Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am honoured, as deputy chairperson of the Women's Parliamentary Caucus, to close the debate today, having proposed this important motion on a rights-based care economy. I thank all those colleagues from across the House who spoke on this important motion and the Ministers of State, Deputies Butler and Browne, for providing us with a Government response.

Undoubtedly, there is a great deal being done but, unfortunately, there are still many gaps in the system. While I acknowledge the progress being made, having listened to my colleagues who have spoken, it is fair to say that we are falling far short, particularly for children with special needs and the thousands of children who are still awaiting a first assessment. Across our constituencies, we hear all the time from the parents of children who cannot get a special needs place or supports to enable their kids to fulfil their potential in our education system. Earlier today, at a Family Carers Ireland event, listened to the poignant testimony of a parent who cares for a child with special needs. It was profoundly moving to hear the hoops she has had to jump through and the obstacles put in her way to ensure that care would be provided. We are still falling far short of the care that her child, like so many other children, needs. We are falling short in the provision of care for children and older persons.

I note the Minister of State spoke about progress in reducing the numbers waiting for home care supports. Even according to the Government's own figures, over 3,000 new applicants who were approved for funding are still awaiting home supports. That is in addition to the 2,900 people who are receiving supports but not yet the maximum hours advised. The Minister of State will agree that it is simply not good enough that in 2023, we have so many older people, younger people and children who are not being provided adequate levels of care.

The gendered nature of care was at the forefront of the minds of members of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality and members of the Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality. It is not a coincidence that of the 45 recommendations on gender equality made by the committee, 16 related specifically to care and social protection. We also made a recommendation on constitutional change in respect of care, which I will speak about in a moment. The reason 16 of the recommendations related to care and social protection is that the committee report, in the chapter on care and social protection, point out that while Ireland has seen a cultural shift in attitudes to care, women remain disproportionately responsible for unpaid care. Even in the workplace, women are over-represented in poorly paid care work sectors. For working parents, this can present significant challenges and women are most disadvantaged by those challenges. Lone parents face particular obstacles. Of course, in recognising that gender balance, the needs and rights of those receiving care must also be respected and supported in our laws and policies. That consideration was paramount for us in the Women's Parliamentary Caucus in bringing forward this motion.

The motion calls for a rights-based care economy. Some of the key demands we make in it include the immediate establishment of the commission on care and for its remit to be extended to include all types of care, including disability care and the delivery of rights-based care in line with the UNCRPD. The Minister of State confirmed that the commission on care for older persons would finally get under way in January of next year. We are very glad to see progress at last. I understand the Minister of State also said the chairperson was in the process of being appointed. Again, that is welcome.

However, we need to ensure that the commission addresses the intersectional issues, not just relating to older age but also relating to disability, to older persons who may have a disability or who may become disabled later in life. We also need to look at other issues relating to class and geographic area because we know that care is not consistently provided across the country. We want to see the sort of rights-based care that is fit for the 21st century provided to older persons and persons with disabilities - the sort envisaged by the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, originally pioneered by a Labour Party Minister of State, Kathleen Lynch, who charted a way forward for a rights-based model of care.

I have spoken about the need to ensure support for those who work in home care and I note the Minister of State's comments on that. We are concerned that some carers are still not getting the living wage. I know Government is moving on that. The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, also came back on the issue of section 39, section 56 and section 10 workers but we are still not hearing about parity of pay and conditions being provided for those workers, which they deserve because they provide such vital support across society.

We are concerned about the fair deal, which we touched on. We need to ensure the fair deal is not just skewed towards institutional care. Under the fair deal scheme, we can develop an equitable system for care in the home and for community-based care settings. As many speakers have said, in addition to real concern about potential for abuse in institutional settings, most of us would simply much prefer to be cared for at home.

I spoke earlier about being outside and meeting a coalition of disabled persons' organisations coming together under the banner of scrapping the Green Paper on disability reform. I do not believe the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, addressed those concerns, but I ask her to take them on board. One of the women outside told me that she did not want to be put into a nursing home. She is receiving care in her home and that is exactly where the focus should be under the fair deal and all Government policies on care. Those with disabilities and those in older age must be supported to remain at home. Obviously, this is not only better for those individuals, but it is also better for our economy because it is much less costly and people have much better health outcomes where they are enabled and supported to stay at home.

The programme for Government included a welcome commitment to deliver a carer's guarantee to enable family carers to deliver a core basket of services. We want to see that implemented; it will be very welcome when we do see it. In 2021, Government acknowledged the cost of disability and that must also be recognised in the commission on care. The report from the gender equality committee called for adequate data to be maintained on care. The submissions of stakeholder groups highlighted the lack of data on care, meaning that the Government is really hampered in trying to develop the long-term planning that is needed. We do not have really robust data on the projected needs for care and the number of those providing care. This is an opaque area.

I listened carefully to what both Ministers of State said on the constitutional change. I think I speak for all members of the committee in saying we are very disappointed the proposed new Article 42B will not recognise care beyond that provided within a family or by people with family bonds. The Minister of State, Deputy Butler, has spoken about the care provided by people and the volunteers in organisations like meals on wheels. We all know those involved in them and the amazing work they do supporting and enabling older people to live at home. However, that sort of care provision will not be covered and will not be valued in the new Article 42B. The care provided by friends who have no family bonds but are providing care out of love nonetheless will not be covered by Article 42B, as I read it. Of course, the value of care provided by those who are paid to do so will not be recognised. We are creating a hierarchy of care. Dr. Laura Cahillane described the wording as a fudged opportunity which is a fair assessment. It is disappointing to hear that.

I know the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, has said that while that less expensive definition of care is covered in Article 42B, the Government aims to provide support for carers outside of that definition through other means. While we will not have time to hear it today, we need to hear from the Government what levels of support will be given to provide the care that will not be protected or valued in the new Article 42B in the Constitution. What supports will we see? Will we see the sorts of measures that the motion from the Women's Parliamentary Caucus suggests, that the gender equality committee suggested and that the citizens' assembly suggested? Those are the sorts of meaningful supports that would really make a difference to carers and to those who receive and need care. That level of support needs to be guaranteed and committed to for us to be sure that the definition is not so restrictive that it becomes utterly meaningless and we do not see the value of care in our society that is so badly needed.

We need to recognise the gender dimension while also recognising the immense contribution that carers make to everyone in society. All of us have needed care in our childhood and all of us are likely to need care at some point during later life. There are many people who, during the course of their lives, will need care at various points. We are all conscious of the integral role of care in society. That was the impetus behind this motion from the Women's Parliamentary Caucus and it was really a driving force behind the work of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality and our work on the special committee.

I hope we can hear more from the Minister of State and her colleagues in government over the course of the weeks and months ahead as to what level support will be provided for carers and, in particular, how we can ensure that we do not see thousands of children still continuing to wait for assessments and thousands of older people still waiting to receive necessary home care and supports so that they can live independently at home. I again thank everyone for supporting this motion.

See this speech in context