Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 23 October 2019
43. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if her attention has been drawn to the fact that by increasing the hours carers can work outside the home and not increasing the income disregard at the same time, carers who work those additional hours may see a reduction in their carer’s allowance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43655/19]
Amharc ar fhreagra44. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection her plans to increase the income disregard means test for carer’s allowance, which has not changed for 11 years further to her decision in budget 2020 to increase the number of hours that a family carer can work to 18.5 hours; the number of carers projected to have their allowance reduced in 2020 and 2021, respectively, if they work more hours; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43851/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraPriority Questions Nos. 43 and 44 are grouped. Deputy Brady is to introduce.
With the increase in hours that carers can work outside the home, I ask whether the Minister's attention been drawn yet to a serious anomaly or issue that has arisen due to not increasing the earnings disregard.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 43 and 44 together.
Have I not an opportunity to introduce my question?
It is not in my gift. It is the Minister's office. The Minister has grouped the questions and should go ahead.
I have a right to give my introduction.
I will be clear. For a start, the Chair has no role in the grouping of questions. Standing Order 41(2) states, "Where Questions nominated for priority are grouped for reply, the total times allowed for the group and for the initial Ministerial reply shall be the aggregates of the times which would be allowed for the individual Questions."
Could I confirm that this gives the Deputy an opportunity to respond to my reply?
Absolutely.
Is that okay with the Deputy?
There is only one introduction - I made it clear - and both Deputies will get due time in the same way.
I have to wait until the Minister replies.
In budget 2020, I announced that recipients of carer's payments would be allowed to increase the number of hours they can work, study or attend a training course, outside the home, from 15 to 18.5 hours per week.
Over 1,200 additional family carers are expected to qualify for payment as a result of this change at an estimated cost of €11.6 million. Also, any carer currently working less than 18.5 hours per week can avail of the additional hours.
I prioritised this measure in direct response to the carers I have met over the past number of years who have told me that they found the current number of 15 hours to be too restrictive. An increase to 18.5 hours will accommodate increased participation by carers in work or training to strengthen their connection with the labour force, while also serving the additional purpose of reducing the social alienation that we so often hear is experienced by many carers.
There have been calls to increase the disregard for carer's allowance from carers groups. In deliberating measures for budget 2020, I included an examination of the disregard for carer's allowance. In its pre-budget submission, Family Carers Ireland looked for an increase in the disregard for carer's allowance of €117.50 for a single person and €235 for a couple per week. My Department costed this proposal using the ESRI simulating welfare and income tax changes, SWITCH, model. Allowing for income tax and working family payment offsets, net expenditure is estimated to be more than €55 million per year.
Changes to schemes are considered in an overall budgetary and policy context and from an evidence based perspective. Some 92% of the current recipients of carer's allowance have no means or means of less than €7.60 per week and would not benefit by an increase in the disregard no matter how big. The overwhelming majority of carers can, therefore, benefit from the change in the working hours threshold.
The existing income disregard and means test for carer's allowance is also one of the most generous within the social welfare system, not only in Ireland but across the European Union, with the amount of weekly earnings disregarded at €332.50 for a single person and €665 for a couple. At 18.5 hours work per week, this amounts to €36 per hour for a person in a two-person household and €18 per hour in a single-person household. This indicates that there is significant scope for carers to increase their working hours without impacting their payment. In fact, only 0.1% of current carer's allowance recipients have means of between €250 and €300 per week and it is highly unlikely that any of them will have their payment reduced as a result of choosing to work additional hours.
Carers who would benefit from an increased disregard would be in higher income households. Given the need to target available resources fairly and equitably to those in most need, allowing an increase in the number of hours was the best use of the limited resources available to the Department in the budget. In this context, I have no plans to change the means test conditions for carer's allowance at this point.
In my question, I stated it was an anomaly. Clearly, it was not. This was a premeditated move and the Minister touched on that. The Minister did this in the full knowledge of the impact it would have.
There was a protest by carers outside the gates here last week. I spoke to a number of them and I have spoken to many since the budget. I disagree with the Minister when she states that this will have an impact on very few, given the evidence I have and the evidence the carers are giving.
The carers welcome the increase in hours that they can work outside the home to 18.5 hours but it was not to be done in isolation. In their submission to and engagement with the Minister, the carers had said that the increase in hours on its own would not be sufficient and there needed to be an increase in the earnings disregard. The Minister disregarded what they said and the impact will be significant. It will not impact on 0.1%, as the Minister referenced in her reply. The evidence from carers shows that this will have a real impact and be counterproductive. It will mean that this is a token measure and it will restrict them to doing 15 hours, as they had done previously.
I have spent my political life advocating for and highlighting the carers' plight.
I welcome the increase from 15 hours to 18.5 hours. It is long overdue. It has been called for. It has not changed since 2006.
The Minister cannot disguise the fact that there has been no increase in the income disregard for the carer's allowance to match. The Minister has, in effect, created a potential poverty trap. If they work those extra hours, is the Minister telling me that their carer's allowance will not be reduced proportionately?
Only one carer in four receives the allowance due to the means test. The Minister has a good system but 81,000 out of 355,000 is less than one in four. That is the point. It is closer to one in five.
This is a well-intentioned policy objective which the Minister has achieved but if the Minister does not follow through, she will defeat the purpose for which she brought it in. The Minister should review that.
Let the Minister not mind the SWITCH model. That makes lots of errors.
I am not sure why the Deputy called it an anomaly given that it was part of the carers' benefit system, which is enshrined in legislation. It was a decision made when we sat down with a finite amount and we had to decide who we needed to best look after. We had to see how thinly we could spread the money to reach the most people in the current economy. When I considered increasing the hours while also increasing the disregard, the amount that it would cost and the number who would have benefited did not warrant the €73 million additional cost of an increase in disregards.
I do not pluck statistics or numbers from the sky. My figures are based on the carers currently in payment from the Department. Some 86% of those currently in receipt of carer's allowance have little or no means and an increase in the disregard would have zero effect. Had we increased the disregard, it would have had an impact on 0.1% of those currently in receipt of the allowance. I have to consider the €73 million and all the choices we had to make regarding lone parents, qualified children living in poverty and so on. It was a political decision at budget time but I would not classify it as premeditated in the sense meant by Deputy Brady, although we all get the gist.
I agree with Deputy Penrose that the Carers Association is acting on behalf of all our carers. He is correct that one in four carers is receiving payments here so there are a hell of a lot of people who do a lot of loving and caring out of love and respect for those for whom they care. I appreciate that. They appreciate the increase in hours because they have asked this of many Governments. It is 11 years since any changes were introduced by way of the increased hours that people may study or work. I am happy to have been able to do that. However, I was unable to increase the €73 million as I have outlined.
I thank the Minister.
I ask the Acting Chairman to indulge me briefly. I believe that we need to have a proper conversation about care in this country. No one can ignore it for much longer given we will have far more carers in future than ever. Collectively, we recognise that the State needs to change the way it works, supports and cares for our carers. That is why Ms Catherine Day is a very welcome appointment to the Citizens' Assembly.
The Minister will not be coming back in on this question.
I have asked to ensure that the Carers Association is front and centre to any new Citizens' Assembly and, collectively, we should all buy into whatever recommendations emerge and the changes required to care for carers.
We have two minutes left on this question. I call Deputy Brady and then Deputy Penrose.
I agree that proper conversations are necessary. There is also an urgent need to review the means threshold for carer's allowance. It must be reviewed and I ask the Minister and Department to undertake that immediately. It is far too restrictive. Carers must often give up work to allow themselves to give care. The Minister said that she does not make up numbers but she gave two different figures for increasing the earnings disregard. In her first contribution, she said it would cost €55 million and, in her second, she said it would be €73 million.
It is the net family working payment and income tax.
Can we have clarity on that? There is an opportunity to address this. The social welfare Bill is coming up and if the Minister does not try to fix this, myself and others will table amendments to rectify this and ensure that there will not be winners and losers. "Winners and losers" is a phrase used all the time by the Minister and her Department. There should not be winners and losers when it comes to carers.
It is 50 years since I first advocated for the abolition of the means test for carer's allowance. It would be administratively simple. Millionaires will look after people without claiming it but it will suit people who are only €10 over the limit and all that nonsense. There is something wrong. Some 116,000 people are eligible for the carer's support grant. Only 81,000 are in receipt of the carer's allowance. That means 35,000 are only tipping around the margins. They must be brought into the carer's allowance scheme immediately. We have to tackle this once and for all. To be fair, the Minister is correct that we have had this on the cheap and we have collectively been skinflints. We have abused carers and given them 90 cent an hour. There is talk of a minimum wage. We have abused them. Let us be honest because most of them work 15 hours a day, 105 hours a week. They are being given 18.5 hours to do a bit of paid work, effectively to qualify them for pensions down the road or to get an education qualification. That is what this is about.
We have had their care on the cheap and abused them. It is time to stop the abuse. I think the Minister recognises that better than anyone.
The time has run out on this question. I call Deputy Curran on Question No. 45.
