Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

“Report on extending eligibility for long-term carer’s qualifying contributions

46. (1) The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas and the Joint Committee on Social Protection a report on options for extending eligibility for long-term carer’s qualifying contributions to those who spent less than 1,040 weeks providing full time care to a relevant person or qualified child.

(2) A report under subsection (1)shall consider, inter alia—

(a) options for reducing the minimum number of contribution weeks from 1,040 to—

(i) 520 weeks, and

(ii) 260 weeks, and

(b) options for removing and minimising other obstacles to eligibility for qualifying contributions for carers of any duration, including time spent in education, weekly payments received and other matters.”.

The introduction of carer credits and the recognition of years spent caring in terms of pension contributions is welcome. We, in the Civil Engagement Group, have called for this for many years. Senator Higgins, in particular, has highlighted this issue year after year in the budget. The State of Caring 2022 report noted that taking on caring responsibilities results in long-term financial hardship, with the loss of income from employment exacerbated by higher household costs. Survey results from the report also showed that more than two in three, or 68%, of carers said they find it hard to make ends meet, while carers forego income to in order to take on caring responsibilities at home, making themselves economically vulnerable in the process. They are also saving the Exchequer millions of euro in return. This sacrifice made by carers has been totally unrecognised up until now, as the years spent caring were not recognised at all in terms of pension contributions, despite the fact that their caring work saves the State so much money. Finally, this injustice is beginning to be rectified.

I commend this measure and recognise the progress that is being made. This measure is a positive first step forward. However, we need to go a little further. Our amendment seeks to address concerns with the policy as currently drafted. It seems that many will still be left out by the measures that are proposed. Our amendment seeks a report on reducing the minimum number of required contributions and on removing obstacles to qualifying for the contributory pension. The minimum requirement of 1,040 weeks, or 20 years, of caring contributions is prohibitively high in many cases, and will mean that countless carers, who have spent three, five or ten years caring, will be excluded. These carers may have worked in employment for 30 years, and may have given up employment to take on a full-time caring responsibility for another ten years. Will these people simply fall through the cracks as they will not have sufficient employment or care contributions to qualify for the contributory pension? It does not seem fair if that is the case. The stated purpose of the policy is to cover gaps in the contribution record for carers. What if the gap is only ten years, and not 20? Why should these people be excluded from the contributory pension? Can the Minister clarify whether some sort of hybrid model will be adopted, whereby a combination of employment and carer contributions of any number of years can be used to qualify for the contributory pension, and if there is any scope for flexibility in the minimum contribution weeks?

Amendment No. 14, on a report on expanding recognition of long-term carer’s qualifying contributions, seeks a report on the potential to expand recognition of care contributions beyond pensions to other social protection entitlements. It is important to make clear that the legislation introduces long-term carer contributions only in respect of pensions, which means that any other social protection benefits which require PRSI contributions will not be accessible on the basis of care contributions. That means that the work of carers will not be fully recognised in its entirety. I will use the simple example of treatment benefit and the free annual dental check-up which we can get on the basis of our PRSI contributions, and which so many of us avail of every year. It would be wonderful if we introduced a model whereby care contributions were expanded to function like standard employment contributions, such that carers could also get contributions such as those that would fall under treatment benefits. I commend the very positive step forward being taken in terms of recognising care via the long-term carers contributions. It is something that we have called for for a long time. It would be wonderful to see the policy expanded even further, so that care contributions were captured elsewhere.