Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This session has focused on care and social protection. The points Ms Daly made are very relevant to the recommendations of the citizens' assembly on violence against women. We will incorporate those important points. I was struck by the request for ongoing training of persons working in the Department of Social Protection. It sounds like the same training is also needed in the health services in terms of engaging with women and gender minorities with a disability.

It was striking because when looking at gender equality, many organisations have experienced that intersectional layer of discrimination. It is good that this issue was highlighted.

I have a number of questions about social protection because that is the area we will drill in to. On means testing and the call for the requirement of individualised social protection, from what we have heard from other witnesses, it means that we should not be looking at means testing or a household income solely when there are individuals and adults in that household who do not have independent access to income. There is potential to interpret the reference to "individualised" in the recommendations as meaning there should be a move away from means testing. I seek further comment on the importance of independence of income.

The recommendations for a universal pension have been very good and strong. While we have the recommendation that every individual would receive a universal pension, how do we ensure that it reflects the cost of disability? At present, when disabled people get to a certain age, their disability needs are not adequately recognised.

I refer to choices relating to independent living. Some of what we are considering is how the statutory entitlement to home care is interpreted. In failing to deliver that entitlement, it seems the debate has moved on to include personal needs assistants as part of what the statutory entitlement should be, for those who chose that service. Will the witness comment on that?

Ms Ní Fhlatharta mentioned institutionalisation in the home or in residential facilities, about which I am concerned. The DFI, has done a lot of work in this area, on the routes out of institutionalisation for those in certain care situations. If we change things, we need to change them not just for the new people accessing care but those who are in residential care. How does one move out of that model or what of a person in family care who wanted to move towards independent living options as they become available? It is important to have routes of choice outward.

What was said about the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, in terms of the effective rates of poverty going down was striking. We should look to that in general as it relates to the adequacy of social protection payments. Not only was taking people out of poverty mentioned but the deprivation index was also raised. The example of going for coffee was interesting. In our deprivation basket of goods, being able to host a friend should be included in the standard. Do we use the minimum essential standard of living that the Vincentians have been looking for? How do we measure whether people are actually living fully?

The question on respite was interesting. Perhaps it is not the right word but what was interesting about the recommendation was that it refers to the range of options. That may provide opportunities for those in residential care, as well as those with home care, to say that they want to go on holidays, take on a project, do a course, or whatever they want to do. What do the witnesses think about that?

I know I am out of time. I thank the witnesses for their strong presentations. They strengthen and give depth to the Citizens' Assembly recommendations and are true to their spirit. Lastly, the witnesses should comment on issues relating to people with a disability who are carers, parents and carers more generally and on what specific supports are available to them.