Louise O'Reilly
Dublin Fingal West · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“I welcome this debate this afternoon and am happy to be able to make a small contribution to it. I grew up in a Border town. I ended up in that town because my father was a trade union organiser who represented workers on both sides of the Border for a long number of years and, in fact, went on to be based in the North for a long time.”
“I am fortunate enough to represent a constituency that is very firmly in the Dublin–Belfast economic corridor. Before partition, as we know, Belfast was a thriving industrial powerhouse. Partition put a lid on the potential of that city to grow and flourish.”
“When we talk about Irish unity, we should frame that discussion as one about potential for growth, the potential for all-Ireland working and all-Ireland business. Between Belfast and Dublin, there are five universities, numerous colleges of further education and training, and businesses that are ready to scale up.”
“As the debate on Irish unity advances, and it is advancing despite what some of the people opposite would like to happen, we need to frame that discussion in a positive way. We need to look clearly for those opportunities while acknowledging the challenges. We are not blind to the challenges.”
“If her letter does not have any impact - let us be honest; it has not had any impact - the Minister of State might outline what he will do that might go a bit further than writing a letter. We know that devices are essential. We know that parents want their kids to be able to participate.”
“I thank the Deputies for bringing forward this motion. I was chatting to my dad as I was coming in and told him I would be debating this motion in relation to supports for parents this morning. He reminded me, of course, that it was the Labour Party in government that cut those very supports.”
The complete record
Every one of 855 lines we hold for Louise O'Reilly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 18.
“Auto-enrolment was implemented simply because the Government knows that the members of generation rent are ageing and that they will be renting when they have retired and because it is necessary to make provision for that. Again, that is more money going into the private sector. Auto-enrolment is not what is needed. It will not prevent pension poverty because a lot of what is being done will be eaten up by rising rents. Those who are working in the sector, where they are solely funded by the State, are now starting to panic about how provision is going to be made for them. I want to discuss a letter that was sent to the Minister by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in relation to pay-related job seeker's benefit.”
“They are the people on the front line of the Government's homeless crisis and its healthcare waiting lists. They are working incredibly hard but they want to know what provision has been made by the Government - their employer, essentially. I know the Department does not wish to establish an employment relationship with them but, notwithstanding that, where you are the sole funder, you are effectively in the position of an employer. What provision has been made? What has the Department done proactively to ensure that these people will be able to participate in this scheme? We know why auto-enrolment was implemented. Auto-enrolment was not implemented because the Minister looked into his heart and thought working people should provide for their pensions and their retirement.”
“The presentations are good, the flyers have gone out and all of that has been grand, but there are some issues occurring in real time and, as we get closer to the deadline, people are starting to get a little worried. These are issues we have raised with the Minister's office and I hope we will get to the bottom of them. There are issues around agencies that are solely funded by the State and the provision that has been made in that regard. I will have a chance to discuss this with the Minister tomorrow during parliamentary questions. I sincerely hope his answer is not that they have had years to prepare for this. If that is his answer, I respectfully suggest that he go away and get another answer because that is not fair. There are men and women working really hard, let us not forget.”
“That is €20 million for a full year, unless maths has changed since I was in school. He tells me in responses to parliamentary questions I ask that it will cost €600 million to phase the means test out. By that logic, with €20 million allocated, if the Minister continues at the current pace, it will take him 30 years. Can he tell us in real terms when the carer's allowance means test will be abolished, how he will achieve that and how he thinks allocating €1.8 million less this year than he did last year will achieve that goal? It strikes me that we are going backwards. I also want to ask the Minister about some aspects of the auto-enrolment programme because we have a chance to discuss that today. There are some gaps in My Future Fund.”
“In the same year as over 300,000 households are currently in arrears on their electricity bills and one in five children continues to grow up in poverty, the Government is giving a €10.4 million tax cut to millionaires under the special assignee relief programme, narrowing the fiscal base, squeezing those who are in the middle and working people, and refusing to tax the booming economic growth progressively. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions and maybe he can answer them in his summing up. He gave a commitment that the carer's allowance means test would be abolished over the lifetime of the Government. I have asked this question repeatedly and am yet to get a satisfactory answer. He allocated €10 million in the budget for a half year. That is simple enough maths.”
“For essential welfare payments like disability allowance, jobseeker's payments and the State pension, the Government has decided that it will not even keep them in line with inflation. For the people who depend on these payments and their families, their welfare payments are actually worth less now than they were in 2020. The Minister and I both know that nothing about this is inevitable. This is a choice Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Lowry group have made. We are not in a recession; it should not feel to people like we are. The money is available for redistribution but this Government does not seem interested in doing that.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I also welcome the fact that it gives us a chance to talk about not just the social welfare element but also auto-enrolment, which some of my colleagues will focus on. As we near the start date, the issues that are arising are coming to the fore for people and there is less and less time to deal with the questions that are arising as time is running out. To deal with the first part of this first, as it were, we are here to legislate for measures that were in budget 2026. I remind people, the Minister in particular, that at a time when the Exchequer has a surplus of billions of euro, and the economy, the Government keeps telling us, is supposedly booming, poverty is rising for workers and families, particularly children, at an alarming rate not seen since the recession.”
“We also note that the energy regulator has told us that the substation at Castlebaggot, which was initially due to support new housing, has been handed over to data centres. We also note that the ESB has concerns about sustainability in north Dublin and the area I represent. That the Government has not allowed for proper discussion under PLS for this Bill means I have no answers for my constituents. They simply look at the Government's record with their heads in their hands.”
“I will talk about families in my constituency who have experienced huge delays, running to years, in moving into their homes in Páirc Na Blathanna because of the failure by the Government to invest in energy infrastructure. They were forced to couch surf. They were overholding. They put their lives on hold. They simply could not make that move into homes that were built and ready for them to move into. They will ask what is in this legislation for them. How will this improve their lives? The simple fact is that because the Government has waived PLS, we are not going to have a chance to discuss it. I hope the Minister of State will take on board not just the intention but the substance of the amendments tabled by my party colleague, Deputy Pa Daly.”
“I stress that the waiving of pre-legislative scrutiny, PLS, is never a good idea. I do not know what the Government has against transparency and accountability. I welcome the fact we opposed the waiving of PLS. I also welcome the fact the Government is finally acknowledging the need to invest in our grid infrastructure. It is long past time. This Bill provides for investment in energy infrastructure but it does not provide details about how this will happen. Who will be responsible for managing and ensuring value for money? The Minister of State will, I am sure, forgive us if we look at the record of the Government, its wasteful habits and capacity to spend taxpayers' money without a single care, or indeed without any attempt to inject value for money.”
“However, we know that the Government does not monitor health among marginalised groups sufficiently, so it is very hard to intervene when the Government is not actually assessing the level of the issue. In the few seconds remaining to me, I acknowledge the Marie Keating Foundation's campaign, No Bum Hole Needed. Forgive my use of that language but it is important to say No Bum Hole Needed. The PSA test is a simple blood test. It will save your life. It saves everyone's life, and I encourage any man, when offered the opportunity, to have that test.”
“As the Minister stated, 80% of suicides involve men. That is phenomenally shocking and speaks to a real lack of services and supports. It should prompt us, as a society, to perhaps reflect on how we deal with and speak about men's mental health. As a woman, I get very frustrated when women's health issues are discussed as if we are somehow all the same. In other words, that all women have the same physical make-up, the same issues and the same access. That is not true. The Movember report shows us it is not true for men either. A one-size-fits-all approach does not work. We know that 73% of men aged 18 to 24 are concerned about the state of healthcare for men. That is very worrying ,but it is clear that more targeted interventions are needed. GPs tell us they are concerned and have difficulty engaging with marginalised groups.”
“I welcome the opportunity to say a few words. I have often stood in this Chamber when we had statements on women's health and looked around to find that there were mostly women present, so I am delighted to make a contribution this afternoon. I am speaking as a wife, daughter and a granny to a grandson. I am very lucky. My dad is living well. My husband is a cancer survivor and my grandson is thriving. However, I am acutely aware of the Movember report into men's health. It is really worrying that the rate of premature death is 40% higher among males than females in this State. That statistic should give the Government serious pause for thought. Those are preventable deaths. That is exactly what they are. They are preventable, premature and avoidable, and focusing on helping men to live well longer will benefit us all.”
“I had the luxury of additional time off, which a lot of people do not have. They dread the thought of having to go back into work. I want to put that on the Government's radar so that it is factored into the discussions.”
“Sometimes the delays can cause a bit of uncertainty because if a State case comes in, it could push back the release of a loved one's remains, which can have a knock-on effect. The fact is that people are in limbo. It is very individual in nature. We are never going to settle on the right number of leave days. How long does it take to deal with grief? It takes forever. I speak about the capacity of people to be able to go back to work. Had I been required to be back in work on the Thursday for monetary reasons - to be brutally frank, in a way we are lucky that we can do a job that we love, but a lot of people work for the money not for the love of it - I do not think I would have been able. There is an inability to not go back to work. The fact is that I went back to work on the Friday but that was my choice. I wanted to do it.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the reply and also for the confirmation that the Department is ready to assist. The purpose of raising this issue was to ensure that the impact on families will be taken into account. I can see from the reply that the Minister of State is aware of that, but I urge that the practical impact on individuals be factored into the negotiations. As a former trade union official, I cannot believe I am standing here and saying that I am not looking for additional leave. It is not about that, however, it is about the process. I had a chance to discuss the delays with some people. What I say is purely anecdotal. I posit no scientific evidence for this.”
“Someone may find themselves in a situation where they simply do not have the leave. I tabled this matter to spark a discussion. I do not expect the Minister of State will have the answers this morning, but I had resolved, when I was able, to raise this issue on the floor of the Dáil. I spoke to a number of people, including the funeral directors. We had that conversation, so I am making good on a commitment that was given.”
“This is to bring attention to the impact of these possible delays. It is not a plea for more leave, because I do not think that is the issue. There is a cultural expectation. When you talk to people from other places they say "Gosh, it is very fast". Culturally, however, that is how it is done in this State. It really shocked me when I realised that even had I taken one day of force majeure leave and five bereavement leave days, I would have had to have returned to work the day after my mam’s funeral. I physically would not have been able to do so. Had I not had the leave, however, I would have had to return. Coming up to Christmas, people might keep leave because they have to have it for the festive period. In some employments, the boss will tell their employees that they have to keep some leave days to cover that period.”
“This is not a plea for additional leave days, because I do not think that is the solution. Culturally in this country, there is a short time between the death and the cremation or burial. As a result, there will be a particular impact if the delays to which I referred occur. I was thinking about it and talking to members of my family. I could not have gone back to work; it would just not have been possible. I am very lucky, however. I have Marian and Freya in my office. They and all of my colleagues together made sure the work was done. I am very lucky, but there are an awful lot of people who are not. Imagine you are working as a nurse. I am sure that when you go onto the ward, your colleagues are of course going to be lovely to you, mind you and all of that, but you might not have a choice. You might not have any annual leave left.”
“She was not cremated until the following Wednesday, which, to put it in bald terms, would have put anyone with only five days' bereavement leave in a situation whereby they would have to go back to work. If you take the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, that is three days. If you take the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of the following week, that is six days in total. Even if you get one force majeure day and you take five, it is quite possible to find yourself in a situation where you do not have enough leave. This is not about me. It only came to my attention because it happened to me. It was something I had not thought about at all. You might not be able to go back to work, but you might be someone who has to do so. If you are lucky - and lucky is the word - you get five days' leave.”
“I thank the Minister of State for being here this morning to take this matter. If he does not mind, I will refer to two separate matters. The first is the story in this morning’s newspaper to the effect that delays with funerals are feared as Waterford Hospital is to end coroner-requested autopsies. The article in question refers to a global shortage of pathologists, which means there will be further delays. I tabled this matter on the basis of my own experience. The matter revolves around the number of leave days available to a person who is bereaved. If we take the civil and public service as having the best bereavement leave entitlement, we find that a person is entitled to five days leave on the loss of a mother or father. I had that experience recently when my mam died. She died on a Wednesday.”
“I was quite shocked to see that last year the Government put €11.8 million towards the income disregard but this year it has gone down to €10 million for the half year. It is going to take 30 years at the current rate.”
“The Taoiseach gave a commitment to phase out the means test for carer's allowance over the lifetime of the Government. It allocated €10 million for a half year in the budget - and €20 million for a full year. The Department of Social Protection tells us that it is going to cost €600 million to phase it out. At the Government's current rate, that would take 30 years. My question is a simple one. How long does the Taoiseach plan on being in government? How long is this term going to last? How long will carers have to wait to see a roadmap from the Government as to when the means test will be abolished? The Taoiseach talked a lot about it in the run-up to the last election, but now it seems to have been put even further back.”
“It is those on the Government benches failing to see they have the power to make their lives better. Every budget is about choices. Every decision made is a political choice. In this budget the choice was to leave people with disabilities worse off. This is why we tabled the motion. I welcome the fact the Government will not oppose it but it would be better, and the people in the Gallery know it, if the Government supported it and supported them.”
“They still face additional costs. They are not disabled by themselves. They are disabled by society. They are disabled by infrastructure that does not suit their needs. They are disabled by a payment structure from the Department that will see them worse off this year. They are disabled by a Government that neither listens nor understands what they need. I want to speak very briefly about a constituent of mine, whom I will call Paul. He is visually impaired. He is legally blind. He lost all of his disability payments at the age of 66. He got plenty of presents when he turned 66 but he did not get the gift of sight. He was disabled when he was 65 and 364 days and he woke up the next morning - happy birthday - and he is now worse off. It is this failure to understand the cliff edge that people with disabilities face.”
“I thank everyone who made a contribution to the debate. The Minister of State will agree the depth of feeling is very much evident in the Chamber. The cost-of-living crisis cuts deeper and lasts longer for people with disabilities and the Government knows this. The motion sets out an alternative to the Government's approach. The least we should expect from any decent Government is that it will not make things worse for disabled people and yet, under the budget, they will be worse off by up to €1,400. I urge the Ministers of State to listen to the voices of our disabled citizens, act in their interests and recognise the actual cost of being and living as disabled person in this State. When disabled people turn 66 or they get a job, their primary condition and the costs associated with it do not disappear. It is still expensive.”
“We have a long way to go before people with disabilities are respected and supported to live a full life. As has been said in here many times, they are not disabled, they are disabled by society. They need and deserve supports.”
“The Minister might know Padraig because he was recently on "Prime Time". They were meeting with my party colleague an Teachta Pearse Doherty. Both men are disabled campaigners, but they should not have to be. I would say disabled people are sick and tired of having to beg for every little bit from the Government. I would say they are sick and tired of having to tell able-bodied decision-makers and policymakers over and over again about the reality of living as a disabled person in this State. It is not fair and not right, and the Government had choices. Disabled people like Padraig who are working face barriers and a cliff edge and fear getting a promotion in work in case they are taken above the income limits for any supports. Imagine that. Imagine being afraid of getting a promotion.”
“Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have made it as difficult as possible for disabled people to maintain the financial independence necessary to live in dignity. The Government’s budget will make it worse. Ordinary people, disability rights activists and the people here in the Gallery watching this debate know it does not have to be this way. They heard the budget announcement and are confounded by how the Government could withhold such crucial supports while narrowing the fiscal base and granting tax breaks to property developers. We needed to see energy credits, a significant lump-sum payment and increases to the disability allowance and other disability payments, in addition to an increase to the fuel allowance - at a minimum, in advance of winter. I met with Ciaran and Padraig this evening.”
“This is one of the cruellest budgets we have seen in a long time, and it has rightly been dubbed by Social Justice Ireland as a recipe for austerity. Profiteering, which we know is at the heart of the energy industry, has never been worse in the history of the State. Now is the time the State should step in with a cost-of-living package. However, it is a matter of make do and mend for disabled people and an endless tap of cash turned on for landlords and developers. People with disabilities have, under successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments, been forced to cede their independence, become increasingly dependent on their families for support and to infantilise themselves because they simply cannot live an independent life.”
“It seems the Minister of State forgets people with disabilities shop in the same shops that he and I shop in. The prices go up for the disabled in the same as they go up for us. The only difference is that when those with disabilities go back to their bank accounts, there is no money in them to meet the rising cost of living. The disability allowance, modest as it is, will have less purchasing power now than it did five years ago, and all of this is happening while there is a surplus in the order of billions of euro. The fuel allowance, on which so many households with disabled members rely, has seen but half the increase needed just to keep up with inflation. It is nowhere near its original value, the value it had in 2020.”
“While I welcome that the Government is not opposing this motion, it would of course be much better if it were supporting it. It would be better still if it put some meaningful supports in place for people with disabilities. We are here today because the budget announced last week condemns people with disabilities and their households to poverty. That is a fact. If the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, talks to people with disabilities, that is what they will tell them. The Government is showing its true colours and nobody is forcing its hand. Against all expert policy advice, it has chosen to cut the cost-of-disability supports to the value of over €1,000 per person this year. On top of this, it has decided it is not worthwhile to keep the real value of the disability allowance in line with inflation.”
“I move: That Dáil Éireann: acknowledges: — the additional costs disabled people face in their day to day lives; — an Indecon report, commissioned by Government back in 2021 confirmed the cost of disability, estimating it to be on average between €9,482 and €11,734 per annum; — this was not the first report showing a cost of disability; and — an Economic and Social Research Institute study from this year showing that households with a disabled member face significant financial burdens and are at very high risk of poverty; condemns: — the Government and previous Governments for failing to introduce a permanent Cost of Disability payment, despite acknowledging the additional costs involved; and — Budget 2026 for failing citizens with disabilities; and calls on Government to: — develop and introduce a Cost of Disability Payment; — increase the Disability Allowance and other weekly disability-contingent social welfare payments by €20 from January 1st as an interim measure to begin to recognise the additional costs of disability; and — deliver a lump sum payment to people with disabilities this month to provide immediate recognition of these additional costs.”
“The Minister said he would introduce a measure for lone parents and it would benefit all lone parents. Of course, it will not. As I said, when the mask slips, it slips all the way down to your ankles. Not all lone parents are solely dependent on social welfare but they are over-represented in the group most at risk of not just poverty but consistent poverty. The Minister was very loose in his language. We have seen no costings from the Department of Social Protection. Before the election, you told us you wanted to abolish the means test for carers. Now that the election is over, that has slipped down the priority list. It remains to be seen how much has been put against that budget. By my reckoning, at the current pace of delivery by the Government, it is about 30 years. That is not the lifetime of a government but six governments.”
“The Government is not coming to plead the poor mouth as it sometimes does. In fact, we had to sit and listen to Government speaker after speaker and Minister after Minister tell us we have never had it so good, clapping themselves on the back for all for the good work they are apparently doing. That does not manifest itself in my constituency office. It is not what my constituents tell me. When they come to me, they speak about needing a small amount of help. They ask me fairly simply questions such as does the Government listen? Does it know? Does it care? Unfortunately, we see every year in the budget exactly how much it listens and how much it cares. There is €10 a week for people who are dependent on the State, pensioners, people on a fixed income who worked their whole lives.”
“That is possibly a good thing but when the mask slips it slips all the way down to your ankles because you will tell us your acceptable level of child poverty and moving towards an acceptable level of child poverty. You are quite prepared to live in a State where kids go to bed hungry and cold. That should not happen when we have surplus. There should not be a recession-style budget in a time of plenty. Now is the time people cannot heat their homes. As we saw in the Barnardos report, parents are having to reduce their portion sizes or skip meals. It is a damning indictment of the Government and its policy that in a time of plenty, children go to bed hungry. It tells you everything you need to know. That the Government is okay with this tells you everything you need to know.”
“There are 300,000 people going into the winter in arrears on their electricity bills. One in five children - over 225,000 - lives in families below the poverty line. Those facts tell us the cost-of-living crisis is not over. When people look to the Government, they look for a hand up. They are not looking for a handout. They want to be able to heat their homes and buy food for their families - basic stuff. They see the continuation of the red carpet for vulture funds and Ministers coming out with their hoovers to make sure the red carpet is nice and clean for all the lads coming to get all the benefits of this budget. There are no benefits for people living in poverty. The Minister for Social Protection made an announcement last month that there will be a target set for the reduction of child poverty.”
“In the face of rising costs, in the same breath as you put up the cost to fill your car with diesel or petrol, you offer people €10. It will not keep pace with the rising grocery costs or the rising cost of living. The people who sit around the Cabinet table or near it think by saying the cost-of-living crisis over that it will magically be over for people; it is not. If you were listening to your own constituents, you would know there very much is a cost-of-living crisis. If you did not want to listen to your constituents, like the Government representative in my area, who has no office - no one knows where he is and no one can find him - bury your head in the sand, stick your fingers in your ears and not listen, the facts tell us the cost-of-living crisis is not over.”
“On the social protection budget, while the Minister, Deputy Chambers, was on his feet announcing a €2 billion increase in measures for the social protection budget, his colleague in government, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Calleary, was issuing a press statement congratulating himself for achieving €1.15 billion in additional investment. You are all over the place. The people at the business end of this do not deal in billions and millions. Many do not even deal in fifties or twenties. There are very fine margins. Many people on a fixed income like pensioners are in the bracket of the 300,000 in electricity arrears. We know what older people are like. In the main, they want to pay their bills if they can. Sometimes, they need a bit of a hand. Some €10 is an absolute slap in the face.”
“I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution in respect of the budget. The people who were really celebrating on Tuesday when the announcements were made were the landlords, the developers and the vulture funds. This was a budget for them. The Government might as well have just handed the biro to them and let them write the budget. Not unlike the previous speaker, who is a Fianna Fáil Deputy, I was of course disappointed with the budget because the it favours those who are on high incomes, have big investments and multinational corporations over ordinary people.”
“Mothers are telling me their kids are going to have to emigrate because they cannot afford to live in north County Dublin and that is on the Minister.”
“The Minister acknowledges that there is an affordability problem. Mother of Jesus. He acknowledges that there is a viability problem. Does he know what the problem is? We have a Government problem. The people in Balbriggan are at the business end of a Government-sponsored problem. The average cost of rent in north County Dublin is €2,223. I asked the Minister a simple question: how many cost-rental homes have been delivered in Balbriggan in the last five years? Not only did I ask the Minister the question, I gave him a week to answer it and to do research. The answer, the Minister and I both know, is "zero". He has delivered zero by way of cost-rental homes for people living in Balbriggan and that is why they are in my constituency office day in, day out, telling me they are facing eviction.”
“If the answer is "zero" for the past five years with regard to cost-rental homes for Balbriggan, one of the fastest growing towns in this State, the Minister should at least have the decency to be honest with me and my constituents and tell them the figure is zero. He can ramble on about the Balbriggan strategy, Quay Street and all of that. We are well aware of that. We know that. I asked the Minister a very specific question and I am seeking a fairly specific answer.”
“If the answer is "zero", will the Minister just say it? Is he embarrassed or ashamed? I would be if I was sitting where he is but I do not think the Government knows any shame. The answer is "zero". As we are here this morning, the average rent in north County Dublin is €2,223. The Minister might tell me who is going to be able to afford that rent because people on an ordinary income simply cannot. Even if they could scrape together all of that money, they would absolutely never be able to save for a deposit on a house because to the Minister's mind, an affordable house is more than €500,000.”
“My question is, as I generally try to make them, fairly straightforward. For the avoidance of any doubt, the question refers to delivery for the previous five years, specifically to the tenure of the Minister's predecessor. It was the same Government but a different Minister. Plans for the future do not need to be included in this. I just want the figure, which I suspect is quite a round figure, of cost-rental deliveries in the town of Balbriggan.”
“She is punished for making up for the failure of the State to provide adequate services for her son. She is punished for that. I ask the Minister to reflect on that.”
“In May, she had to leave her permanent job where she had worked for 23 years in a management and specialist role because the demands of caring and working were gruelling. She could not keep it up anymore. She is not eligible for carer's allowance because of her husband's salary, which is not something we should be saying in 2025. She asked me to remind the Minister that during the previous election, it was promised that the means test for carers would be abolished. She wants to know when that promise will be delivered. There has been a lot of talk about the cliff edge a person faces and the pay-related jobseeker's allowance was brought in. This woman left her job. We talk about a cliff edge but this woman gets nothing. She gets absolutely nothing.”
“Caring work is work and just because it is done with love is no excuse for taking advantage. That is effectively what the State does; day in, day out, it takes advantage of the love people have for their family members and the care they deliver. Carers are exploited and exhausted. They are sick and tired of having to beg for every tiny little bit of help and support. When they get that help, it often comes very late and is not enough to keep pace with the rising cost of living. I was contacted in advance of this motion by a woman from my constituency. I will call her Laura - I generally try not to say people's names - because to be honest, it is humiliating enough the way people have to beg so I will call her Laura. She tells me that she cares for her son. He is now 14 years old.”
“I thank the Deputies for bringing forward the motion. The Government knows well the difference between not opposing something and supporting something. The Minister is around long enough to know the nod in the direction of saying something is a good idea and actively and proactively working for it are two very separate things. I urge the Government to not just not oppose this motion, but also accept it in the spirit in which it is put forward here this morning. The need to abolish the means test for carers is made up of thousands and thousands of individual needs and millions of hours of care delivered. Behind closed doors, families struggle to care for their loved ones and pay their rising bills. The motion tells us that carers save the State more than €20 billion every year. That is likely an underestimation of the real situation.”
“That is a sensible suggestion and one that I will take on board. I welcome the fact that the Minister is not opposed or hostile to the notion that we can look at it. I am not sure exactly what can be done but a conversation on this would be worthwhile at committee. I will engage with the committee Chair and with the Department.”