Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate Deputy Penrose on the introduction of the motion. As we have heard, there are approximately 350,000 carers in the country, which equates to almost one in ten of the population. By 2030 one in five people will be a carer. Just over one fifth of carers receive carer's allowance. As Deputy Penrose said, the carer's allowance payment received by someone caring on a 24/7 basis who may be working in this role for 80 or 90 hours a week is just €16 a week more than the payment received by someone on jobseeker's allowance. While I appreciate that carer's benefit and the carer's support grant must be counted also, nobody can argue that carers are well paid for the amount of effort they put in. If we calculate it on the basis of the national minimum wage, we will find that approximately €10 billion worth of voluntary work is being done in the State every year by carers, of whom some 80% are unpaid. If the State had to come up with that money, the Minister for Finance's problems with a no-deal Brexit, or even a Brexit with a deal, would pale into insignificance. We have to put measures in place to deal with this growing problem or phenomenon. The ostrich approach is no longer sufficient.

I have examined the proposals made in the Labour Party's motion. In fairness, many of them would cost very little. I myself have put some of them forward. I would say that in all cases, we would be talking about a gross cost. The net cost would be far lower. In fact, the net cost would be a fantastic substantial benefit to the Exchequer, as I think the Minister of State realises. Some of the things set out in the motion would be relatively cost-free and could be done immediately. I refer, for example, to the restoration or replacement of the mobility allowance which was abolished as a result of a decision made by the Ombudsman in 2013. Like other Deputies, I have asked on numerous occasions in this House when this allowance will be restored. The answer we are continually given is that there are complications. What is so complicated about it? After six years, we still do not know when it will be restored. Essentially, it means that the only transport assistance available to disabled or elderly people is the disabled driver's regulations grant which is drawn extremely narrowly. As it applies to people with physical disabilities only, there is no assistance whatsoever for people with intellectual disabilities.

The motion proposes that carers be allowed to work for more than 15 hours a week. If they could work for 18.5 hours a week, they would avoid being caught in with the working family payment which kicks in at 19 hours a week. That is a very reasonable request. When I recently asked the Minister for Finance how much this measure would cost the State, I was given a conservative estimate of €1 million from the Department of Finance. I disagree with it because I think the State would actually gain from such a move. Why not take this step? I know plenty of carers who would be able to work over and above the 15 hours a week threhold and thereby enhance their incomes. God knows, they badly need it. I cannot see any great issue with it.

There is certainly a cost involved in the means test. The motion sets out responsibly that the ultimate objective must be to have no means test. We all aspire to achieving that objective. I would like to mention some figures in that context. I have suggested that in the lifetime of the next Government the €665 per week threshold be raised to the level of the average industrial wage. Of course, there is no justification for keeping the capital disallowance of €20,000. It has been pointed out that the disallowance for people with disabilities is €50,000. There is no obvious reason one should be different from the other. I know that the means test is relatively generous in social welfare terms, but it has not been altered since 2008. It has been frozen for the past 11 years.

I agree with the reference in the motion to the postcode lottery. When we met carers across the road earlier today, the importance of the availability of respite care in many cases was forcefully brought home to us. One's access to respite care and other services largely depends on where one happens to live in the country. This can no longer be tolerated. The Carers Association has made a magnificent and fantastically innovative proposal. If it were to be supplemented to the tune of approximately €3 million per annum, the postcode lottery would be virtually eliminated. It should be given serious consideration in the context of the next budget.

As the Minister of State will be aware, when one is looking after an elderly or sick person in the home, one often has to adapt the home accordingly. Sometimes nothing other than a stairlift is needed. On other occasions considerable adaptation works are required. The problem is that the financial assistance for housing adaptations has moved backwards. In real terms, when inflation is stripped out, we are spending less than we did ten years ago, even though the number of people over the age of 65 years or in receipt of disability payments has risen significantly in tandem with the increase in the population over that time. I do not understand the logic of our approach in that regard, particularly when we are talking about very low figures in the overall context.

To be frank, the position on local authority housing is a disgrace. Funding for the repair and adaptation of local authority housing has decreased by approximately 25% in real terms in the past five or six years, even though the number of people living in local authority houses has increased in that time. Deputy Jan O'Sullivan and I share the same constituency. I am sure she can testify to the fact that corporation houses in every part of Limerick city are lying empty. The council tells us that it has no money to do them up, even though approximately 4,000 people are on the housing list, which is getting worse.

I think the Government should accept the motion which we will support. Contrary to what some people have suggested, it is not a question of throwing money at problems, or of Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party being spendthrift; rather, it is a question of saving the State a hell of a lot of money in the not too distant future. We know what is going to happen down the line from a demographics perspective and what we are trying to do. As Deputy Penrose pointed out, the net weekly cost to the State of home care is €900, if it stops at that figure, whereas the weekly cost of a hospital bed is €6,000. We have to put something in place that will represent a substantial saving to the State and, much more importantly, prevent many people from suffering the distress, anxiety and anguish they will suffer if we do not make this change. For demographic reasons, this is probably the only way we can do it down the line. We will be happy to support the motion.

See this speech in context