Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I have no doubt that the Minister has been made aware of events in Parnell Square as we speak. Our thoughts and prayers are with people there. We hope for a positive outcome for everybody involved.

I would like to continue the theme started by my colleague about communications. I want to raise a very specific case where somebody was in receipt of a carer's allowance on behalf of her son who has profound intellectual disabilities. This is a case I have raised with the Minister previously. I will keep going on this particular case for as long as I have a mandate here. Because the husband works overtime, the means were deemed to be in excess of what the scheme allows and the woman in this case lost her carer's allowance. Not only that, she also lost access to the free schemes that come with it - the GP visit card and the free travel scheme.

When the Department communicated with her the letter stated "because you are no longer providing full-time care". That was quite hurtful for this person. To be fair to the Department, once she called it out, the officials recognised that and issued new correspondence. I want to ask the Minister about the Department's communication strategy or look-back in respect of correspondence and particularly in respect of sensitive payments such as the carer's allowance. Could the Department ensure there is a look-back, double-check or review in order that whatever is being sent out or is automatically generated would have a pair of human eyes going over it before it goes out? Not only did the woman concerned have to suffer the loss of what she perceives as the recognition of her role as a carer but she also lost the payment. This is a woman who did not take up a job or career outside of the home because she wanted to care for her son.

We acknowledge where carer's allowance is going in regard to the thresholds and the journey that the Department and the Minister are on. What drives the woman in this case out of being able to receive the payment is the overtime her husband earns. We need to move to a situation where there is a de facto recognition of her role and a payment to follow. I hope that is the journey we will be on so that she is paid in her own right as an individual person and as a carer. She shares the care with her husband and they care together for their children. There should be some recognition of that and that we do not diminish her role from a societal point of view.

The second issue I wish to raise is not germane to the Bill but it is germane to the Department. It relates to the issuance of disabled persons' parking permits. What has come across my radar of late is the loss of permits by section 39 organisations where they operate a fleet of vehicles.

I recognise that the permit should follow the individual, but if section 39 organisations, which are charitable in essence, are losing disabled persons' parking permits for buses they operate for necessary transport, it should be looked into.

I refer to the Minister's speech on moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach to the State contributory pension. We would all welcome that. However, with regard to the PRSI changes inherent in the move, Dr. Laura Bambrick posted a message on social media today that is worth reading into the record. Dr. Bambrick, as head of social policy and employment affairs at ICTU, is someone we would all look to as having expertise in this area. She states:

Here's an interesting change to PRSI that got lost in the mix yesterday.

The upper age for liability for employee, employer and self-employed PRSl is to increase from 66 to 70 years from next January.

Currently PAYE workers and self-employed are not liable for a (4%) social insurance contribution on their earnings if they continue working after age 66.

Their employer is only liable for a much reduced rate (0.5%).

From January 2024, where a worker opts for the new flexible pension provision – i.e. defers claiming their State pension up to age 70 – they and their employer will be liable for PRSI at the same rates as under 66s.

That is, not just workers who are working longer to build up enough paid contributions for a full State pension will pay PRSI, all workers and their employers who opt for the new flexible/ deferred pension will be liable.

The Minister might respond on that point.

In the short time I have left, I will refer to a case Senator Wall referred me. Such cases are hard but they are germane to the legislation before us. Senator Wall's case relates to the carer's disregard or means test. People will qualify with a new disregard but will have to wait until June of next year. That is a matter we are all expressing concern about. Why not just pay now? What is happening means another six months of care that they are giving 24-7, saving the State millions. Why not bring in the measure in January 2024?

If caring for 20 years or more, you get the credit towards your pension. We all welcome that. I am wondering about the position of those who fall short. The role is as meaningful after ten years as after 20. Is there scope to reduce the 20 years to reflect the reality of many carers' lives?

See this speech in context