I thank the Minister of State for being here to deal with this issue. We made a big leap forward in last week's budget with the raising of the income disregard for carers, both in single situations and in couples. I welcome that and hope to see a continued progression of that over the lifetime of the Government. I am here today to point out what I think is a loophole in the system. I have raised it through parliamentary questions and wanted to give it an airing in this forum to see if there is any resolution for it, especially in the context of the upcoming social welfare Bill. It was brought to my attention by a constituent who is currently facing both a financial and social consequence as a result of being on maternity leave. This individual works part-time and has been a full-time carer since 2022. She has been means tested for receipt of the full-time carer's allowance and is also receiving top-up payments for child dependants, all of which are fully merited. It is good not only that she is in a position to provide that care but also that she is able to maintain employment for the progression of her career. However, being on maternity leave now means that there is a lacuna by virtue of the fact that her so-called maternity benefit is being paid directly to her employer. She is not in receipt of that payment. Further, because she is on maternity benefit, she does qualify for full-time carer's allowance and moves to half-time carer's allowance. Finally, because she has more than one child, she is not awarded the full rate of €289 maternity benefit but is awarded a reduced rate of €244 per week. This means, in effect, that there is a loss of over €200 per week because she is on maternity benefit. There is space here to ensure fairness. This is a carer who is still fulfilling her full-time care responsibilities, on maternity leave and caring for children, as was recognised by the child dependant payments and the full-time carer's payment that were being paid to her. It is puzzling as to why she is losing money as a result of going on maternity leave and hence losing access to a full-time carer's allowance. It flies in the face of the principles of the social welfare system which, in the main, is very good at ensuring that people are not worse off when they take on care responsibilities. They definitely should not be worse off if they decide to have another child. Effectively, there is a significant hit to this person's income because she is on maternity leave. I would like us to address this in the context of the upcoming social welfare Bill. We need to ensure that the full rate of maternity benefit is paid regardless of the number of children and that the awarding of the carer's allowance takes account of the fact that, in some instances, as happened to me when I was on paternity leave, the benefit is paid directly to the employer. The employer takes that payment and then pays the resultant fee. Obviously, in the situation of a carer, that is not necessarily like for like because the person would lose half of the carer's allowance payment as a result of being on maternity benefit, despite the fact that the employer is getting the statutory rate. Compounding this is the fact that a different rate of maternity benefit is being paid to the employer while the employer is still deducting the maternity benefit. I would welcome a discussion on this. It is something that can be remedied through legislation and I will be speaking to the Minister for Social Protection about it. I am interested to hear the Minister of State's thoughts on it and hope we can advance this and address what is a fundamental unfairness in the system.

Sentiment score: 0.28

I thank the Minister of State for the response. I will start by saying that I acknowledge again the huge step forward that we have made in supporting carers, with our long overdue recognition of the role they play in our economy and society by looking after those who need care. However, it is also important to ensure that when we are spending money on supporting carers the income supports are effective, are working and are not causing unintended consequences, which is the case here. While I accept the facts the Minister of State laid out regarding what the individual in this case would receive, I would point out that it does not make allowances for the fact the person is employed and the payment is made directly to the employer. That is the key difference here. It could be addressed by an amendment to the social welfare Act such that a full-time carer's allowance would still apply in such an instance because the person in this case is not receiving the maternity benefit payment and that is being paid to her employer to absorb the cost of the wage. In this case, she works for 18.5 hours per week and the additional payment of the carer's support allowance is part of her usual or normal income alongside her salary for 18.5 hours. The maternity benefit is deducted from the salary for 18.5 hours per week which means that the maternity benefit is not payable to the individual in question. There needs to be a recognition of situations where a person is working the permitted 18.5 hours per week and is already receiving the full rate of carer's allowance. That should carry over to the maternity benefit because in such an instance, the maternity benefit would not be paid directly. It is really important given that we are constantly trying to encourage women to have full participation in the workforce and that they are not penalised for leaving the workforce when they have children. Little, unintended consequences like this in our social welfare system should be addressed. I ask the Minister of State to raise this with the Minister for Social Protection to see if something can be done to address it in the social welfare Bill.

Sentiment score: 0.44