Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Feb 2009

Vol. 193 No. 13

Child Poverty: Motion.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I move:

That Seanad Éireann acknowledges:

that over 76,000 children are living in poverty in Ireland;

the fact that 1 in 5 children are living in households where the income is so low that they are at risk of poverty;

that the Towards 2016 agreement includes a commitment to work towards the elimination of child poverty;

Seanad Éireann therefore calls on the Government to:

develop a clear strategy to address child poverty and set a date in law by which child poverty will be eliminated in Ireland;

increase basic social welfare payments for families at risk of poverty;

ensure there is access to quality, affordable and flexible Early Childhood Education and Care;

tackle educational disadvantage by fully resourcing and implementing the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) strategy;

increase medical card eligibility for families;

ensure every family has prompt access to a secure, affordable and appropriate home.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy John McGuinness. One of the missed opportunities of the past decade was the failure of the Government to address the high levels of child poverty. Figures for 2007 show that 80,000 children live in families which cannot afford basic necessities such as healthy food, warm clothing or heating. With the recent downturn in the economic climate and the surge in unemployment it is probable that greater numbers of children now live in poverty. Leaving these statistics aside, child poverty means many children went to school today with empty bellies. Many parents are unable to buy warm clothes for their children during this very cold weather spell. Children live in overcrowded and, in some cases, unhealthy accommodation.

We have many celebrated cases of children growing up in poor backgrounds and making it rich. We are all aware of the classic rags to riches story, "Slumdog Millionaire". However, while we salute everybody who can make it through such difficult circumstances in this world, the idea of vast numbers of children growing up in poverty and using this experience to become wealthy is just the stuff of Hollywood, Bollywood and Pinewood.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule but the generality is that most Irish children who grow up in poverty are less likely to complete their education and earn average wages and they are more likely to be unemployed as adults, endure poor health and die younger. Let us not forget that the Ireland of today is still a very wealthy country so our record on child poverty is unacceptable. A recent OECD report on the matter found that Ireland ranks 25th out of 30 OECD countries.

Instead of these appalling figures jolting the Government into action it appears we are going backwards. In 2002, the Government promised in the programme for Government that the effort to end child poverty would be a core element of its work. In 2003, the Government published the national action plan against poverty and social exclusion. This contained a clear commitment to reduce child poverty to just 2% by 2007. However, in 2007 the rate of child poverty stood at more than 7% and it appeared that any commitment made a few years previously had gone out the window. The current programme for Government agreed by Fianna Fáil and the Green Party makes no mention of child poverty. Perhaps they are of the view that it has been eliminated: I do not know.

Recently, the UK Government proposed legislation which will enshrine its commitment to ending child poverty in the UK by 2020. The UK Government seems to accept that it takes time to tackle and eliminate child poverty and that it does not happen overnight. It has targets towards which all Departments and agencies can work. Here, the Government had a target, it failed miserably to meet it and it now wants to avoid making any commitment to address the issue. This is not good enough.

The Labour Party believes the reduction and eventual elimination of child poverty is vital. We believe significant progress can be made but reducing child poverty requires concerted action and measures across a range of areas. This has long been recognised by non-governmental organisations. This recognition led to the establishment in 2002 of the End Child Poverty Coalition, ECPC, which is made up of seven organisations, namely, the National Youth Council of Ireland, Barnardos, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Pavee Point, Focus Ireland, One-Parent Exchange and Network, OPEN, and the Children's Rights Alliance. This coalition of seven deals with the consequences of child poverty on a daily basis. They run breakfast clubs so children do not start their lessons hungry. They provide direct supports so parents can meet the cost of food, clothes and school books. They run programmes to prevent children leaving school early and support families to get decent and affordable accommodation.

Since they work at the coal face of the problem they are well placed to advise us on what we need to do to address the issues and I commend the work that these organisations, their staff and volunteers do on a daily basis. However the members of the coalition do not want to deal solely with the consequences of child poverty, they want to deal with the causes as well. They put forward a very coherent policy approach to dealing with the issue. They propose Government action across a range of Departments and agencies in areas such as income and employment supports, early childhood education and care, education, housing and health.

Other countries which have much lower levels of child poverty have targeted income supports at the poorest families. They have invested heavily in public services. They have flexible employment policies to support parents who are working.

Decent work with a wage on which one can live obviously comprises one of the best routes out of poverty for many families. We must encourage and support parents to take up work and avail of job opportunities. However, for some parents, working outside the home is very difficult or, in some cases, impossible. Many children live in households in which the parents cannot work owing to illness or disability.

Many lone parents who would love to work outside the home cannot do so because of their caring responsibilities or because they would only obtain low-paid work that would leave them less well off after paying tax and meeting child care costs. These families are especially at risk of poverty and the only recognition of this by the State is the child dependant allowance. This is just €26 per week per child and in no way meets the necessary costs associated with rearing a child which the families in question face every day.

The other key issue the End Child Poverty Coalition has highlighted is the need to keep people who can work in work and to provide supports to families where parents are in low-paid employment. The Family Income Supplement, FIS, was introduced to increase the reward from work by providing low-paid households with additional income. In the current environment, in which prices are going through the roof while jobs are flying out the door, many families will be in greater need of the FIS. It is vital that we keep as many people in work as possible. Therefore, the proposal of the End Child Poverty Coalition to increase the income thresholds for the FIS makes perfect sense and is valid and necessary in the short term.

We must consider how the scheme is administered. Some of the conditions of the scheme and the bureaucracy surrounding it are such that only three out of ten families entitled to a FIS payment actually receive it. A similar benefit in New Zealand has a take-up rate of nine out of ten families. Once again, the organs of the Irish State are failing families, including children. Will the Minister of State reconsider how FIS is administered so the people entitled to it can obtain it?

Eliminating child poverty needs to be returned to the agenda because a childhood blighted by poverty, want and hardship impairs not only the affected child but society as a whole. This is why the Labour group has put forward this motion. We want the Government to take this issue seriously again. We want it to outline a clear plan of action with timelines, deadlines and targets to reduce and eliminate child poverty. We want the Government to vindicate the wishes of our founding fathers in 1916 that every child of the nation would be cherished equally. We want the Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen, to fulfil the promise he made on the day he was elected Taoiseach to the effect that the needs of young people would be a particular priority for his Government. We want the Government to uphold Article 27 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which calls on states to ensure children have an adequate standard of living. Most important, we want Ireland to be one of the best places in the world for children to grow up in.

Senator Phil Prendergast

On behalf of the Labour Party, I second this important motion on child poverty. It is shocking and unacceptable that 76,000 children in this State live in poverty and that a further 205,000 live in households where the income is such that they are at risk of poverty. This figure is rising all the time given the present economic circumstances.

I commend the work of the End Child Poverty Coalition on keeping this issue on the agenda. Senator Hannigan has spoken about income and employment supports, but I would like to focus on public services such as child care, education, health and housing. I will focus on child care first.

The first few years in any child's life are critical in terms of learning and development. For children living in poverty, preschool could be the first step on a path out of poverty. The current lack of affordable, flexible and quality early childhood care and education and afterschool care prevents parents from taking up employment and availing of job opportunities, which only serves to keep the family stuck in a cycle of poverty.

The Government claims to be committed to providing families with access to child care services appropriate to the circumstances and needs of the child. In particular, it claims to be concerned about families living in poverty. However, its record speaks for itself. In the budget, the Government shut down the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education, which was about to roll out a plan, costed at €700,000, to address the early education needs of children in the most disadvantaged communities, aged from three up to the age of school enrolment. That programme was ready to run in September 2008 but, at the last moment, the plug was pulled.

Responsibility for the programme has now been transferred to the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. I would welcome clarification from the Minister of State as to when that programme will be implemented. Many groups fear it has in fact been abandoned. If so, it would demonstrate this Government's penny-wise and pound-foolish approach. The National Economic and Social Forum report of 2005 found that, for every €1 invested in early childhood education and care, a return of up to €7.10 could be expected.

I support the proposal from the End Child Poverty Coalition that we should provide universal, free, quality preschool places for all children aged from three to four years by implementing the National Economic and Social Forum's blueprint for universal access to early childhood education and care. The roll-out of these places should begin with children who are disadvantaged, including those in RAPID and DEIS-designated areas. Likewise, in the formal education system we need to invest to ensure children living in poverty get a fair chance and the opportunity to achieve their full potential. The announcement today that children availing of special needs teachers are to lose them is a retrograde step that will have long-term consequences and will not lead to cost savings.

We all know free education at primary and secondary levels is a myth. The cost of schooling places a terrible burden on families living in poverty who must meet the costs of books, uniforms and a range of other necessities associated with keeping children in the school system. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has stated very clearly that the back-to-school grant paid out in August each year is way below what is required. This is evident from the attendance rate at my clinics and the genuine hardship people experience and which they experienced during the so-called boom. Even in the latter period, the clinics were still busy owing to there being people with unmet needs. Organisations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul support families on a weekly basis to meet the costs of keeping children in school.

We have discussed in this House the issue of the very large class sizes. At present, Ireland has the second largest pupil-teacher ratio in the European Union. There are 100,000 children in primary schools and 35,000 young people in secondary schools being taught in classes of 30 or more. Large class sizes have an impact on all children but because of the deficiencies in the system, many parents must pay to ensure their children get extra support or tuition. That option is not open to parents who struggle to make ends meet and, therefore, children living in poor households will fall further behind.

Child poverty contributes to early school leaving. Parents who struggle to keep their child in school may be less likely to object when their 15 or 16 year old gets a job rather than staying in school to obtain a leaving certificate because doing so brings necessary extra money into the household. As my colleague Senator Hannigan pointed out, it is the voluntary organisations represented by the End Child Poverty Coalition that must deal with the consequences.

The member organisations of the National Youth Council of Ireland are working on projects with young people to prevent and stem early school leaving. Despite all the evidence and every report known indicating that supporting young people so they can stay in school and gain some recognised qualifications is in their best interest and that of society's, the Government in the budget cut the funding by 10% to youth organisations running early school leaving projects. This is a retrograde step that will not have a positive outcome for anybody. It defies logic.

We still have a very high rate of early school leaving. Up to 15% of children leave school with little or no formal qualifications. This is particularly a problem among children who grow up in poverty and unless we invest in them and target resources at them, we will perpetuate the cycle of poverty and deprivation.

I will turn briefly to the issue of health. No parent would think twice about going to the doctor when his or her child is sick. However, because the costs of health care are so high and the medical card limits are so low, parents with limited incomes who bring their children to the doctor must either forgo other basic needs or go into debt. It is unacceptable that the health of our children is so far down the list of priorities that parents are placed in such a terrible position.

There is a commitment in the programme for Government to double the income threshold limits for families with children under six. That is to be welcomed. However, almost two years on there is no sign of the commitment being implemented by Government. We need answers as to why that is so and perhaps an update on a revision of the proposal. In real terms the cost of implementing the measure would be far outweighed by the benefits it would bring to the health and well-being of the most vulnerable children in the State. Likewise, it would alleviate the awful cost and burden of health care on families who just cannot afford it.

Finally, I wish to mention housing. The housing waiting list figures announced in December showed an increase of 30% since 2005. Many of those on the waiting lists are low-income families who are currently in costly, unhealthy, overcrowded and inappropriate housing and accommodation. Insecurity is another issue for families that have to move regularly and that can interrupt a child's education and well-being. I strongly support the call by the ECPC that the Government meets its commitment to build 10,000 social housing units over the next three years.

We have heard much about the need to invest €7 billion in the banking system for the future of the country and that may be so. I urge the Government to give more attention to and invest a fraction of that money in the reduction and ultimately elimination of child poverty in this country.

Senator Maria Corrigan

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

acknowledges that combating poverty and building an inclusive society are key priorities for the Government;

supports the overall goal of the National Plan for Social Inclusion to reduce the number of those experiencing consistent poverty, to between 2%-4% by 2012, with the aim of eliminating consistent poverty by 2016;

welcomes the vision and long term goals for children as set out in Towards 2016;

acknowledges the considerable improvements in the level and structure of social welfare payments for families with children in recent years;

welcomes the investment in the infrastructure required to support Early Childhood Care and Education places as well as the development of Síolta, the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education;

notes the significant progress made on the implementation of DEIS (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools), the action plan for educational inclusion, which represents an integrated, strategic approach to addressing the educational needs of children and young people from disadvantaged communities;

acknowledges that income allowances for medical cards have increased significantly since 2004 and that higher rates of increase have been applied to families with children; and

welcomes the Government's significant achievement in delivering real and tangible outcomes for households in need by delivering more and better quality housing responses and by doing this in a more strategic way, focused on the building of sustainable communities.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate and to propose the Government's amendment to the motion. While I do not agree with the content of the motion tabled by Senators Hannigan and Prendergast I thank them for providing us with an opportunity to focus on this important area.

The Government amendment is lengthy. Therefore, I propose to focus specifically on aspects of poverty and social inclusion. I am proud of this and previous Fianna Fáil-led Governments' record of delivery in terms of reducing child poverty and promoting social inclusion. Many barriers to social inclusion exist and whether they are economic or environmental they can greatly affect the development of children.

Social inclusion is defined as, "The position from where someone can access and benefit from the full range of opportunities available to members of society". It aims to remove barriers for people who experience a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown. One product of difficulties such as those in most cases is poverty. Child poverty in particular is a considerable cause of distress to children and society and is a real barrier to social inclusion for children.

Our commitment to dealing with child poverty is manifested in two major ways. First, we have consistently increased funding and provided extra resources to combat the scourge that is child poverty. Second, we have developed national policies and systems to end the cycle of child poverty that has affected the State since its foundation.

The Government is committed to tackling child poverty. The national action plan for social inclusion, NAP Inclusion, is to reduce the numbers of those experiencing consistent poverty, including children, to between 2% and 4% by 2012 with the aim of eliminating consistent poverty completely by 2016. That aim is realistic and is being followed through by the Government.

It is important to look at the facts and I hope the Opposition will give credit where it is due. Since coming into office in 1997, Fianna Fáil has lifted 100,000 children out of hardship and deprivation. In 2007, the Central Statistics Office noted that consistent poverty fell from 6.5% to 5.1%. The rate of consistent poverty in the case of children from birth to 17 years reduced from 10.3% in 2006 to 7.4% in 2007. That reduction, while welcome, is only one step along the way to eliminating child poverty.

Unfortunately, for many years lone parents and their children suffered the most from poverty. It is pleasing to note there was a significant reduction in consistent poverty rates for lone parents in 2007 from 33.9% to 20.1%. The results also revealed that the average disposable income in respect of children increased by 16.2% between 2006 and 2007. The significant reduction in consistent poverty among children in 2007 shows us that the combination of policies being pursued is working. We are now in challenging economic times. We will experience disappointments along the way if we are not making progress as quickly as we would like but even in these times the Government's priority remains to maintain and build on our progress. Its determination to do so is demonstrated in the recent budget measures.

I intend to consider three major themes, namely, direct funding for families and children and strategies and services. Three specific payments are made to families to provide financial support to combat child poverty. They demonstrate our ongoing commitment. Child benefit is the major source of funding for families provided by the State. All children under the age of 16, or under 19 if attending third level education, are entitled to it. At present the rate for one child under 18 is €166. For the record, in 1997, it was €38.10, representing a fourfold increase in the past 12 years.

The back to school clothing and footwear allowance is a HSE payment payable to low income families designed to help meet some of the costs associated with children returning to school. The early child care supplement is another State payment to families with children under the age of five. Its purpose is to financially assist families with the cost of raising children. Since its introduction in budget 2006, it has gone some way towards reducing the financial burden on young families, thus I believe helping to create a better standard of living for the nation's children. We are all aware of the recent changes announced by the Minister for Finance last week regarding this payment and while a reduction in the rate is not desirable, the continuation of the payment represents the Government's continuing commitment to providing resources.

Budget 2009 provided for a range of measures costing more than €56 million to benefit children and families. Those increases will mean that the high level goal of maintaining the combined value of child income support measures at 33% to 35% of the minimum adult social welfare payment rate will continue to be met next year.

I wish to turn to services and systems the Government has developed in recent years. Without a doubt, an outstanding example of the Fianna Fáil-led Government's commitment to children has been the establishment of the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Since its inception, first as the Office of the Minister for Children and now as the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, the office has been a key sponsor of child-centred policies and initiatives from central Government. The present Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, is charged with implementing the national children's strategy, the national child care investment programme, the Childcare Act, implementing Towards 2016 commitments on children's services and developing policy and legislation on child welfare. That leaves children in Ireland with an even stronger voice at the heart of Government decision making.

The surest way to reduce childhood poverty is by providing a hand up rather than a hand out. The development of employment options for parents is the most progressive way to improve a childhood. One thing always struck me from my experiences of dealing with people at risk of poverty, they want to move beyond their current status. They want the best for their children and they are willing to work with the State to do so.

I would like to think we could eliminate child poverty and that we would ensure there would be real social inclusion but I would like to add a word of caution. While economic factors play a part, so do environmental and societal factors, which can be more complex to address. We must accept there will always be an element of personal responsibility involved.

I wish to refer briefly to health. I welcome the increase in income levels for medical cards and the provision of GP cards. I wish to refer to a particular project of mine. We have made available an immunisation programme for infants. That is one sure way to ensure we take a proactive step to protect children's health. Failure to do so can result in the acquisition of a disability by children, which is something that is entirely preventable. I urge the Minister to bring back a message to Government that we undertake an awareness campaign again. I understand there are genuine fears on the part of parents that such vaccinations may be linked to disorders. We have no scientific evidence for that but we do have scientific evidence to show that failure to immunise leaves children at greater risk of acquiring the disease and subsequently an avoidable disability. Disability is a real barrier to social inclusion for children.

Senator Nicky McFadden

I welcome the Minister of State but I regret that the Minister of State with responsibility for children could not find the time to attend. I commend the Labour Party on a fine, detailed motion in which it calls on the Government to "develop a clear strategy to address child poverty and to set a date in law by which child poverty will be eliminated in Ireland". As natural as this request sounds, the reality is that the Government no longer believes in strategies when it involves tackling any kind of poverty. This is no more evident than in the way the Government has shamelessly cut funds and merged the Combat Poverty Agency and the Office for Social Inclusion, thereby removing a vital independent voice. We have also witnessed the effects that cuts in funding have had on the Equality Authority and other agencies. Perhaps the Government may retort that a strategy is in place and Senator Corrigan mentioned this, but there is a gross difference between having a strategy and providing resources for its implementation and achieving the aims set out in it. I am sorry that the Government's record of implementing findings from its strategies is poor.

The national anti-poverty strategy, NAPS, was set up in 1997 with specific targets for reducing poverty. Unfortunately, they were aspirational but a multi-departmental and agency approach was taken. Among the strategy's aims was the Government target to reduce consistent child poverty to 2% by 2007. In 2002, a revised strategy was launched in the form of another glossy brochure by the Government with the social partners but these strategies have not been delivered.

As Senator Hannigan stated, Ireland ranks 21st out of the 27 EU member states in tackling child poverty, and one in nine of our children live in consistent poverty. Shame on the Minister of State because this is an outrage. All this proves is that the Government does not take strategies seriously. I call for a strategy to be put in place and for a date for its implementation to be set out in law.

The causes of child poverty in Ireland are multifaceted and I will not attempt to outline all of them. There is, however, an onus on us all in this House to provide assistance to little children, who are our most valuable asset. The recent ISPCC television advertisement highlighted that the organisation only has sufficient money to answer half the calls it receives. The money set aside for the scrapping of e-voting machines should be diverted to the society. It is serious that suicidal children may not have their call answered because this organisation does not have sufficient money. Money is available for the banks and to address other issues, but our children are our most valuable asset.

The Government is out of ideas and it is not interested in helping the less well-off. It has demonstrated no foresight and no opportunities have been created for children living in poverty. As Senator Prendergast said, lone parents are most affected by this issue. Child poverty does not exist in isolation and the issue centres on households. This cycle needs to be broken. According to an EU survey conducted in 2006, lone parents are the most likely social group to be living in poverty. According to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, 45% of calls for help in Dublin in 2008 were made by lone parents. For example, the society referred to Anne, a lone parent with a 12 year old son. She is struggling to get by and pay her ESB and gas bills on an income of €180 a week. She could not afford them and, therefore, she swallowed her pride and called the society for help. Her main concern was protecting her son so that he did not realise she must do this because she has no other recourse. This is a terrible indictment of our society. We have emerged from the Celtic tiger era when we never had as much money, yet the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has never received as many calls, especially from lone parents.

I wonder how the cycle will be broken. I am concerned that, because of the economic downturn, the Government is more likely not to respect the voiceless and these poor, unfortunate children, which is worrying as they do not have anybody to shout loudly on their behalf. However, as public representatives, that is what we are in the House to do.

The final issue I would like to raise is educational attainment. In 2006, according to the CSO, 47% of lone parents under 35 years were educated to junior certificate level only. The Minister for Education and Science cut the funding for children with learning disabilities, which will lead to a further deterioration in consistent poverty because education is the only route to empower people to get out of poverty and to make them self-reliant to cope independently in our society. All these figures would be much worse if a survey gauged the position today. Something must be done to help young lone parent families to get out of the poverty trap. Some lone parents feel they are better off on social welfare payments because they can make ends meet. They will never get out of poverty but what example is that to give children?

I completely and utterly agree with Senator Corrigan regarding vaccinations. It is an absolute shame that the Government did not consider it worthwhile to implement the cervical cancer vaccination programme for teenagers, given it would cost very little.

Senator Phil Prendergast

Hear, hear.

Senator Nicky McFadden

If one life was saved, it would be worth spending this money. Will the Minister of State reconsider that decision?

Last week the Independent Senators tabled a motion on human rights and I referred to mental health issues for children. All the children in one institution were surveyed and three different mental health illnesses were found to be present in some of them but none was being treated for them. A youngster from Athlone has been incarcerated many times in an adult institution because there is nowhere for him to go even though he has mental health issues. That is not right. That youngster has no voice but the State has completely ignored him and hopes he will go away. He will end up in a vacuum until he dies because nobody cares. I care and I hope the Minister of State has listened to my contribution.

Senator Dan Boyle

My background, both professionally and voluntarily, is in community youth work and I disagree with little in the intent and aspirations of the motion. Part of my voluntary career was spent with the National Youth Council of Ireland, which is part of the child poverty coalition, and I am glad a number of my former colleagues are present to monitor the debate. No Member is uncommitted to the notion of reducing and ending child poverty in our society. It must also be accepted that considerable improvements have been made through the provision of additional resources in recent years. There should be legitimate political debate about whether all the resources have been used effectively. We have entered a new era in the current economic downturn in which existing resources and the availability of future resources are very much in question. As decisions are made, legitimate political debate needs to take place regarding whether their effect is being felt in a just and proper manner, particularly by children, who need the most protection and care in their development.

I have fears that when making across-the-board cuts, decisions are made that have a disproportionate effect on the provision of children's services. We need to accept that even before the economic downturn of 2008 and its exacerbating effects as we are feeling them now and as they are likely to develop in the year ahead, there existed an unacceptable level of child poverty in this country, much of it in the families of the working poor. Now that we have increasing unemployment, that problem is likely to deteriorate. There is an onus on Government to put in place programmes that meet the effect of such poverty.

There are legitimate political questions as to how that can be done and whether it is being done. Legitimate questions are being asked as to the effects of decisions made in recent days. As a member of a party in Government I also would like to know the effects of such decisions. Across the board decisions are indiscriminate in their effects and need to be targeted. As fewer resources are available, how do we ensure those resources are used to best effect? We can all wish that things were different and that all the problems could be solved at once. However, in reality we are lacking resources and those resources in sufficient quantities are unlikely to be available for a considerable time. We need to ask how that can be done in the fairest way.

I had a discussion today with a chief executive of a youth organisation. He put to me bluntly the effect of an across-the-board cut in his organisation. He made proposals as to how the same monetary value could be achieved by making cuts within the system that would not affect face-to-face services. The real challenge for the Government and the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs is to ensure the last area affected is the area of face-to-face services, especially in youth work. We are entering a period with which those of my generation who grew up in the 1980s will be all too familiar. When I started working as a paid professional youth worker, the resources provided by the Government to pay my wage, such as it was, through what was then an AnCo team workers' scheme, was I believe £40 per week. I do not want to see us going back to that. Tremendous advances have been made in the resources we are putting into the services. Following that incremental growth over the past ten years the sudden jolt of a large decrease could have a disproportionate effect on the services. Unless we are prepared to acknowledge and address that, there are dangers.

It may be ironic to mention this. Prior to getting involved in youth work on a large scale, IDA Ireland had a campaign about the viability of Ireland as a destination for investors. It encouraged people to come to Ireland with the tag line: "We are the young Europeans." At the time the average age of Irish people was approximately 25. I believe it has now increased to approximately 35. However, in European terms we are still a very young country. Ireland is one of only two European countries that is able to replace its population through its birth rate. That indicates we have a large number of young people and will continue to do so. How we cater for their education, health and social justice is the mark of any Government.

Despite what was said about not mentioning the term "child poverty" within the programme for Government, as a negotiator of that document, I am pleased from my party's point of view with what we included because they were included on the basis of addressing issues of child poverty, especially increasing the provision of medical cards for children under six. In the current climate and availability of resources, I must accept how, when and even if those issues will be addressed are a challenge. However, I still believe it is an important social goal. As Senator Corrigan has said, if we do not have access to primary health care services for the very young in our society, we are creating a series of false economies that whoever subsequently ends up in government will need to address by allocating more unnecessary resources.

I hope this debate is conducted in those terms. I accept we have a difficulty in terms of relative, consistent, persistent and even absolute child poverty. How we address it depends not so much on decrying its existence as on acknowledging that the resources available to address it in the first instance are not what they were and that those resources need to be used as cost effectively as possible. As someone who has worked voluntarily and professionally in the area, I am confident that can be done. However, it will not be done without a period of readjustment. Much of that needs to happen not only within the voluntary sector but also most markedly in the mindset of the political system and how resources are originally made available through offices such as the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. It is important that such an office exists. To show its effectiveness, as with all areas of government, it is not a case of doing it when the resources are freely available and Governments can be most flaithiúlach with public money. The real test of any Government is to show how we can tackle issues such as this when resources are least.

Senator Ivana Bacik

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion which tackles the very important issue of child poverty. I agree with Senator Boyle entirely that one should measure a Government by its commitment to social justice and by its ability to do the most with the least resources. However, I am disturbed to hear him speak about the need for readjustment. Given that the Minister for Education and Science today announced what amounts to a severe cutback in the allocation for children with special educational needs, we must question the Government's commitment to social justice.

We need to ask ourselves what readjustment really means. Clearly, the Government is proposing readjusting those who are most vulnerable in our system. In answer to my proposed amendment to the Order of Business calling for the Minister for Education and Science to come to the House to explain why he had made this cutback, the Leader said it was not a cutback and proceeded to explain that it was a change in the numbers qualifying for special needs teachers. I am sorry, but it is a cutback by any other name. The upshot will be that more than 100 teachers will lose their jobs and it has been reported at least 900 children will lose the learning support they require. We need to question the Government's commitment to social justice and its commitment to ending child poverty.

The motion mentioned some very disturbing figures. Some 76,000 children still live in poverty in this country and 20% of children live in households with incomes so low that they are at risk of poverty. I recognise the Government's commitments stated in its amendment to "reduce the number of those experiencing consistent poverty... with the aim of eliminating consistent poverty by 2016". Clearly that is an important and laudable goal. However, I take issue with the Government amendment when it notes "the significant progress made on the implementation of DEIS (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools), the action plan for educational inclusion, which represents an integrated, strategic approach to addressing the educational needs of children and young people from disadvantaged communities". Members on the Government side should try telling that to the parents and children affected by today's mean-minded announcement by the Minister for Education and Science.

The previous budget also targeted children and young people from disadvantaged communities despite the Government's stated commitment to improving the quality of services for them. I have spoken on this matter before. The implementation of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act and the Disability Act has been deferred to beyond 2010. Class sizes have been increased despite a stated commitment in the programme for Government to reduce them. Even before today's announcement there have been severe cutbacks impacting, for example, on Traveller children whose special supports will be cut. Class sizes are set to rocket beyond the OECD average despite the commitment in the programme for Government. It is really an empty rhetoric that is addressed at helping and supporting children and it is an empty rhetoric exposed by the reality of this recession and the prioritising by the Government of baling out bankers at the expense of children in need.

I am grateful to the End Child Poverty Coalition, which is a coalition of seven NGOs, including Barnardos, Focus Ireland and the Children's Rights Alliance, all of whom have come together to make six key recommendations to Government with the aim of ending child poverty. These are very important recommendations. I call into question the Government's commitment to these recommendations. The very simple recommendations made by the coalition are, first, to increase basic social welfare payments for families; second, to provide access to quality, affordable and flexible early childhood care and education; third, to tackle educational disadvantage; and fourth, medical card eligibility, homes and support for families in low paid work while enhancing family income supplements. These are important and very sensible recommendations.

Again we are seeing a lack of commitment by the Government to implement these recommendations. In particular, I draw the Minister of State's attention to the second recommendation related to early childhood care and education. This has been spoken about in this House and I and many others spoke on the need to support early childhood care and education places. There is a stated commitment in the Government's amendment to the motion and in the Government's policies to date to provide such care and education, although these are two separate things, childhood care and education and preschool. What we have seen has been a failure to sign up to the stated commitment; a lack of implementation of the impressive rhetoric. As the End Child Poverty Coalition points out, the current lack of affordable, flexible and quality early childhood care and education and after-school care restricts parental employment options and keeps families locked into a cycle of poverty.

At a time when the cutbacks and the measures proposed by Government are really going to impact on people in employment and when they will reduce people's chances of employment and ensure we will see more families locked into poverty, this is the time when we need to see the Government committing to providing universal free quality preschool places for all children. It makes sense in terms of saving money for the Government from a very practical point of view because we have seen all the research that says if quality early childhood support is provided, such as preschool places and early childhood care and education, there will be long-term savings because children will require fewer supports at school and they will be less likely to engage in anti-social behaviour and young adults are less likely to engage in behaviour that brings them into the criminal justice system. There is a significant practical saving from a financial point of view and a significant benefit to the community and to society from a social point of view if we look at providing quality preschool education and care for children. At this time it is one of the important measures the Government could take.

I draw an analogy with the welcome Government proposals for conservation projects by giving householders grants to insulate their homes. This is very important because it will have a lot of knock-on benefits such as employing people in the construction sector who are in difficulties and it will have the benefit of reducing carbon emissions and will contribute to Ireland being a better place from an environmental perspective. However, it will cost money, but that money is being spent with an important and practical and ultimately a money-saving objective. We can draw the same analogy with early childhood care and education.

I refer to a very interesting model in Australia where a government came to power promising early childhood care and education and free preschool places. I have heard the relevant Australian Minister speak about the policy. It became so popular that it was one programme that could not be dismantled even by subsequent governments which did not have the same ideological commitment to it.

The Labour Party motion is very significant because it expresses very clearly all the different recommendations which the Government should adopt to address child poverty. I will single out perhaps the two recommendations that the Government should ensure access to quality, affordable and flexible early childhood education and care because this has been immensely popular when rolled out in other countries and has had immense social and economic benefits. I also ask the Minister of State to consider implementing the fourth recommendation, tackling educational disadvantage by fully resourcing and implementing the DEIS strategy. Unfortunately, that has been severely undermined by today's announcement and I question the commitment of the Government to ending childhood poverty, given what we have seen in recent announcements and in the recent budget.

I ask the Minister of State to answer why this announcement has been made today. It is a good day to bury bad news, given the announcements about the banks. Why was this announcement made today when the Minister was in this House last night? I read what he said last night and he did not refer to this change which was introduced today and which targets so severely children with special needs. I welcome the opportunity to make this contribution.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Jimmy Devins)

I apologise to the House on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Mary Hanafin, who is unavailable because she is attending a Cabinet meeting.

I thank Senators for the opportunity to outline to the House what the Government is doing with respect to child poverty, early education, access to medical cards and meeting the housing needs of our population. The Government has tabled a counter motion which sets out the progress that is being made in these areas.

The diversity of State support for children highlighted in the motion is reflected in the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2007-2016, which aims to promote a more integrated approach to policies and their implementation through the lifecycle approach, which includes children as a specific group. The overall goal of the action plan is to reduce to between 2% and 4% by 2012 the number of those experiencing consistent poverty, including children, with the aim of eliminating consistent poverty by 2016.

One of the 12 high level goals set out in the plan focuses on achieving significant real increases in income supports for children; three other goals address education initiatives. In addition, 42 of the 150 detailed targets in the plan cover services such as health, education, income support and early childhood development and care to tackle poverty in families and ensure that children reach their true potential.

The latest poverty statistics released in December 2008 by the CSO in its annual EU survey on income and living conditions showed that the overall consistent poverty rate in the population reduced from 6.5% in 2006 to 5.1% in 2007. The rate of consistent poverty in the case of children aged nought to 17 reduced from 10.3% in 2006 to 7.4% in 2007. Among lone parent households there was a significant reduction in consistent poverty rates from 33.9% in 2006 to 20.1% in 2007. The results also revealed that the average disposable income in respect of children increased by 16.2% between 2006 and 2007.

The survey covers the period during which the provisions of budget 2007, which introduced a range of measures costing over €240 million aimed at alleviating child poverty, came into effect. These included combining the three rates of child dependant allowance payments into a new single high rate qualified child allowance of €22 per week; increasing the rate of child benefit by €10 per week; increasing the back to school clothing and footwear allowance by €60 for children aged two to 11, and by €95 for children aged 12 to 22, to bring the rates of payment to €180 and €285 respectively; and providing additional funding of €3 million to extend the school meals programme.

Other budgetary measures which came into effect during 2007, such as the €20 per week increase in the lowest social welfare rate to €185.80 and increases in the earnings thresholds for one parent family payment and family income supplement, also benefited children living in poorer households. This package of measures was in addition to initiatives such as the €1,000 a year early child care supplement, which was introduced in 2006.

While the improvements in the poverty statistics between 2006 and 2007 are positive, I am concerned about the impact of the current economic downturn on low income families. Despite the limited resources available, budget 2009 prioritised delivering real increases in social welfare payments to ensure that, in line with the NAP inclusion, the most vulnerable groups in our society are protected. Increases of between 3% and 3.8% in the basic payment rates have been provided for this year, ahead of the projected rate of inflation. Provision was made for a range of measures costing over €56 million to benefit children and families. These include an increase of €2 in the qualified child increase payable with social welfare payments, bringing the rate up to €26 per week from January 2009; an increase of €10 per week per child in all family income supplement income thresholds giving an increase of up to €6 per child per week from January 2009; and an increase of €50 per week in the income threshold for the back to school clothing and footwear scheme to enable more families to qualify. These increases will mean the high level goal of maintaining the combined value of child income support measures at 33% to 35% of the minimum adult social welfare payment rate will continue to be met this year.

Children do not experience disadvantage on their own but in the context of their family. Income support ensures households have an income to provide a basic standard of living. Employment, however, has a pivotal role in providing an adequate income. In recent decades it has been demonstrated one effective route out of poverty for parents in the active age groups is through paid employment. Now, more than ever, we have to give priority to supporting people both into and in employment.

A key objective is to make employment pay. People with families who are in lower paid employment are eligible to receive the family income supplement. This increases household income while enabling recipients to remain in or take up employment. The weekly average payment for a one child family on family income supplement is approximately €99. Child benefit and the child care supplement also help to make employment pay because they are paid without means testing people returning to work or already in employment.

Employment participation is further facilitated and incentivised by a range of education and employment supports made available by the Department of Social and Family Affairs to people in receipt of welfare payments, especially the long-term unemployed, lone parents and sickness related welfare recipients. These include the back to education and back to work allowance schemes.

The activation and family support programme and the second chance education opportunities scheme offer supports to people on social welfare and others in improving their employability and personal and family situations. Policies that strongly support parents into employment have a major impact on child poverty. The current economic circumstances, with 1,000 people on average losing their jobs each day last month, are making life difficult for many families. The Government's priority must be to keep as many people as possible in employment while assisting those who lose their jobs as much as possible. The Departments of Social and Family Affairs and Enterprise, Trade and Employment are working closely together to this end.

Education is a major factor in children's development for their future economic independence, standard of living and overall well-being. Missing out on education at any stage of a child's upbringing can have consequences for both immediate well-being and in adulthood. Since 2000, significant progress has been made towards the establishment of high quality early childhood care and education provision. Unlike other European countries, Ireland does not have a long tradition of young children attending preschool services. This presented several challenges, including creating sufficient places, encouraging participation and ensuring services are of a high quality.

The provision of extra places has been supported through the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000-2006 and the National Childcare Investment Programme 2006-2010. These programmes, with a combined budget of almost €1.1 billion, are projected to create more than 90,000 child care places.

A two-pronged approach has been taken to promoting participation and supporting affordability. Ireland has a long and cherished tradition of supporting parents and families to make informed but independent choices regarding the care and education of their young children. This is a core principle of the Constitution and the Government has supported this over the past two decades by increasing the value of universal supports to all qualifying parents. Child benefit is €166 per month for the first child and €203 per month for the third and subsequent children while parents of preschool children also receive the early child care supplement.

According to national and international research, participation in high quality early education and care services is of particular benefit to children at risk of educational disadvantage. The community child care subvention scheme, introduced in January 2008, subsidises community-based, not-for-profit child care facilities to enable them to provide quality child care services at reduced rates to disadvantaged and low-income parents. Average prices charged in these services per full-time equivalent place range from €40 for disadvantaged parents, €95 for low income working families and €140 for middle and upper income families.

Since 2000, the Government has provided the infrastructure necessary to support quality preschool places. These initiatives include the publication and commencement of revised preschool regulations; the development of Síolta, the national quality framework for early childhood education, and a framework for early learning by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment; and the development of a national child care training strategy.

In the current economic climate, it will undoubtedly be much more difficult to achieve the ambitious national policy commitments regarding early childhood education and care. However, the Government is determined at least to consolidate progress to date and ensure the necessary research and development work required to build capacity for future progress continues. Targeting of limited resources to those most in need will be a priority.

In making difficult decisions for 2009, the focus of the Minister for Education and Science has been to continue to prioritise investment in favour of those most at risk and to optimise access, participation and outcomes at every level of the system for disadvantaged groups. Up to 673 primary schools and 203 post-primary schools are included in the schools support programme established under the delivering equality of opportunity in schools initiative. The plan brings together and builds upon a range of existing programmes and supports in schools with concentrated levels of disadvantage.

Measures under the delivering equality of opportunity in schools initiative action plan continued to be rolled out over 2008 and will be extended further in 2009. These include the further expansion of the mathematics recovery and reading recovery programmes; the first steps programme for primary schools in the urban primary strand; the demonstration library project; the junior certificate schools programme as well as literacy and numeracy initiatives at second level; and the continuation of the family literacy project in 12 locations.

Evaluation of measures under the delivering equality of opportunity in schools initiative action plan also continued through 2008, with the collection of baseline data on literacy and numeracy in urban and rural primary schools. The monitoring and evaluation of measures under the action plan is crucial in informing policy on the role such initiatives can play in promoting social inclusion and in identifying models of good practice.

The Government is conscious that access to good quality health care is essential for the well-being and future development of children. Since the beginning of 2005, the number of persons with a medical card has increased by more than 200,000. This follows changes introduced by the Minister for Health and Children which resulted in mortgage and rent, child care and travel to work expenses being taken into account in the assessment process for a medical card.

The general practitioner visit card was introduced in 2005 to assist people, in particular families with children on low incomes, in overcoming barriers to accessing GP services. The qualification threshold for the GP visit card is 50% above that for a medical card and to date more than 85,000 persons have availed of the card.

In excess of 32% of the population has free access to a GP through the General Medical Services scheme. In assessing a person and their dependants for a medical card, the Health Service Executive uses income guidelines while taking into account issues such as medical and social need.

A steering group has been established in the Department of Health and Children to review the eligibility criteria for the assessment of medical cards in the context of financial, medical and social need in line with the commitment in Towards 2016 to clarify entitlement to a medical card. The Department of Social and Family Affairs is represented on this group. The review will inform the decision-making process on medical card eligibility and is expected to report to the Minister for Health and Children in the next few months. The Government's policy statement, Delivering Homes, Sustaining Communities, sets out a vision to guide the transformation of the housing sector over the medium term by delivering more and better quality housing responses and by doing this in a more strategic way, focused on the building of sustainable communities. We are now working on the implementation issues which need to be addressed to transform the Irish housing environment to meet the challenges arising, many of which are identified in the policy statement. I am pleased that substantial strides forward have already been made. In 2007 alone, over 13,000 social and affordable housing units were delivered and, overall, the needs of almost 18,300 households were met across the housing spectrum. This represents a significant increase of 24% on the level of needs met in 2006 and is a significant step towards assisting an average of 20,000 households per annum over the seven years of the National Development Plan 2007-2013.

The commitment entered into by the Government under the social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, was to achieve 27,000 social housing starts during the three-year period 2007 to 2009. In terms of delivery, we set out to achieve the first one third of this 27,000 unit target, or 9,000 starts, in 2007, the first of the three years in the target period. By the end of 2007 we had exceeded this target, with a total of 9,061 starts achieved across the local authority and voluntary and co-operative housing programmes and the rental accommodation scheme.

Despite the scale of the pressures on our public finances, the Government is providing significant levels of funding for housing in 2009. In light of increased numbers of households in need of housing supports, we must make every effort to optimise the use of available resources. One way or the other, the extent of current housing need demands a flexible and imaginative response to the structuring of our investment programme.

In the context of budget 2009, the Government announced a new initiative to provide a more cost-effective, targeted approach to meeting housing need through the use of long-term lease arrangements for social housing purposes. While traditional build-buy approaches have been expanded in recent years, with the introduction of the Part V agreements and the rental accommodation scheme, the use of long-term leasing will allow for a more efficient and effective use of available public resources in meeting housing output targets.

Essentially, the initiative means unsold housing units available on the market can be deployed to meet social housing needs and clearly demonstrates how our social housing investment programme can assist our social and economic objectives at a particularly difficult time for our country. The Minister of State with responsibility for housing has set aside funding of €20 million for the initial roll-out of the scheme this year. This is separate and additional to the general housing allocations provided to local authorities under the social housing investment programme. The range of initiatives in place and the significant levels of funding being invested in housing despite the difficult environment in which we find ourselves will allow us to maintain strong momentum towards meeting our commitments.

Research and evaluation of progress are central to ensuring our goals are met. The new, strengthened division, incorporating the Combat Poverty Agency and the Office for Social Inclusion, will be promoting a more integrated approach to social inclusion and child support policies and their implementation across Departments. The new division will regularly report on progress to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, the senior officials group representing the relevant Departments and the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and children.

Combating poverty, building an inclusive society and the eradication of child poverty remain major priorities for the Government. I have outlined the strategies and measures being pursued by Government across all policy areas to achieve these aims.

All children are entitled to a happy and fulfilling life and we must, as a society, strive to achieve that for them. Children are our future and we must seek to ensure they go into adulthood with the capacity to become mature and productive citizens of a socially cohesive and inclusive society. I am satisfied that the policies we have in place, which are regularly monitored and evaluated, are having a positive impact. Although the environment may be more challenging, I assure Senators the Government will continue to work hard to reduce poverty in our society in general but in particular among children.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I thank the Labour Party for moving the motion. I also thank the Minister of State for his contribution.

When discussing such a difficult and at times sad subject, it is important to place the huge number of statistics and facts to which people refer in the context of the individual experiences we, as public representatives, have had with people who have been touched by the blight of child poverty. I wish to refer to three types of experience I have had on a regular basis within my constituency. I am absolutely furious that there are people in my constituency, where I make my home, who have been affected by the matters to which I am about to refer.

The first of these experiences relates in particular to some of the inner city areas of my constituency. I live, work, shop and spend time in my constituency and I sometimes come across people who are clearly incapacitated as a result of taking drugs or alcohol and who are wheeling children in buggies. These individuals are wheeling their poor children around areas of my city, near my home, at a time when they are in no position to take care of themselves never mind their offspring.

The second experience to which I wish to refer relates to young children who, when I ask them where they reside, state they live in bed and breakfast establishments or hostels. I often ask them how long they have lived in these places and they indicate that they have done so for a couple of months. They sometimes say they were obliged to move there because they did not feel safe or were of the view that they would not be cared for or respected in the establishment in which they previously resided. I am aware of the establishments to which they refer. These children are 14, 15 or 16 years of age. Their peers live in the kind of conditions in which I hope to raise my children and their main concerns relate to whether they will have enough money to allow them to go out with their friends or to the kind of comments being made about them by those friends on the Bebo website.

The final experience I wish to outline is one which, thank God, I come across less frequently. I refer to children I have met who are in care. The vast majority of the people who provide such care have nothing but the best of intentions. Nonetheless, I meet children who have been taken from family circumstances that are extremely difficult and who, in their own best interests, have been placed in care. At times, such care is delivered in institutions and some of the children involved flee from them. They are what we euphemistically refer to as "missing" children. I have met some of these individuals and the statistics so often put forward in respect of this do not capture the essence of their tragic plight or give testimony to the lives they lead.

I am deeply aware of the economic difficulties we face and have spent a great deal of time discussing them in the House. I have also spent a great deal of time trying to be reasonable with regard to these difficulties, trying to understand what caused them and trying to make constructive proposals in respect of what should be done differently. This is one matter about which we should be unreasonable. We should not state that we are cognisant of the economic difficulties that exist and that, therefore, we should not make particular demands. We should be unreasonable and state that further action must be taken.

Before becoming a Senator, I worked in business. If I had approached a manager and referred to the amount of money I had spent and the increased budgets at my disposal, he or she would have looked at me as if I were mad. People are only interested in the results one can deliver. If one is operating in an environment where budgets have been reduced, one must make the money that is available work harder. One must also be willing to ask difficult questions about those who are spending that money and the effect it is having in the areas at which it is targeted.

I wish to offer four examples with regard to what we should be doing differently. The first of these, of which I had first-hand experience approximately one year ago, relates to children leaving primary school and moving to secondary school. I am not aware of any system in place to ascertain whether a child who leaves a school in Phibsborough, for instance, starts a secondary school in locality. Under such a system a warning bell would ring if a child did not start one of the local secondary schools causing someone in authority to ask where the child in question had gone. Would such a system be complicated or costly? It is not a question of money but of will. We should take this issue more seriously and act to address it.

I am convinced the money spent on care for vulnerable children could be better spent. The expenditure of such funds should be subject to an audit, especially in the current circumstances, to ascertain whether they are being well spent and whether they could be spent more creatively to deliver similar or better results.

I will focus my remarks on the issue of parental leave for fathers. Some fathers in some of the families under discussion could and should do more for their children. Before criticising these fathers, however, we must first give them an opportunity to give more time and love to their children. We need to increase the time available to fathers to spend with their children in early childhood. When my children were born, I had one week of additional leave. If parental leave for fathers were increased by a few weeks or perhaps one month, it would make a major difference in this area.

In the short time remaining to me, I propose to make a number of suggestions regarding the Health Service Executive. I am sick of the HSE being blamed for all the ills and woes of this country. The organisation was created by and is accountable to politicians. We must face up to the fact that we have asked it to do too much. It must run hospitals, work with doctors, operate the social care system, provide child care services and perform 1,000 other functions. I am not aware of a single company worldwide, not to speak of a public sector organisation, which has been asked to do so much.

The Health Service Executive is not designed to deal with the issue of vulnerable and impoverished children. It is not up to the job because it is being asked to do too much. The services the HSE provides for children with special needs should be transferred to another body charged with prevention. This would ensure the services provided by the HSE are not required in the first instance. These are the types of issues we need to address and I hope to hear further suggestions and examples of similar thinking in this debate.

Senator Ann Ormonde

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to this motion. Last night, I spoke about many aspects of education, while this evening I propose to speak specifically on the issue of equality of opportunity for disadvantaged students. I will do so because I dealt with disadvantage and the problems to which Senator Donohoe referred for ten years before entering the House. At that time, I worked in the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee in the Cabra west area, which includes the area from which the Senator comes. I am familiar with the problems he raises, having dealt with Christ the King national school and another school further up the same road.

Senator Donohoe stated that some students, particularly children from disadvantaged areas, slip through the net when making the transition from primary to secondary level. The number of children who slip through the net is small. I know this because I dealt with the issue in a most deprived area. My responsibility was to ensure children did not slip through the net and structures were in place to ensure children who had reading ages well below the norm for 12 year olds were captured in time. The psychological service of the City of Dublin VEC was ready to intervene to provide services for such students. I would be the first to agree with the Senator if the circumstances he describes applied. I did not encounter them when I worked in this area. For this reason, I am obliged to nail his argument.

Naturally, one or two of the children with whom one dealt slipped away because, by their nature, the structures in place were not able to capture home-school links. I am glad we introduced an action plan. We addressed the pupil-teacher ratio and ways in which to reach out to parents. We also brought in the psychological service at all stages of second level education from first year onwards and did case studies. Considerable work was done on disadvantage between 1987 and 1997, the year in which I entered the Seanad. I will not speak for the subsequent period as services may have deteriorated since then.

This brings me to the issue of special education classes. While doing research on this issue this afternoon, I spoke to a school principal who informed me that the stipulation from the Department is that a class for children with special educational needs must have nine or more pupils to receive full support services. Since 2005, the size of many of these classes has decreased and they often number only four or five pupils because many of the students have since moved into mainstream education. The principal in question also stated that students who required extra tuition and assessment were not neglected because she has at her discretion an additional funding allocation. She also has a link with a special education needs organiser, parents and the psychological service to ensure no child who requires special care is abandoned.

I say this because I did not have an opportunity to do so this morning when Senators stated the Government is abandoning the children who are most in need. It is not the policy of the Government or educational system to go down that road. Perhaps there was a communications error this morning. However, as I have outlined, special educational needs organisers are in place, the number of psychologists dealing with special needs has increased and special assessments are made to determine whether children with special needs are ready for mainstream education. If classes have been abandoned, decisions must be made on how to cater for the students in question. These classes are usually organised on an area rather than school basis.

I would not stand over the position described by Senators if it were true. However, major work is being done in the DEIS programme and area action plans. I want this work to continue with the full support infrastructure, including home-school links, remedial teachers, careers guidance teachers, the psychological service and internal school administrators. We must all take some pain as we go about our work. I compliment all the excellent professionals and teachers working in the DEIS programmes who will rise to the challenge and ensure no one will be neglected.

Acting Chairman (Senator Feargal Quinn)

Senator Norris has eight minutes.

Senator David Norris

I have just come from a long meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs which did some constructive and positive work and passed unanimously an agreed statement on Gaza. In circumstances such as these, I always begin my contribution by saying I will probably not need eight minutes and then find eight minutes is not enough. On this occasion, I probably have more time than is necessary.

I heard the end of the contribution made by my good friend, Senator Ormonde. I agree with much of what has been said by Senators on the Government side and understand the constrictions of their position. The Senator spoke passionately about remedial teachers. While she may not be able to vote in certain ways, she has an influence through her party's parliamentary committee meetings.

One aspect of child poverty is the impoverishment of children through the removal of the kind of educational supports which are necessary. This country always had such an extraordinary reputation. If one goes back to the 19th century and the hedge schools, people were prepared to sit in the ditch. The hedge schools gave a damned good education in the classics to untutored, deprived people from an impoverished background. I am proud of that. If we could do it then, surely we ought to be able to do it now in terms of removing the limitations announced this morning on the most disadvantaged children, children with mental handicap or whatever the current phrase is. I am sorry if that is politically incorrect but old people like me use these phrases. I urge decent people on the other side of the House not to be misled by an apparently confrontational tone, which always happens on Wednesday evenings, but to go back, informed by this debate, and put as much pressure as possible on the Government.

As I was involved in committees, I am not sure how much has been put on the record. We probably all received briefings from various groups. What impresses me about the briefing from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the End Poverty Coalition, in particular, is that it chimes so exactly with my experience as a practising politician. Last week, without divulging the identity of the person, I put on the record the gist of a communication I received from an admirable young man living in provincial Ireland. He had worked for a construction company for a number of years and had saved, scrimped and managed so that he could acquire his own company. He got his own company but was blasted by the economic downturn. Calamitously, he had other personal debts so he is in an extremely difficult position. The most heartbreaking thing of all was that he had to go to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul at Christmas so that his children would have some kind of Christmas. Perhaps some of my colleagues have put some of these stories on the record.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul gave examples which are probably from a variety of sources and combined together. One of the saddest was the story about the single mother whose husband died just before Christmas. She experienced devastating grief right in the middle of the holiday season. She had no money and the funeral expenses etc. overwhelmed her. She had no spare cash and yet she had small children. Her 17 year old son begged her, out of pride, not to go to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul but she did. She had to do so and overcome not only her pride but her son's. There is also a poverty in terms of psychological diminishment.

Poverty is not only a financial matter but it is also a grievous state of mind where things can get really out of kilter. We spoke the other evening about suicide. People can be driven to suicide by financial pressure. I would say to them it is not worth it; it is only bloody money. They will get out of their difficulties. I congratulate the Money Advice and Budgeting Service which does fantastic work. I hope it never catches the Government's eye and gets abolished.

In 2003 the Government gave a commitment to reduce poverty to 2% by 2007 and, where possible, to eliminate poverty altogether. I do not believe it is possible to eliminate poverty because it is a human phenomenon. It can occur not only through accident or economic turbulence outside the individual's control but because of a person's personality. Some people just cannot manage money. Some people are manic depressive, they are wonderful people but they go off on a skite and spend every penny they have and reach the limit on their credit cards. I do not believe we will ever eliminate child or adult poverty.

If one looks at the figures which lie behind this laudable aim, child poverty was estimated at 6.5% in 2001 but the latest figures for 2007 show it at 7.4%. It went up by over 1% so instead of a decrease, there has been an increase. Some 76,000 children live in poverty and a further 205,000 live in households at risk of poverty. That perilous condition of being at risk of poverty, where one must be penurious about everything, including school books, trips, clothes and keeping up with the other children, is also a fairly crushing kind of poverty. Children also go to school hungry.

Poverty and deprivation also have an impact on the further development of children. The Labour Party motion lists these various things, including the number of children living in poverty and the commitment to eliminate child poverty, so at least I am on target. It also mentions the necessity to develop a clear strategy on child poverty, which does not seem to exist. There does not seem to be a clear and coherent policy.

It is very worthwhile looking at the Society of St. Vincent de Paul figures. The society states that living in poverty impacts on every area of a child's life. There is no escape from poverty just as there was no escape from the Israeli shells for the unfortunate civilians in Palestine. Some 62% of the requests for help received in 2008 by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul Dublin office, which is the largest in the country, came from families with children. As in the example I put on the record, there was a bulge just before Christmas. Christmas creates this kind of social and financial pressure.

Very often the Society of St. Vincent de Paul notices that financial problems are compounded because of the restricted access to social welfare payments and the fact that many people are in enormous debt. It gives a couple of examples which I hope others have not put on the record. It is worth putting a human face on this. This is a real example, although names etc. have been changed. A man called the Society of St. Vincent de Paul before Christmas and said his gas had been cut off. That is a practical thing. If one has no money, what does one do? The ESB then called, because things never happen singularly, to say it was going to cut off the electricity. Thank God for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. It is a criticism of this State and its policies that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul had to be called in. The State should be there, especially in the light of the things repeated from 1919 in the Mansion House last month.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul also helps people to manage debt and it helps lone parents. I instanced the case of one woman whose husband died suddenly and tragically. However, there are parents who are parenting on their own all the time. Some 45% of calls for help in the Dublin region in 2008 came from lone parents. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul gave the example of a woman with a 12 year old son struggling to get by. Her most recent electricity and gas bills were approximately €180 but she could not afford to pay them. She called the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for the first time in December 2008 requesting assistance. Her main concern was protecting her son from the situation in which they found themselves. Again, there is this kind of pride of not wishing to accept poverty.

Poverty is seen as demeaning. It is an inheritance from the past. Nobody wants to be detected in poverty by the neighbours. How cruel that can be for children. I know how cruel it can be because I remember how cruel I and all the other little brats were. A little sign of poverty, whether a child turning up in school with a broken strap on a rucksack, a battered thermos flask, a hole in a shoe or a sock, or long hair which obviously should have been cut, marks the child out as different and he or she will be the target of bullying.

We should honour the Labour Party for tabling this important motion, thank our friends in Fianna Fáil for listening and ask them to go back to see if they can strengthen the Government's position in this area even in a time of financial hardship.

Senator Larry Butler

I welcome the Labour Party motion and the debate, and I support the Government amendment to the motion. We have had a very good, informed debate, which, I am glad to say, is the way we should go forward in this House. We all listened to what each other had to say. The Government's current programme for child care and child welfare is a good one.

I spent ten or 12 years on health boards and remember during that time there was no child care policy. A Minister was then appointed to look after children, which shows how important children are to the party and the country. We have a long way to go to deal with poverty. I agree with Senator Norris, it is almost impossible to totally eradicate poverty because one might think poverty, homelessness or various other problems have been solved, but they are not. I remember 50 people were living on the streets of Dún Laoghaire and we eventually got accommodation for them. A new centre was built for them but it did not cure the problem. There were still people sleeping on the street who would not come into the hostel, which is amazing. The accommodation is beautiful.

Poverty and child care is somewhat like that. Family responsibility plays a major role in ensuring the child comes first. One will find that a mother, a single parent or a father will always do their best. However, an addiction to drink or various other things can take over and ruin a child's life. This is where the State must act responsibly and quickly. We have reduced levels of finance and the Government is trying to do the best it can, but this is one area we should not cut back on. We have to ensure that child poverty, to the best of our ability, is eliminated. That is very important.

Children have social needs, whether in education or whatever. The Minister should rethink his decision on the cuts in education. It is the one thing with which I have difficulty. In delivering education to younger children we have put in place a major programme and it is a retrograde step to go back on it now. I understand approximately 500 children, a significant number, are involved who will not receive sufficient educational attention in school. The matter must be addressed and I will take it up with the Minister.

Our record in education shows there are 19,000 adults working in education solely representing and looking after children, which has been a huge plus. There are 10,000 special needs assistants — there were only 300 in 1997 — which is a fantastic achievement in ensuring we are getting the best quality education for our children. There are 7,800 resource and learning support teachers, compared with 2,000 in 1998. The Government has done very well in ensuring we have put resources in place.

People will say, "What did they do with the money?" There are significant resources. There are 1,100 other teacher support staff for children in special schools. There are hundreds more workers and special classes in the establishment since 2003. In 2007 there were 15,000 teachers. In 2008 €5.5 million was spent to provide support for professional training. It would be wrong to say we have not put significant resources into the teaching and welfare of our children. In 2007 €10 million extra was provided in the budget for children with special educational needs, which provided for a 33% increase in the Department's funding for psychological services. Regarding the full implementation of education for persons with special educational needs, excellent services continue to be provided.

The motion this evening raises a very important point. We must try harder and get better value for the money we are putting into education and see if we are spending it correctly. We need to ask if the organisations running the services for children are up to the job. This is what we have to look at. If the services are not up to the job, perhaps we should look at ways of delivering the service more efficiently and ensure they are more beneficial to the people we are trying to get them to. I commend to the House the Government's amendment to the motion.

Senator Feargal Quinn

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This is a very sad debate because we have heard so many sad stories. Figures are interesting but they do not touch, to any extent, on the significant poverty there is out there. We recognise that. I have many figures I was going to talk about, but we have had so many figures already I would prefer not to do so. I would like to talk about the opportunity for us, as individual citizens, to do something ourselves, rather than relying on the Government to do it. There are things we can do ourselves and there is enough evidence that there is a major demand for it.

I remember when I first started in my business we had a small space given over to pet food and over the years the space for pet food on the supermarket shelves increased. There is a significant number of people in our society who do not realise there are children who are very hungry and are in great need of a huge amount of help. Yet, we concentrate, to a very large extent, on looking after our pets rather than our children.

I would like to spend a couple of moments talking about what each of us can do individually. I have had some experience of seeing the joy one can bring to somebody who is lonely. There is a term I came up with many years ago called "STAR". We can give people a STAR. It stands for four different words. The first word is something we can give even if we have no money, the "S" of star, that is, "smile". We can give somebody who is poor, lonely and desolate a smile on the road when we meet them. The effect that can have on children is amazing, particularly on those who feel lonely, bullied or left out of society. The second letter is "T" and it stands for "time". The effect of us being willing to give a little bit of time to somebody who needs help is amazing. It could be a neighbour and or somebody whom we do not even notice because we do not pay attention to them. The third letter is not that far removed and is the "A" of star, for which I use the term "approachable". We can make ourselves approachable. It is really interesting to see, when one makes oneself approachable, how willing people are to approach, people who would otherwise feel shy about doing so. The last letter stands for "recognition", being able to find and ask somebody "What's your name?", and calling them by their name.

These are little things but I am using them as examples because it seems that almost all of tonight's debate is saying what the Government should do or what it is not doing. One may ask why the Government does not do more, but each of us can do a huge amount individually to help in this area. I have some difficulty with those who say that we have gone a long way towards solving child poverty and therefore we should relax. I know that no speakers here have said that and we recognise there is a lot to do, but there are things that we can do individually.

Some years ago, I was asked to go on a partnership programme about jobs. I went there with a lot of ideas but discovered that everybody else was saying "We must call in FÁS, the Government and Forfás to do it." However, we can do things ourselves on an individual basis. In the few minutes available I want to encourage us to remember that we can do something about child poverty. Bringing a little bit of joy to somebody through our efforts can alleviate their suffering in some small way. In addition, as Senator Norris said, we can support the work of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

For many years I was involved in the Christmas day dinner that used to take place in the Mansion House, but is now held in the Royal Dublin Society. It was run by the Knights of St. Columbanus and as many as a thousand adults attended. In the past 20 years, however, a large number of children have been going there. They would not have had any Christmas dinner if it was not laid on by a charitable organisation. There are things we can do, therefore, and we should do them.

Just before Christmas, UNESCO published its report card on how children are faring in developed OECD countries. Most of those countries met at least half the benchmarks. One of them, Sweden, met all ten benchmarks, while France, Finland and Norway met eight. A number of countries that are significantly poorer than Ireland, including Hungary, Slovenia and Portugal, met at least four. Even Mexico, whose GDP per capita is just over a quarter of ours, managed to meet three of the benchmarks. Ireland met precisely one, that of having 50% of staff in early childhood education with relevant third level qualifications. As a result, Ireland is at the bottom of UNICEF’s league for looking after our children.

The Government is trying to do something and is defending itself, but I congratulate the Labour Party on tabling this motion, which gives us a chance to debate the matter. I recognise the Government's commitment towards achieving progress. The debate has been useful, but let us not ask the Government to do everything in this regard — let us do something ourselves also.

Senator Lisa McDonald

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and thank the Labour Party for putting this important issue on the agenda. Investment in our children is an investment in the economy, as well as forming young people's social behaviour and removing them from the cycle of unemployment and crime. As a result of such an investment, they will hopefully be able to fulfil their own needs and abilities.

As time is limited, I wish to hone in on a couple of points. It has been stated that children from one-parent, low-income families are more inclined to fall into the poverty trap than others. Fathers need to play a bigger role in their children's lives. Under the Constitution, children who are not in a married family system do not count, which is a disgrace. We are unfairly discriminating against such children so the relevant constitutional amendment should be put to the people. If that referendum is passed, we will in future not have the stark statistics that were mentioned by Senator O'Toole. Someone will bring a test against the State on the basis that they were not served correctly concerning abuse or did not receive help or whatever intervention is required for a child. That is a quantum leap we need to take as a society, a Government and a people.

We must accept that a child is not a commodity that can be thrown from Billy to Jack by parents who sometimes do not care about them. Children in the poverty cycle are less likely to complete their education and more likely to be unemployed as adults. I acknowledge that we have done a lot in this regard, including the stated goals in Towards 2016. An unprecedented level of investment has been made but I am not here to reflect on past glories, I want to examine the improvements we can make in future. If we are not willing to go forward there is not much point in us being here at all.

We should examine how the courts can deal effectively with domestic violence, a problem that is not taken seriously at present. While some fathers want to be responsible for their children, others do not and are unwilling to pay maintenance. We are talking about increasing child income supports to 33% of the minimum adult's social welfare payment, but many children do not receive the benefit of such payments. I have seen numerous examples where people put that money towards paying off a mortgage. That may help them to keep a roof over their heads, but too often parents see the children's allowance as a payment for themselves and not for the child. We need to look at other ways of intervening to ensure that children benefit from such payments.

In my area, HSE employees who work in child support services are excellent and have the best intentions. However, we need a separate agency to deal with child poverty and such an agency should have full funding under the aegis of a Minister. We should appoint a senior Minister to deal with this area, thus avoiding departmental overlaps which currently mean that children fall between two stools. As we reach our goal in Towards 2016, now is the time to prioritise investment in this matter. We have had enough inquiries and reports about abuse of children. There is a well established link between poverty and child abuse. We know the answers to many of the questions so we need to move forward now and act. Children who fall into the justice system or health board care will reoffend in future because they are trapped in a poverty cycle. We have done a lot in the education sector but we need to examine other areas, including family law, to bring a holistic approach to bear in solving this problem.

Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson)

I can give Senator Healy Eames two minutes.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

That is very decent. I welcome the Minister of State. Wakey, wakey — tá sé tuirseach inniú. I thank the Labour Party for bringing this welcome motion before the House. The figure of 76,000 children living in poverty is a scary statistic. We must examine how we can help those living in poverty and I want to focus on education in this regard. Despite the fact that education is the proven route out of poverty, we still see swingeing cuts in that sector which largely hit children from poor backgrounds living in socio-economically disadvantaged environments.

Sr. Stanislaus Kennedy warned that appalling budget cuts, like those imposed on school book grants for the poorest children, were an indication the Government's thinking on education is badly skewed. She warned such cuts would sadly result in a less literate and less capable emerging workforce and a reduced commitment to equality of opportunity. If we continue in this vein, continue to cut out children with mild learning difficulties, so many of whom are in disadvantaged settings — as with today's announcement of the loss of 128 posts — the Government will become known as one of social exclusion that has further advanced the cycle of poverty.

The same applies with regard to cutting out home-school liaison teachers in non-DEIS schools. Many pupils in these schools are poor but their school does not qualify for disadvantaged status. Our most vulnerable children, including those from poor, Traveller and immigrant families need access to books. They need special support and small classes, whether they live in officially designated disadvantaged areas.

I compliment the Labour Party on bringing this motion to the House. I would like the Government's policies and practices to be poverty proofed. As Senator O'Toole said in the House, we will pay the price for these bad moves. It is not fair to make the disadvantaged pay the price for the economic downturn, to which they in no way contributed.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I thank the Ministers of State, Deputies McGuinness, Seán Power, Devins and Noel Ahern who attended this debate. At one stage I thought all the junior Ministers would attend. As welcome as they all are, we had hoped the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Barry Andrews, would be able to attend. It is a pity he was not here, but we are glad to see the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, here.

I also thank Senator Prendergast for seconding the motion and other Senators for contributing to the discussion, including Senators Corrigan, McFadden, Boyle, Bacik, Donohoe, Ormonde, Norris, Butler, Quinn, McDonald and Healy Eames. Their contributions were all worthwhile.

Senator Prendergast and I, and the Labour Party, tabled this motion because we want to highlight the ongoing scandal of the high level of child poverty in Ireland and, more importantly, the apparent indifference of the Government to the problem. We accept measures and initiatives are being implemented in different Departments, but they lack an overall strategy and vision and the results speak for themselves. As we pointed out, in 2007 the percentage of children living in poverty was higher than in 2001.

Senator Corrigan made some interesting points with her amendment and mentioned some figures. We could trade statistics all evening. The Minister of State also trotted out figures pointing out how good the situation is. Perhaps the situation is better than in the 1990s, but it is not yet a record of which we should be proud.

We had a long and interesting debate about consistent and relative poverty. One thing that jumped out from the Minister of State's speech was the figure for consistent poverty. In 2007, 20% of lone parent households were in consistent poverty. Senator Norris raised the point about the lady who lost her husband before Christmas. One in five lone parent families in consistent poverty is not a record of which we can be proud. Even if we agree to leave the statistics aside, the reality is that tens of thousands of children are living in poverty and being denied basic support services.

Senator McFadden talked about the difficulties many children face in getting through to the ISPCC. Senators Bacik and Healy Eames mentioned the impact on children of the latest education cuts. Senator Donohoe mentioned some harrowing tales of young people in his constituency and the lack of facilities. He suggested some worthwhile improvements.

If the Minister of State does not believe us about the situation, he should talk to organisations involved in the End Child Poverty coalition. They deal with these issues on a daily basis. Voluntary organisations are filling the gaps left by the Government's inaction. Senator Quinn mentioned organising Christmas dinners in the past. I remember reading Christina Noble's autobiography and about her experience organising Christmas dinners in Vietnam. We need to help organisations like the Christina Noble Foundation, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the ISPCC in their work.

Senator Boyle will know well from a previous existence the complexity of the issues. He mentioned this, as did Senator Ormonde who has tremendous experience in the area of disadvantage and education. We are lucky to have these people in the House. We too recognise the complexity of the issue of child poverty. However, it is an issue we hope Senators Boyle and Ormonde will take to Government and champion. Senators McDonald and Butler indicated they would be willing to do that and I would appreciate their doing so.

The End Child Poverty coalition set out a clear, consistent strategy and agenda for the reduction and ultimate elimination of child poverty. I urge the Government to engage directly with the coalition and discuss its proposals with the proposals presented here tonight and come up with a plan of action.

I thank all the Ministers of State and Senators who attended this debate for their valuable and worthwhile contributions. It should be the role of the Government to create an environment where children can grow up free of poverty and achieve their full potential. We will all — children, society and everyone here — be losers if we condemn thousands of children to poverty. As a nation, we should aspire to be the best. Therefore, we should work to eliminate child poverty and to make Ireland the best place in the world for children to grow up in.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

Senator Maria Corrigan

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.