Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will try to be as quick as I can, although I am not sure how quick. There are actually four issues, but two are just for the record. One is to state my agreement with Senator Wall and Deputy Ó Cuív. Carers are probably among the most important people in the context of the means test. I am glad that is being reviewed. I am not totally sure how the two reviews relate to one other or how that is going to work, but it is very important anyway.

The Department has a role in the next issue I wish to raise if it is ever asked for advice. The Department has done a very progressive thing in terms of maintenance and means tests. It is something I welcome. It was a priority for my predecessor, Deputy Kerrane. I welcome the Ministers legislating on it. However, there are other Departments that have means tests that take child maintenance into account. I am thinking particularly of social housing, but also medical cards and other items. The Department is not in control of those schemes but, if its representatives are ever asked for advice in this regard, it is important that the rationale the Department had for removing child maintenance from its means test, and the social good that does, is explained to people.

My next two questions are both kind of annoying, so I apologise. One of them is abstract. I was not present for the previous discussion it as I was travelling. I listened to it on the Oireachtas app, however. It is a very good app; fair play to the Houses of the Oireachtas. We generally think of means tests in terms of what is right and good and what is in the interest of the recipients. I am curious as to the ability of a means test to provide an incentive or be a policy lever to achieve particular aims. To what extent is that considered? We were talking about possibly removing obstacles to people availing of the rent-a-room scheme. Does that ever arise in other contexts? We may believe it is desirable, for example, that more people might wish to remain as family carers in the context of pressure on non-familial care. That is only an example, but to what extent does the Department consider a means test?

The other annoying question concerns an issue that might make means tests might work better. It is related to means tests, but it is about qualifying payments and little anomalies. I am aware of an individual who does not qualify for the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance because she is in a low-paying job but not on a qualifying payment. If this person had the same precise income or if she was paid through a community employment scheme, for example, and had a slightly higher take-home pay, she would receive the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. However, because she is not on a qualifying payment, she does not qualify. It is not strictly speaking a means test, but it is maybe an instance where a means test might be better. Obviously, there is an administrative burden in that, but this is somebody on a low income who does not qualify for the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance because she is not on the right qualifying payment even though her income is very low. There can be similar situations with fuel allowance. A person might have an occupational pension but not a State pension, possibly as a result of the type of PRSI contributions he or she was making or an inadequate number of PRSI contributions. One example I came across concerns a person who was in the Defence Forces for a small number of years who became ill and did not have enough contributions for the contributory payment, but got an occupational pension. That person does not qualify for fuel allowance. Those examples are niche and I am not expecting the witnesses to have answers to them, but they might address them in their reflection on the means test. Sometimes there are other issues where people on low incomes can lose out on payments because of the technicalities of what is a qualifying payment and what is not.