would be a concrete step towards recognising the recommendation from the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality.
I support that. I am aware of the Minister's commitment to the means test review and listened to her at the social protection committee, of which I am a member. I recognise how important this is for so many families. I would like clarification from the Minister on the last point Senator Higgins raised. It is important and the Minister is very much aware of my previous interjections on the means test for carer's allowance. She is carrying out an important piece of work and I welcome that she has repeated the commitment during this debate.
As I said earlier, assessing the household means, in other words, the means of the entire household, is the best way of targeting income supports where they are most needed. I am doing a full review of it. We are happy to look at it on an individualised basis as well and can certainly do that when we are doing the review. We are, as I said, open to looking at it and seeing how we can perhaps do things better.
I thank the Minister. As I said, there may be circumstances where a household approach is the best but there may well be particular circumstances where, for reasons of financial independence in long-term situations, an individualised approach is better. It will contribute significantly to the effectiveness of means testing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 8, after line 32, to insert the following:
“Report on individual means assessment for Disability Allowance
16. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on options for assessing applicants to Disability Allowance on individual means, rather than the means of their partner or other household members.”.
I have spoken to this already. This is the same issue but it relates to the disability allowance in particular. As I said, there are specific issues here. We talked about situations for households and assumptions we make but in the case of disability allowance there are persons who are living alone who might wish to live with a friend, for example, but would not want to move into a situation where that friend is assumed to be financially supporting them. People want to have relationships that are just based on "I am a person and I live with you and I have a relationship with you". That could be romantic, a friendship or a family member. A person may wish to have a brother or sister come and live with them but may not necessarily want to become a dependant. Due to the way disability allowance is assessed, where a person with a disability is living with somebody else, it is assumed they will be a dependant or the person they live with is going to be financially responsible for them. There might be a person with a disability aged in their 30s who manages well when it comes to managing their disability. We know from the Indecon cost of disability report the additional costs are massive. There can be additional costs of up to €9,027 for items related to a disability somebody might need. Of course, the disability allowance is tied into a person's access to the medical card and all these other things. Thus, a person may have to choose between having enough financially to live - and again the disability allowance does not even meet these costs - but if they are forced to be in a situation where they jeopardise that simply by living with somebody, that really affects a person's financial independence and it can make it very lonely. That is something I have heard from people. If you are a person with a disability you want to be able to have relationships and you will not necessarily say I can only have a relationship with somebody where they cover these immense costs of my disability because the State no longer will.
This is just another example of where that individualisation piece could make a huge difference and ensure the relationship of those persons with a disability with the State and with the State supports is an independent relationship and unfounded assumptions are not necessarily made about the household they may be part of.
I thank the Senator. As she knows, I have already committed to initiating a wide-ranging review of means testing in the Department next year. I take on board her point about somebody with a disability who wants to bring somebody in to live with them. We can consider those things.
I thank the Minister and withdraw the amendment in that context.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 8, after line 32, to insert the following:
“Report on individual means assessment for Non-Contributory State Pension
16. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on options for assessing applicants to the Non-Contributory State Pension on individual means, rather than the means of their partner or other household members.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 8, after line 32, to insert the following:
“Report on child maintenance and social protection
16. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on options for ensuring that lone parents’ social protection payments should not be reduced based on the potential receipt of maintenance from a third party e.g. a former spouse or partner, and for ensuring that lone parents should not be required to pursue maintenance from a former partner as a condition of receipt of social protection.”.
This is another amendment addressing the issue of child maintenance. I will not go into it at length but there is much concern. Many people are disappointed as it looks like the Government does not intend to set up a child maintenance agency and it was something people were hopeful about. This is around a specific issue related to social protection. It is an amendment around ensuring lone parent or one-parent families' social protection payments would not be reduced based on the potential receipt of maintenance from a third party such as a former spouse or partner. It is also concerned with the matter of ensuring lone parents not be required to pursue maintenance from a former partner as a condition of the receipt of social protection.
There is concern people are first of all being required to pursue maintenance when there are many reasons they are not in a position to do it. That is why there was such wide support for a maintenance agency that would take on that responsibility so it is not laid on the shoulders of persons who may have very good and legitimate reasons for not trying to pursue a former partner. The Minister will be aware that separate from the establishment of a child maintenance agency, there is a very constructive proposal from my colleague, Senator Ruane, that I hope will still be considered. It has been supported by the Women's Caucus, which includes women from right across the Houses, and would give Revenue a role in the gathering of maintenance payments.
We are aware one-parent families are extraordinarily more vulnerable to homelessness and deprivation and are absolute outliers when it comes to issues of poverty. The core point is we should not have a situation where people in that circumstance are being forced to pursue and seek maintenance from a former spouse or partner. This is especially so in situations where that might make them or their children vulnerable or affect issues such as access and custody. I note also that even where maintenance is awarded we know it is very often not paid. We should not have a situation where a person's social welfare payment is being reduced - because in theory they are getting €100 per week from a partner - if they are not getting that €100 per week from them. We should not have a situation where that rationale is used. The Minister is aware of these issues and of the different solutions to the issue of accessing maintenance but I hope in the interim we can ensure we do not have negative impacts within the social protection system. We can perhaps begin with the matters I address in my amendment.
I thank the Senator. I do not propose to accept this amendment because I am already addressing the two issues she is requesting a report on.
As the Senator is aware, the report of the child maintenance review group was published on 16 November. The Government established that group in 2020 to examine several issues regarding child maintenance in Ireland. The terms of reference were to consider and report on the current treatment within the Department of Social Protection of child maintenance payments, the current provisions relating to the liable relatives regarding child maintenance and the establishment of a State child maintenance agency. The Government has accepted the group's recommendations on the social welfare system. As a result, child maintenance payments will be disregarded in the means test for social welfare payments. This measure will mean that many parents currently on reduced rates of payment will see their payment increase. It will also mean some additional lone parents will qualify for a payment, which is important. It is estimated approximately 16,000 lone parents will benefit from this measure at a cost of approximately €10 million per annum. The efforts to seek maintenance requirement will also be removed from one-parent family payment and jobseeker's transitional payment.
This change will remove an additional stress for lone parents of having to go back into the court system because that was not easy for many. In addition, the liable relative provision will be discontinued and this means my Department will no longer seek to recoup a portion of claimed costs from the non-resident parent. My Department is working towards early implementation of these recommendations. I have met with Senator Ruane on this because she has done a lot of work in this area. She has completed work on this matter that I hope to be able to use. We had a very good meeting.
Senator Higgins asked why we were not establishing an agency as sought by the lone parent groups. The Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, and myself looked at this in detail and we discussed the matter. There is an awful lot involved in setting up an agency. There is huge expense, it has to be staffed, and it is not something that can be done willy-nilly. There was not a strong consensus among the child maintenance group whether an agency should be established. Four members were in favour of an agency and three were against it. Before going to all the effort and expense for the taxpayer of setting up a new agency, we have to ask ourselves whether it would deliver better outcomes for families. I know there have been calls for a similar agency to that in place in the UK but according to a recent independent report from the national audit office in the UK, it was found that the number of families without a maintenance arrangement has increased and has almost doubled since the agency was established in the UK. The report also found that unpaid maintenance in the UK is building up at more than £1 million per week and if that trend continues, there will be in excess of £1 billion in unpaid arrears by 2030. On top of that, there are many complaints from single parents about how the service in the UK is working. Instead of an agency, the approach we are taking is to fundamentally reform the family court system and, as part of that, the Department of Justice will look at how we can strengthen enforcement orders on child maintenance. That is the trick here. If people are supposed to pay, they will have to pay and get on with it, instead of this carry-on where people pay a week, miss a few weeks, pay another week and then arrears have accumulated. I worked in the credit union for many years and saw it first-hand. I saw what mainly women had to endure in terms of financial insecurity. This is something I am interested in and, as I said, I had a good discussion with Senator Ruane. The question is how we can find a mechanism where if there is a court order or an agreement made under which people are supposed to pay so much per week, then that is it and they have to get on with it. We need to strengthen the rules around the attachment order and that is the secret to success here because it is the important thing. The bottom line is that a parent has a responsibility towards their child and we just want to make sure that where a maintenance order is in place, the money is received every week. That is the ultimate goal here.
I thank the Minister for her response and indeed for her engagement in the area. We may need to return to the question of an agency again and if we do, we will be able to learn from and improve on any of the mistakes made in the UK. In the interim, I welcome the fact that the Minister has engaged with Senator Ruane. Getting Revenue involved is at least a starting point for ensuring this is happening and it would be a significant improvement to have it involved in the way suggested in Minister's legislation. I also welcome the commitments in respect of how the current social protection system operates and the requirements that are there; that would be constructive. The Minister mentioned the cost. As regards the €10 million, there is no better place that money could be spent to ensure our social protection system is addressing and delivering social protection to those who are most vulnerable than in the area of lone parent families because they are extraordinarily more vulnerable to homelessness, deprivation, and poverty. Again, it would be money very well spent in that regard. I look forward to further engagement with the Minister, as I am sure does Senator Ruane.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairperson
Amendment No. 14 has been ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the Bill.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 8, after line 32, to insert the following:
“Report on increase to personal social protection rates
16. The Minister shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on options to increase adult personal social protection rates by €20 instead of €12, in line with rates recommended by the Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) methodology.”.
It makes no sense that the previous amendment would be ruled out of order and this amendment would not. The previous amendment related to the benchmarking of social protection rates in respect of the MESL and this amendment gives the figures that attach to that. I cannot see why one amendment would be ruled out of order. It is an unfortunate ruling of the Chair in that regard. Amendment No. 15 looks on the options to increase adult person social protection rates by €20 per week instead of €12. It recognises the €12 increase, which is one of the largest adjustments we have had, given the cost-of-living increases and what we know from the detailed analysis on the MESL, those 2,000 items used by households in a year have gone up by even more. That is the reason I am hoping there would be an increase to €20 per week in line with those increases in costs.
I do not propose to accept the amendment. The €12 increase to the weekly rate of social welfare payments from January 2023 supports recipients across all weekly schemes, including pensioners and those of working age. It also includes a proportionate increase for adult dependants which means that the basic increase for a two-adult household will be between €20 and €22.80 per week. Exceptionally, this year, this significant rate increase has been accompanied by a wide range of additional lump sum payments paid in the current year to social welfare recipients and, taken together, for many household types the combination effectively matches, or exceeds, inflation. Apart from the rate increase, as the Senator will be aware, we paid out €1.2 billion in lump sums between October and Christmas. As is the case each year, all budget options will be considered by Government ahead of budget 2024, based on up-to-date data, estimates and economic forecasts. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt this work at this early stage. Three months is also a short timeframe for such a report. In the social protection budget package, a range of options will be considered to provide targeted support for those who need it most. In this respect, while I am not accepting the amendment, the Senator can be assured that the issue she is raising will be considered by Government, along with a range of other budget options when the time comes. The ESRI post-budget analysis shows that budget 2023, combined with one-off measures to reduce the cost of living, will be effective in protecting most households from rising prices this winter. The institute's analysis further shows that the approach taken by the Government of targeted welfare measures combined with universal energy credits will be more effective in protecting most lower-income households this winter than had welfare rate payments risen in line with inflation this year and next.
I thank the Minister. She spoke to that wider picture and I will speak to something I am looking to address in amendment No. 18, which I also understand has been ruled out of order but it relates to the same principle. The Minister mentioned target measures and I had sought a report on redistribution and as that amendment was ruled out of order, this request will not be eligible. There are some key principles. I welcome the fact that there are some universal measures here and also measures targeting those with greatest need. That has been important to the success of our social protection system. Again, while I have not always been happy with everything about it, in general it has had a role. Ireland has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the OECD; I think we are ranked 32nd of 35 countries regarding the gap between the high and low incomes.
The figure that always gets attached to that whenever it is raised is before tax and transfers. We rely on the progressivity in our tax system and the redistributive role of the social protection system, and that protective role, to move from that huge income inequality towards something closer to ensuring a basic level of adequacy. That is something to be borne in mind with regard to those principles of progressivity, redistribution, equality and, crucially according to the MESL, adequacy. Those principles and their key role in our systems should be borne in mind.
I have concerns about some of the proposals for changes in the social protection system but today is not the day to discuss them. Those who have higher incomes may get higher rates of social welfare payments. That is moving away from the idea of having some universality and then targeting those with greatest need. If we instead give greater benefit to those who already have greater benefit, I worry we might be shifting the purpose of our social protection system. Those who have the most need often have the least resources. I used the figure of the bottom 10% earlier when discussing this with the Minister for Finance. There are lots of people who have €200,000 or €700,000 because they have a house. There are people who have cushions of some kind but the wealth of the bottom 10%, besides their weekly income, is €600. There is a cohort of families in Ireland who have no safety net when things go wrong for them. I would be worried if we started to shift the focus of the social protection system away from that. It is kind of a philosophical point but it is one we are going to be coming back to during the year ahead. I wanted to build on the correct points the Minister made about universal and targeted measures. Let us keep that as the focus of our social protection system.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 16 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 8, after line 32, to insert the following:
“Report on extending Jobseeker’s Transitional Payment
16. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on options to extend access to the Jobseeker’s Transitional Payment until a youngest child reaches 18 years of age.”.
This amendment seeks a report on the extension of the jobseeker's transitional payment until a youngest child reaches 18 years. We have just discussed one-parent families and the particular vulnerabilities they have. A hugely disproportionate number of the families who move into homelessness are one-parent families. Currently, parents get the one-parent family payment until a child is seven and when the child turns seven the parents move to the jobseeker's transitional payment from age seven to 14. The jobseeker's transitional payment requires engagement with the system. It gives the opportunity of looking to employment and education but it does not have a requirement for full-time availability because it recognises that people may be balancing care responsibilities. There is a period of engagement on a voluntary basis. It is an opportunity to build connections.
The problem is that once the child hits 14, the parent of that child becomes invisible to the system in terms of their care. They are just treated as a jobseeker and are presumed to have full-time availability even though those years between 14 and 18 can sometimes be the most vulnerable. It can be the period of time in which young people require the most care. It may be that someone is available part of the time but needs to be there in the evenings for the child. This would make a small difference in terms of the payments because the jobseeker's transitional payment would continue but, crucially, it would allow one-parent families to remain visible in the system until the child turned 18. They could also have access to the additional measures the Minister mentioned, such as the working family payment.
This is a good measure. It would just increase the age threshold, not for the one-parent family payment but for the jobseeker's transitional payment, from 14 to 18. It would allow for more effective and authentic engagement between the Intreo offices, social protection systems and so forth and the lone parents who are using them. It would mean parents could have that flexibility of working part-time without being in a position where they are jeopardising receipt of their payment. I hope the Minister can consider this. It is a practical measure that would simply increase the threshold to 18. It would go a ways towards addressing that extreme vulnerability of many one-parent families in this State.
I do not propose to accept this amendment. The jobseeker’s transitional payment can be paid until a lone parent’s youngest child turns 14. The big thing about that payment is that people do not have to be looking for work. To extend eligibility for the payment until the youngest child turns 18 would be contrary to the Government’s policy goal of tackling long-term social welfare dependency and its associated poverty risks. We all know the route out of poverty is to get a job. Increasing the age of the children for which the jobseeker’s transitional payment can be paid would have the effect of delaying the interaction between affected customers and the Department’s Intreo services and, consequently, their access to training and employment support services. Improved access to these services will improve their skill sets and job readiness, thereby assisting with their transition into the workforce, and with their subsequent attainment of financial independence. It is worth noting too that there are other supports available for which lone parents might qualify when their youngest child is aged 14 or over. These include jobseeker’s allowance, the working family payment and the back to work family dividend. It is to their benefit that they are able to engage with the full support of the job activation measures, including if they want to retrain or upskill. We want to support them and help them with that journey so they can use their skills to get into full employment. As I said earlier, that in itself brings people out of poverty when they have a good job. I take the point the Senator is making but there are no plans to change that at the minute.
There is already a requirement for engagement, and opportunities for engagement with Intreo and other schemes, under the jobseeker's transitional payment. It is not a matter of the requirement to engage or even working; it is about the full-time availability for work. That is the main component. It comes to the fact that within the jobseeker's payment, and in the system more generally, it tends to be very binary. People are considered either fully available or not available at all but there are people who have partial capacity or limited time. It would be constructive if the Minister reviewed this issue. We could strengthen the engagement under the jobseeker's transitional payment between the ages of 14 and 18 without bringing in that requirement for full-time availability because that is a gap.
This also has a discriminatory element to it because in households with two parents, it is possible for one parent to be an adult dependant and not be required to be available full-time but that is not the case for lone-parent households. There is a different treatment of two-parent households with a child between the ages of 14 and 18 and one-parent households with the same. They are treated differently in terms of the respect and recognition given for their care roles. I am certainly not suggesting that we put additional constraints on the two-parent households; it is more that we should give similar support and recognition to one-parent ones.
Work can be a route out of poverty but it is not always. We know that from the reliance on the working family payment, particularly for lone parents. People often find themselves in precarious forms of work feeling they have to go into that between the ages of 14 to 18 whereas if they were able to take up part-time work they may be able to access something more appropriate.
They actually can take up part-time work if they wish, as I understand it.
Yes, but it is the requirement to be available full time I am referring to.
I can understand that some people might have childcare issues and want to be home when their children come home from school and so forth. It is about trying to strike the balance. In fairness to the staff in the Intreo office in the job activation sections they take a practical approach to this. It is a tight labour market at the moment. If we can find that balance where we can allow people to get back into work and at the same time take account of their family caring duties, which are obviously greater for single parents, that is what we want to do.
I agree. There are those who are currently qualified adults or adult dependants who may be reluctant to go on jobseeker's allowance because of the full-time availability requirement. They might be open to part-time work. It is an issue to look at because partial availability is an issue for other cohorts, not only one-parent families. Perhaps we can return to this issue in the new year.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 18 in the name of Senator Higgins has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
Section 16 agreed to.
Amendment No. 19 in the name of Senators Craughwell and Boyhan has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
Amendment No. 20 in the name of Senators Craughwell and Boyhan has been ruled out of order as it would impose a potential charge on the Exchequer.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
I move amendment No. 21.
In page 9, after line 22, to insert the following:“Report by the Minister19. The Minister shall within 12 months of passing this Act issue a report to the Oireachtas detailing how public representatives, people who belong to the Class K PRSI bracket or an equivalent bracket can receive social protection. The report should address issues related to the lack of social protection available for public representatives once they leave office.”.
Speaking about amendments being ruled out of order because there is a cost to the Exchequer, in printing these there is a cost to the Exchequer. I find it rather confusing that we put these things down as a reason to rule out of order but that is for the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight to deal with. We have spoken about Class K and the damage it has done to former Members of this House. I understand why the amendments have been ruled out of order. However we have brought this up every year since 2015. In 2015 the then Minister for Social Protection changed one tiny part of the Bill which excluded county councillors from Class K and moved them into Class S. At that time we initiated a High Court action which was settled without going to court. There is a constitutional question here. It sounds ridiculous. Would anybody take out an insurance policy on their house knowing that if the house went on fire they are not going to get paid? Would anyone take out an insurance policy on their car knowing if the car was stolen they would be left without a car? Quite simply we would not do that. What I ask in this amendment is that the Minister will come back to the House in 12 months' time having taken time to look at the Class K issue and hopefully the next time we meet in this House she will have taken steps to address it.
I understand that the concept behind it, particularly the unearned income side, was aimed at stock holders who were earning massive profits from their investments. Surely the way to handle that issue is through the Revenue Commissioners and to tax them. If a tax is to be put on a public service, then put a tax on public service for being Members of the Oireachtas. That is fine, it should come through the Finance Bill and let us debate it in this House and see how far it would go. Class K is nothing other than a tax on public service. It is a cruel tax because it offers nothing. I think of my colleagues who have left this House. They are damaged forever on their PRSI record. Class K will impact the contributory pension for older Members who come into this House. We really have to come to grips with this issue. It is not easy because anybody looking in on this tonight would think: "they have gold-plated pensions, what the hell do they want?" We do not, anymore. Those days are long gone as the Minister well knows. I do not want to the put the Minister on the spot on this issue but I have decided to take the lead on it and I am willing to take whatever stick comes with it. However we have to deal with it.
It is a reasonable request. I do not know what the Minister’s response will be. I wish to acknowledge the work that my colleague, Senator Craughwell, has done in regard to Class K PRSI. He briefly referenced litigation and settlements. I am aware of those and some of the advices around those. However it is not appropriate for me to share that here today because clearly it relates to individuals and I do not intend to speak about individual cases. There was clearly an admission that something was wrong and people do not pay out good money for any reason. The amendment reasonably seeks that in 12 months’ time the Minister might bring forth a report on this. I hope she will be amenable to supporting the amendment.
I support this amendment. The issue needs to be examined. We talk about motivating people to enter public life and to become councillors. Of all the jobs a person could take, running for election is one of the riskiest. Most jobs do not have a guaranteed point at which you may randomly be fired after three or four years. To have a situation where you know that subsequent to that period of time you are not going to have access to social protection schemes or to supports and your family will not have access to that because the period of time, especially for councillors, is going to be longer than the two years' previous contributions. People are effectively not just taking the risk in running for public office but they are taking a very serious risk in regard to their family’s security after the fact. We should not add jeopardy. It should not be a situation where only those who are very financially secure feel that they can run for public office. Not everyone will be affected by Class K. Those who will be affected by it will not be able to make the choice to run for public office. That is a cohort of the public who are not necessarily already represented as much as we would like in our political system.
This is going to affect diversity. We know this because the records show that women, because of various social factors, tend to be more risk-averse and less willing to take a risk in regard to their families’ income. It affects women going into this area as well. I ask the Minister to look at how this dovetails with pensions. I have many concerns around some of the proposals on pensions. If we move to a 30-year contributory requirement on pensions that will have an impact. Again I will indicate now that I will be absolutely opposed to any move to a 40-year contributory requirement. That would be disastrous. If we move to that we almost guarantee that anybody who spent four years or eight years of their life as a councillor is not going to qualify for a full pension and will therefore find themselves on a reduced-rate pension. That is the concern. The contributory pension may keep pace with inflation but the reduced-rate pension can be far less. We are condemning people not just in the immediate aftermath of a period of public service but in the long term in regard to their pension qualification. We have raised this issue for many years but it needs to be addressed. It affects everybody.
The key point is that it has to begin at least by addressing it in terms of local councillors.
I do not think it affects councillors at this stage. I understand that the councillors’ class has changed and that-----
Perhaps it has. That is great.
I would dispute the ruling that was made in relation to the two previous amendments. This funding is paid by individuals into the pot. It is not Exchequer funding. I dispute the ruling that is made here. Those amendments have been rightly tabled to be discussed on the floor of the House. Senators Craughwell and Boyhan had to find a way around amendment No. 19 so that the Minister would come back with a report. I would ask that the ruling be looked at.
Amendment No. 21, in the name of Senator Craughwell, mainly affects Members of this House and the Dáil. It is only now that we are seeing the effects of decisions that were made as far back as the term in office of the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, who increased the age at which Members of the House would get a pension from 50 up to 65, 66 or 67, depending on when the State pension age would kick in. I have great sympathy for newly elected Members of both Houses. Indeed, I know the Minister has sympathy in this regard as well.
A teacher who is elected to these Houses can go back teaching within a certain number of years. They can go back after five years or perhaps ten years in the case of an extension. After the last election, some of those who were giving out about self-employed people coming in here were able to go back teaching. When a Deputy or Senator who was self-employed before coming in here, or who had been working for a company and gave up his or her job to come in here, leaves or loses his or her seat, he or she receives no money, or nothing other than a couple of months' worth of payments. Of course, the shorter the period one spends here, the less one will get when one goes. One is not entitled to jobseekers' payments or any social welfare benefits.
I have great sympathy with this amendment. We should pursue it if we want get people to come in here who are self-employed or are working for companies other than State companies. Members pay the class K contribution while they are in here. If they are only here for a short period of time - perhaps less than ten years - they face a very bleak outlook when they lose their seat. They have families, mortgages and all of the things that every other family has.
The vast majority of the public thinks that when people leave this House, whether it is through retirement or through other ways, they are wealthy or whatever. I do not know any independently wealthy people who are coming in here. I certainly do not think there are any such people in this room or in either House at this point in time. I fully support this amendment. I know that the Minister has sympathy here as well.
There is no doubt that the current arrangements will stop people coming in here. As somebody said, it is a huge risk to stand for public life. When a person is elected but then loses at the subsequent election, he or she has everything to lose. He or she might lose every single thing - his or her house and family and all sorts of things. I have great sympathy in relation to this.
Perhaps the Minister for Finance should look at reducing the pension age from 65 back down to 50. There were very good reasons for it coming in at 50. It is only now that it is affecting people. It has not affected anyone before this. If one goes through the last batch of people who lost their seats in this House and the other House, one will see that very few of them have got employment and that they got nothing when they left.
That leads me to my final point. Each one of us is seen – I forget the right term for it – as a person of interest. If you go for a bank loan, you are a person of interest. If you go for a job interview after you leave here, you are a person of interest. When does the status of “person of interest” go away? It puts many constraints on Members of these Houses. You have to divulge all sorts of things. People might not want to employ you because you are person of interest and because of all the stuff it attracts. I ask the Minister, as a member of the Government, to tell us when the "person of interest" status that we all have goes away after we leave these Houses.
The Minister’s Department provides for voluntary contributions. If somebody comes in here on class S, the voluntary contribution is €500 per year. If they come in on class A, it is €5,000 per year. A person cannot opt to become a class S contributor when they come in here on a voluntary contribution. That is the first thing.
Second, I am aware of a Deputy who lost his seat in this House who qualified for the old age pension just after he lost his seat. I am not sure what his career was beforehand. The impact on him of four years on class K is a loss of €20 a week, in perpetuity, in his contributory old age pension. Some €20 per week does not sound like a lot, but one would hope that after hitting 66, one might continue on for another 20 or 30 years before departing this world. It is the penal nature of it that we object to. I do not mind if we can work out a scheme whereby after a certain number of years, one loses a portion of one's entitlements and after a few more one loses something else. I do not know. The experts can sit and work that type of thing out.
My colleague, Senator Burke, spoke about people who lose their seats. I understand it is extremely difficult for one to find employment if one has been in this House. Being a person of political interest, or even being married to one or being the child of one, is a problem. I did not think it was that important until I stuck my card into an ATM and could not get any money out. When I rang the bank and asked what was happening, I was told that I had been sent some forms to fill in but I had not done so. Suddenly, I found my wife’s account was locked because she did not fill them in. In addition, my children are required to fill them in, as are the Minister’s children and those of everybody in this House.
We need to start treating the people in this House as workers. Incremental credit, for example, has now been restored for every part of the public service but it has not been restored for Members of the Oireachtas. I understand that there are delicacies when one is dealing with these things. However, I am a worker first. I work for the State. I am very fortunate in the job I have, but I am a worker and I should be treated like any other worker in the State. I would appreciate if the Minister could give me some positive indication on this.
I thank the Senators for raising this issue. Everything they have said here is perfectly true. If someone who is a class A contributor comes into this House, they suddenly have nothing. The number of years they spend here will have an impact on their contributory pension, which they may have paid for before they came into the House from whatever form of employment they may have been in.
I do not propose to accept this amendment for the simple reason that this legislation, as I said earlier, is not the appropriate vehicle for seeking reports. However, I am very happy to consider it. As I said last year, the best route here is to send a request to the joint Oireachtas committee. If we have all parties’ support on this, and if everybody agrees on it, that is the way we need to bring it forward. I will commit to providing the Senators with the information and supporting them with any data I can provide from the Department of Social Protection in terms of how this can be progressed further.
The best thing to do as we are here this evening is to write to the Joint Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands to ask it to consider class K contributions by public office holders. The Senator could write to the Chair of that committee and ask for this issue to be put on the agenda for examination in a budgetary and economic context.
The committee can bring me or my officials before it and we can give it the information it needs to deal with this matter once and for all. I am happy to support the Senator in any way I can to do that. The Senator is right. I know Members of the Oireachtas who were not re-elected and lost their jobs during the pandemic. They had no access to anything because the place was closed down. They could not take up their former employment because of the restrictions that were in place. They were in a difficult place. That is a real example of a situation that can arise for many others.
I commit to the Senator that I will give him as much co-operation and information as I can. The best way forward is to bring the matter to the committee, ask it to consider it in detail and come forward with recommendations. When we have all looked at the issue and there is agreement across all parties, I will be happy to take those recommendations on board.
I thank the Minister for her genuine response. There is a rapporteur's report on the issue in respect of county councillors which I will ask the committee to take on board. The report offers some insight into the historical background of the social protection system and benefits.
The Minister has made an offer. We are right up against the wire for social protection and people are waiting for payments. We need to get the Bill passed. At this stage, with the consent of the House, I am willing to withdraw the amendment on the basis of the commitment the Minister has made. I thank her for that. I appreciate it.
I am looking forward to the engagement, which will be useful. I commend Senator Craughwell on bringing forward the amendment. The proposal has support from across the Houses.
There is a related issue which the Minister may not be able to address. We have seen improvements in the conditions for people working in the Houses of the Oireachtas. They are workers and that point has been well made. One of the improvements is that secretarial assistants in the Seanad are finally getting recognised as administrative assistants, which is long overdue. The pension for those who had been secretarial assistants for up to 30 years was less than €10,000 per year. We need to recognise all the people who work in the Oireachtas as workers and treat them well. Senator Craughwell's point was consistent with that so I wanted to raise the matter.
I thank the Minister for giving a genuine reply to the matters raised in this amendment. We will undertake to bring this to the committee. I thank the Minister for saying she or her staff will be available to come before the committee and that the material she has will be furnished to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
When is it proposed to take the next Stage?
Bill received for final consideration.
When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?
Question, "That the Bill do now pass", put and declared carried.
