Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing the time with Deputy Naughten. I am delighted to be here to contribute to this very important debate on housing adaptation grants for older people and those with disabilities. I am very familiar with the motion and I fully endorse it. I am very happy to support it. I am also very grateful for the Minister's very positive engagement and interaction this morning, which is a very positive sign.

I support the motion for three primary reasons. The first is from a financial perspective. It is customary for people on this side of the House to always ask for more money to be spent by the Government on society but in the round with this we are seeking for less money to be spent. We are familiar with the cost of an overnight stay in an acute hospital bed and the cost of nursing home beds. This is a much cheaper and more effective way of looking after people in need, whether it is from the perspective of older people or those with a disability; it is about keeping them in their own homes, where they want to be. It will save much money for the Exchequer over time.

I welcome the existence of these grants but, as my colleagues have pointed out, we must look at the fixed thresholds, including ceilings on the worth of grants and the income of applicants. Both of those are too low. I welcome the Minister's comments about the review in that regard.

The second reason I support the motion is from a legal and moral perspective. As the Minister quite rightly pointed out, we are signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. They have a right to live where and with who they wish. The State has been 100% right in pointing out the Russian Federation's breaching of international law and we are also right in reminding our UK counterparts that they signed an international treaty by which they should abide. If we are the rule of law country we claim to be, we should be guided by the UN convention. I am very happy to hear the Minister's comments in that regard as well.

The third reason I support the motion is from the perspective of seeking a superior outcome. Whether people are patients or clients, they want to stay in their home. There are a number of reasons for this. For example, they may have an emotional connection with where they have grown up and lived. We do not know if the pandemic is finished or if there will be another pandemic and it is important to realise people are much safer in their homes than in congregated settings, so we should support them living at home.

I wholeheartedly welcome the discussion on the motion this morning and I am truly supportive of it from a financial, a legal and a moral perspective, and from the perspective of providing superior outcomes. Perhaps the most important reason I am backing it is that there is no place like home. It is up to the Government and every Deputy in the Chamber to ensure that phrase endures.

See this speech in context