Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to pick up on a few points in the evidence given this morning.

I had a considerable amount of engagement with the former Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Senator Regina Doherty, regarding the 18.5 hour ceiling, which was increased from 15 hours. We made significant progress on getting that over the line at the time. The issue specifically related to full-time carers who had an older person in an adult training centre. The case I had was that of a younger person who was in a training centre and out of the home for in excess of 20 hours per week. This person's mother wanted to be able to continue to use home help, which she had done, but she was being penalised because of that, even though it was not possible for her to provide any care. I can see the concern the Department has but the way around it is to have a discretionary element in respect of the 18.5 hours, where there is flexibility in individual cases on education and a young person being able to study at home, which third level institutions can facilitate and were able to do over the past two years. That flexibility should be inbuilt to facilitate young carers in being able to gain a third level qualification with that type of hybrid model. The Department should be able to have that flexibility.

From my personal dealings with the officials in Longford, they have been more than helpful in individual cases. They will bend over backwards to try to approve a carer's allowance application but, to a certain extent, their hands are tied by the guidelines and regulations that are laid down. Where I have gone to them and explained the circumstances, they have taken a can-do attitude. I will put on record the work being done by the staff in Longford.

Deputy Canney and I have spoken at length about the housing adaptation grant. A constituent of mine, who is from the same county as the Deputy, has received the maximum grant of €30,000. This person's only source of income is social welfare. The credit union has facilitated this individual as best it can and granted a loan of €8,000, but the cheapest price they have been quoted to carry out the work is €45,000, which is €7,000 short. It looks like that person will have to go on to the local authority housing list to look for housing because the current house is unsuitable to meet their needs due to a shortfall of €7,000. The other alternative is the person, even though they are under the age of 66, goes into long-term nursing home care. Both options are a multiple of the cost of making up that shortfall for a downstairs bedroom and bathroom. It is something that needs to be looked at urgently.

Clearly, the call from today's meeting is we need a radical change in the financial supports for carers that are in place. We need to consider it from a very different base and very different criteria that should not be based on the means coming into a household. It should be based on the care that is being provided. That is something the committee will reflect on and I have no doubt will incorporate into its recommendations.

The firm view of every single member of this committee was we were extremely anxious to hear directly and at first-hand from carers today and that their story would be put on the public record. Today's meeting was very much about giving voice to their issues. I particularly and most sincerely thank Ms Budayova, Ms Ryan and Mr. Douglas. I will leave the last word from today's meeting with them, if they want to come back to make a final comment.