Mr. Tim Duggan:

The point is taken, and we will certainly feed that in.

Free travel is universally available from 66 and that is not going to change at all. The other payments are secondary payments related to the primary payment and, therefore, they will follow that. If somebody does defer, then they are deferring the secondary payment as well.

The long-term carer’s credit is not limited to caring for one individual but to as many individuals as necessary, and it is not limited to a contiguous period of time, so it can be broken periods of time. It is the total that is the important number, not when they happen. I can confirm what the Chair has said.

Reference was made to the provision to retrospectively apply the provisions to 1 January in the event that the legislation is not enacted by 1 January. Both the Department and the Minister would want to facilitate that, but we would have to be legally advised on how permissible it was and whether it was permissible for every single element that is within the proposed legislation. We are positively disposed to that, if the legislation is not enacted, but it is dependent on how permissible it is. We will have that assessed.

With regard to credits for people who avail of contingency payments over the age of 66 where a person continues working and then loses their job or gets ill and claims illness benefit, and so on, the proposal in the legislation is that credits would not apply in those instances. The State pension age is not changing. It is 66. Therefore, from the age of 66, nothing changes. Somebody can claim either of the State pensions at the age of 66 and nothing changes in that respect. If somebody chooses to work beyond 66 and defers drawing down their State pension, that is different from working before 66, and they are in deferral rather than not entitled. Before 66, they were not entitled to draw down a State pension. From the age of 66, they have chosen not to draw it down. They can change that decision anytime they like. That is the first point.

The second point is that people are being given access to short-term schemes like jobseeker’s payments and illness benefit to facilitate them continuing to work on, but given they can be on illness benefit for two years, that means they could enhance their record considerably by not working over the age of 66. On balance, it is felt that while the facility should be provided to continue working, and while the facility should be provided to allow people to claim short-term payments in the event of some contingency arising, to allow them to enhance their record considerably and to not only get an increased rate of payment but also an enhanced rate of payment would be a step too far. Consequently, credits are not being facilitated over the age of 66 in those instances.

With regard to foster carers, again, there is a danger of some conflation in this regard. Foster carers are treated in the social welfare system for pension purposes in exactly the same way as any other parent or carer is dealt with and there is no change. It is a universal application of the conditions and, therefore, if somebody is caring or is a parent, there is a whole set of provisions, and those are the provisions that are applied to foster carers presenting for pension payments. They are entitled to the homemaker’s scheme and the disregards for that, and they are entitled to the home caring periods that we spoke about earlier under the TCA scheme. If a foster carer is in receipt of child benefit, that provides the proof that they were caring for a child. If they are not, then Tusla can confirm the caring periods when a foster carer has been doing that work for Tusla. In the event that somebody does not reach the thresholds for a contributory pension, then, exactly the same as with any other parent or carer in the country, the non-contributory system is available to them as well. I think there is enough within the existing system to facilitate foster carers, the same as any other carer.