Dara Calleary
Mayo · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“Agriculture is the backbone. We have all been in the Mansion House today, or everyone has said they were anyway. Energy security is key and crucial. Everybody wants energy security but nobody wants wind energy. We have to strike a balance and get a real discussion, but food security is most important.”
“While we have gaps there, we are addressing them. The Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, has announced the minor injury units, which will take the pressure off major hospitals and ensure services are available.”
“Recent figures from the CSO show that there is a 5.8% increase in the number of people living in rural areas between 2016 and 2022. In areas classified as highly rural and remote, the increase was 6.4%.”
“Enterprise Ireland is investing in Irish-owned, Irish-founded companies. Similarly, 59% of IDA investments were located outside the Dublin region. We will continue to work, looking at the progress we can make through the IDA, Enterprise Ireland and, as Senator O'Loughlin said, through supporting our local enterprise offices.”
“That is something we do daily and they are used where is necessary. The plan will be supported by ambitious, clear, practical and measurable actions. I have spoken to some of the funding programmes available within my Department.”
“Táim tar éis cuairt a thabhairt ar gach ceantar Gaeltachta chun plé fairsing a dhéanamh leis na pobail sin chun a fháil amach uathu féin cén cineál tacaíochta ar féidir a chur ar fáil dóibh chun cabhrú leo. Táim chun leanúint ar aghaidh leis an obair sin sa bhuiséad le teacht agus na buiséid eile.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,162 lines we hold for Dara Calleary, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 30 of 44.
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta agus tréaslaím go mór leis an obair atá ar siúl i gCill Dara faoi láthair agus le blianta anuas. Tá mé buíoch dó, dá athair agus don ghrúpa atá ag obair leo, as an obair sin. Mar is eol dó, bunaíodh Cill Dara le Gaeilge i 2014 agus tá mo Roinn ag cur maoiniú ar fáil ó 2021 chun oifigeach fheidhmiúchán a fhostú agus chun na costais a bhaineann le plean oibre an duine sin a chlúdach. I measc na ndualgas atá ar an oifigeach sin, tá comhoibriú le gnólachtaí i gContae Chill Dara chun iad a spreagadh le breis a úsáid ina ngnólachtaí. Tá fostaí lánaimseartha eile ag an eagraíocht freisin atá á mhaoiniú ag Foras na Gaeilge. Ó mo Roinn, i 2025, tá níos mó ná €90,000 ceadaithe do Chill Dara le Gaeilge. Mar sin, táimid dáiríre faoin obair atá ar siúl i gCill Dara agus seasann an Roinn go mór leis an obair sin.”
“Déanfaidh mé cinneadh mar Aire ar cathain a chuirfear tús leis an gcéad timthriall eile d'ullmhú pleananna teanga i leith líonraí Gaeilge, ag tabhairt staid reatha an phróisis pleanála teanga, aiseolas ón bhForas agus na hacmhainní airgid a bheidh ar fáil do mo Roinn sna blianta amach romhainn san áireamh.”
“In 2020, rinne Foras na Gaeilge athbhreithniú ar scéim pobal Gaeilge de chuid na heagraíochta agus, mar chomharba uirthi sin, fógraíodh an scéim forbartha líonraí Gaeilge. I measc aidhmeanna na scéime seo, tá béim faoi leith ag deontaithe reatha na scéime oibriú i dtreo aitheantas mar líonra Gaeilge a bhaint amach. Tríd an scéim, tá grúpaí á gcumasú le teacht chun tosaigh agus a chur isteach ar an chéad bhabhta eile den phróiseas iarratas reachtúil. Trí Fhoras na Gaeilge, agus le beannacht mo Roinne, tabharfar cuireadh d'eagraíochtaí bheith ceaptha mar cheanneagraiochtaí lionraí Gaeilge in am trátha. Toisc scéim forbartha líonraí Gaeilge a bheith ceangailte go dlúth le cuspóirí Acht na Gaeltachta, 2012, cheadaigh Bord Fhoras na Gaeilge síneadh ama le deontaithe reatha de chuid scéim forbartha líonraí Gaeilge go deireadh 2026.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta. Tabharfar aitheantas faoi Acht na Gaeltachta, 2012 do líonraí Gaeilge ach pleananna teanga a bheith aontaithe leis na pobail sna líonraí éagsúla i gcomhréir leis na critéir pleanála teanga fhorordaithe. Tá Foras na Gaeilge freagrach faoi Acht na Gaeltachta as tacaíocht a thabhairt d'eagraíochtaí maidir le hullmhú agus cur i bhfeidhm pleananna teanga sna líonraí Gaeilge. Tá trí líonra Gaeilge ceadaithe go dáta faoin bpróiseas faoi Acht na Gaeltachta. Is iad sin: Inis, Baile Locha Riach agus Cluain Dolcáin. Anuas air sin, ta dhá ceann sa Tuaisceart - Carn Tóchair agus iarthar Bhéal Feirste - ceadaithe faoi phróiseas neamhreachtúil atá á riar ag Foras na Gaeilge.”
“Many of the other concerns expressed reflect the overall changes I have addressed. I thank Senators for their consideration and I look forward to bringing this Bill to the House on Committee and Remaining Stages next week. We will then be in a position to begin issuing payments for the bereaved partner's pension late this summer. That will be the ultimate tribute to Michelle and Johnny O'Meara and their family.”
“There are other supports available for people who find themselves in situations where there is a lack of income or change in income. Regarding Senator O'Reilly's last point, there will be no invasion of privacy. Individuals will be simply asked to declare on a form the status of the relationship. I assure the Senator there will be no inspectors from the Department going around checking people's houses. Thankfully, those days are long gone in this country. I do not disagree with the point Senator Craughwell made on the State. It is very unfortunate Johnny O'Meara was put through this. Public representatives should look at how Deputy Alan Kelly took on this case and partnered with Johnny O'Meara as it shows us that even when we feel powerless as public representatives, we can take on cases and make a difference.”
“The inclusion of qualified cohabiting couples for eligibility for the bereaved partner's pension also requires us to address our consensus where relationships breakdown and eligibility ceases. The Supreme Court noted anomalies with the existing scheme, including the continued eligibility for divorcees and others where relationships had long broken down. We had the choice to either address those anomalies or make them even more complex by creating a situation where multiple payments to multiple partners are funded through the Social Insurance Fund. That is not the primary purpose of this scheme. It is important to ensure the equality provided for accessing this scheme is also applied where personal circumstances change and entitlement is no longer appropriate.”
“I first apologise to the House for the suspension. There are no pairs available. I have great respect for the House and did not wish to interrupt Senator Craughwell's contribution and the business of the House. I thank all those who participated in this debate for their contributions. While there are individual differences on aspects of the Bill, it is clear there is broad support for implementing this important measure. I note again, as I did in the Dáil debate, that this is rooted in many Members' personal stories and in cases they are aware of in which people have found themselves in similar situations to the O'Meara family, coming to terms with an inexpressible loss but being unable to access an important financial support from the State at that time of loss.”
“These changes become effective from the date of enactment. The remaining sections all relate to a technical definition. I am very conscious that the technical nature of many aspects of the Bill should not take away from the understanding of what people are going through and the impact of grief. The Bill has been developed to ensure that the principle of equality in the treatment of potential beneficiaries is upheld both in relation to eligibility for the payment and the rules on the loss of entitlement when a relationship ends. I commend the Bill to the Seanad. I look forward to hearing the contributions of Senators.”
“This applies to people who were bereaved and were divorced, or whose marriage broke down or civil partnership was dissolved before enactment of the Bill. Section 10 provides for the substitution of section 125(1) of the 2005 Act which sets out the social insurance contributions for the pension. The new subsection includes amendments to introduce the definition of "bereaved partner" and "deceased partner" for the purposes of setting the contribution conditions. Section 11 provides for the substitution of Chapter 21 of the 2005 Act, which provides for the widowed parent grant. The substitution of the Chapter includes amendments to the current widowed parent grant scheme in order to allow for surviving qualified cohabitants to access the scheme. This section also provides for changing the name of the scheme to the bereaved parent grant.”
“This is an important aspect of the legislation in that it allows for the backdating of payments to the date that the provision was found to be inconsistent with the Constitution. Regulations under the 2005 Act will modify the existing six-month period for the backdating of claims and provide that claimants for this pension will have six months from the date of enactment to make a claim, which will be backdated to 22 January 2024 or the date of death, if later. Section 9 provides for saver clauses to ensure persons who are currently in receipt of a payment under this scheme or who have an entitlement to the payment up to the day of the passing of the Bill will retain the payment or entitlement after the passing of the Bill.”
“This section also sets out a regulation-making power to allow the Minister to prescribe the evidence that will be required to prove the existence of such a relationship. Section 7 repeals section 124 of the 2005 Act, insofar as it is still in operation, to reflect the finding of inconsistency with the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Section 8 inserts a new section 124A to replace the repealed section 124 of the 2005 Act. The new section includes amendments to introduce the definition of "bereaved partner" and "deceased partner". It also sets out that a bereaved partner whose claim is based on being a surviving qualified cohabitant shall, regardless of the date of death of his or her deceased partner, be entitled to a pension under this section from 22 January 2024 or the date of death if it occurred after this date.”
“That Act provides an existing framework for establishing the existence of cohabiting relationships of a particular form that provide rights and obligations to those cohabitants. A person can become a qualified cohabitant where they were in an intimate and committed relationship of two years, where there were children of that relationship; or five years, where there were no children of that relationship. The section also sets out the circumstances that may be considered to establish the existence of a relationship of qualified cohabitation, which is based on similar criteria in the 2010 Act, and includes matters such as financial dependence and the extent to which they presented as a couple.”
“This section also amends the existing definitions of "widow", "widower" and "civil partner" to remove a person who is divorced or had their marriage or civil partnership dissolved. The section also sets out where a spouse or civil partner whose relationship has broken down for more than two years shall not be considered a bereaved partner for the purposes of the Act. Finally, the section also contains a regulation-making power for those circumstances where the Minister of the day can deem that a spouse or civil partner are living together such as where one of them is resident in a nursing home. Section 6 inserts a new section 123A into the 2005 Act to provide for the definition of a "qualified cohabitant". As I have said, this definition is similar to that of a qualifying cohabitant as defined in the 2010 Act.”
“Section 3 provides for the insertion of two new definitions into section 2 of the 2005 Act, namely "qualified cohabitant" and "surviving qualified cohabitant". Section 4 provides for amendments to section 81 of the 2005 Act in order to allow surviving qualified cohabitants to access the death benefit payment under the occupational injuries scheme. Section 5 provides for the substitution of section 123 of the 2005 Act. This section provides for renaming the scheme from the widow's, widower's and surviving civil partner's (contributory) pension to the bereaved partner's (contributory) pension. It introduces new definitions for "bereaved partner" and "deceased partner".”
“It is an established principle in the field of social welfare more generally that the payment is made to the beneficiary and only them, and may be used by them for any purpose. My Department will provide support through social welfare assistance payments where there is a financial need. Existing family law provisions are designed to provide for these cases specifically and contain measures that apply on the formal breakdown of a relationship and subsequently to seek recourse from the estate of the deceased. This also extends to surviving qualified cohabitants under the 2010 Act. I will now provide a quick overview of the Bill. Section 1 provides for the Short Title, construction and commencement. Section 2 provides for the definition of the 2005 Act as the principal Act.”
“A second, and related issue that has arisen is that in the absence of payment of a bereaved partner’s contributory pension, a person who has lost the support of a separated or divorced partner will be left financially exposed, especially where there are children of that former relationship. The provisions being introduced are a consequence of the Supreme Court judgment to avoid further inequalities. The Supreme Court did not make a general finding that the payment of a widower’s pension was in respect of children. In fact, the court noted that the payment was not a payment for children. The Chief Justice stated: Furthermore, WCP is increased when there are dependent children, and quite substantially. This is not in any sense to suggest that, as a matter of law, WCP is a payment to or for the children.”
“The effect of this argument is that a child of any relationship, irrespective of the duration of that relationship or its status would result in the surviving parent being eligible for a bereaved partner’s pension. In this context, it is important to note that the focus of the O’Meara Case was in relation to the treatment of the loss of a parent with children in a long-standing, non-marital unit and those of a comparable family whose parents were married. Access to the payment by divorced persons, whose marriages were dissolved was identified as an anomaly by the court and one which meant the distinction between the O’Mearas, and a comparable family based on a marriage, was not reasonable.”
“The Bill includes provisions that anyone, including divorcees, currently in receipt of a payment will retain their payment. The same rules for eligibility for cohabitants will be applied to the other schemes such as the non-contributory version of the pension, and the widowed or surviving civil partner grant. Those schemes will be renamed, again to reflect the more inclusive nature of the payment. Part 3 of the Bill provides for certain other amendments to the 2005 Act and Family Court Act 2024, which I will set out shortly. I wish to address a number of issues that were raised in the Dáil debates which may arise here. First is the argument that the payment of a bereaved partner’s contributory pension should be paid for all children, irrespective of the martial status of their parents. This was not a finding of the Supreme Court.”
“There will be no time restrictions on when the bereavement of the qualified cohabitant occurred, provided the rules continue to be met. Payments will commence from 22 January 2024 or later if the death is after this date. This is in line with established legal rules regarding findings of unconstitutionality. The rules on when entitlement to the payment will permanently cease are amended to remove entitlement where couples are divorced, enter into a new relationship of qualified cohabitation, or two years after the end of the relationship, whether that relationship is based on marriage or cohabitation. This is to address existing anomalies in the scheme cited by the Supreme Court and to avoid the situation where surviving cohabitants are again treated differently to separated or divorced couples.”
“Amendments were proposed in the Dáil to modify these rules in certain circumstances. However, it is important that the provisions relied upon in this Bill are consistent with the existing legal framework for cohabiting relationships. Any changes that may be necessary are better pursued through the 2010 Act and I am writing to the Minister for Justice to make him aware of the issues that were highlighted. Expanding eligibility for the payment to surviving cohabitants requires several other relevant changes to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 and the Bill provides for these. The name of the scheme will change to the bereaved partner’s contributory pension which reflects the more inclusive nature of the payment for all bereaved partners whether spouses, civil partners or qualifying cohabitants.”
“It should also bring comfort to thousands of families and couples who may some day find themselves in that awful position where a loved one dies and they seek access to a pension from the Department. As we all know, death does not distinguish on any grounds and the loss of a loved one affects all equally. In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the State had already defined cohabitation within the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. Accordingly, the Bill proposes to extend eligibility to the payment to qualified cohabitants who are in an intimate and committed relationship for a period of two years where there is a child or children of the relationship, or five years if otherwise. This reflects the definition in the 2010 Act for qualifying cohabitants.”
“I am pleased, therefore, to be able to bring this Bill before Seanad Éireann, which represents the necessary legislative response to implement the Supreme Court decision. This Bill will now expand eligibility for the pension to surviving qualified cohabitants when their partner dies. The Supreme Court found that section 124 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 was inconsistent with the Constitution in that it excluded a cohabitant like Johnny O’Meara from the payment because he was not a married or surviving civil partner. This legislation will have a very important impact for hundreds of people directly affected by the death of a loved one.”
“As Senators know, in January 2024 the Supreme Court overturned the Department’s decision not to pay the widower’s contributory pension to Mr. Johnny O’Meara. At the outset of this debate, and as I have done constantly throughout all of the debates, I want to acknowledge the tremendous loss that Johnny O’Meara and his family have suffered. Johnny’s long-term partner and the mother of his three children, Michelle, died in January 2021. In bringing this legislation forward, I had the privilege of meeting Johnny with Deputy Alan Kelly and heard his story first hand. I was hugely impressed by Johnny’s quiet determination and his courage and strength to see this case through all the way to the Supreme Court. Johnny and his children know that this very important change will benefit many other people and will be a testimony to Michelle’s memory.”
“It is important to acknowledge this Bill came about as a result of Mr. Johnny O'Meara and his family in memory of his partner and their mum, Michelle Batey. I thank Mr. O'Meara and Deputy Alan Kelly who stood and worked with him along with other organisations throughout this process. I thank all Deputies for their contributions to this debate and look forward to bringing the Bill to the Seanad.”
“That means eligibility for the bereaved partner's contributory pension would end upon divorce, similar to the loss of eligibility due to remarriage or on becoming a qualified cohabitant again. The Bill contains a saver clause within the legislation for anyone affected by the rule changes who is already in receipt of the payment. The effect of this amendment will be to remove the saver provided for divorcees already in receipt of pension before enactment, which would be unfair to those currently in receipt of the payment.”
“I thank Deputy Wall for the amendment. Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, inclusive, are grouped together. I do not propose to accept these amendments, which are possibly irrelevant owing to other related amendments being ruled out of order. I wrote to Deputies Wall, Quaide, Coppinger and O'Reilly on this issue after Committee Stage. There are provisions in the Bill removing the eligibility of divorcees to the bereaved partner's contributory pension. The legislation adopts the policy whereby, insofar as possible, an individual has an entitlement to a bereaved partner's contributory pension on the basis of one person only. As I stated, this is being done in an attempt to treat each cohort equally, as far as is possible.”
“If one part of the couple said something different to what had been signed up to, for whatever reason, there would have to be further investigations. I assure the Deputy that I would not want any intrusion into a relationship and the Department does not intend to intrude. If evidence was presented by a member of the couple that contradicted what the other member of the couple had said, that would have to be checked.”
“The provisions in the Bill set down how these matters are defined, based on existing family law legislation for where a marriage has broken down, which includes the fact that a couple can live in the same dwelling but no longer be in an intimate and committed relationship.”
“These provisions are designed to apply where a couple are effectively separated but have not formalised the breakdown of the relationship after two years by either divorce, judicial separation or the dissolution of a civil partnership. My Department will not be seeking proof that a married couple were in an intimate and committed relationship at the time of death. Applicants will be asked whether they were still living with their spouse at the date of death, and nothing further, unless there is evidence to the contrary. This means that a couple who are no longer living together in an intimate and committed relationship would not be entitled to the payment.”
“This reflects current legal practice in family law and in other cases where relationships have broken down. This is a belt-and-braces provision to ensure there is no doubt in a case where a couple are living apart because one of them is in a medical institution, for instance, a nursing home. The relationship still exists and, consequently, there should be no loss of eligibility for a couple in this scenario. The removal of this definition would impact on the operation of the ability to prescribe such circumstances. There were discussions before the joint committee recently to the effect that the underlying provisions would give rise to an interrogation into the nature of a married relationship at the time of death. Once again, I assure the House that this is not the case.”
“I thank Deputies O'Reilly and Wall. I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 14. To accept them would remove the ability of any future Minister for Social Protection to make regulations to clarify the circumstances where a couple may be living apart for more than two years due to medical circumstances. This definition is linked to the regulation-making power inserted into section 123A of the Act, for the Minister to consider time spent living apart due to medical reasons as not bringing the relationship to an end. The normal provisions in the Bill are designed to apply where a couple are effectively separated but have not formalised the breakdown of the relationship after two years by either divorce or judicial separation or dissolution in the case of a civil partnership.”
“This is an area the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has also expressed an interest in. On Deputy O'Reilly's comment about the lady whose partner passed away while she was expecting, we have based the qualifications on the 2010 civil partnership Act and the issue from the Department of justice. I am writing to the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, to highlight this case and also on the points reflected in Deputy Wall's amendment, which was ruled out of order, in relation to civil partnerships outside the jurisdiction. I have just highlighted those two issues to the Minister and asked him to consider them in the context of any review of the 2010 Act he may be planning. Both cases that were highlighted are stand-out cases that grabbed me. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle was also in touch with me about a similar case.”
“The Supreme Court judgment did not make a general finding that the payment of a widower's or widow's pension was in respect of children. Mr. Justice O'Donnell did, however, note: Furthermore, WCP is increased when there are dependent children, and quite substantially. This is not in any sense to suggest that, as a matter of law, WCP is a payment to or for the children. It is an established principle in the field of social welfare more generally that the payment is made to the beneficiary ... and may be used by them for any purpose. The Supreme Court did not make findings on the definition or the protection of different types of families. We are addressing one very serious anomaly through this legislation. To continue with other anomalies and not address them, particularly when they have been highlighted, would be wrong as well.”
“It may be appropriate to build reviews into some legislation, but I do not agree that such reviews are appropriate in this legislation. As I said, social welfare legislation is focused and is subject to ongoing review annually through the Social Welfare Acts, the social welfare joint committee and the day-to-day operation and experience. I assure the House that I am asking my officials to review the impact of the changes, including those who qualify and any issues that may arise. I do not propose to provide for this in primary legislation, but I gave a commitment to the committee and I am giving one to the House this evening that we will monitor the impact of this legislation and the changes. If changes and issues arise, I will deal with them in the appropriate way.”
“To go back to Deputy Wall's amendment, while a report may, subject to the information provided by the claimants, give a clearer indication of the quantum in respect of pre-2024 payments, it will not change the legal position on the effective date of the payment. Legislation is typically only applied prospectively, hence any retrospective conferring of entitlement requires a strong legal justification to avoid creating unwanted precedent which could affect other schemes. To pick another date prior to this could be considered arbitrary and potentially expose the State to further claims. The more general reviews sought by Deputies Coppinger and Murphy in amendments Nos. 20 and 21 were debated on Committee Stage.”
“In recognition of established legal principles, it is proposed that the payment of the bereaved partner's contributory pension will commence only from the date of judgment in the case of a death that occurred prior to that date. To clarify, in the case Deputy Kerrane mentioned, the person will be entitled to the payment, but the payment will be from 22 January 2024, when the legal entitlement was actually made in the Supreme Court judgment. They will be entitled. If the application is successful, the payment will be from 22 January 2024, when the existing law was found inconsistent with the Constitution.”
“23 does not come with the information currently available to my Department and is unlikely to be publicly available at all. My Department does not hold information on the degree of financial dependants that families with divorced or separated parents have nor could it determine the financial arrangements that exist between divorced or separated parents or the impact in the case of a death. It would be wrong for me to commit to something in legislation that cannot be produced. Deputy Wall seeks a report through amendment No. 2. I will provide clarification to Deputy Kerrane on this case. Deputy Wall's amendment tries to quantify the financial cost of providing payments to those who suffered a bereavement before 22 January 2024.”
“With respect to specific issues regarding reports being sought through the amendments, as is clear from the Bill and as we all want to do, the intention is for this legislation to become operable on enactment. This is important for those who will become eligible for the pension for the first time. It would be impossible to produce the report sought by Deputies Coppinger and Murphy through amendment No. 1 before the Act comes into operation, unless the suggestion is that the payment to surviving qualified cohabitants is delayed until such a time as the report, which is unlikely to be feasible, is produced. I do not think that is the Deputy's intention. Some of the information sought in the report and in the reviews sought in amendment No.”
“I thank the Deputies for their remarks. I will speak to the amendments first and then speak to some of the queries that were raised, which were dealt with on Committee Stage. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and 21 to 23, inclusive, are grouped together. As I said during the Committee Stage debate, it is not appropriate to include commitments to producing reports in primary legislation, particularly legislation that is as complex as the Social Welfare Consolidation Act. That is my view in respect of all of the proposed reports and reviews within this grouping. The social welfare system provides for annual reviews through the Social Welfare Acts and through the monitoring of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection, Rural and Community Development. I made commitments that I would engage extensively with that committee on this Bill.”
“I move: That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on Social Protection, Rural and Community Development on the Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner's Pension) Bill 2025, that pursuant to Standing Order 194, the Committee has power to make amendments to the Bill which are outside the scope of the existing provisions of the Bill to provide that: — Invalidity Pension is a pension that must be applied for and obtained before pensionable age, and for the transfer of the small number of persons aged over 66 years who are currently in receipt of Invalidity Pension to State Pension (Contributory); — a Social Welfare Inspector or an Authorised Officer of the Department of Social Protection may, at the behest and invitation of An Garda Síochána, participate in the interview of a detained suspect regarding offences under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 (as amended); and — corrections be made to minor typographical errors relating to sections 142A and 197 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 contained in Schedule 2 to the Family Courts Act 2024; and to make other consequential amendments required to take account of the changes above.”
“Based on our record to date, we have made such significant changes that there is predictability. We will continue to make significant changes to the income disregard. There was an almost 88% in the disregard and the highest ever level of the carer's support grant. I continue to invest in carers agus sa jab tábhachtach atá a dhéanamh acu i ngach cuid den tír gach uile lá. Beimid ag cur airgid leis an obair thábhachtach sin i gcomhthéacs na chéad cháinaisnéise eile.”
“Many of the remaining 1% will see an increase in their rate of payment. We are continuing to work through the research in this regard. I intend to achieve this programme for Government commitment in the lifetime of this Government. It is also important to note the Department provides non-means-tested supports, including the carer’s benefit, domiciliary care allowance and the annual carer’s support grant of €2,000, the highest ever, which was recently paid to more than 138,000 carers on 5 June.”
“It is important to manage the changes to the means test in a way that takes account of budgetary resources. It is also important to note that we will continue the process of easing the means test. On 3 July, the weekly income disregard for the carer's allowance will increase from €450 to €625 for a single person and from €900 to €1,250 for carers with a spouse or partner. This amounts to cumulative increases in the disregards of €292.50 and €585 respectively, or 88%, since June 2022. The increases in July will mean that a carer in a two-adult household with an income of approximately €69,000 will retain their full carer's payment and even those with an income of €97,000 can retain a partial payment. After the July change, some 99% of current carer’s allowance recipients will be on a full rate of payment.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as an gceist faoi chúramóirí. Tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go seasaimid leis na cúramóirí agus an jab iontach a dhéanann siad gach lá. The programme for Government sets out a timeline which commits to significantly increasing income disregards for the carer’s allowance in each budget with a view to phasing out the means test during the lifetime of this Government. This is a major change to the carer's allowance and to the Irish social protection system. It is important that we make progress in a way that is sustainable and does not unduly limit our scope to support other vulnerable groups in society. There are a number of estimated minimum costs of between €600 million per annum up to €3 billion per annum.”
“That is an important aim and one we will try to achieve. This review is not happening in isolation. Means tests and income thresholds are kept under regular review. We made a number of significant changes in recent years. Significant changes have been made to the income thresholds for the working family payment and income disregards for disability allowance, the blind pension, the fuel allowance and farm assist have increased. Next week, on 3 July, the carer's income disregard will increase to €625 for a single person and €1,250 for a spouse or partner which represents an increase for between €332 and €665 since 2021. We are reviewing the overall means test but making changes budget after budget which will continue over the course of the next number of budgets.”
“It is complex as it involves 96 schemes, many of which are means tested. A good outcome will be consistency across schemes and in how means testing is applied. We had a discussion this morning about areas it may not need to or should not apply to in the context of work done by those on these schemes. Even though the Department has a budget of €27 billion, resources are still scarce and they have to be targeted. I want to ensure they are targeted for those most in need, which the means test assists us to do. It has consistently been shown in EU figures to ensure that we target those most in need. A lot more work needs to be done in that space. It is a priority but it is complex given the volume of schemes and the various challenges.”
“The aim is to examine various means-tested schemes and identify issues related to their respective means tests. There are more than 90 schemes, many of which are means tested so this is a complex and detailed task. It is my intention that the review's findings will be completed in time to guide decisions regarding potential changes to means testing, particularly in the lead-up to budget 2026 and most definitely in the lead-up to future budgets. The review is nearing completion but it is complex and will require thorough evaluation when completed.”
“Research including that presented at last week's budget perspectives conference of the ESRI indicates that targeting of supports to more vulnerable cohorts through means testing continues to be important, even as societal income overall increases. Means tests and income thresholds are kept under regular review and a number of significant changes have been made in recent years. A number of changes to means testing which provide for higher income disregards have been introduced in recent budgets. These disregards ensure that where people are in receipt of a social assistance payment and are working, a certain level of income from that work is not assessed in the means test. We are currently conducting a comprehensive review of means testing within the entire social protection system.”
“I thank Deputy Carrigy for his question. Continuing from where we finished with Deputy Dempsey, there were 14,791 control reviews in 2024, which is quite small in the overall carer's allowance paid out but it is a balance that has to be reached. On Deputy Carrigy's question, means tests are a central part of any social protection system to ensure that resources which are limited are targeted at those most in need. Ireland's system of social transfers consistently ranks among the top performers in the European Union for poverty reduction. A key factor in this achievement is Ireland's use of means testing in targeting resources for the most vulnerable in our society.”