On a point of order, I ask Senator Keane to retract what she said about carers. She said they were likely to be hoisted into hospitals. That trumps the comment from Senator Norris that the game is on.
Social Welfare Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I was complimenting carers for looking after people in their homes, where they should be looked after. I was on the same note.
I think the language she used tells us something else.
I ask the Senators to resume their seats.
I will not resume my seat while I am being misinterpreted. I was complimenting the carers and I do not want anybody to say otherwise.
I ask the Senator to resume her seat. The issue raised by Senator O'Donnell may not be a point of order but it can be teased out further on Committee Stage.
I want to see this country on its feet again but to do that we will need tough love. The Minister spoke about how we have managed to rebuild confidence in the economy. I pointed out on the Order of Business that €8.5 billion was invested in this country last year because outside investors have confidence in us. Social cohesion allowed us to build that confidence.
Over the past several days much has been made in the media of the ability of this House to change legislation and delay the Social Welfare Bill. I hope we will be able to make positive changes to the Bill but social welfare reform is regarded across Europe as essential. Even Germany, which is Europe's strongest economy, cannot afford to continue paying many forms of welfare. The Sunday Times stated that any country which spends more than €20 billion per year on social welfare at a time when its tax take is just €36 billion is clearly dysfunctional. We have to make tough decisions and the Minister and the Government are making them. How can we sustain the State when the weekly social welfare payment of €188 is more than twice the amount paid in the UK or Germany? I am proud that we look after every citizen in the country but I tell foreigners about the amount of social welfare we pay in this country I am told I must not be speaking the truth. In Italy and other EU countries people do not receive unemployment benefit if they have not worked. The principle of unemployment benefit should be that one gets benefits if one has worked. While this may be an unpopular view the editorial in last Saturday's Irish Independent got it right in noting:
far from being concerned at the huge amounts being spent on social welfare, politicians of all parties compete with one another to express their 'social concern' ... It's time for some tough love on social welfare. Benefits have to be cut and fraud eradicated.
All areas of the €53 billion currently spent by the State must be examined. The economist, Jim Power, recently argued that the people who are opposed to any examination of social protection expenditure should recognise that it is financed by those who work and pay taxes. The latter should be allowed to comment on how their hard earned money is spent. The resources needed to provide a safety net to the less well off can only be generated through job creation. This point is often forgotten, however. We have to consider where the money spent on social welfare is being found.
The right kind of reform of social welfare can spur growth in the economy. I cannot understand why it is so difficult to means test benefits. By taxing child benefit and other benefits, the Government could raise revenue and help deprived children directly. Ireland currently pays the fourth highest rate of child benefit in the European Union, behind Denmark, Germany and Luxembourg. We must run the country as a business and we cannot afford to pay this anymore. We can learn from other countries in this regard. I believe the Minister has done that on this occasion and I will be supporting the Government on the Bill. I hope, however, the Minister will consider some of the changes that have been proposed.
Everybody expected a tough budget. We knew that social welfare was going to be hit, although we thought more would be taken from the social welfare budget. My Fianna Fáil colleagues would readily admit that the social welfare rates are too high. Where would they take €400 million from the social welfare budget? Will they even give us an idea at this 11th hour?
We would not take €26 million from the respite care grant. It is incompetence.
Where would they take €26 million without affecting the respite care grant?
We must look at the reality. No social welfare base line payment was touched. The carer's allowance and the half-rate carer's allowance have not been touched, although other parties would like to see the latter abolished. There has been a total reversal on the proposed removal of €8 million from the home help and home care package. Incentives have been provided to employers to employ social welfare recipients from the live register. Has the Opposition any alternatives to spare people the pain? If so, I would love to hear them.
Has the Senator even read our programme?
I doubt very much they have alternatives in their programme that will provide for removing €400 million from social welfare.
There are plenty of choices.
Senator Kelly, without interruption, please.
The only power this House has is the power to delay the budget three months. The House could delay it until April, but then instead of a family of four having €58 a month taken from child benefit in January, February, March and April, €232 could be taken from their child benefit in April. We would see then whether they would thank the House for the delay in implementing the budget.
I never wanted to see a cut to child benefit, but we need to find a fairer and more equal way of delivering it. Certainly, we should take it from the people who do not need it, those who use it for foreign holidays, and give it to those who are struggling. This is something we need to consider for the future.
I acknowledge some Senators in the House are genuinely concerned about this budget. However, I take issue with members of Fianna Fáil on the other side who destroyed this country. These same people cut the Christmas bonus and cut carer's allowance by €16.80 and are now telling us they are concerned about these people, only because they are on the Opposition benches. If they had any respect for themselves, they would keep their mouths shut during this debate. Obviously they do not.
I am proud of what the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, has done with regard to her portfolio and budget. It has already been said that she pared back a potential cut of €540 million to a cut of €390 million. She has protected carer's allowance, at €204 per week, one of the most valued payments initiated by this and previous Governments. I am proud of that. Compare this to the carer's payment north of the Border, at £58.45. Yet the same party working there, Sinn Féin, sends me e-mails asking me to express my concern today for the people of this country who will lose money. The cheek of Sinn Féin public representatives to send me e-mails on this, while just 100 miles up the road, where Sinn Féin is in office, carers only receive £58 a week.
What about all the other services they get? Compare like with like.
I would prefer if the Senator did not interrupt me. He got his time.
I did not get any time yet.
The Senator should join a party with a quorum. We need to see reform in the area of child benefit.
I welcome the Minister's offer to initiate the debate on the report on social welfare and taxation in the Seanad in January. I call on her to review both child benefit and the respite care grant at the earliest moment possible in 2013. We need to focus on this in 2013. I am proud of the work the Labour Party has done within the Government. We make up approximately one third of the Government and are punching well above our weight. I commend the Minister on the Social Welfare Bill.
Senator Ó Clochartaigh does not need to join a party with a quorum in this House. He is in a party that has principles, which stands by the people who are being affected by the savage cuts in this budget.
The Minister knows full well many families are struggling. She knows many families struggle to send children to school, to put clothes on their backs, to put food in their mouths and on tables, to put heating oil in tanks and pay gas and electricity bills. Many families are in negative equity and many families struggle to pay basic bills. We must ask ourselves whether this budget makes life any easier for those families or whether it makes it a lot more difficult. We must be fair and honest and admit it will make life more difficult for the majority of middle income and low income families, particularly those on social welfare, because of the kind of cuts in this budget.
With Fine Gael, the Minister, and the Labour Party specifically, went to the electorate and made clear, solemn and unequivocal pre-election promises. One Labour Party Senator has apologised for that. The Labour Party said it would not cut child benefit. It said that was a red line issue which was non-negotiable. However, the Labour Party has turned its back on the people who voted for it. It has also reneged on its promises with regard to the respite care grant and college fees. Some of those constituents have e-mailed me. One said: "The cut is a cut too deep for the most vulnerable in society. Please do not pass it." Another wrote: "Hi, I am a mum of two autistic boys. My husband passed away suddenly three years ago at 39. This cut to the respite care grant and children's allowance will cripple us as a family. Please help." People are pleading for help from the people they voted into office to protect them, but those people have let them down.
In one of her final speeches as Opposition spokesperson for the Labour Party, the Minister said in the Dáil at a time when Fianna Fáil was seeking to cut child benefit.
Child benefit is keeping many families afloat. Child benefit is keeping bread on the table. It is paying the food bills of a significant number of families who have had a massive reduction in their income. Child benefit is, has been and will continue for a long time to be mainly an issue for mná na hÉireann and their children.
She was right to say that. However, now she comes in here and asks us to vote for a cut in child benefit - something she said was a protection for the women of Ireland and should not be cut, but protected. Again, the Minister has failed these people.
The former Labour Party Minister of State in the Department of Health, Deputy Shortall, challenged the Minister across the floor of the Dáil to stop using the word "fairness" in the context of this budget, because it is anything but fair. Senator Cáit Keane asked about the alternatives. We have set these out in our alternative budget.
I have heard of those fairytale economics so many times I cannot number them.
The fairytale economics come from the people making the bad choices. Our proposals are modest. Our proposals are realistic and genuine.
They are uncosted.
Senator Cullinane, without interrruption, please.
One of our proposals was also a Labour Party policy before it ditched it before the last election. That proposal is for a third rate of income tax, of 48% on individual income in excess of €100,000. This would have brought in €400 million, negating the need for any social welfare cuts at all. We would not cut social welfare. We would reform it and deal with waste, but we would not cut the incomes of those on the lowest incomes in the State and we would not take decisions that would push more people into poverty.
Go up North and make those cuts.
We would not make these cuts at a time when not an extra cent in income tax was sought from higher earners. There has been no wealth tax imposed or no cuts for politicians, yet there are cuts in social welfare. I know the Labour Party and Fine Gael have high ambitions for Sinn Féin. I know we will do well and will probably take seats from them in the next election
It looks like that is what it is all about, electoral advantage.
However, we will not be able to win an overall majority in Westminster so we will be able to set the rates of social welfare which apply in the North. What we have done is we have made sure there are no water charges there. There is free health and free education in the North and we introduced free prescription charges. We also introduced a social inclusion fund and a social development fund, in very difficult circumstances.
The Minister is shaking her head, but while there are Tory social welfare cuts being pushed through the Assembly currently, similar to those the Minister and her party is trying to implement, Sinn Féin is standing resolutely against them. We will not vote for Tory cuts and will not support them, whether they come from the Labour Party in this State or directly from the Tory party in the North. Our position is consistent. We will protect low income families.
We will protect middle income families. Unlike the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, who talks about flags of convenience for those Labour Party Senators who have a conscience, a man who is under more flags-----
Thank you, Senator.
Of how many parties was he a member? Now he is challenging Labour Party Members and chastising them simply because they are standing by the election pledges made, for which one of them has apologised-----
The Senator should conclude.
-----and the promises they gave to the people. There are families who are hurting. There are people on social welfare who are genuinely struggling to make ends meet. What the Minister is doing is making things worse, but, worse than that, she is betraying the very people who voted for her and her party. For this, she should be thoroughly ashamed.
I wish to share time with Senator Averil Power.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a few points.
I have no intention of getting involved in the political scenario. As for what Fianna Fáil did when in government, in the immortal words of a very distinguished former Leader of the House, "that was then and this is now." The people adjudicated on that performance and we lost 58 seats. We must, therefore, comment on what is happening in the here and now. As I was not made Minister for Finance, I can say whatever I like about the budget and it is perfectly credible, given that I was elected to the House.
I have met the troika. I do know if many Labour Party Senators accompany the Minister's delegations to the troika, but I have accompanied ours. On many occasions the troika has made it crystal clear that where the money is found is irrelevant, provided the bottom line is the same, savings are made and we achieve what is desired to be achieved. That is a fact. If it is not, when the Minister next goes to see the troika, I will accompany her at her invitation and I am sure others would like to come, too. I agree that we should meet them collectively.
As much of the ground has been covered, I will focus on one point. There were and are options. Those earning over €100,000 a year - the Members of these Houses are decidedly middle class and will know many of the people to whom I refer - were conditioned and expected to be hit by paying an extra 3% through the universal social charge. For six months it was the single item leaked most and it met with least resistance. I do not know what goes on in negotiations in the Cabinet room and who was sticking up for those would have been affected, but that increase of 3% would have brought in €200 million, which means there would have been €174 million left after putting the respite care grant back in place which could have gone towards child care sevices.
Who are we hitting? There are other potential levies, for example, on off-sales of drink or products with a high sugar and fat content. There could have been further reductions in the pensions area to cover other items. Therefore, there were options. The IMF has stated in recent days in the context of the next budget that we have cut enough. In the absence of growth in the 1980s, when there were tough budgets, we were able to offset some of the pain against the fact that there was a buoyant global economy. However, that is not the case now and we are hitting the most vulnerable, including those in mortgage arrears.
This is an opportunity to kick the Bill back to the Dáil. I believe that is the will of the people. The will of the people on this issue is to say have another look at this. Here are genuine options in the interests of the people. It is not a question of being disloyal to Fianna Fáil, Labour or anyone else. It is a question of showing that this House is representative of the people.
This is an opportunity to kick the Bill back to the Dáil, which is the will of the people. It is their will that we take another look at this issue, as there are genuine options. It is not a question of being disloyal to Fianna Fáil, the Labour Party or anyone else. It is a question of showing that this House is representative of the people.
There is no doubt that the Government needs to close the gap between income and expenditure and I do not believe anybody in this House disagrees with that assertion. However, as Senator Marc MacSharry said, the Minister does have choices. The choices made in the Social Welfare Bill are wrong. It is wrong to target low income families for cuts. It is wrong to abolish the back to education allowance for persons who are unemployed and trying to get an education in order that they can find a job. It is downright cruel to target carers for cuts in the respite care grant.
Fianna Fáil cut it by €16.80.
Please allow Senator Averil Power to conclude.
Fianna Fáil cut it by €16.80.
If you take comfort from shouting at me-----
The Senator should address her remarks through the Chair.
I will. This House has a very important job to do this week. I wish that Members would focus on the Bill. If Senator Denis Landy takes comfort from shouting at the Opposition side and making political points and if that makes him feel better about the e-mails from parents of autistic children who e-mailed every Member over the weekend asking us to do the right thing in conscience, that is fine. Personally, I am here to do a job and we have a serious job to do. All that we, on this side of the House, are asking is that the Government takes pause. Nobody is asking anybody to destabilise the coalition, as some Members suggested. All we are saying is that the choices made in the Bill are wrong and that we have an opportunity to force the Dáil to look at it again and come up with fairer choices.
The Senator must conclude.
The bottom line will still be the same, with which I have no issue. It will still be that the same overall level of cuts must be achieved, but they can be fairer. Alternatives have been mentioned such as an increase in the universal social charge. I know they appeal to Members on the other side of the House and that, in all honesty, if they think about them, they know they are right. I just hope that at least two or three Members on the Government side will have the courage and decency to do the right thing.
I welcome the Minister. This is probably the toughest debate in which any of us will ever be involved and the decisions made this week will certainly compound matters. Previous speakers referred to letters received. We have all received the most heartfelt letters and I speak as a parent of a child with special needs on the autistic spectrum and who fits all of these criteria. The last thing I want to do and the last thing I am sure any of us wants to do is to make cuts. We do not want them; nobody does. I have met the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, and expressed my fears and concerns to her and she has gone into great detail in explaining the bigger picture. As Senator Feargal Quinn said, we have to look at the bigger picture.
The nub of the issue of the respite care grant is that there is no respite care service. The respite care services are absolutely appalling. I have a child who, if I am lucky, will sleep three hours a night and he is now 15 years of age. I could add the number of sleepless nights I have had and I then had to go and do my job. At one stage, to put bread on the table, I had to drive 70 miles a day. I did this for my children because I knew there was an end goal. That is where the problem lies. Respite care services have disappeared in the last year. In my own area, as I said to the Minister, a service was available and there was a children's respite care unit. I am talking about respite care services for children up to 18 years. The respite care unit only opens now seven days in every 31. God forbid if a child gets sick on those other days, if there is a bereavement, or an emergency.
The most frightening aspect for any parent of a child with special needs who needs respite care is that there is nothing available. There are many people who would gladly give up their respite care grant altogether if they could be assured proper respite care services were in place. As I have outlined in the House previously, I know of one person who is taking her first break in nine years to be a bridesmaid at her sister's wedding and who has now been told she cannot be guaranteed there will be a respite care service available in the area during that weekend - tough. She now has to make the decision to either, possibly causing hurt and pain, take the child to England or forgo the trip. That is only one of the thousands of e-mails that have absolutely broken my heart. I know from first-hand experience exactly what all of these people are going through. If nothing else comes out of this, we should get a proper respite care service up and running, for which the HSE would provide the funding and in which every penny would be accounted for.
Another vital issue concerns the need for an interdepartmental survey of respite care services and the breakdown between the services and the HSE. In my area I have tried to get a picture of what the services are like and who avails of them.
There are many people who would gladly avail of respite services if they were available to them.
The next speaker is Senator Sean D. Barrett who will be followed by Senators John Gilroy and John Crown. By order, we are due to conclude the debate at 5.45 p.m.
Excuse me.
The Senator may speak privately with me. I have called Senator Sean D. Barrett.
On a point of order, we are living in a democracy.
I have been elected to the Seanad three times. I demand two or three minutes speaking time. If I am not given time, I will quit the Seanad. I have never heard such nonsense.
We are due to conclude Second Stage at 5.45 p.m. Let us see what progress can be made.
This is nonsense.
Among the many important points made by the Minister was the one relating to the increase during the boom era to approximately 16% in the number of people in receipt of disability, invalidity or other illness benefits. It appears in retrospect that in an economy in which there is full employment the welfare economy gains. The Minister is trying to correct this problem through the introduction of a welfare system that directs people towards work, rather than permanent welfare payments.
The IMF report of September 2012 states Ireland's spend on social welfare benefits is approximately 29% above the OECD average. It is also 12% higher than the OECD-EU average. The welfare spend more than doubled between 2000 and 2011. People have referred to the meanness of the United Kingdom in terms of some of its welfare benefits. The United Kingdom ponied up 3.8% of the €85 billion which was needed to rescue Ireland and we are still borrowing €13 billion per annum. We ought to be a little more careful in our comments having received money under a rescue programme from the United Kingdom which we used to pay child benefit at higher levels than are available in the United Kingdom. It must be realised that Ireland remains in dire financial straits. Its presentation in the media abroad as a country which has stinted on social welfare benefits is not borne out by the facts. In terms of how we allocate these benefits, several Senators have raised questions such as why the respite care allowance is not means-tested and child benefit is not included in taxable income or means-tested. There are elements of the Minister's Department which in the past were always keen to have as big a social welfare sector as possible. The opening statements in the report of the Department of Social Protection always referred to the millions of people who were dependent on it. Perhaps they might not do so in the future. We should target our resources at where they are most needed, as echoed throughout this debate.
According to the IMF, our bureaucratic costs as a percentage of national income are among the highest anywhere. There is an entitlement culture, even among those whose incomes are way above average. There is a tax avoidance culture, against which the Minister has written and about which she has spoken. There is also a lobbying culture which operates away from the facts of how we are trying to cope with the operations of the economy at such a difficult time in managing the public finances. There are many items Cabinet Ministers should have addressed before the benefits attacked in the Bill were targeted. For example, the budgets for the Attorney General's office and the office of the Minister for Finance have increased by 11.6% and 16.5%, respectively; the budget for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has increased by 9.2%; the Exchequer pay bill in the Attorney General's office has increased by 12.2% and for the office of the Minister for Finance by 14.3%. Of 40 pay budgets, 21 have increased at a time when we are supposed to be cutting back on public expenditure and directing money to where it is needed.
There is a need for a greater focus in our budgeting on those in greatest need. We need to move away from some of the expenditure items which, by international standards, remain high. The Government must continue the reform package it commenced when it assumed office in the spring of last year. There is a lot more to be done because, as stated by the Minister, we continue to borrow €13 billion per annum. Being told that if the Government had a surplus, it could do A, B or C is irrelevant. We do not have a surplus.
I thank the Senator for his co-operation and appeal for co-operation from the next speaker, Senator John Gilroy, in respect of the time available to him.
I wish to share time with Senator James Heffernan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am concerned at the tone of the debate in that the Opposition is clearly portraying that the right thing to do is to vote against the Bill. The right thing to do is the difficult thing. Previous Governments in the 1980s, including Governments of which the Labour Party and Fine Gael were part, failed to make difficult decisions, thereby extending the period of recession to the great detriment of the country. The Government has had to make some awful decisions in the budget. It has no choice but to do this and it will be for the best. I will have a great deal more to say on particular issues on Committee Stage.
I welcome the Minister who has a difficult task on her hands. Members on this side of the House appreciate how difficult that task is.
The Labour Party needs to apologise for its failure to stand over a commitment it made. I understand other Labour Party Senators have done so. It was a mistake for the Labour Party to promise something which it ultimately cannot deliver on. I find being lectured by Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil on doing the right thing, matters of conscience, principles and so on difficult. Principles are often easily thrown about in this House.
A blanket cut across the board in child benefit is not fair. I know of some people who can afford to go on a foreign skiing holiday after Christmas having banked their child benefit payments throughout the past year. I also know that some people save the money and use it to cover the cost of sending their children to private schools, private tuition or colleges fees. However, all of us who campaigned during the last geneeral election heard the stories about people who had to choose between meeting their mortgage payments and bringing their sick child to a doctor. I met people whose meal most days comprised potatoes and soup. Child benefit is a core payment for many such individuals. I hope it will be possible to find a better way of administering the payment to ensure it goes to those struggling to make ends meet rather than to those who can afford to save it and spend it at a later date on a skiing holiday to the Alps or the Pyrenees. I look forward to the Minister's response and propose to support the Bill.
I wish to share time with Senator Mary White.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, is certainly in the hot seat. People in Roscommon do not expect much in the way of commitments being met by the Government, given that the promises made to Deputies Frank Feighan and Denis Naughten by the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, and the Taoiseach and to Senator John Kelly by the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, on the retention of the accident and emergency department at Roscommon County Hospital, were broken. We are, therefore, not surprised at all.
The last election was bought by advertisements such as the Fine Gael - Every Little Hurts campaign. Although Labour said it would fight against cuts to child benefit, it has brought in those very cuts. In his homily on 9 December, the parish priest for Kiltoom and Cam, Fr. John Cullen, said the cut to the carer's respite grant was the most unfair. In an article in last week's Sunday Independent, a former colleague, Niall Ó Brolcháin, along with his wife Niamh and son Cianán, explained what a cut of €325 meant for them. This is not a justifiable cut. We are appealing to the Minister, who I know is concerned about this issue, to come up with some solution to this matter.
On “The Frontline” on December 10, the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, said a budget is there to serve the common good and one has to look at where there have been positive consequences, as well as unforeseen negative ones. In the case of the latter, he said one must have the courage to stand up and admit one made a mistake. This should be the case of the cut to the carer's respite grant.
Sorry, I would like to have the Minister's attention.
I am listening really carefully to the Senator.
The Senator is a heroine of mine. When I was asked by The Irish Daily Mail who I had the highest regard for in politics, I said the Minister for Social Protection.
I protested with the people on the streets against the cut to the carer's respite grant. I cannot understand why a lady of the Minister's intelligence could not find €26 million savings in another area out of a total budget of €20 billion
Will the Senator tell us where?
Senator White without interruption.
Last year, the Minister for Education and Skills had the courage to reverse the DEIS cuts when thousands of children protested outside Leinster House with their teachers. Unfortunately, many carers are not able to hold such a protest. The Minister's future leadership of the Labour Party will be carved in stone if she has the courage to reverse the carer's respite grant.
I know the Minister is not an uncaring, unthoughtful or unkind person. However, the specific cuts to the carer's respite grant will come across as unkind and I believe they were not well thought through. I know it will be irritating to hear criticism from some folks who, to varying degrees, have been responsible for the predicament in which the Minister finds herself. It is difficult to maintain decent social services when one has rising demand and decreasing available resources.
I must vote against this Bill, however. All we can do is have a Quixotic attempt to defeat it. Defeat of this Bill has as much chance of occurring as the Mayan apocalypse in three days time. It is important to make a statement because the carers of the severely handicapped young, the severely disabled old and those with cancer believe so. I accept savings have to be made some place but there is an uneconomic aspect to this cut if one considers one extra day spent in hospital because there is no carer at home will wipe out the annual savings for that one person. Hospital days cost €1,000 a day in the health system. A way must be found around this cut.
Here are several suggestions the Minister can take to Cabinet to make these savings of €26 million. Every public relations contract in the public service should be cancelled along with the firing of every press secretary in the public service. Every Minister and senior executive in Departments and quangos should be made to speak for themselves on a once-a-month basis at press conferences. I would also fire most of the Health Service Executive, HSE, bureaucrats. There was a ludicrous idea several weeks ago of introducing boot camps for these HSE administrators to teach them financial management skills. Money can be found for all sorts of nonsense. I would also end mandatory retirement, as my friend and colleague Senator White suggested, as well as cutting the quangos.
I know the Government will win the vote on this Bill but I suggest the Minister goes back to Cabinet with other suggestions for the carer's cut.
I want to raise a point of order. As I said on the Order of Business earlier, every Senator who wants to speak on Second Stage should be given time to do this. It is very unfair that on such an important Bill some Senators have been excluded from the Second Stage debate. It is the one issue we have all been asked to raise. Will the Leader extend the time for this debate?
I appreciate the Senator's point but it is not a point of order. The House has already agreed to call the Minister at 5.45 p.m.
I thank all Senators who contributed to this debate, especially those who have given their support to the measures contained in the Social Welfare Bill. People find any reductions or changes in social welfare payments difficult. Every euro in the €20.2 billion social protection concerns an individual, a family and a community somewhere in this country.
Senator Cullinane gave an example of a widowed mother of two autistic boys. Under our system, such an individual would get €33,000 per annum, gross and net. It is not a high income but a significant one. That figure also takes into account the reduction in the carer's respite grant and that housing benefits package, travel benefit and the medical card would be worth a combined €700 to that family. In practice, for many other families it would be worth more. It is not true that our social welfare payments are mean, low and miserly. They are not as significant as we might like them to be, particularly for carers. As Senator Moran pointed out, many carers have sleepless nights because their children are restless and active during the night. That is a particular burden these parents carry.
From my experience, as well as talking to Members such as Senator Moran and reading the article by the former Senator, Niall Ó Brolcháin, in last week's Sunday Independent, I know many want assurances about the actual provision of the respite places.
I agree with the proposal made by Senators Marie Moloney, Mary Moran and others that we need to map and audit the position in the provision of respite care places. Senator Mary White will be aware, from experience, that what carers really need, regardless of whether they are looking after a elderly person or a young child, is an assurance that if they make contact with the relevant provider, they will be able to access a reliable respite care place or service. To be honest, all the respite care grants in the world are not worth as much to most carers as the actual provision of respite care services on which they can rely and which can allow them to spend time with the rest of their families or take a short break, whether in Ireland or abroad. It was for this purpose that the respite care grant, as originally designed, was meant. I will be talking to the Minister for Health and the Minister of State with responsibility for the disability sector to see whether it will be possible to develop a programme of absolute structures in respect of respite care places. As stated, I am aware that the provision of such places is the most important aspect of this matter. It is really important to families who are caring for elderly relatives that these individuals can be placed in a nursing home, a community care home or one of the older public hospital facilities - perhaps for as little as two days or up to a fortnight - and that they can have check-ups, etc., while they are there. I agree with the proposal made in this regard.
Senator Marie Moloney asked whether it would be possible to use some of the additional 10,000 places, particularly those relating to the Tús and community employment schemes, in the context of extra provision. Many community employment schemes provide preschool and after-school services. They also provide a wide range of services for older people. I would welcome proposals from organisations, associations and community employment schemes which provide services for younger and older people and families which require support in respect of the additional places being provided. It is up to the former to bring forward such proposals which I will be happy to discuss with them.
I inform those Senators who, in all good conscience, feel obliged to oppose certain sections of the Bill that voting in favour of a 90 day pause would not be without-----
On a point of order, there were Senators who did not have the opportunity to contribute to the debate because the time allocated for it had been exhausted. The Minister has now exhausted her time and the House is due to debate another matter. It is very unfair that she should be allowed to make a further lengthy contribution when others-----
I am certainly interested in hearing what the Minister has to say, particularly the points she is addressing.
The House agreed that the Minister would have five minutes in which to conclude.
I apologise, I was not aware of the time limit. I will be brief.
If the Bill were to be paused for 90 days, the loss in respect of social welfare would be €124 million and this money would have to be made up during the remaining nine months of the year, unfortunately from the budget of the Department of Social Protection.
That did not apply in the case of the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, when there was a budget overrun in his Department and across the health service.
The Minister to conclude, without interruption.
The loss of PRSI income would be €22 million per month, while the loss in terms of expenditure savings would be €15 million per month. The total loss over the 90 days would, therefore, be €124 million.
That did not happen in the health service.
The Minister to conclude, without interruption.
I am merely saying that-----
(Interruptions).
The Department of Health was given a Supplementary Estimate. Why should the position in respect of the Department of Social Protection which deals with the most vulnerable in society be different?
The Minister to continue, without interruption.
Senator David Norris made some really important points and I am merely highlighting the fact that there would be financial consequences in voting in favour of a 90 day pause. It is for Senators to make a judgment on the importance of these consequences.
On a point of order, the Minister is incorrect in stating the entire 90 day period would apply. If, during that time, the Government agreed to what we are seeking, it would not apply in its entirety.
That is not a point of order. Senators should allow the Minister to conclude, without interruption.
The Government has an opportunity to meet our concerns.
That is correct.
The Minister should be allowed to conclude, without interruption.
Senators James Heffernan, John Kelly and others referred to child benefit. I have undertaken to publish with the permission of the Government the Mangan report at the end of January. The report highlights a number of difficult choices to be made. I will be returning to the House to discover whether Senators are willing to engage with some of these choices which include taxing child benefit for those on higher incomes. This would have implications for heavily indebted young families with large mortgages.
I ask the Minister to conclude.
Another of the choices relates to means-testing. In the North the consequence of such testing is that no one who earns more than £60,000 can receive child benefit. The report also refers to the creation of a two tier payment structure. In that context, it is most important that we maintain the incentive for all members of families to go out to work.
I disagree with Senator Jillian van Turnhout on one matter. We are recovering money at a moderate rate from people who have been scamming the social welfare system. At present, such money is only recoverable at a rate of €2 per week.
We have tabled amendments on this matter with which we can deal on Committee Stage.
It would not be unreasonable to increase the rate of recovery to €10, €15 or €20 per week.
I ask the Minister to conclude.
The Bill does not make any distinction in this regard. Everybody will be in the same boat. This aspect of the Bill is completely unconstitutional
The Minister's time is exhausted and she must conclude.
The social welfare system is brought into disrepute when we cannot-----
I am sorry, but the Minister's time is exhausted.
Question put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 34; Níl, 22.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Harte, Jimmy.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- Heffernan, James.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Whelan, John.
Níl
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Mac Conghail, Fiach.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- McAleese, Martin.
- Norris, David.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Mary Ann.
- O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Power, Averil.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Walsh, Jim.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Ned O'Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson.
Question declared carried.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Tomorrow.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 19 December 2012.