Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Fitzmaurice. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion and I welcome the Minister's contribution. I thank Deputy Harkin and the office for putting in all of the work on this. I proudly signed the motion. It is apt that we are discussing it in a year when we are looking at a referendum on caring in the home and getting rid of the gender-based wording in the Constitution.

This is a very practical motion and I am glad the Government is not opposing it. I am not sure whether the Government is going to adopt it.

I believe in the Minister's bona fides, however. I think she is open to looking at what is in this motion. Deputy Harkin has put a focus on what we have all talked about for a long time over the years. At every single election, there is always a presentation regarding carers and what is happening in the Government's approach to carers, which I will come back to in a minute.

This very practical motion is an indictment of our economic system. We talk about a thriving economy, and we hear economists regularly talking about the various indices that tell us we are a wealthy country and how well we are doing. However, absolutely no value is ever put on carers. It is the hidden work and, of course, it is predominantly female, which goes a long way to explaining how this has happened. That is not taking from the many men and boys who are caring at home. I am talking about the overall approach from various Governments. Of course, Social Justice Ireland, the Vincentian group and others have done tremendous work on the ground, and every single year, in every single budget, educate us as to what policy changes are necessary. They point out that the work of Ireland's carers receives minimal recognition despite the essential role carers play in society. We do not have the benefit of the analysis of the recent 2022 census, so we are looking at the census figures from 2016. I am not going to set them out again. They have been clearly set out in Deputy Harkin's report.

What she is seeking here is a change with regard to having an individualised approach. She is talking about lifting the income threshold. I realise that the Minister made changes and I appreciate those changes. However, Deputy Harkin sets out how for a long period prior to that between 2008 and 2021, there was a 0% increase. It is a bit like public housing in a sense. When we boast about all the houses we are building now, we fail to put it into context. There was no increase for that significant period.

The points have been made by the groups on the ground. They talk about the additions in every budget when there is an increase in the carer's allowance and one-off payments. They are all very welcome, but the fundamental change that is required, which means a change in policy, has not ever happened. The Minister's challenge, with our support, is to fundamentally change policy so that we never again have reports coming from economists, which are quoted by various Governments, telling us that the country is thriving when it is thriving on the back of unpaid work. That is really the reality here.

The figures are absolutely shocking. A percentage of underage children are providing care. There are only 92,906 recipients of carer’s allowance, and that includes the 42,000-plus getting a half payment. What do these figures mean? That is very welcome payment to those people. However, it excludes the vast majority of households and families who are providing care without which the economy could not function. It simply could not function, nor could our hospitals, and they are in serious trouble as it is. I would love to see a different type of economic analysis when it comes to this subject and, indeed, when it comes to domestic violence and mental health. The failure to provide services ends up costing the State much more. The figure of €2.2 billion is usually cited with regard to domestic violence. There is a failure to deal with it in terms of lost productivity, and similarly with mental health. Notwithstanding all the wonderful reports, such as A Vision for Change and Sharing the Vision and all this, the implementation is completely faulty and ends up costing the economy. That is where women, and good men, come in. We give a completely different perspective. We might put that then in male terms, if I can use that word, if we speak in terms of the economy. We change the way that we analyse things. That simply has not happened.

The Minister for Social Protection is in the position whereby in every budget, she increases a little bit after listening to people on the ground. She gives another little bit without a fundamental change. I do not know whether she agrees with that analysis. That is what we need, however. She pointed out that the Department of Health may well be the appropriate Department. Her point that the Department of Health may well be the appropriate Ministry is a fair one to make in terms of what is an appropriate payment for carers in our society so that our economy can thrive on a fair basis.

Along with home carers and the carer's allowance, we have a significant parallel crisis in home care and home care packages. People are at breaking point, and we as Teachtaí Dála put pressure on the system and say that we give millions of hours per year. Then, I try to analyse that where I live in the Claddagh in Galway city and in Connemara. I see people struggling on a regular basis because there are no people available for home care work because we have undervalued and minimised carers and we have genderised it, if I can use that word. We have never made it an attractive position in terms of home care packages. Not alone that but we have privatised the home care system and rely on private companies. They seem to be able to get staff, and why? I am making the point that all this is a package at which we need to look. Over the years, we have had a neoliberal ideology with regard to care so that we put a price on everything and value nothing. I see the Minister shaking her head. I am acknowledging the good work she has done. I am acknowledging what she pointed out in her contribution. However, she is operating within a system where figures can move up or down a little bit depending on the economy. While the economy is defined in very narrow limits, it cannot function without the unpaid work that is been done. The carers are suffering. We know from all the indices and reports that they themselves are suffering from physical disabilities, depression and various psychological symptoms, and I am not a bit surprised. We also note that the more affluent families are able to do less caring because they have other ways of getting carers in whereas those people with less income are providing extraordinary numbers of hours per week.

Deputy Harkin said we throw out very easily the phrase 24-7, and she is absolutely right; 24-7 care is not possible for any human being. The motion could be the beginning of a conversation and debate that achieves results and puts a proper value on care. We must consider the amount of money it is saving the economy and the pressure it takes off hospitals. If today is a start with an end result, and the Government is not opposing this motion, I very much welcome it. I might just leave my cynicism aside for today and, hopefully, there will be a change.

See this speech in context