Sir, – The airwaves have been filled in the past week with the confusion and distress felt by family carers following recent communications about the taxation of Carer’s Allowance and Carer’s Benefits payments.
From January 1st, 2026, Revenue will be automatically notified when a person is awarded Carer’s Allowance or Carer’s Benefit, replacing the previous system of self declaration.
While these payments have always been taxable, this communication debacle has brought into sharp focus how damaging and unjust this policy is for family carers providing extraordinary levels of unpaid care.
Carers already face exhaustive means testing and ongoing reassessment to qualify for these payments. After all of this scrutiny, the State then taxes the payment back – a decision which family carers believe is deeply unfair.
READ MORE
Family carers deliver an estimated 19 million hours of unpaid care every week – work that would cost the State an estimated ¤20 billion annually to replace. Carer’s Allowance and Carer’s Benefit are modest supports, far below the value of the care provided, and unlike many other social supports such as Disability Allowance, Domiciliary Care Allowance and Child Benefit, they continue to be treated as taxable income.
Family Carers Ireland firmly believes that carers should receive an adequate, fair payment, exempt from tax and means testing, that reflects the essential work they do and the value they bring to our society. Taxing these payments is a government policy choice and Government has the power to change it.
Family carers keep hospitals from overcrowding, prevent unnecessary residential placements, and sustain families and communities across Ireland. Taxing this lifeline is economically short sighted and morally wrong.
If we truly value family care, Carer’s Allowance and Carer’s Benefit must be made tax free and set at a fair level. This is the minimum action required. Family carers deserve support, respect and security; not tax bills. – Yours, etc,
SHARON FOLEY,
CEO,
Family Carers Ireland,
Co Offaly.
Young children and screen time
Sir, – We were very interested to read the letter of the day published in your newspaper on January 13th.
The writer, a primary school teacher, insightfully urged a discussion on younger children’s screen use that goes beyond the current policy focus of teenagers and social media.
The letter placed a much required emphasis on screen use in early childhood when the most rapid periods of brain and behavioural development occur. Despite the current shift of focus to AI in terms of global digital technology research, we are still lacking answers to basic questions on the influences and effects of screen use in infants and young children.
In our Babylab at University College Dublin we explore environmental influences on children’s early development, including toddlers’ screen use.
In a recent survey of 188 parents across Ireland, we found that 30 per cent of toddlers (18-36 months old) exceed the HSE-recommended threshold of 60 minutes or less per day. Moreover, we identified a wide range of digital programming that young children regularly engage with, and ask for, across modern streaming services and video platforms (eg, Netflix, Disney+, YouTube).
The current explosion in digital programming for young children may include offerings that might not be designed for their developmental stage.
What’s more, the design of streaming platforms, where the end of one episode of a favourite cartoon rolls into the start of the next, can make it difficult for parents to track children’s screen time. This is very different from the experience of traditional TV of previous generations.
The HSE published screen time recommendations for the first time in 2024, yet beyond duration there is a lack of guidance for parents on content factors such as highly stimulating cartoons (and games) and contextual factors such as social support for parents.
In this digital age it is important to provide more nuanced and practical guidance and support for children’s early engagement with screens to ensure optimal developmental outcomes for all children. – Yours, etc,
TOBIAS CONSTIEN,
Phd candidate,
UCD Babylab,
Belfield,
Dublin 4.
Living alone
Sir, – In response to Emer McLysaght’s column on living alone, I would like to suggest that the worst part of living alone is having no one to blame things on (“Living alone in Ireland is a joy, 85% of the time,” January 22nd).
If there’s four drops of milk left in the container for your 11pm cup of tea, that’s on you. If there’s only two pieces of toilet paper left, guess who’s to blame?
It takes foresight and organisation to live alone without these household mishaps, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. – Yours, etc,
ELLEN OLIVER,
West Hartford,
US.
Arriving at Dublin Airport
Sir, – I travelled from Britain to Ireland by way of Dublin Airport twice in recent weeks. On both occasions the Passport eGates were out of order, resulting in long queues at the regular Passport Control booths. It seems strange that flights arriving from Britain are directed to Passport Control in the first place, considering the same wouldn’t happen for an Irish flight landing in London, Glasgow or Birmingham.
One would have to ask if Dublin Airport is aware that Ireland is a member of the Common Travel Area? – Yours, etc,
Cllr CIARÁN Ó MEACHAIR,
City Hall,
Dublin 2.
A passport service
Sir, – I applied online for a passport in the early evening of Thursday, November 20th, 2025.
The new passport arrived in the post on Friday morning, November 21st. Bravo, Department of Foreign Affairs. – Yours, etc,
MARIAN BYRNE,
Churchtown,
Dublin 14.
Gimme a break
Sir, – Would it be possible to redesignate our upcoming bank holiday on February 2nd a Donald Trump-free day across all social media and news organisations instead of a day off work, and give us the break we so badly need? – Yours, etc,
JOE BYRNE,
Saggart,
Co Dublin.
The holocaust and myths
Sir, – I write regarding your story “Almost one in 10 young Irish adults believe Holocaust is a ‘myth,’” (January 21st) .
The findings of the recent study on attitudes to the Holocaust in Ireland mirror some of the findings in a similar UK study in 2021. It is one of 11 country studies carried out by the Jewish Claims Conference on attitudes to the Holocaust.
General awareness of the Holocaust is high but falls off among younger respondents. This is not surprising as half of 18- 29 year olds have encountered the blight of Holocaust denial or distortion on social media platforms.
There is big support for education among respondents which becomes even more important as memory fades, and denial and distortion spreads.
Holocaust Education Ireland has been providing Holocaust education in Ireland for the past 20 years, through education and awareness programmes for teachers, schools and the public.
Irrefutable, historically correct information is included in our carefully created education materials, highlighting the dangers of anti-Semitism and hatred and where these can lead if allowed to fester.
Our programmes for schools start with the Crocus Project where children aged 10-11 years plant yellow crocuses in memory of the 1.5 million mostly Jewish and Romany children who were murdered, right through to the end of senior cycle and beyond, with support from the Irish government.
The study shows the high level of support for education about the Holocaust in Ireland which becomes more important as the years go by. It is chilling that over two-thirds of respondents believe it could happen again.
We believe that through Holocaust education, we can empower people of all ages to recognise the dangers of anti-Semitism and hatred so they can speak out and reject them in all their manifestations. – Yours, etc,
THOMAS O’DOWD,
Chairperson,
LYNN JACKSON,
Founding Trustee,
Holocaust Education Ireland.
Dentists and aesthetics
Sir, – I note Minister for Health Jennifer Carroll MacNeill’s recent criticism of “State-trained” dentists who choose to offer cosmetic injectables such as Botox, suggesting instead that their time would be better spent addressing shortages in paediatric dentistry (“State-trained dentists ‘should be treating children, not doing Botox injections’,” January 22nd).
By the same logic, will the Minister now be instructing her approximately 20 TD colleagues who were formerly teachers to return to the classroom to help tackle the recruitment and retention crisis highlighted by the INTO and ASTI?
If professionals are to be publicly admonished for exercising career choice after State-funded training, consistency would seem the very least we could expect. – Yours, etc,
DR SEAN FITZPATRICK,
Smithfield Village,
Dublin 7.
New travel plan for Skerries
Sir, – Your article “‘It will destroy Skerries’: New travel plan for Dublin town provokes angry response from residents”, (January 22nd) gives readers the impression that Skerries is broadly united in opposition to the draft Active Travel Plan. That is not our experience.
The consultation portal contains a wide range of views, including thoughtful, mainly supportive submissions that welcome safer crossings, redesigned junctions, improved permeability through estates, better access to public transport and a calmer town centre. Sustainable Skerries and the Skerries Cycling Initiative, among others, have made detailed submissions of this kind, as have a number of individual residents.
While your report acknowledges that some submissions were supportive, it focuses on a selection of hostile and dismissive comments about pedestrians and cyclists. That weighting matters. Such emphasis risks making constructive engagement harder, not easier.
The plan is not about discouraging driving or disadvantaging motorists. Rather, it seeks to improve safety, accessibility and connectivity for everyone.
Experience from Ireland and internationally shows that measures such as protected cycle lanes, safer crossings and clearer traffic layouts can improve traffic circulation and make town centres safer and more pleasant places to spend time.
Skerries has an opportunity to plan positively for its future. A constructive, evidence-based discussion will serve the town better than framing this as a choice between drivers and everyone else. – Yours, etc,
SABINE McKENNA,
Committee member,
Sustainable Skerries,
Co Dublin.
Being safe on the roads
Sir, – While Mary O’Sullivan’s concern for road safety is understandable (Letters, January 21st), the call for mandatory high visibility clothing for cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists is misplaced and risks distracting from the real causes of road deaths.
There is no credible evidence that mandatory hi-vis significantly reduces collisions or fatalities.
Jurisdictions with the safest roads have achieved their outcomes not by criminalising people for what they wear, but by managing speed, designing safer streets and enforcing existing traffic laws.
Mandating hi-vis for vulnerable road users shifts responsibility away from those operating the most dangerous vehicles and implies that injury results from a failure of visibility rather than from road design, driver behaviour or enforcement.
It is a form of performative policymaking, a measure that creates the appearance of action while leaving the real sources of danger untouched, and it runs counter to the Vision Zero safe systems approach to road safety that Ireland claims to support.
In every other hazardous environment, particularly workplaces, we apply an internationally recognised hierarchy of controls: eliminating danger where possible, engineering risks out of the system and separating people from hazards.
Only as a last resort do we rely on personal protective equipment. On our roads, we invert this logic entirely, skipping straight to: “Be visible.” “Watch out”.
High-visibility clothing can be useful and should be encouraged. However, if we are serious about saving lives on Irish roads, we should focus relentlessly on speed, street design and enforcement, not penalise people for what they wear. – Yours etc,
CIARÁN CANNON,
President,
Cycling Ireland,
Co Galway.
Sir, – While I’d certainly encourage any pedestrians to wear high visibility clothing at night, I would personally be reluctant to make it a legal obligation. But perhaps more importantly, I think it’s important to clarify that road deaths in Ireland have not “increased exponentially” as a letter writer on the topic suggests (Letters, January 23rd).
Every road death is a tragedy and most seem preventable. It’s important to recognise that such efforts largely work and to encourage people to get out and be active, with all due caution.
For well over 50 years up to 2010, road fatalities in Ireland exceeded 200 per year. In the 1970s they sometimes exceeded 600. Since 2010 the numbers have been typically at 150-200 with the Covid years particularly safe.
Given our population growth in recent decades, this is a great success on a per capita basis, with the safety features of newer cars contributing enormously.
The argument that compulsory illumination or wearing of high visibility clothing will help is reasonable but arresting or fining people walking with a torch or using their phone as a light seems draconian.
When exactly to impose the time cut off seems undefinable, with sunset in Cork this evening about 15 minutes later than Dublin for instance.
A high level of road deaths last year was largely accounted for by motor cycling deaths, which at 30 was the highest in decades.
Clearly all motorcycles have lights, front and rear. What probably is increasing exponentially is the rate of serious injuries from e-scooters, some proving fatal.
Last year the Irish Medical Journal reported 380 attendances at just one Dublin hospital in a two-year period, while such presentations were practically unknown a decade earlier.
Given the youth of the typical user of these machines, efforts at preventing lost years of life through disability and early death might be best focused on finding workable legislation on e-scooters therefore. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Kinsale,
Co Cork.
