Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 22 September 2020
33. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will consider allowing discretion on the 18.5 hours per week employment exemption under the carer's allowance scheme in circumstances in which it has no impact on the level of care provided; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25004/20]
View answerThe Minister has answered 28 Oral Questions since her appointment, not one of which has been in relation to carers. Carers are the backbone of our health and care system. There are over 4,400 full-time carers in my constituency of Roscommon-Galway and the vast majority of them have faced significant additional burdens as a result of Covid-19. It would be a terrible thing if their plight was not raised directly with the Minister in advance of the budget.
At the end of August 2020, there were 87,733 people in receipt of carer's allowance. The projected expenditure in 2020 is approximately €919 million. A primary qualifying condition for the carer’s allowance is that the applicant provides full-time care and attention to a person in need of such a level of care. However, to support a carer’s continued attachment to the workforce and broader social inclusion, carers may engage in some limited employment, education or training, while still being regarded as being in a position to provide full-time care. During this time of employment, education or training, adequate provision must be made for the care of the relevant person.
Carer’s allowance is a statutory scheme and both the full-time care and attention requirement and the 18.5 hour limitation are set out in legislation. The number of hours per week that carers may engage in employment, education or training has recently been increased substantially. As part of budget 2020 it was increased from 15 to 18.5 hours per week. This measure was prioritised in response to carers who expressed that they found 15 hours to be too restrictive, not only for work but for education and training purposes.
I consider that the current limit maintains a reasonable balance between the requirement to provide full-time care for the care recipient and the needs of the carer. While I will of course continue to seek to improve the position of carers and thank the Deputy for raising it, any changes to payment schemes would have to be considered in an overall budgetary context. I hope this clarifies the matter.
I must say at the outset that I am specifically talking about situations where the people who are being cared for are in day care, in a training centre or in school. I accept that the amount of hours per week has been increased. I welcome it and supported the Minister's predecessor, former Deputy Regina Doherty, on moving it from 15 hours per week up to 18.5 hours a week. That is to be commended. The Minister says the reason for doing that is to ensure the care recipient's requirement for full-time care is balanced against the carer's need to maintain contact with the workforce. Two other schemes from the Minister's Department, the community employment, CE, scheme and the rural social scheme, specify that the minimum number of hours that people need to be engaged within the workforce or in training in order to maintain that connection is 19.5 hours per week. As such, at a very minimum should that threshold not be increased to a minimum of 19.5 hours, where it does not have an impact on the care being provided?
As I said, this was reviewed and it was looked at in detail. The recommendation that came from that review was 18.5 hours for people who are doing this really important work. As I said it was only brought in this year in budget 2020. I take the point the Deputy is making about people on CE schemes getting 19.5 hours but these things are, as I said, always kept under review. In view of the fact that this has only just been changed, however, I do not know if the basis for changing it has in fact changed in such a short period of time. However, as with everything else in my Department we do keep these matters under review.
We need to address anomalies across schemes and this is one such anomaly where it is 18.5 hours for carers and 19.5 hours for the community employment and rural social schemes. Having said that, for the specific cohort of people I am talking about, the person who is being cared for is not in their home - they are in day care, a training centre or school. If one takes the example of a disabled child who is in primary school, the child is out of the home for a minimum of 5 hours and 40 minutes every single day. That is 28 hours per week. We are saying it is okay for that carer to remain at home and sit looking at four walls in order to draw down the carer's allowance but they cannot go out for 20 hours per week to work and to engage with people in their own community. There is something fundamentally wrong with that system. There needs to be discretion on the 18.5 hour threshold.
I hear the Deputy's point. As I said, it has only just been changed and in view of that fact I do not know why the situation he refers to was not taken into consideration when they were making this consideration. I will certainly look at the basis for the recommendation. We always keep these things under review.
