Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have been following the debate with interest. I had planned to come in remotely but that did not work out. I am torn because I have two separate sets of questions that seem contradictory, which is the nature of these issues. One set of questions intends to move away from the money; the other intends to look in great detail at the money.

There must be an acknowledgement that care costs. If the cost is not being acknowledged and planned for by the State and if it is not in budget systems and visible, then the cost ends up being carried by others. The cost ends up being carried to a large degree by women, although not exclusively, as we have heard. The costs are carried not only in the moment of care but also later in life by the substantially reduced pensions and so forth. There are both time costs and money costs. We discussed time poverty and money poverty, their intersection and the impact on carers in a previous session. That level of care costing is required. There is also a need for care to be valued properly and figured out. We must acknowledge the cost of care and the value of care. Trying to create a market logic or unit approach is not necessarily the best approach. While costs must be concretely addressed, we must reflect the value too. The inputs of what care brings to society in many cases are not containable within the care situation or the care Act because the benefits are elsewhere. In fact, the need is elsewhere. That is perhaps the core issue. It is not an add-on. Care is the thing without which everything collapses. We have seen that. We had a taste of it during the pandemic.

I wanted to ask how we can do that and I have formulated questions across three levels. The first relates to a macro level around budgets. We have new well-being indicators that are being talked about. How do we measure and ensure care becomes visible in budgetary decision-making? That is happening at a European level. What are the indicators that are measured in deciding if the right financial decisions are being made with regard to budgets and how resources are allocated? How can success be measured? Are there other indicators for it? That is the idea of the well-being or even the integration of the sustainable development goals, SDGs, into the semester process, which is being discussed at European level.

Domestically, I am interested in what the witnesses are talking about in respect of the social welfare system and the idea of the participation income. I have a concern. With the first versions of basic income, the idea was that everybody would be paid the same. However, we know that the cost of care is different. We have at last been given the Indecon cost of disability reports as well as the good work the witnesses have mentioned that has been carried out by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice. Perhaps they could elaborate on that in respect of the cost of care in its concrete sense. We have those measures. In moving to a universal payment, means testing would be stripped out. It requires individualisation, which the witnesses might elaborate on. We are moving away from family means testing. These circumstances are likely to affect a woman in her 40s or 50s whose partner may still be earning a substantial amount. That is the age group we have heard is predominant. Such a woman is moving to a place where she will not have economic independence in later life. How do we pull out those bits, deal with universal income and also recognise the hard, concrete and real costs of care?

All the witnesses have mentioned not just the gender neutral recognition of care but have supported the recommendation of the citizens' assembly to recognise family in a different way. It would be useful if they would elaborate on that point.

I will move to the last layer of the money valuing piece. Commissioning has been mentioned. I am passionate on that issue and have legislation on procurement that attempts to take account of price and quality. Will the witnesses comment further on the use of lowest cost only tendering? That means that a low-ball bid must be submitted and sets the tone. It is important to have a heavy weighting towards quality in how care is valued because otherwise the large companies that can put in a very big bid because they have stripped costs to a minimum are rewarded. The State must recognise in the context of public procurement that it is not just participating in a marketplace for care. The State has the responsibility to vindicate the right to care and is the single biggest provider of care.

If it is not doing that directly, it should treat itself as a provider of care rather than a customer. I ask the witnesses to comment on that and the matter of time poverty. I also ask Professor Lynch to comment on the market logic piece. Maybe we need to stop pretending market logic is the way to go. It is all that same question of how to strengthen the care logic at each of these systemic decision-making levels.