Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Even people who are not affected by the reduction in the respite care grant are deeply concerned by it. In fact, it has become a lightning rod for public dissatisfaction with Government policy. If the Minister listens to the people in her own party and in Fine Gael, she will discover that they all have their antennae up and have realised that this measure is unacceptable. It is purely a case of stubbornness and the desire to save face that is behind the claim of there being no alternatives. As others have stated, there certainly are alternatives to what is proposed in this measure.

The Minister argued that the respite care grant has increased substantially in recent years. The reality, however, is that the demands on that payment have also increased. For example, the cost of home heating fuels has increased significantly. People engaged in caring work face a disproportionate cost in this area because they are predominantly doing so in their own home. The cost of health care has increased. Moreover, the reduction in front-line services means that the respite care grant is very often used to plug gaps such as the lack of speech and language or occupational therapy. The notion that it is used in some type of frivolous way, that it is there for the little treats or extras, is completely to misunderstand the purposes for which it is used by the vast majority of recipients. In most cases it is not about paying for a week's holiday. Even if it were used for that purpose, to afford some rest and respite for carers, it would probably make a great deal of sense from a health care perspective. One third of all carers become ill themselves as a result of the stresses and strains of looking after another person 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

I will conclude shortly because I know that colleagues are anxious to speak. I referred in this Chamber earlier in the week to a woman - a constituent of the Tánaiste - to whom I had spoken outside Leinster House. She told me that her house is locked down at all times because she is caring for her young adult child who has autism and cannot access adult services. The young person is essentially a flight risk. This woman and others like her have taken grave offence to this cut because they feel they have been singled out. Everybody in society is offended that this vulnerable group is being targeted once again. I appeal to the Minister to show a little bit of sense and reason on this particular measure. Even if it is the only change she agrees to, it would at least demonstrate a degree of humanity. If she does not want to hear what we on the Opposition benches are saying, I urge her to heed what Government backbenchers have said. This decision is simply wrong.

See this speech in context