Edward Timmins
Question:89. Deputy Edward Timmins asked the Minister for Social Protection to review the contributory pension entitlement of someone with fewer than 520 contributions; and to grant those recipients a pro rata pension. [50762/25]
Ceisteanna Eile - Other Questions
Question No. 88 taken with Written Answers.
Pension Provisions
I ask the Minister to review the contributory pension entitlement for someone with fewer than 520 contributions and look to give them a pro rata pension. This policy imposes a cliff-edge cut-off. It is very unfair. Someone with 519 contributions gets nothing but 520 would entitle them to get between €99 and €120 per week, and sometimes much more.
As the Deputy may be aware, the previous Government established the Commission on Pensions to review the State pension system and make recommendations for its future. The commission strongly supported the retention of the qualifying criterion of 520 paid contributions. In part, this is because the actuarial value of the contributory State pension is currently estimated at approximately just under €400,000, so it is reasonable to require people claiming a contributory pension to have made at least 520 paid contributions over the term of their working life to qualify for a payment. Once a person reaches the qualifying criteria of 520 paid contributions, their rate of payment is determined by their total number of contributions, paid and credited, and the applicable calculation method.
In December 2023, legislation was enacted to introduce a series of landmark reforms to the State pension system in response to the commission's other recommendations. A key measure was the introduction of a flexible pension system. This new system is about providing people with choice. People will still be able to retire at 66 and draw down their pension as they always have. Additionally, they may now choose to defer claiming their contributory state pension up to age 70 and receive an actuarially based increase in their weekly payment rate.
People can decide for themselves what best suits their needs and circumstances. For example, a person who reaches age 66 who does not have sufficient contributions to qualify for a contributory State pension may be able to use this period to continue to work to establish entitlement or increase their level of payment. Where a person does not satisfy the conditions to qualify for the contributory pension or qualifies for less than the maximum rate, they may instead qualify for the means-tested non-contributory pension with a maximum payment equivalent to over 96% of the contributory rate.
I also want to address the fact that the home caring scheme does not allow for any additional credits. This is unfair as a mother often gives up work in order to care for her children and is given no increased credits for this time. Can this be revisited as it penalises a parent who makes the decision to give up work, a decision which actually saves the State money?
One of the major reform measures was the enhanced State pension provision for those who have been caring for incapacitated dependents for 20 years or more.
It is being done by attributing the equivalent of paid contributions to such long-term carers to cover gaps in their contribution records for the period in which they were caring for an incapacitated dependant. The measure is available to those who reach State pension age from 1 January 2024 and to those currently over the pension age.
In September 2023, we launched an online system for people to register for long-term caring contributions. We continue to work with people on this. This is the first time that a pension provision has been made for carers. This discussion follows that with Deputy O'Shea just now, on supporting carers and giving them the backup they need in their older years.
I want to address the homemaker's scheme, which is often confused with the home carer's scheme. This only applies from 6 April 1994. Again, this date is an arbitrary cliff edge. It discriminates against people who cared for children who were 12 years of age before that date. It is completely unfair and illogical. It should apply to all caring for children and not only those cared for after 6 April 1994. Similarly, the home caring periods are only applicable from 6 April 1994. Will the Minister look at including all years prior to 6 April 1994?
We have a range of supports available. I am happy to consider the proposal made by Deputy Timmins, but we must also ensure the State pension system is sustainable. The demographics of our country are changing very much as we speak. At present, we have four workers for every person over the age of 66. By the time we get to 2050, however, which is not that far away, this figure will be down to two. In that context, we will have to make decisions that ensure the long-term sustainability of our pension system in order that it will continue to support those who need it in the years to come, especially as those demographic changes happen. We have increased PRSI rates with regard to employees, employers and the self-employed across the Social Insurance Fund in order to sustain it. With that in mind, I will ask the officials to look at this proposal and come back to Deputy Timmins.
Many of these people will have passed away by 2050.
Pension Provisions
Grace Boland
Question:90. Deputy Grace Boland asked the Minister for Social Protection his plans to develop a pension solution for foster carers, in recognition of the enormous contribution they make to vulnerable children in our society, as committed to in the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50587/25]
What are the Minister's plans to develop a pension solution for foster carers in recognition of the enormous contribution they make to vulnerable children in our society, as committed to in the programme for Government?
The Government acknowledges the very important role that foster carers play. We remain fully committed to supporting them. The contributory State pension system already provides a range of measures to recognise caring periods outside of paid employment, such as PRSI credits, homemaking disregards and home caring periods, to recognise caring periods of up to 20 years outside of paid employment in the calculation of our payment rate. Foster carers are entitled to benefit from these measures on the same basis as other carers and parents. If they are not in receipt of child benefit they can still qualify for the homemaker's scheme or home caring periods, provided the caring periods are confirmed by Tusla.
Since January 2024 long-term carer's contributions can be awarded to a person who has cared for an incapacitated person for a period of 20 years or more. These contributions are treated in the same way as paid contributions for contributory State pension entitlement and can be used to fill any gap in a person's contribution record, including satisfying the minimum 520 contributions required for eligibility. Foster carers who have cared for an incapacitated dependent or dependents for more than 20 years also benefit from this provision.
These measures assist foster carers to access the State pension system in the same way as biological or adoptive parents, while ensuring the system remains sustainable. Any future change to the State pension system will have been considered in the overall policy and budgetary context, including, as we have just discussed, the sustainability of the Social Insurance Fund.
I thank the Minister for his response. I am especially conscious of the words in the programme for Government whereby we will seek to examine the pension provision for foster carers to acknowledge their long-term commitment and ensure valued support after years of fostering. I am very conscious that 4,000 foster carers in Ireland provide a service which, as with services provided by other people in this area, benefits the State and makes a difference to individual lives. They help people not only during the time they are with them but also for the rest of their lives. They give them a stable environment which they may not have had otherwise. Deputy Timmins outlined the gender balance issue because most typically it is women who look after children in these situations. We want to ensure they are looked after and that there is fairness and equity in the scheme in this way. As I have said, we have a plan to do it. I thank the Minister for his comment. I hope it is something we can look into in future.
As Deputy Neville knows, there is a commitment in the programme for Government to look at the long-term pension provision for foster carers. The Department is engaging with the Department of Children, Disability and Equality, which has line responsibility and operational management for foster caring, and with Tusla. We will engage with other stakeholders as necessary in terms of looking at the commitment to see how we can operationalise it.
I absolutely assure Deputy Neville that within the Department we are very aware of the very important work of foster carers. This is why this year I expanded the back to school clothing and footwear allowance to specifically include foster parents, who had been directly excluded from the scheme until then. I will continue to work in the Department to ensure we have the best supports available. I plan to have a meeting with Foster Care Ireland in the coming weeks.
I thank the Minister for his very genuine response and for his commitment. As he outlined, he is very aware of the contribution that foster carers make. He has demonstrated his knowledge on the topic and his willingness to engage further in the coming weeks and during his term as Minister. It is something we will continue to work on together and I will follow up on it. I thank the Minister for answering the question so clearly and with a depth of knowledge and understanding of the issue.
School Meals Programme
Joe Neville
Question:91. Deputy Joe Neville asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of schools enrolled in the school meals scheme in 2025; the percentage of waste analysis has been done in these schools; and the nature of the reporting mechanism. [50836/25]
How many schools are enrolled in the school meals scheme? Has an analysis been done of the waste in schools? Will the Minister outline the nature of any reporting mechanism in this regard?
As we discussed earlier, the objective of the school meals programme is to provide regular nutritious food to children to support them in taking full advantage of the education provided to them. The programme is an important component of policies to encourage school attendance and extra educational achievement. In budget 2025, it was announced that the hot school meals scheme would be extended to all remaining primary schools in 2025. By the end of this year, approximately 3,700 schools and 682,000 children will be eligible for the school meals programme.
Under the school meals programme, the primary relationship is between the school and the supplier. The Department provides the funding for the meals directly to each school. It is the responsibility of a school board to administer the programme in its school building, including handling the procurement process in accordance with the rules and guidelines set out by the schools procurement unit of the Department of Education and Youth.
Wherever food is eaten, there will always be the challenge of waste and packaging. Prior to the school meals programme it may have been sandwiches wrapped in cellophane or plastic water and fruit juice bottles sometimes left unopened and uneaten at the end of a school bag. Under the school meals programme this issue is perhaps more evident than before. Therefore, it is clear, as stipulated by the schools procurement unit, that the school meal supplier is responsible for operating policies that progressively address environmental considerations, including waste and packaging. In addition, under tender documentation requirements, the supplier shall make all reasonable efforts to minimise adverse environmental impact in the methods of service delivery and in the materials used. We do not collect, and we do not have access to, the details of the wastage from school meals. This is managed at school level in accordance with the relevant contract. However, I have recently made funding available to the Department of Health to employ a dietitian, who will be based in that Department, to examine the nutritional content of school meals and to look at the waste issues.
It is clear from feedback from colleagues and schools that waste is an issue we need to look at.
I thank the Minister for his response. I welcome the work that has been going into this and the efforts that this Government and the previous Government have made in putting forward the hot meals programme. Ultimately, it is there to provide meals to people who might not be in a situation to get them otherwise. This is definitely something we need to encourage. It is a great idea but we do need to monitor waste. In fairness, the Minister's team is working on that. As I have said, the Minister is providing the budget for 682,000 students in 3,700 schools. That is a huge effort and a huge contribution from the State to those children's daily lives. However, as I have said, it is important that we get feedback from the schools that we can analyse to help improve the process they are engaged in.
On a related note, in the context of waste within the hot school meals programme, I understand the relationship is between the school and the provider but the Minister's Department issues guidelines and those guidelines refer to things like portion size and calories. Will the Minister issue some guidelines regarding age appropriateness? A child of four does not eat the same portion size as a child of 12. They just do not. If there are to be guidelines and guidance issued in relation to waste, this would be very appropriate to include because, at the one end, you have a child who is not getting enough and, at the other end, you have a child who is getting too much. You cannot ask them to meet up and swap over so that kind of guidance needs to be issued. If the Minister is going to look at waste and get feedback from schools, perhaps he would consider asking that question as well. He might also give guidance to the providers regarding right-sizing the portion sizes.
One issue that pertains to this was brought to my attention last week. It pertains to a number of schools in the Connemara region. Unfortunately, due to the upgrading of guidelines over the summer preventing food from being heated or cooked on site, a number of operators are no longer providing a service to these schools, which has resulted in the loss of the service for the children and families there. The schools are trying to source a new provider but they are having difficulty in doing so. The alteration of the guidelines has caused one or two concerns we need to look at.
Deputy O'Reilly is spot-on regarding waste. I get that feedback all the time. A five-year-old should not be getting the same portion as a 14-year-old. That is something I am going to engage with the dietitian on. The procurement of school meals is done through the Department of education. We have a school meals working group and I have asked it to look at the whole area of waste.
The second issue relating to waste is around menu choices. The challenge is always to get children to eat healthily. We are trying to ensure that, in the analysis we are doing of the diet and nutrition side, the food will still be attractive and tasty for children to eat to ensure they get the nutrition.
To respond to Deputy Connolly, we discussed earlier the issue of a particular group of suppliers withdrawing services. There has been no major change to the procurement guidelines for existing schools. The procurement guidelines have been updated for new schools. The guidelines are based on food safety, food health and ensuring that a situation does not arise that could be challenged for whatever reason. They also ensure that responsibility for the food is not on the school, but on the food provider.
Departmental Schemes
John Connolly
Question:92. Deputy John Connolly asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of active participants in the fish assist scheme in each county, in tabular form; to consider an increase in the rate of payment under the fish assist scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50828/25]
What is the number of participants in the fish assist scheme? How many are there per county? Could we get that information? In light of budget 2026, will the Minister look at the scheme to see if it could be made more attractive for more participants?
My Department provides the fish assist support, which is available to self-employed fishers on a low income under the means-tested jobseeker's allowance scheme. It is based on the conditions and rate of payment under the farm assist scheme.
The fish assist scheme provides favourable treatment to self-employed fishers compared with other self-employed workers through additional income disregards and entitlement to secondary benefits. For example, under the jobseeker's allowance, self-employed income is assessed at 100%. This is reduced to 70% under the fish assist and farm assist schemes. Child disregards also apply that do not exist for jobseeker's allowance.
My Department also has responsibility for the rural social scheme, which provides income support for those engaged in farming and fishing who have an entitlement to specified social welfare payments. Participants work 19.5 hours per week providing services that benefit rural communities and receive a top-up on their social welfare payment.
Fish assist is a demand-led scheme. There are currently 43 people in receipt of fish assist. These are based in counties Donegal, Galway, Mayo, Sligo, Kerry, Cork, Waterford and Wexford. I will provide the Deputy with a table showing the breakdown per county. He will be interested to know that, of that total of 43, there are nine recipients of fish assist in Galway. Consideration and decisions in relation to any social protection rates as part of budget 2026 will be taken in the context of the overall funding available. The negotiations continue.
I thank the Minister. It is quite a low number of participants considering we are an island nation. Fishing has been a traditional means of earning a living and sustaining some vibrancy in coastal communities in this country for centuries. The number the Minister has given us as regards people availing of this scheme is an indicator of the number of people involved in the industry in general. That is a matter for another debate on another occasion.
One of the things we could look at in trying to ensure people continue in this trade and craft is the other small marine-based trades and industries that could avail of fish assist or for which a similar scheme could be introduced. I think particularly of seaweed harvesting. One of the things about the fish assist scheme that prevents people from also participating in seaweed harvesting is that any income above £1,000, that is, €1,270, gained from seaweed harvesting eliminates the opportunity to avail of the fish assist scheme.
I was surprised at the low numbers on the scheme myself. I have asked my officials to interrogate those numbers and to make sure there is awareness of the fish assist scheme in the communities where fishers are based. We will work on such an awareness programme. I will revert to the Deputy with regard to the provisions on seaweed, which he has discussed with me previously. We have a range of supports in place. In addition to fish assist, there is the rural social scheme, which I have mentioned, and other provisions. I wish to acknowledge that. I will absolutely work with the Deputy on promoting the fish assist scheme and, indeed, the farm assist scheme to ensure those who may be entitled to the payment are fully aware that these schemes are open to them.
I again ask the Minister to look at that low threshold for seaweed harvesters. The income threshold for seaweed harvesters who might wish to also participate in the fish assist scheme is very low. It has not changed since the mid-nineties. It is €1,270. Taking inflation over the years into account, we could look at increasing that figure. The equivalent figure today might be €6,000 or €7,000. That would not be a regressive step at all but quite a positive one. Failing that, perhaps we could look at some other type of scheme akin to the fish assist scheme for seaweed harvesters that would be purely for their own industry and trade.
We will certainly engage with the Deputy on that. One of the difficulties in relation to seaweed harvesting is that it continues to be a very informal part of the economy meaning it is very difficult to get statistics and measurements we can stand over as regards those participating in it and earning from it, supply chains and so on. We have looked at it. I have followed up with my officials based on the Deputy's previous representations. We will continue to do so to see what is the best possible support for communities involved in fishing and marine activities.
Public Sector Staff
Peadar Tóibín
Question:93. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Social Protection if his attention has been drawn to the classification of employees of State and semi-State bodies (details supplied). [39838/25]
I am frustrated by the Minister's answer on the pensioners who have worked in An Post for decades who are being given a reduced pension. It is an incredibly serious issue. It determines the standard of living these pensioners have.
Given the Minister's previous answer on this matter, it seems like he is outsourcing a decision to the High Court. It is the responsibility of the Government to set out the rights of pensioners clearly. It is wrong for the Government to come in here and tell the House that the High Court will sort out this particular misclassification. Will the Government take responsibility for this classification problem?
Not for the first time, the Deputy has inaccurately represented what I have said. I did not say that we are outsourcing this to the High Court or we are leaving it to the High Court to sort this out. I said it is not my role to get involved in a case that is before the High Court. Let me be very clear on that. I did not outsource it to anybody. Were I to get involved in a case before the court, the Deputy would probably be one of the first to have a go for getting involved.
On the question, the insurability of public service employees, including local or other public authority workers, is provided for in the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 and SI 312 of 1996. Most public servants employed before 6 April 1995 were classified as modified rate class B or class D social insurance contributors. Public servants recruited on or after 6 April 1995 are liable for the standard rate class A of PRSI. Modified rate contributors pay a lower rate of PRSI, but do not have the entitlement to some benefits, including the State pension, illness benefits and the treatment benefit scheme.
In some cases, people employed in the public service before April 1995 were already classified at class A for social insurance purposes. They are mainly people employed in what are known as unestablished positions. Some of these staff who were subsequently appointed after April 1995 to an established position have sought to be reclassified at the modified rate. This is mainly because they believe it will help to grant them access to an employer's occupational pension scheme. In some cases, there is a belief that, even if they are reclassified to a modified rate, they can retain access to class A benefits. This is not the case. In addition, access to employer occupational pension schemes is governed by their own scheme rules. Social insurance classification is not necessarily a feature of these rules. Having said that, it is the case that in certain circumstances public servants-----
I thank the Minister.
There is currently a case before the High Court. The Minister is in charge of the law at the moment. He quoted the Act determining the situation. There is confusion about the Act. It is obviously not doing what it is meant to do in clearly delineating the different responsibilities people have under the different classes. That is a problem.
The Minister is handing over the decision-making process to the court. He could change the law to clear up the current position. An Post is also a semi-State organisation and operates under the Government's policy and law. Scope is a State agency. It operates under the Government's policy and law. It is the Government's pension law in question that is problematic. I have no doubt that this will last for years; these men and women will find themselves before the High Court in two, three or four years' time. Some will have to pay costs, which can be extremely high, having taken cases against a semi-State organisation.
We discussed this earlier. The Deputy's concern is with An Post. We do not have any information, and I have gone through the reasons why we in the Department do not possess the information the Deputy is seeking.
On Scope, I will engage with it on its decision-making in this space and provide the Deputy with further information on that. It is not just a question of an easy change in the law. Our pension law is incredibly complex. We have already had discussions on the sustainability of the pension system. I do not want anyone to lose out. I do not want any pensioner or anybody who will be entitled to be a pensioner to lose out, but the laws are complex and are not as simple as the Deputy makes them out to be. Changing the law is even less simple than the Deputy makes it out to be.
If this was an isolated incident, there would be some excuse for it. The truth of the matter is that we know there are dozens, potentially hundreds, of people who will be affected by this.
Regarding An Post, a group of retired workers had to hold a national day of action in Dublin before the Dáil broke for its summer recess to protest the unfair pension cap. It was put in place due to the financial crisis in 2008. I understand, admit and accept this is a separate case to the case we have discussed, but in this situation pensioners have had their pensions significantly reduced because of an emergency action taken after the 2008 crisis. Other emergency restrictions imposed on public servants were removed many years ago, yet these men and women, aged in their 70s and 80s, are suffering from financial hardship because of the cap. I ask the Minister to look into that particular issue.
As I said, I do not want anybody to lose out or not get the pension to which he or she is entitled. The details provided in the Deputy's question today are not as detailed as those provided previously. I will ask my officials to engage with the Deputy's office later today in order to give him the information we have and can share with him. I again make the point that we do not have very detailed information on employers and employer categorisation.
Social Welfare Eligibility
Willie O'Dea
Question:94. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection his plans to reform the disability allowance payment and remove anomalies in the current means test for the payment. [50675/25]
I wish to ask the Minister about the commitment in the programme for Government to examine the anomalies in the means test for disability payments. Have we progressed that work?
Supporting disabled people is a key priority for me and for the Government. That is why the programme for Government contains a range of measures to support disabled people. One of these commitments was the publication of a new disability strategy. I am very pleased that we recently published the national human rights strategy for disabled people. This strategy sets out a whole-of-government approach to disability, with its focus on ensuring the full participation of disabled people in Irish society.
Disability allowance is my Department's primary disability-related social assistance scheme. The payment is subject to a medical assessment, a means test and a habitual residency requirement. The means test takes account of the income a person or couple has in terms of cash, property other than the family home and capital. Applying a means test ensures that the recipient has an income need and that scarce resources are targeted to those with the greatest need. This approach supports an economically sustainable and socially equitable allocation of scarce resources.
Disability allowance has one of the highest capital disregards operated by my Department. A recipient can have up to €50,000 in savings and still receive the full rate of payment, compared to €20,000 for most other social welfare payments. Over the last four budgets, the Government has progressively improved payment rates and income disregards for disabled people. The weekly payment rates for disability allowance have increased by €41 per week in that time. The earnings disregard has increased by almost 38% since budget 2021, from €120 to €165. This enables those in receipt of disability allowance to earn more without having a negative impact on their payment. It means that people can earn up to €165 per week and keep their payment in full and can earn up to €517.60 per week and keep a portion of their payment.
We know that disabled people are at a much higher risk of poverty, have lower employment rates and a higher cost of living and we want to address that. The national human rights strategy has tasked my Department with leading a strategic focus network, including people with disabilities and their advocates, on the cost of disability. The work of this network, which I have asked my officials to expedite, will inform my approach to the reform of disability payments.
I understand the Department is currently reviewing means testing across all of our schemes. Has that job of work progressed? When might we expect its completion? I refer in particular to the means test for the disability allowance. One issue is that a slight increase in household income can lead to a substantial decrease in the allowance paid to disabled members of society. That is one of the major anomalies the review of the means test should examine.
As the Deputy said, we are examining the whole area of means testing. It is important that our supports are targeted and go to those who need them most in terms of addressing people in poverty. The work is ongoing on that, in particular as regards the disability allowance.
We have been tasked within the human rights strategy on disability to look at this issue. We have set up a network to examine it. Most importantly, however, we will be engaging with people with disabilities and their advocates in this space with a view to informing me and the Government about the best way to proceed and ensure, first, that whatever changes we make will not disadvantage those on the payment currently and, second, ensure the payment is as relevant and effective as possible to those receiving it as their main income every week.
The programme for Government also makes a commitment to introduce a permanent annual cost-of-disability support payment, with a view to incrementally increasing it over the lifetime of the Government's term. Is this part of the current considerations in terms of the review of the disability payment?
Absolutely, it is. Under the national human rights strategy for disabled people, one of our jobs is to lead a strategic focus network from within the Department. The network will include people with disabilities and their advocates. I have asked the officials to expedite the establishment of that group, and one of the areas we will be looking at is the cost of disability payment. I intend to bring a proposal to the Government in the first half of 2026 concerning this payment. In the meantime, I am engaging with the Minister, Deputy Chambers, and the Department of public expenditure around continuing to give support to disabled people in budget 2026 in terms of a recognition of the substantially higher costs that they face daily and weekly.
We had an engagement earlier with Deputy Quaide around the Indecon report and the ESRI report and the work of the network will involve going through those figures and ensuring we have full understanding within the Department and the Government of the full cost of disability, not just for those who have a disability, but also for their families and their communities.
Social Welfare Schemes
Naoise Ó Muirí
Question:95. Deputy Naoise Ó Muirí asked the Minister for Social Protection the cost of reducing the minimum required hours under the wage subsidy scheme from 21 hours to 15 hours in April 2024; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50438/25]
My question concerns supporting people with a disability to find substantial, sustainable and meaningful employment and implementing the recommendations of the review of the wage subsidy scheme. I would like to know the cost of reducing the minimum required hours under the wage subsidy scheme from 21 to 15 hours in April 2024 and if the Minister will make a statement on the matter.
The wage subsidy scheme is a key disability employment support provided by my Department. It aims to encourage employers to offer substantial and sustainable employment to disabled people through a subsidy. As the Deputy knows, the employee must work at least 15 hours per week for the employer to qualify for the scheme. The subsidy is payable for a maximum of 39 hours per week. The base subsidy rate is €6.30 per hour, which increases to €9.45 per hour for employers with 23 or more disabled employees. An employer who employs 25 or more employees on the wage subsidy scheme may receive a grant of €30,000 towards the cost of employing an employment assistance officer.
Last year, my Department published a review of the wage subsidy scheme. In April 2024, based on the findings of that review, the minimum required hours for the scheme were reduced from 21 hours per week to 15 hours per week. This change sought to make the scheme more accessible and flexible to disabled people. However, it is also intended to ensure that the wage subsidy scheme maintains a key aim of encouraging employers to provide substantial and meaningful work to disabled people. The cost of the reduction in the hours requirement is estimated at approximately €889,000. This represents the cost of paying the subsidy in respect of employees whose weekly contracted hours are from 15 to 20 hours, inclusive. Prior to the change, employers would not have been eligible for the subsidy in respect of those employees.
The programme for Government recognised that people with a disability face significant additional costs in their daily lives and seeks to improve supports and ensure the welfare system is progressive and empowers people to live full and independent lives. It is welcome to see that the stakeholder review was taken on board by the Department. As the Minister mentioned, the cost of €889,000 associated with this change is relatively minor but it has a major impact. It means that 257 people with a disability or health condition who were not covered previously have benefited from the many social, economic and health benefits that come with sustainable and meaningful employment. We really need to continue to support them. They have valuable skills and strengths to contribute to the workplace and they may want the opportunity to do so. It should be a priority for the Government to remove any barriers that still stand in their way. Are there any plans to implement the other recommendations in the review or how does the Minister see them being progressed?
We are working through all the recommendations and the review with a view to implementing them. One of the key recommendations was to ensure we can keep the minimum required hours and the subsidy under more regular review than was done previously. This is something we are absolutely going to make sure happens. We are also working with our colleagues in Intreo to ensure services and employment opportunities are available to people with disabilities. EmployAbility provides a professional job-matching service and ongoing support, advice and information on employment supports for people with a disability. It also acts as a recruitment advice service for employers and provides the business community with access to a pool of potential employees. In 2023, we also established the WorkAbility programme. This is cofinanced with the EU employment, inclusion, skills and training, EIST, programme to support people with disabilities into employment through 57 local, regional and national organisations. In 2024, more than 1,400 people with disabilities engaged with these projects.
I thank the Minister. I think we still have a way to go here in terms of making progress. I welcome the ongoing review of the subsidy itself and the entry points and levels. According to the Disability Federation of Ireland, just over 30% of people with disabilities here are in employment. The EU average is around 50%, so we need to focus on building skills. I also suggest we need to promote the scheme. I think one element of the feedback from a year or two ago was that employers were basically unaware of the scheme and what it could do for them. Promotion of the scheme, therefore, is very important. Nationwide, we can use the local authorities and the various groups to promote the scheme and to get more people participating in the scheme.
Aontaím leis an Teachta go gcaithfimid an obair ag chur dínn agus an focal a chur amach. We did that this year through the summer after we relaunched the wage subsidy. We promoted it considerably and used targeted promotion to employers to encourage them to take on persons with disabilities and look at the opportunities that would bring to their businesses. In relation to the partial capacity scheme and the wage subsidy scheme, we have allocated an additional €3.7 million. We have also expanded the wage subsidy scheme to the community and voluntary sector and to the commercial State-sponsored sector to open up opportunities possibly on a more local basis than is currently the case.
In July 2024, we launched the new work and access scheme, which offers seven supports to improve access in workplaces for those with a disability. Funding is available for communications support, work equipment, workplace adaptation and training. Jobseekers, employees, self-employed people and employers may apply for those supports. We are very conscious of the need to continue to promote the schemes and this is something I want to focus on through next year.
Social Welfare Eligibility
Peter Roche
Question:96. Deputy Peter Roche asked the Minister for Social Protection if he will review the assessment criteria for social protection payments in cases where applicants and-or part-time farming applicants are not in paid employment outside the home but provide essential unpaid care and support within the household; and if he will consider allowing greater flexibility in recognising minimal or subsistence-level farming activity (details supplied), in view of concerns that rigid application of the rules is leaving some families without necessary supports; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50808/25]
Will the Minister consider reviewing the assessment criteria for social protection payments, especially in cases where applicants, including part-time farmers, are not in paid employment outside of the home but are providing unpaid care within the household? Could there be more flexibility in recognising minimal or subsistence-level farming activity, given the concerns that the current rigid rules are leaving some families without the supports they badly need?
My Department provides a number of supports for small-scale farmers in the circumstances outlined by Deputy Roche. Farm assist is the statutory income support specifically for farmers on low incomes. A person can qualify for farm assist if he or she is aged from 18 to 66, engaged in farming and meets the other statutory conditions of the scheme. The farm assist scheme is similar to the jobseeker's allowance in a number of ways, such as the retention of secondary benefits and access to activation programmes where a person may want to take up off-farm employment or is seeking educational or training opportunities.
However, the means test is more generous on farm assist. For example, under jobseeker's allowance, self-employed income is assessed at 100%; this is reduced to 70% under farm assist. Child disregards apply under farm assist which do not exist under jobseeker's allowance. In addition, account is taken of any exceptional circumstances to ensure the assessment for the scheme reflects the current situation accurately. The scheme is demand-led and there are currently just over 3,300 farmers availing of the farm assist payment.
The Government acknowledges the valuable role that family carers play and remains fully committed to supporting carers in that role, including those who care in a farm situation. This is recognised in the programme for Government. We provide a range of income supports for carers, including carer's allowance, carer's benefit, domiciliary care allowance and the annual carer's support grant. If the Deputy has specific cases that are not qualifying, I ask him to bring them to my attention and we will work to try and assist him on those.
I think all of us would have specific cases. Obviously, it would not be an avalanche by any manner of means, but we have people come to our constituency offices with those circumstances where they would be engaged full time in caring and their farm would be more of a financial burden than financially rewarding. They are doing the State a great service by providing care for their loved one.
The calculation, based on the number of acres and the numbers of livestock, sometimes prohibits them from gaining carer's allowance for their loved one. When I mentioned "rigid", that is what I am referencing. There is a perception, somehow or other, that if you have land and-or a small number of stock, the calculation is that you are doing all right and that you are outside of your means, but there needs to be greater flexibility with those instances that I am referencing.
As I said in my main response, farm assist is a flexible payment as compared to, for instance, jobseeker's allowance, and there are better supports available to those on farm assist. That flexibility is built-in, as I said. Self-employed income, under jobseeker's allowance, is assessed at 100%. Under farm assist, that is 70%. Child disregards apply under farm assist which do not apply to jobseekers.
In relation to the home carer's scheme, we are trying to ensure that carers who look after people within the home - the family carers, be that in a home or on a farm - are also given support through pension and we have introduced a scheme in recent years to ensure that is done.
The means-testing measurement is there to ensure that we target resources at those who most need them and that those resources, which are scarce, go to the areas that need them most. If there are specific cases, we will engage with the Deputy on them.
I fully accept that cases have to be assessed and the criteria are strict. The cases that I mentioned, as I said, involve only a small number of people who have come to my constituency office who would fall into that category where they are full time.
In fact, in order to come to the constituency office, they would sometimes have to get somebody to stand in and do the caring while they were absent from the house. That will tell the Minister the level of necessity there is and the requirement there would be for the Department and the Minister to be more compassionate in terms of the way we would deal with cases like that.
Social Welfare Code
Louise O'Reilly
Question:97. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Social Protection if he is aware of the fact that when custody is split between two separated or divorced co-parents, there is no mechanism by which both co-parents may each receive half of the children's allowance and the children's allowance instead universally goes to the mother regardless of circumstances; if he is aware of the financial hardship this can incur on fathers who co-parent equally; his plans to address this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50385/25]
I want it to be clear before I put this question that I understand completely why the default is that child benefit goes to the mother. I absolutely respect that. I appreciate where it comes from. However, increasingly I have people coming into my office and contacting my office here in the Dáil to say that they are co-parents, children are not cheap, they split the bills 50:50 and they have access. In some instances, there can be an informal arrangement, but that is not always possible. I wonder if the Minister has given any consideration to how this can be split in a 50:50 co-parenting situation.
I thank the Deputy for the question. As we discussed offline yesterday, it would be good to start a conversation in this space and it might be something that the social protection committee could look at.
Child benefit is a monthly payment to families with children up to the age of 16. The payment continues to be paid in respect of children until their 19th birthday where they are in full-time education or have a disability. It is currently paid in respect of almost 1.3 million children. Child benefit is paid to the person with whom the child normally resides. Where a child spends time across two households, they are considered to reside in the household where they spend the majority of the time.
Legislation does not provide for splitting the payment between both parents, even in instances where the child splits their time evenly between both households. In cases where the parents have an equal custody arrangement, the payment is traditionally awarded to the mother. There are a number of reasons that this policy position has been maintained. First, various international studies have found that, on average, when the child benefit payment is made to the mother, it results in more money spent on the child than when it is paid to the father. For example, a 2017 article published in the International Tax and Public Finance journal found that more money is spent on food when the mother is in control of child benefits compared to when it is jointly controlled. Similarly, researchers found that when the United Kingdom replaced the family allowance payment to the father with a children's allowance to the mother, it resulted in greater spending on children's clothing.
Second, Safe Ireland, which works with more than 40 specialist domestic violence member organisations across the country, has pointed out that domestic violence, which is overwhelmingly experienced by women, often includes economic abuse and that control of household income can be one of the ways in which this type of abuse manifests itself. Many would argue that directing the child benefit payment to the mother can act to mitigate the impact of this kind of abuse. Finally, in split custody arrangements, it would be challenging to split the payment proportionately on a case-by-case basis. However, this is something that we need to engage with more.
I think so. I respect the reply that the Minister has given and I do not disagree necessarily. However, there are instances increasingly where parents can demonstrate, either with a mandate from the court or, indeed, with an informal arrangement, that they split the custody, the care and, more importantly, the bills - as I said, children are not cheap - 50:50. There is an unfairness there. The reasons child benefit goes mostly to the mother are obvious. I absolutely respect those, but we need to start that conversation to encompass the fact that, increasingly, it is 50:50. The regulations state that the benefit goes to the place where the child resides mostly but when it is 50:50, the child is in both and it could equally be one or the other. We both know that children who grow up in lone-parent houses are more at risk of poverty. Therefore, there is scope for us to look at that. I will engage with the Chair of the social protection committee and I would be grateful if the Department would assist us in our work on that.
Absolutely. It is definitely worth an engagement and an analysis. My Department would be more than happy to engage in a conversation around the international experience and the international data, but also engage with the organisations in this space for their expertise on that. Certainly, the Department officials will engage. I look forward to seeing that engagement and I will work with the Deputy in relation to it.
That is a sensible suggestion and one that I will take on board. I welcome the fact that the Minister is not opposed or hostile to the notion that we can look at it. I am not sure exactly what can be done but a conversation on this would be worthwhile at committee. I will engage with the committee Chair and with the Department.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar www.oireachtas.ie.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.