Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this motion and commend Deputy Harkin for tabling it. It recognises carers’ invaluable contribution to society and highlights their mistreatment by the State, something I hope we can all come together in this Chamber to rectify. I echo the call made in the motion for an increase in the income disregard for the carer's allowance to €900 per week per household, or the equivalent average weekly earnings for 2023, in budget 2024, while increasing it to at least €450 per week for a single carer.

Fundamental reform of the carer's allowance scheme is essential because thestatus quois completely inadequate, especially for young carers, many of whom are currently inhibited in their lives and in pursuing opportunities outside their caring roles. I agree with the sentiments of Family Carers Ireland which succinctly presents the policy changes we must see off the back of these discussions. Those changes include the establishment of a cross-departmental working group on young carers and the identification of the Department with lead responsibility for young carers, as well as an increase in awareness and visibility of young carers and young adult carers who, unfortunately, are often excluded from narratives they have every right to be a part of. We must support young carers to make the transition to further education, higher education and apprenticeship, to afford them the same opportunities that may befall others more easily. We must look beyond the early years and ensure a smooth transition for those who then seek other forms of employment. It is essential that young carers have access to appropriate mental health resources because the job can be incredibly taxing, as we hear in many testimonies. Those who are lifting these incredibly heavy loads must be adequately remunerated, a demand that lies at the heart of this motion. Access to regular breaks and respite is also critical to the health and well-being of those working in this area. The inclusion of young carers in the refreshed national carers strategy is paramount and I hope to see this materialise in the coming months.

The Government has promised to sort out legislation on the carers’ pension scheme, a promise that is too little, too late. Nobody should have to suffer this injustice any longer, yet carers are still peering over this cliff edge without any reassurances. It is hard to think of a greater injustice than someone spending decades caring for severely ill or profoundly disabled family members, only to face into a retirement of financial insecurity. Yet, this is the reality faced by many long-term caregivers who, thanks to anomalies in our system, have no immediate entitlement to a pension from the State when they retire. No group is more deserving of the admiration and support of our society than people who spend years, and sometimes decades, in these caring roles.

Aside from the social value they provide, they save the economy billions of euro annually - €20 billion by some estimates. However, while our carers are making an incalculable social and economic contribution to society, the Government has totally failed to recognise their selfless efforts. How the system decides who is entitled to a pension means that some of the most deserving people in society are left facing financial uncertainty and insecurity in their old age. This is usually a result of gaps in their PRSI history or quirks in the means test that leave carers without any pension entitlement.

The Government has committed to finding a solution to the issue but has yet to bring one to fruition. As an example, unless someone has paid at least 520 PRSI contributions over his or her working life, he or she has no automatic entitlement to a State pension. That amounts to ten years in employment, something that most people would not consider an impediment.

This is something that is near impossible to achieve for people who leave the workforce for good in their 20s to look after someone with a disability in the family, for example. No right thinking person believes such people should be excluded from the system because they did not get to work for ten years before caring duties took over their lives and was a valuable form of work. Carers are usually entitled to have PRSI contributions credited to them in recognition of their care work for a period where they are not in employment and therefore not paying PRSI, but these credited contributions max out at 20 years. This limit seems bizarre; some people spend twice that long caring and this should be acknowledged. I would go further and say that treating paid and credited contributions differently tells carers that society does not value their work as much as it values paid employment.

Public policy needs to reflect more modern thinking about what counts as valuable work. The worst thing is that these credited contributions are of no use to carers who do not have the minimum of ten years in the workforce done. The 20-year limit on credited PRSI contributions for caring work should be removed, as should this ten-year minimum, and credited contributions for carers should be the same as actual paid contributions. The best way this Government could make a statement of its commitment to carers is by designing a dedicated long-term carer's pension scheme. This should target people who have delivered full-time care for more than 20 years, regardless of their PRSI history and should pay a pension equal to the maximum contributory pension. In addition, it should not be means test.

Family Carers Ireland hears from many carers every year, mostly women, who have no individual entitlement to a pension from the State. If they are lucky, they will qualify for something through a spouse but if they are married to a civil servant who was hired under the old pension regime, or to a farmer who has land, they are usually left with nothing. It is scandalous that many carers are left with no financial independence after spending their whole lives doing the difficult work that is caregiving. I know of no economic or social argument that could deny people in this situation financial security into their old age. Whatever the cost of paying long-term carers a pension, it could never equal the contribution they have made to society. We owe them that much.

See this speech in context