Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I also thank Deputy Tully for bringing the motion to the House. This is in an important motion in light of the report by Family Carers Ireland, which revealed that 74% of those surveyed do not receive significant formal support, while 72% have never received respite.

By its very nature, the rights of carers and the supports they are given extend to the very people they are caring for. If carers are not given the support they need to care for themselves as well as the person they are caring for, both parties are being underserved. Respite is something carers have to constantly fight for. In a recent case I dealt with, it has become obvious that people who are approved for respite would generally rely on getting it due to another cancellation rather than getting it at the frequency they have been deemed eligible for because respite is running at capacity. This effectively denies carers the break they are due and which they need to enable them to carry on with their valuable work, which saves the State billions of euro every year.

Each year ahead of the budget, we hear from the Government benches about how valued carers are. We want to increase income thresholds in the means test for the carer's allowance. This will result in higher payments for current recipients on reduced payments, and it would mean more carers would qualify for the allowance.

Carers save the State €20 billion every year, yet that is not reflected in Government policy which, in my experience, seems more focused on excluding people from qualifying for payments. Take two cases I am currently dealing with in which a change of carer is needed. Despite the fact that, in both cases, the applicant would be looking after a person whose needs were such that a carer had previously been approved for them, the application failed. This effectively says that despite the person being given care having a level of need that justified a carer being assigned to them, they no longer are. Again, this makes no sense apart from suggesting that when it comes to the allocation of carer's allowance, finances take precedence over need. This is clearly in conflict with the spirit of the Joint Committee on Disability Matters, which advocated for transitioning to needs-led and rights-based disability services. Surely this approach must be standard.

There is a similar issue with medical cards. I am aware of a case in which a young girl with Treacher Collins syndrome and cerebral palsy had to re-apply for a medical card despite her serious lifelong condition. Her family had to submit 80 pages of documentation and devote a huge amount of time while also looking after her medical needs.

See this speech in context