Dr. Ursula Barry:

One thing that we have lacked in Ireland is publicly-supported care packages that are focused on the home and community-based care, rather than institutional care, particularly for elderly people. We would see change if we had home care packages that were linked to better conditions of work. Home care systems in Ireland have gone backwards. We have casualised them and have taken them out of the public system and instead we have individual, self-employed people in the care area, with very poor conditions. The new care packages that the Government has been promising for home-based care need to be structured in a way that would encourage men to enter the care system and open the possibility of men caring for elderly people. Men from outside Ireland have a high profile in work in the care sector in Ireland, including nursing and home care.

In Ireland, we have not crossed that bridge to any great extent.

Another thing we need to think about is the many ways in which we put ceilings on earnings, such as through earnings disregards. In this regard, a carer is allowed to earn only X amount in addition to that earned from caring. We need to change that. There is no reason to establish these kinds of ceilings. If we use the tax system intelligently, we do not have to put a ceiling on the earnings a person can have alongside the social welfare he or she may be claiming. These kinds of ceilings need to be broken.

It was very interesting to note the hierarchies we created within the welfare system during the pandemic. Those on the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, were paid at quite a high level whereas those on the jobseeker's allowance were paid at a much lower level. It was recognised when the PUP was established that the amount of money in question was needed weekly to adequately support somebody's independent living but the jobseeker's payment is significantly lower. Now that the PUP is gone, we are back down to the level of the jobseeker's payment. It is interesting to note how much of a hierarchy we created in our highly fragmented welfare system.

Regarding the Constitution and care, there was a recommendation on gender equality and having non-discrimination built into the Constitution by way of a clause. Second, it was recommended that the language of the Constitution be changed so women would not be assumed to be carers or have a domestic role. If accepted, we would talk in terms of parents, rather than women in this context. Other kinds of reforms considered were more specific to the statutory legislation and social welfare protection than anything else.

The third recommendation of the Citizens' Assembly was to have non-gender-specific language and to oblige the State to take reasonable measures to support care within the home and wider community. It did not state anything more than that because the Constitution is really about framing general principles. It is up to statute law to get to the specifics, as far as I would understand it. To get to the specifics of a care system that is well structured and encourages both men and women to share caring responsibilities, it is down to what statutory law provides for; the Constitution is for more general framing.