Ms Maria N? Fhlatharta:

I will touch briefly on the gender divide between economics and social inclusion. It is not a particularly difficult issue to understand. The economists are serving GDP. The social inclusion people are focused on people. The fact is that if we decide that economics is all about GDP, it will never service people, the citizens of our State, and because we have decided that is the way it is, we will never bridge that divide. It probably says something nice about our gender that we are not the ones dominating in the economic room.

This is also reflected in our housing strategy, where housing is seen as an asset and a commodity as opposed to a vital public service. We have seen that dichotomy throughout the history of the State. I want to point out that because of this decision, Ms Hassett and I are part of a generation that is locked out of the housing market. No amount of education will compensate for that. Finding rental properties that accepts a housing adaption grant is kind of impossible. This has also been made significantly difficult by the fact that the first Fine Gael-led coalition decided to row back on housing accessibility standards in a big way. Obviously, that was during a financial crash but it has made housing less accessible than it was when we were building crap houses during the boom. Again, it was an excellent economic decision that serviced GDP, as opposed to the people of this island.

We talked a little bit about transitions and I will finish on this point. The transition is not just to 18 years of age. The fact is that we decide to transition children out of systems with a valid onward trajectory after their education, such as at three years of age, when we decide to send them to segregated preschools; at five years of age, when we decide to send them to segregated schools; at 12 years of age, when secondary school fails; or at 15 years of age, when the leaving certificate is seen to be too much for disabled people.

The fact is that the transition at 18 is just about the continuation of services. If there is not a valid pathway, however, because we have already decided that disabled kids do not deserve to be on one, then it really is not all that relevant anymore. We need that transition of services, but we must ensure that we have not put disabled people on the wrong path long before that stage. The reason we are all talking about what happens at the age of 65, and I point out that Ms Hassett is in her mid-20s, at best, and I am in my 30s, is because we talk about nursing homes and what is going to happen to us when we are old at a shocking rate and have done so forever. Does the committee know why? It is because we see what is happening to our disabled elders, who have fought their entire lives to stay out of institutions and who have then been thrown into nursing homes. Think about that. People have spent their entire lives fighting not to be put in an institution, only to be then told that they are no longer disabled and put into a nursing home.

Of course we are freaking out about the transition at that age. It has been basically threatening us. Even though we have a pandemic that effectively eradicated a large portion of the people living in nursing homes, this seems to be the preferable model of care for older people. It is the preferred model because it is massively profitable. This is the only reason why it is the case. Nursing homes make fantastic money. They actually cost the State and people more than it would to provide support for older and disabled people in their own homes. We are still building nursing homes, however, and we have decided that they are the right approach, even though what has happened to people in nursing homes is disgusting.

Of course we are talking about what will happen when we reach the age of 65, because we are all terrified. I am looking particularly in this context at younger human rights advocates who think that disability is never going to happen to them, even though it is only a step away. It is a step off a kerb, a virus or just as far away as something like that happening in anyone's life. The fact is that we are all going to end up in nursing homes with brunch options because they do not see it as a bad idea to put disabled or older people in nursing homes. Until it is seen as a bad idea, and I will not use unparliamentary language, it will not be an issue. Therefore, we are really going to focus on the age of 65. Part of the reason the focus is on those aged 18 is because parents and disabled people shout loudly about this aspect. Trust me, however, if the committee members were to talk to a large group of disabled people, they would discover that we are greatly freaked out about the age of 65. I will leave it at that.