Vol. 1049 No. 7
50. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Social Protection to clarify what the beneficiaries of the temporary protection directive will be entitled to upon the elapsing of the directive, and what preparations her Department is undertaking for this date. [8088/24]
Ar an gcéad dul síos, baineann an cheist seo le daoine faoin treoir Eorpach. We have had a number of discussions around this. I am concerned that there is a lack of clarity as to what the situation will be for beneficiaries of the temporary protection directive. When the directive wraps up, what will be the situation with payments for those who were in Ukraine before the passing of the legislation before the current Dáil?
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. In March 2022, the European Council adopted unanimously the implementing decision regarding the temporary protection directive, due to the mass influx of persons fleeing Ukraine as a consequence of the war. People arriving from Ukraine have been granted the status to avail of income supports from my Department under the directive. In October 2023, the EU Council agreed to extend the period of temporary protection to March 2025. Discussions on the options for when temporary protection is due to expire in 2025 are ongoing, both within the Government and at an EU level, in recognition of the need for certainty for beneficiaries of temporary protection in the EU.
It is very clear that the prevailing conditions in Ukraine will be an important factor in any decisions taken. In light of the ongoing discussions at EU level, it would be premature to speculate at this distance on what arrangements might be put in place post March 2025, and as a result what the social welfare entitlements will be for those who have been granted temporary protection. However, the Government supports the strong call from EU member states for a harmonised approach to temporary protection post March 2025. My Department has an excellent track record in reacting quickly and appropriately to emergency situations, as was clear from its response to the Covid and Ukrainian crises. I can assure the Deputy that my Department will not be found lacking in its response to any planned changes and will continue to liaise with other Departments on this matter.
I would like to note a couple of things. First, the temporary protection directive does not require beneficiaries of the directive to receive the same entitlements as Irish citizens. That is obviously the case, given the actions the Minister of State and her Government have taken regarding Ukrainians who arrive at a later date. They will receive the rate that international protection applicants receive. I have already outlined my disagreement with the fact that people who move outside the accommodation will continue to get the higher rate. That creates a problem in rural areas as regards the rental situation. However, I am particularly concerned that the Government's attitude seems to be that it will wait and see. I do not think that is right for the system or for those who are on the current higher rate. It is very likely that they will have to apply for international protection or for visas. At that stage, they will be entitled to the international protection rate, which is the lower rate. If that is going to be the case, surely they should have sight of that, they should know that, and we should be working towards that.
I appreciate the point the Deputy is making. As he knows, I have introduced legislation which will make significant changes to the payments provided to new arrivals from Ukraine. Under that legislation, new arrivals who are staying in designated State-provided accommodation will receive €38.80 per week, which is equivalent to what people in direct provision receive. That legislation will be debated on Committee and Remaining Stages in the Seanad tomorrow. As the Deputy knows, there was broad support for it in the Dáil, where it passed by 108 votes to 15. I appreciate the support that was received for what I was doing.
Regarding what happens after March 2025, when the directive is due to expire, discussions are happening at EU level. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, is leading in those discussions on behalf of the Government.
There is a desire among member states that there will be a harmonised approach so we will have to see if that is achievable. My view is that we have to adhere to our international obligations but at the same time we do not want to be out of step with other countries.
I have no dispute in terms of our international obligations. We supported the legislation that made those changes to social welfare payments for people who arrived from Ukraine after a certain date. This is not about Europe, however. The provision of social welfare payments is a decision that has been adopted by the Irish Government. Given it is highly likely that at the expiration of the directive they will either have to apply for visas or seek international protection and then be on the lower rate people in direct provision get, I do not think it is fair on anyone. It is not right in terms of the system and transparency nor is it right for people on those payments to be living in the dark. Given the situation they are likely to be in, what makes sense is a tapering down between now and then to allow people to adjust. The Government's approach, much the same as it is to this issue generally, seems to be one of waiting and seeing and there is no forward planning. I do not think that is fair and I do not think it is right. It does not instil confidence. It is only a year away and this is very much a domestic competency.
To say to the Deputy again, the discussions at EU level have a way to go. As for my Department, whether during the pandemic, the response to the war in Ukraine or the various cost-of-living payments we have made, the Department of Social Protection can react and respond quickly and that is what it will do. We cannot predict the future here. We have to see how the discussions play out at EU level. If there was no temporary protection status then I would expect that the existing regime would apply. That means a person would have to seek provision to remain under the standard international protection arrangements or possibly through the work permit system. In respect of social welfare payments, the standard habitual residency clause would apply and there are guidelines around that. There is a bit to go yet and we want to stay in sync with our European colleagues. The Minister for Justice is engaging at a European level on this particular matter.
52. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will review the fact that standard disregards for maintenance that apply in the means testing of other payments do not apply in the means testing of the guardians payment, non-contributory. [8089/24]
There is a lot of talk about care at the minute in the context of the referendum. We should acknowledge, in that context, the role that kinship carers play. Very often they are the unsung heroes of the system who step up when, for whatever reason, a relative of theirs is not in a position to care for children. Very often they are working very hard, they step up and it can be complicated. In many instances, I do not believe they are recognised financially. There is also a significant issue of small contributions from the natural parent and what this means in terms of the knock-on impact to guardianship payments.
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. The guardian’s payment, contributory, and guardian’s payment, non-contributory, are, respectively, social insurance and social assistance payments made to a person caring for a child where that child is defined as an orphan under the social welfare legislation.
A child is considered an orphan if they are under 18, or 22 if in full-time education, and both parents are deceased; or one parent is either dead or unknown or has abandoned and failed to provide for the child and the other parent is unknown or has abandoned and failed to provide for the child.
The guardian’s payment, non-contributory, is a means-tested payment which is based on the means of the child. The means of the guardian, including any maintenance payments paid to him or her in respect of the child, are not assessed when establishing entitlement to the payment. The social welfare and civil law-----
Will the Minister repeat that last sentence? I wish to understand it.
Yes. The means of the guardian, including any maintenance payments paid to him or her in respect of the child, are not assessed when establishing entitlement to the payment. It is a means-tested payment that is based on the means of the child.
The Social Welfare and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2023 is currently before the Oireachtas and is expected to be enacted in the coming weeks. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to give legislative effect to changes to the social welfare system, which provide that child maintenance payments will no longer be assessed as means for social welfare purposes. This covers a range of schemes including the guardian’s payment, non-contributory. The amendment follows from a recommendation of the child maintenance review group, which was accepted by the Government.
Currently, the guardian's payment, contributory, is paid in respect of 1,575 children and the guardian's payment, non-contributory, is paid in respect of 814 children. That is the current situation.
My sense of this is that either this has not fully established itself yet or maybe the change in approach has not factored through on the ground. I received a parliamentary question response saying that the means of the guardian, including any maintenance payment paid to them, in respect of the child are not assessed when establishing entitlement. The problem is not just in terms of means when it comes to this particular payment. This needs to be looked at in terms of operational guidelines and at deciding officer level. It is not just how it interferes with means, contributions from the payment are considered a contradiction to parental abandonment, which is a requirement of the guardianship payment. If it interferes with that then they can be disallowed. A child could receive €50 for their confirmation from a parent who is hardly in the picture at all and that could interfere with the sense of them being considered parentally abandoned. This is a problem that seems to be in terms of the actual operation of it. It is not just the overall means, the whole sum, but how it interferes with parental abandonment. This needs to be taken up in terms of operational guidelines as to how this flows through.
The only means we take account of under the guardian payment is that of the children themselves. In most cases the child has no means at all. We do not take account of the means or the income of the guardian. That does not come into play.
The only case where this should arise is in respect of maintenance payments that are paid directly to the child. When the child maintenance legislation currently going through the Houses is enacted that will mean even maintenance payments paid directly to the child will now be disregarded in the means test for the guardian payment. There should not be an issue but if the Deputy has a specific case, were he to send me the details I would be very happy to look at it. I certainly would not want to see somebody's payment reduced because the child got a small gift in the course of it. The maintenance payments will not be included when this legislation concludes its passage. It will be finished next week, I think.
I could probably send several cases to the Minister albeit I do not have them directly. Kinship Care, a subsection of Treoir, highlighted this issue to me. Kinship Care met the guardian's payment deciding officer relatively recently. As far as that meeting was concerned, the deciding officers were unaware of the recent change of maintenance not being factored into entitlements for other payments.
This was not something they were aware of and they went on to explain that irregular maintenance, or pocket money, can be deemed to be a parental contribution. It is not about the child's means rising above a certain level. It is about the fact there is a contribution happening at all being considered a contradiction to the fact there is parental abandonment happening.
I will send as much information as I can. I am of the view that maintenance information should be excluded from applications altogether. If that is the Minister's view also will she confirm that? Any disallowed recent applications due to maintenance or pocket money should either be reviewed or people should contact the Department to reapply. People have lost out here not because the child is over an income level but because the contribution itself, by definition, contradicts the supposed test.
The Deputy is saying that by virtue of the fact a child got anything it disqualifies him or her because it is not then deemed as parental abandonment.
I will speak to my officials about that. I am happy to engage with the Deputy because that is not the purpose here. We want to try to help people, especially if they have a guardian and especially now that I am removing the maintenance payment that a child may have got. That will not be taken into consideration. It is not about putting obstacles in anybody's way here.
Taking on a child who has been abandoned, has no parents to look after it or whose parents are dead is a big undertaking for anybody. If the Deputy send me on the details, I will be happy to look at them.
53. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Social Protection for an update on the long-term carers contribution scheme; the number of applications received to date; the number approved; the number rejected; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8028/24]
I am looking for an update on the very welcome long-term carers contribution scheme, or the pension for carers. I am asking for all the details, specifically the number of applications to date, the numbers approved and rejected, and the number of applications the Minister expects under the scheme.
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. One of the key pension reform measures I introduced from January this year is to enhance State pension provision for people who have been caring for incapacitated dependants for 20 years or more. To date, 2,746 applications have been received from people requesting that a caring period be included on their social insurance contribution record. These are in respect of 2,113 individuals as some people register for more than one caring period. Some 2,275 of these applications for a caring period have been allowed. The remaining applications are pending as further information is awaited. There have been no disallowances to date.
Of all those who have had caring periods allowed, 821 have cared for periods of over 20 years and will thus qualify for long-term caring contributions, which can be used for contributory State pension purposes. Of these, 402 are aged over 66 years. Some 113 carers who were aged 66 prior to 2024 have had their entitlement to a State pension contribution examined, or their rate reviewed, following the award of 1,040 or more long-term caring contributions.
Some 47 carers who were previously disallowed were awarded a contributory State pension from 1 January 2024; 48 carers were awarded an increased rate with the inclusion of their caring contributions; eight carers were already in receipt of the maximum rate of contributory State pension; and a decision is pending in the case of ten individuals. In addition, four carers who have turned 66 since the start of 2024 have been awarded 1,040 or more long-term caring contributions and the contributory State pension.
I hope the Deputy agrees that this scheme is key to recognising the role that long-term carers provide in society. I thank the Department's staff, as well as groups such as Family Carers Ireland for their support in developing this scheme and making it happen.
I started by welcoming the scheme and describing it as very positive. The figures the Minister has given are interesting. How many applications does the Minister anticipate? What analysis has been done on that? Of the 2,746 applications so far, 2,113 were from individuals. This means some applicants have registered for more than one care period. Does that mean they have done two 20-year care periods? Have some of them done that? Given that the minimum is 20 years, does that mean that those who done more than one care period have cared for 40 years or more?
I welcome that no applications have been refused or disallowed so far, with some cases still pending. Is there a review built in to the scheme? Is there an appeal mechanism available in the case of a refusal? Does the Minister have enough staff to capture what is happening with regard to the number of contributions and applications and to do an ongoing analysis of the scheme?
We have the applications that are in now. We opened the scheme up for applications some time ago to give people a chance. I cannot say exactly how many will apply but the good news is, as the Deputy said, that none have been disallowed to date. I do not have the specific details of the different carers who have made applications but I can ask the officials if they can give me a further breakdown. I would be happy to supply that to the Deputy.
We all value the work of our carers. My Department will spend over €1.7 billion this year on support payments to carers. In fairness, if the Deputy looks at my record, improving support for our carers has been a key priority for me during my three and a half years in the Department of Social Protection. In November, a €400 lump sum was paid to people receiving the carer's support grant. A Christmas double payment was paid to people in receipt of the carer's allowance and the carer's benefit. I have increased the domiciliary care allowance in successive budgets and the payment is now up to €340 per month. It is important to note that the domiciliary care allowance is not means-tested. I have also increased the weekly carer's payment by €24 over the last two years.
The Minister will have another opportunity.
I just wanted to share that information with the Deputy. My apologies.
More information would be very helpful because it is a very positive scheme. I had a woman in my office who, for the first time, is applying for a payment in her own right, having minded someone for over 20 years. She did not get any payment. The breakdown would be very important because under the criteria, someone who worked more than 16 or 18 hours per week is not entitled to the payment. Is there any flexibility around that where someone had another job for a number of hours each week, say, in a community employment scheme?
I asked the Minister if there was a review or appeal mechanism in place. One of the recommendations of the Pensions Commission was the establishment of a family carers register. Has progress been made on that?
I cannot praise this scheme enough but I need more details to be able to explain it to constituents who contact me. What period of time is envisaged? How many people will come forward? There must have been an analysis of this undertaken by the Department, particularly with regard to a review or appeal mechanism and flexibility.
Why was the 20-year period chosen? Could there be a 15-year period? Is there any flexibility around that or will there be a review of it?
This scheme is for over 20 years. The home caring payment or credits are in place for periods of up to 20 years. We wanted to expand that and we came up with the scheme for longer term carers.
As with all schemes in my Department, there is always an appeals mechanism. The family carers register has been set up and we have worked very closely with Family Carers Ireland. In fairness to FCI, it has done a lot of work to create awareness around this scheme. I would hate to think we would be in a position where people were not aware of it. We are doing everything we can to make people aware of it and we want them to submit an application. There have been no refusals to date. We will continue to look at how we can improve the scheme.
I want to see the referendum on care passed on 8 March because a "Yes" vote will certainly strengthen my hand and the hand of every future Minister when it comes to enhancing and improving the supports for care in the future. I believe a "Yes" vote for care will mean we go forward, not back. We have achieved a lot but there is more to do.
I might have a different view on that.
With impeccable timing, Deputy Aindrias Moynihan's question is next up.
