Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Dec 2009

Vol. 199 No. 8

Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 6.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 18, before "The", to insert the following:

"(1) No person shall have his/her jobseeker's allowance reduced on the grounds of refusal to apply for a job unless the job declined is both suitable and appropriate.".

—(Senator David Norris).

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

I oppose this section in conjunction with my colleague, Senator McFadden. I spoke extensively about the possible fall-out from the cut in jobseeker's allowance to €100 or €150 a week for young people. I have not referred to another group of young people: young farmers. I am sure the Minister is aware that farm incomes are down 30% on last year and were down 12% on the previous year, a fall of 42% within two years. As other speakers have observed, those same farmers have suffered REPS cuts, delays in the farm waste management scheme and the complete cut in installation aid for young farmers.

A total of 10,000 farmers are on farm assist. It is very difficult to qualify for farm assist. It is a means-tested payment but is based on the submission of the previous year's accounts. I have been dealing with some accounts technicians working with the likes of IFAC, the Irish Farm Accounts Co-operative society. They have informed me that farmers are in dire straits because last year's set of accounts may have been reasonably all right but this year sees them in desperate financial circumstances. They really need this payment. It might be helpful for the Department to note that it is expected there will be a flood of applications for farm assist, which is a social welfare benefit, in early 2010. I hope farmers will be able to complete their accounts for this year on time and they will show the degree to which their income has fallen. Furthermore, part-time farmers who would not necessarily qualify for farm assist would most likely apply for jobseeker's allowance or jobseeker's benefit. Many young farmers who had a part-time job but have now lost it are also suffering a cut in benefit down to €100 to €150. I do not know if that is what the Minister intended by this measure. Full-time farmers' incomes now range between €13,000 and 16,000 per year, which is an incredibly low income.

I would like the Minister to address the issue of the fall in farm incomes and to address, in particular, that the benefit payment is not sufficiently flexible to enable farmers who have suffered a severe fall in income to qualify for the farm assist, as they need to have completed the previous year's set of accounts. I had planned to speak about this issue earlier, but I did not get to do so. I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for allowing me to do so now.

Senator Michael McCarthy

I support Senator Norris's amendment. I will read it into the record because it merits doing that. The amendment states: "No person shall have his/her jobseeker's allowance reduced on the grounds of refusal to apply for a job unless the job declined is both suitable and appropriate". Such a proposal is never as clear-cut as the Minster intends it to be. Other factors may be worth considering. There is a considerable merit in this amendment. If this measure is interpreted literally, it may be difficult to apply in practical terms and it may not work out as intended. It would be worthwhile for the Minister to consider accepting this amendment. I indicate that I also wish to speak on the section.

Senator David Norris

May I add a little extra inducement? If the Minister accepts the amendment, I will happily vote with the Government.

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Deputy Mary Hanafin)

Will I speak to the amendment first or to the section as well?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister should speak to the amendment.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

Senator Norris is correct in what he is proposing but having said that, I will wait to deal with it in the social welfare Bill which is due to be passed in March or April.

Senator David Norris

What will happen to the people concerned between now and then?

Deputy Mary Hanafin

The legislation provides that a person can be refused a payment if he or she turns down an offer of employment. Therefore, a person's application can be reviewed to ascertain if he or she is genuinely seeking work. There is no provision in any legislation to allow for the payment to be reduced. Therefore, we need to bring forward an amendment in the next legislation which will allow for that reduction not only for people who have failed to seek employment, which could be covered to some degree by taking the payment from them, but for people who also refuse to go on a course which might help them to get employment. Therefore, the measure is linked not only to employment but to preparation for work or activation, to use that awful word which seems to have no meaning. That is the reason I want to link those two areas.

The new social welfare Bill will be published and passed in the spring. It will take into account what Senator Norris has suggested, which refers specifically to a job, but I also want such provision to include suitable training. One could turn down many jobs that are not suitable, but one might never get a suitable job if one does not have suitable training. This measure is intended to encourage people in that direction.

Senator David Norris

I will incorporate the Minister's valuable suggestion in an amendment for Report Stage if that would satisfy her. What will be the position for the people concerned between the passage of this Bill and the passage of the social welfare Bill? They would be at least advantaged if this Bill were passed with the inclusion of my amendment, but if it is passed without it, they will continue to be disadvantaged until the passage of the social welfare Bill. Is that not the case? Therefore, a number of people will suffer hardship who could be spared that.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

The community welfare officers will be guided by the existing legislation which provides that one can investigate the person concerned to ascertain if he or she is genuinely seeking work. If the person is not, he or she can be cut off benefit for a period of up to nine weeks. That in itself can be quite stringent. A social welfare officer can do that and the person concerned can then go to the community welfare officer. There is an anomaly in the system in that if one is cut off benefit by the social welfare officer, one can go to the community welfare officer and receive the same amount. That needs to be sorted out as well. By reducing this benefit to €150, it would mean that if a social welfare officer or facilitator, who has sought to get a person into employment or to take up a course, decides that the person is no longer genuinely seeking work and cuts off his or her benefit, that person can go to the community welfare officer and get the full amount of benefit. When we bring in the legislation the amount a person will be able to get anywhere will be €150. It is a safeguard to be able to reduce the benefit as well as being able to cut people off benefit.

Senator Phil Prendergast

On what basis could someone decide that a person is no longer genuinely seeking work if the person has put forward his or her name in many companies as being available for work and presents himself or herself as being available for work? What would be the basis for deciding that person was not genuine about that?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Will the Minister address the issue concerning the farmers?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is not related to this amendment.

Senator David Norris

Senator Healy Eames is out of order.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Healy Eames's question does not relate to the amendment.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

I have evidence from employers of people who have turned down offers of jobs and said they would be better off on the dole.

Senator Nicky McFadden

Yes, that is true.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

That is a legitimate reason for taking somebody off benefit. Unfortunately, I have heard, as I did from Senator colleagues this morning, that employers in the construction industry are not able to get people to take up jobs. The same applies to shopkeepers. People have told them they would be better off on the dole. The employers will not give the names of those individuals nor will they report them. I can appreciate that in a small community nobody wants to be the one to give information about somebody, yet the whole country is talking about the black economy. The name of the person who gives such information would be anonymous. We do not need to know the name of the person making the complaint; we just need to know the details of the person concerned and the social welfare office will follow up on it. There has been a huge increase in the number of reports from members of the public which have been helpful to us in combating fraud. If there is evidence, as there is from employers, of people being offered a job, albeit a low paid one, and turning it down, that is sufficient grounds to have somebody taken off benefit.

Senator Michael McCarthy

What would happen if a person made a spurious allegation and it transpires the allegation about the person purported to be in the black economy, breaking the law or receiving a payment to which he or she is not entitled is not true, are sanctions taken against the person who makes that allegation knowing it not to be true?

Senator David Norris

If I may make a brief point without disturbing the Minister's train of thought, I am a little concerned on the basis that the Minister referred to a possible investigation, but there are no guidelines except for this debate and I doubt if the entire island of Ireland is listening in avidly to what we are saying here. There are no guidelines for the investigating officer to indicate that a jobseeker, by rejecting a job that is unsuitable, is acting legitimately. Some people may interpret the rules strictly. For example, an officer may say that while they know the person is a brain surgeon, he was offered a job as a flower arranger and did not take it, so shame on him. There does not seem to be any universal protection in that case. That is the point I am concerned about. I know there may be an investigation. Perhaps the Minister could arrange for a circular to be issued in the meantime. Can she reassure the House that those carrying out the investigation will understand that it is legitimate to turn down a completely inappropriate job. For example, a person of the Muslim faith may be required to work in a sausage factory and the person would find that extremely unappealing.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

People generally have found their experience of the social welfare office, once they are in receipt of payment, to be a positive one. The social welfare office does not take benefit from recipients unless there is good evidence to show that they no longer deserve it. When one considers the national employment action plan under which people are called to FÁS for interview with a view to guiding them onto various courses or jobs, a third of them do not turn up. They do not turn up for interview and suddenly they are taken off payment and off the live register. If nothing else, that is a good control measure. Therefore, calling people in and asking them what they are doing to better their prospects of a job is in the best interests of the client and also in the best interests of clamping down on fraud. I have forgotten the question Senator McCarthy asked.

Senator Michael McCarthy

I asked if sanctions apply to a person who makes a false allegation.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

If there is a vexatious complaint, the person about whom the complaint is being made might not even know a complaint has been made. It is not as if one would go off investigating them. For example, people complain about lone parents cohabiting. That is very difficult to prove because the lone parent can say it only happened yesterday.

Senator David Norris

It would be difficult to try.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

How does one stop a back payment? I heard yesterday of an inspector who was sitting outside someone's door at 7 a.m. to see who was coming out.

Senator David Norris

That is disgusting.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

Exactly, and so does the inspector——

Senator Michael McCarthy

Absolutely.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

——but that is part of the rules on cohabitation. We get many complaints in that regard. People complain about those on disability payments being well able to work. What many do not realise is that as a lone parent one can earn €145 and still get one's full payment. One can still work when claiming disability benefit. People seem to think that it is a case of one or the other.

A total of 115,000 people on the live register also work three days a week or they are on systematic part-time work while being supported by social welfare. One can legitimately get a payment but also work. We need to get the balance right. In so far as any complaint is made about an individual, he or she does not know that a complaint has been made about him or her nor does he or she know who made the complaint. The protections are built into the system. The public has been very supportive.

Senator David Norris

I thank the Minister for her clear and cogent replies. It is always a pleasure to deal with a Minister who is on top of her or his brief. I am sure I will be asked whether I intend to press the amendment. I do not. However, I wish to explore one issue. I am horrified to learn that, as the Minister has let slip, at least one employee of the Department was sitting outside someone's apartment at 7 a.m. snooping. That is an appalling thing. It is a shocking waste of money and an invasion of privacy. I find it absolutely revolting. I hope the practice stops at once.

I also hope that ghastly little snoop, or Peeping Tom or Thomasina, was not paid overtime, because it was outside office hours. What was the motivation for sitting outside in a car in such a manner? It is horrible. We are a mixed society. I wonder if this was a person who had relocated from eastern Europe who had been formerly employed by the Stasi. It sounds dreadful to me. Could the Minister provide more information? Are there many such people around?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

They are not Peeping Toms.

Senator David Norris

Why not?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

They are doing their job.

Senator David Norris

I expect Peeping Toms consider it a vocation.

Senator Michael McCarthy

I share Senator Norris's horror at the fact that anyone would park outside someone's door at 7 a.m. Whatever the excuse, that is hideous activity.

I thank the Minister for her replies thus far. Are sanctions imposed on a person if his or her complaint is not upheld? Are there sanctions in law in the event of a person making a false complaint? I refer to cases where a complaint is not upheld and someone blatantly and in the knowledge that it was not the case, reported someone, following which the allegation was investigated, requiring an inspector to devote hours of work to processing it.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

No, there are no sanctions against a person making a complaint. In fairness, we cannot question a person's bona fides when what he or she is trying to do is save the public money. One does not create difficulty for the person against whom a complaint is made because the person might not even be aware of it. Inspectors do not arrive on a person's doorstep and say that a complaint has been made. Complaints can be examined as a desk exercise in that one can check a person's documentation, Revenue details and employment record.

The example of lone parents is a particularly horrendous one. I did not speak to the inspector about the case in question but one should bear in mind that every scheme has conditions. If one is a jobseeker, one has to be seeking employment. If one is on a back to education payment, one has to attend a course. If one is in receipt of a disability or invalidity payment, one has to be restricted in the work one is able to do. If one is a lone parent, one has to be parenting alone; one must not be cohabiting. It is one of the very strict conditions of the payment.

The Department regularly carries out fraud and error surveys on all the various schemes. It found that there was a 6.4% fraud in the lone parent family payment. That is why one has to follow up on all of those issues. Cohabitation is a particularly difficult category to prove. It is much easier to investigate someone's income because one can cross-check with Revenue and we carry out data matches with various Departments. However, in the context of State money being expended — Members have spoken about clamping down on fraud and controlling expenditure, and they will do so again — one has to ensure that whatever the criteria are for those schemes, that they are being met. If one wants to change the schemes, sin scéal eile, but as long as we have conditions, such as for the lone parent family payment, that a person can only earn a certain amount of money and that he or she must not be cohabiting, then it is the duty of the Department of Social and Family Affairs to ensure that those criteria are being met. One does not want to be intrusive or to have Peeping Toms, but one has to ensure that where taxpayers' money is being spent it is going to the right people.

Senator Nicky McFadden

I agree with the Minister. I agree also with my colleagues from the point of view of people snooping. That is an outrage and I would hate to be that poor unfortunate social welfare inspector. However, at the same time it is unfair for people who are obeying the Department's rules and trying to work in low paid jobs to see people cohabiting and claiming two benefits when they should not be. I agree with the Minister's point about fraud. Something must be done in that regard. It is rampant across the country. I support the Minister in every way possible to stamp out fraud because we need to have a level playing pitch.

Senator David Norris

I am absolutely staggered by this revelation of the sexual vigour of the population; that this is rampant all over the country. What an interesting observation.

Senator Nicky McFadden

I referred to the fact that people who are living together are claiming doubly.

Senator David Norris

Many people are living together. I understand there is a question of fairness and that conditions are set down. However, I am interested in the intrusiveness of the situation, which I consider regrettable. I take it that the conditions refer to a situation where, for example, a woman or man – I assume men are entitled to the same payment or are they——

Deputy Mary Hanafin

It is mostly women.

Senator David Norris

It is mostly women but it could be men. I take it that this kind of prohibition really concerns the father of the children, or are the lone parents required as a condition to remain celibate for the period of their receipt of the money? I do not see why they should. Sexual activity is a perfectly natural human function. I do not see why it should completely cease just because no one is providing for the welfare of one's children. A lone parent might well be enjoying an active social life and perhaps that is part of a process that would lead to the development of a stable relationship. A lone parent will never have a stable relationship if he or she is simply forbidden to entertain possible partners in that way. The restriction is rather narrow.

To be fair, the Minister said they are the rules and that is the situation that flowed from the existence of the rules but if we want to change them we should look at them again. Perhaps we should not have such a rule in order to reflect the realities of social life in this country. Some might find it regrettable that people behave in that way, but that is the case and at the end of the day it might be the children that are disadvantaged. If, for example, a young and healthy woman has a child and her marriage or relationship has broken down and in order to care properly for that child she gets a lone parent payment, and if then she is completely prevented from developing a relationship in a way that in the 21st century most people do, the child might be deprived of the benefit of having two adults in the household. I will not delay further. That is my last comment on the matter.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

There are thousands of lone parents who do not come next, nigh nor near the social welfare system who are in employment and who make a full contribution to the economic life of the country and who resent the debate that takes place around lone parents who are on social welfare. However, there are approximately 90,000 lone parents depending on social welfare, a number which has grown substantially in recent years, and strict conditions attach to that payment. The basic criterion is that one is parenting alone. There are generous disregards to allow people to work and to hold on to their lone parent payment. However, the system in Ireland, which has grown up over the years, in many ways facilitates a poverty trap and mitigates against people forming lasting relationships or marrying because as long as the child is in full-time education, we continue to pay the lone parent until the child is 22 years of age. In the UK, it is ten years of age but it is being reduced to seven years of age. In most other countries, it ranges from between three months to seven or eight years of age but in Ireland, it can be up to 22 years of age.

There are policy implications for Ireland as a society. We want to protect children and recognise the difficulty which lone parents have. How many lone parents have we all met who fear losing the book? They want to hold on to the book no matter what. People have said to me they are afraid of getting an increase or even a better job because they fear they will lose the book. These are social policy issues but in so far as we are talking about fraud and control, there are strict criteria which must be met if somebody is getting a payment, irrespective of what that payment is.

Senator David Norris

Is celibacy a criteria? Is it as clear cut as that?

Deputy Mary Hanafin

"Cohabiting" is the word that is used.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Senator David Norris

It is not being pressed in light of the Minister's very helpful attitude and her undertaking that this will be addressed in the spring whenever that arrives. I hope it is a calendar spring and not a climatic spring.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 25.

Tá

• Boyle, Dan.
• Brady, Martin.
• Butler, Larry.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Carroll, James.
• Carty, John.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Corrigan, Maria.
• Daly, Mark.
• de Búrca, Déirdre.
• Feeney, Geraldine.
• Glynn, Camillus.
• Hanafin, John.
• Keaveney, Cecilia.
• Leyden, Terry.
• MacSharry, Marc.
• McDonald, Lisa.
• Ó Brolcháin, Niall.
• Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
• O’Brien, Francis.
• O’Donovan, Denis.
• O’Malley, Fiona.
• O’Sullivan, Ned.
• Ormonde, Ann.
• Phelan, Kieran.
• Quinn, Feargal.
• Walsh, Jim.
• White, Mary M.
• Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

• Bacik, Ivana.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Burke, Paddy.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Coffey, Paudie.
• Coghlan, Paul.
• Cummins, Maurice.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Hannigan, Dominic.
• Healy Eames, Fidelma.
• McCarthy, Michael.
• McFadden, Nicky.
• Mullen, Rónán.
• Norris, David.
• O’Reilly, Joe.
• O’Toole, Joe.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Prendergast, Phil.
• Regan, Eugene.
• Ross, Shane.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Twomey, Liam.
• White, Alex.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Maurice Cummins and Nicky McFadden.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Senator Nicky McFadden

This section concerns child benefit. I called this budget draconian and callous when I spoke on Second Stage because it proposes to take €16 per month from children. We have spoken about the compensatory allowance to help children and families on social welfare. This is the only payment directly to children. From my perspective as a parent, I used this money to educate and clothe the children. It was certainly not for luxuries.

I accept that the amount has increased dramatically over the years but we had much money in our country. Why should we not have used the money to educate and benefit our children? My question has remained consistent throughout the debate on this Bill. Why do children and the most vulnerable have to pay the price for the boom being blown when they had nothing to do with it?

The number of children in consistent poverty indicates the importance of child benefit because it goes directly to children. There are many cases where this was the only benefit which went to women, no matter how much money was going into a household. I hate to say this because I am surrounded by my wonderful male colleagues but there are mean-spirited men. This money kept the wolf from the door and was available to families who needed support.

It was part of the Fine Gael budget proposal that child benefit would not be touched. We have had to endure years of Fine Gael being accused of taking the shilling from the old-age pensioner. This will go down in history as the cruellest and most callous of all cuts.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Hear, hear.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I support the deletion of the section. This is one of the two most awful sections in the legislation, the other being the section that attacks those under 25. This section represents an attack on child benefit. I do not understand what young people and, in particular, children did to the Government to deserve the punishment that was meted out to them in last Wednesday's budget. This proposal is draconian and I hope the Government parties will be remembered for it for a long time to come. Government speakers have referred to their proud record on social welfare but that is similar to a defendant who has been found guilty pleading with the judge by using character references and saying he behaved himself in the past. It does not matter. He committed the crime and he should be punished for that. I hope that day will come and the people will have their say in passing judgment on the measures introduced by the Government.

With regard to the attack on child benefit, the Minister is technically correct that she has protected the children of social welfare recipients but instead of cutting payments by €8 a week for those who are unemployed and who have children, she has reduced the payment by €5 a week. The payment to an unemployed mother with a child will reduce and that will affect the child. The Minister has dressed this up by saying the child benefit is protected for such households but their payment will reduce as a result of the budget.

Child benefit is in place to compensate for the failure of the current and previous Governments to deliver supports for children. The State does not provide supports available in many European countries or, for example, in Northern Ireland where preschool and crèche facilities are publicly funded and available. Reference is frequently made to families being crippled by high mortgages but many other families are crippled by having to pay high crèche and child care fees. I pay more in crèche fees than in mortgage repayments every month. Such fees are like a second mortgage for many people. That has happened because of the failure of the Government to deliver child care supports in the children's early years and to provide State subvention to support children. There were two ways to help families deal with those costs — child benefit and the early child care supplement. The supplement was withdrawn in a previous budget in another attack on children and the only other support to help parents to meet the costs of child care is child benefit, which is being reduced significantly.

I understand the Minister will not listen to us but we still have to make the call on behalf of our constituents. This benefit is paid in respect of 40,800 children in County Donegal. Two Donegal Senators will be forced to vote on this issue later and they most likely will vote to take €16 a month off the majority of those children. It is appalling and if these measures are carried in divisions later, it will be our job in the Opposition not only to fight the Government on the legislation but to ensure members of the public are aware of the decisions their local Government representatives have taken in the Seanad coming up to Christmas. In our pre-budget submission we presented proposals that could have delivered the savings and closed the Exchequer deficit.

I have been asked by my constituents why the Government has decided to protect the wealthy and attack the most vulnerable, including social welfare recipients. I could not understand this for a while because I fundamentally believe every Member in both Houses, no matter which party he or she represents, wants to do the best for his or her community. We all have different views, ideals, visions and ways regarding how we reach the end point but nobody sits in their office deciding how he or she can punish a section of society in a budget or legislation. We are in the Oireachtas to do our best. We can oppose each other and fundamentally disagree with each other, as we do on this legislation. I have tried to come to terms with why this is happening. If Government members want to do their best, why have they decided to punish those dependent on small amounts? The only fair conclusion I could draw is that the Government is completely out of touch.

The Government has decided to protect high earners because its members are high earners. The problem is Ministers are paid too much. The Minister and the Taoiseach will never understand what parents have to face and endure coming up to Christmas as a result of the measures they have introduced in the past three budgets, including withdrawing the Christmas bonus, and they will never understand the fear of parents about the measures in this legislation, which parents do not know how they will cope after Christmas. The Minister will never understand that earning €200,000 per year with a Mercedes parked at her backside and a driver escorting her to X, Y and Z——

Acting Chairman (Senator Fiona O’Malley)

The Senator should keep his contribution civil.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I am.

Senator Phil Prendergast

He is being civil.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

What was uncivil about that?

Acting Chairman

We do not need to make references to people's——

Senator Jerry Buttimer

The Chair is being sensitive. I know she is embarrassed by the Government.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I am trying to be fair and to understand why these decisions were made. On salaries of €200,000 per year, with State cars and drivers escorting them from A to B, it is difficult while networking in the golden circle for Ministers to understand what it is like for families on the ground and to understand the fear and anxiety these measures are causing. That is a problem in politics and one of our proposals was a substantial pay cut for all Ministers, Deputies and Senators. The 15% reduction is a Mickey Mouse cut, given it includes a 10% reduction taken months ago. The Taoiseach and Ministers should not earn more than €100,000. We should be privileged to do what we do in the Oireachtas. The Taoiseach will still earn €240,000 annually following this pay cut. However, a group of 15 people with combined wages of millions of euro decided to take €16 a month off children. It is appalling and despicable and this is terrible legislation.

The Minister will defend this but because every Member is fair and wants to do the right thing, I cannot understand why other proposals for savings presented by my party and others to bridge the deficit by taxing those with massive wealth were not considered. Irish investors in recent months bought $50 billion in US debt. We are repeatedly told the country is broke but that is not the case. The State is broke but there is massive wealth within it and the Government is allowing that wealth to go untouched. I do not understand that. I oppose the section and the only way to respond is for people to get angry.

Acting Chairman

The Minister will reply to all the Senator's queries. For the record, people will know how people vote here because it is on the public record. The Senator need not worry about people not knowing what way people vote.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I will do my duty to ensure that each Member will understand.

Senator Paudie Coffey

I want to add my voice to the opposition to the cuts in child benefit on behalf of middle Ireland, those on middle incomes who work and pay for every turn they make and everything they do. It is quite regrettable that the Minister proposed these cuts and that they will take force in the Bill. While child benefit is a substantial part of the public purse, over the years it has been a stable income for many families who have come to rely on it. Other Senators spoke about the day to day costs of having children in the current economic environment. For many families, the cost of child care today is more than a mortgage. Child benefit goes directly to looking after children. For those working, it goes towards child care costs, clothes, food and even education. To cut it removes income that people and families have relied on. It is an additional burden on those already paying for everything. I know many families and parents who are reluctant to bring a sick child to a GP because of the cost involved. These families work hard every day and contribute through their tax to the running of the State. This is the one universal payment made to families. Most mothers who receive the payment invest it directly in their children. It is a productive investment.

The Minister is a former Minister for Education and Science. We speak about free education but we all know the cost of sending children to school is increasing. The cost of the bus for those living in rural areas has increased almost threefold if not more in recent years. Uniforms have to be paid for. Book grant schemes were removed from many schools. Basics such as arts and crafts for educational purposes in schools are provided for by parents, as are printing and photocopying. To a degree, it is a fallacy to state we have free education. Compare it to people in the Six Counties in the North who have free everything as far as I can see and similar families in similar circumstances do not pay for GP visits, dental visits, education or school transport.

Child benefit is the one payment this State pays directly for children and the cut is very regrettable. The payment goes to families and people most exposed to the current economic crisis in family formation age groups. These are young parents with young children who probably bought property at its highest price and are now in negative equity. They are also those who face redundancy, short hours or job loss. This is a huge blow to young families and it will have a larger impact than the Minister suspects. People have come to depend on the payment. They always knew it was there at the end of the month and that they could rely on it and invest it directly in their children.

Even at this late stage, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this cut to child benefit. Fine Gael took a considered view. We realise as much as anybody that savings, efficiencies and cuts must be made throughout the economy. However, we identified child benefit as an area which was certainly worth protecting because it protects young people and young children. It allowed families to invest in children and care for them properly. I doubt the Minister will listen to my call to reconsider this. One hears many speakers on social welfare representing those who have no voice. Child benefit directly assists people who contribute to the economy and have done so for many years through PAYE and other means. They feel overburdened. They have high mortgages, high exposure and pay for any service they receive. This is an added blow to their monthly income. Will the Minister revise and reconsider this cut? It is a good productive and positive payment that goes to the children who are our future.

Senator Rónán Mullen

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Caithfidh mé a rá, mar adúirt mé inné, go bhfuil an-bhrón orm go bhfuil an chéim seo tógtha ag an Rialtas. Táim glan in aghaidh na gnéithe seo den Bhille. Bhí an liúntas leanaí an-tábhachtach riamh do theaghlaigh na hÉireann. Is bealach é trína léiríonn an Rialtas an tacaíocht atá á thabhairt ag an Stát agus an sochaí dóibh siúd a thógann páistí ar mhaithe linn uilig.

This is a very regrettable step by the Government. Child benefit is the key way in which the State shows the support of the entire community for the upbringing of children. Effectively, it involves the transference of money from those who do not have children to those who do. I fully empathise with what other speakers already stated; it is a very bad day when the Government slashes child benefit to any degree. Children are our future. The job parents do in bringing up children is an irreplaceable contribution to society and to attack child benefit is to attack in a very fundamental and damaging way the contribution parents make towards the upbringing of children. As I stated yesterday, as somebody who is not yet blessed with having children to provide and care for I believe that those without children should pay extra tax to support families with children. It is a no brainer in terms of the future good of society. The children of today will care for us in the future and support our pensions and happy existence.

Child benefit is an extremely equitable way of supporting the upbringing of children. Unlike other allowances, such as for child care expenses, child benefit goes to families where one parent stays in the home to bring up children and make a very valuable and important contribution and treats them equally with families who choose, because they have to as Senator Doherty stated, to put children into creches or arrange for child care in the course of the day. This is another advantage of child benefit; it is an equitable means of supporting families with children, whatever domestic or working arrangements they have.

As I also stated yesterday, the decision to cut child benefit is a first cousin of the very unfortunate policy move the Government took some years ago to introduce tax individualisation. That too was a decision against family life. It was a decision in favour of driving people out into the workforce and against recognition of the important work being done by those parents, male or female, who choose to stay in the home and contribute to the upbringing of their children. We wonder about the problems many children face today because of a lack of sufficient quality time with their parents. We have to be honest; we have created a society in which it is increasingly difficult for parents to have quality time with their children. Therefore, we should not wonder at the social problems that emerge because of the lack of quality time between parents and children. We have created a society where people are supposed to exist for the sake of the economy and not the other way around, which is the way it should be.

I take slight issue with what Senator Doherty stated. He is right to raise the issue that those on high salaries may find it difficult to empathise with those on social welfare or very low levels of income. That is a possibility and probably true of a class of people in society who may not be capable of empathising properly. However, I stop short of accusing the Government, collectively or individually, of that because I am very wary of getting into people's motivation for doing what they do. We can never explain motivation with the type of certainty that is needed for us to be allowed to pass judgment. I will simply confine myself to stating that this is bad policy; the Minister should not be part of it and the Government should not have anything to do with it. I make no assumptions about the Minister's motivation because I am sure she is as honourable as everybody else in wanting to see a just and harmonious society. However, I point out to her that she is seriously wrong-headed if she thinks this particular step contributes to the creation of a more just and harmonious society. It does not. It is an attack on family life.

I heard what the Minister had to say about the difficulty in means testing and taxing child benefit, but the approach of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in its pre-budget submission was much better than what the Government is doing in cutting child benefit simpliciter. We should see child benefit as non-negotiable, as something that involves the State recognising the contribution of every family, rich or poor, to society through the upbringing of children. We should be making our society a child friendly place with every step we take.

There are other ways to compensate for a high child benefit bill; that is why we have taxation. There are other ways to tax higher earning families. I have no problem with rich people enjoying the same level of child benefit as everybody else. I have no problem with rich people enjoying access to education systems in which teachers are paid, as is currently the case. However, that is not to say we should not find other ways to get those who are better off in our society to subvent and support its poorer members. We should not abandon the principle of universal provision in areas such as education, health care and child benefit.

I would like to see much more creative thinking about how we fund our budgetary commitments. NAMA is expansive, adventurous and risk taking in the face of the economic crisis, but we need to take a serious look at what other steps are needed for less well-off members. I am thinking of the family whom I discussed yesterday on Newstalk and who have lost possession of their house. They have a child with special needs. We need seriously imaginative solutions in supporting such families. In the case of child benefit, we should be looking at people such as those who have mortgages and those who have long since repaid theirs. That creates a serious differential between the haves and the have nots in society. In funding commitments such as child benefit and other aspects of social welfare, we need adventurous thinking to figure out who is being put to the pin of their collar and try to avoid hitting them. We need to find out who has that little extra and ask them to contribute to the common good at this difficult time.

Senator Larry Butler

I have listened carefully to the debate and it is very good, but I would like to draw on Senator Doherty's remarks about punishment. His party would know more about punishment than most. It uses its own punishment system.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I have to ask the Senator if he is accusing me of something. Of what are you accusing me? You are attacking children in the budget. You are telling under 25s to head across the sea.

Acting Chairman

Will the Senator, please, speak through the Chair?

Senator Larry Butler

I did not interrupt Senator Doherty.

Senator Pearse Doherty

You have passed a budget that is completely despicable.

Acting Chairman

Senator Doherty, will you, please, speak through the Chair?

Senator Pearse Doherty

You intervened twice which I believe was wrong of you, but you are allowing your Government colleagues to make accusations such as that against me and my party without even intervening.

Acting Chairman

Is the Senator making a point of order? He should, please, explain himself to the Chair. He interrupted another speaker, which is not in order.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I am asking you to intervene in this issue because it is an unfair accusation.

Acting Chairman

Is this a point of order?

Senator Pearse Doherty

Yes, it is. I am asking Senator Butler to withdraw the comment he made. Of what is he accusing me? This is a smokescreen because he is supporting a budget that is a disaster for the country and the economy.

Acting Chairman

The Senator has made his point.

Senator Pearse Doherty

He should withdraw those comments.

Senator Larry Butler

I have no intention of withdrawing them.

Senator Pearse Doherty

You are a disgrace.

Acting Chairman

Senator Butler is entitled to the same courtesy as Senator Doherty.

Senator Larry Butler

Excuse me, I did not interrupt you, Senator Doherty——

Acting Chairman

I ask Senator Butler to speak through the Chair.

Senator Larry Butler

——I listened to what you had to say. Your economic policies make no sense.

Senator Pearse Doherty

As if your economic policy makes sense. You have made 165,000 people unemployed in the last year and you believe your economic policies make sense. Your budget has been planned to put a further 75,000 people on the dole next year and you think this makes sense.

Acting Chairman

I ask Senator Doherty to resume his seat. He will not be listened to. He will observe decorum in the House.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I am finished now.

Acting Chairman

I call Senator Butler and ask him to speak through the Chair.

Senator Larry Butler

I will do so. Many are making comments about cuts in child benefit and so on. It is not so long since Fine Gael lost power owing to a tax on children's shoes.

Senator Nicky McFadden

That is a very long time ago.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

This is worse.

Senator Larry Butler

Taxing children's shoes was a big issue at the time. Fine Gael lost power because of it.

Senator Paudie Coffey

How is this contributing to the debate?

Acting Chairman

Senator Butler to continue, without interruption. I ask him not to provoke other Members.

Senator Larry Butler

Do not try to lecture——

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Show us the economic manual for the last ten years.

Senator Larry Butler

I listened to Senator Buttimer earlier.

Acting Chairman

The Senator has not done so yet.

Senator Larry Butler

I listened to what he had to say and many contributions were valuable, to which I will respond now. I do not think the Opposition can lecture Fianna Fáil and the Government on what it has done on the issue of child care in the last few years. We probably have one of the best child care facilities in Europe. It is regrettable that we must take budgetary action to reduce such facilities.

Some of the Fine Gael policies are fantasy. There is no substantial evidence to back up any of them. The party is in favour of making cuts of €4 billion, but there is no unanimity on how——

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Read the proposals.

Senator Larry Butler

I have read them. The party lives in a fantasy world.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Read them. Fianna Fáil members are living in a fantasy world.

Senator Larry Butler

When Fine Gael was in government, it gave five shillings to old age pensioners. That was an absolute disgrace.

Senator Paudie Coffey

That is wearing thin.

Senator Larry Butler

I want to bring the Senator back to when his party was in power and not delivering.

Senator Paudie Coffey

We were trying to save the economy from bankruptcy.

Senator Nicky McFadden

How long has Fianna Fáil been in government?

Senator Larry Butler

That is why the people remember these things at election time.

Senator Paudie Coffey

It looks like we will have to do it again.

Senator Larry Butler

If there is a difficulty in the economy, Fianna Fáil and the Government have the people to get us out of it.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Remember the June local elections results.

Senator Paudie Coffey

The people are waiting in the long grass.

Senator Larry Butler

A total of €579 million has been put into education. That will benefit children and produce a job creation programme. These are things that were being said before the sos.

Senator Pearse Doherty

There is a 27% cut in the provision for school buildings.

Senator Larry Butler

This great investment in education will benefit children. A total of €46 million has been invested in science and technology programmes, while €141 million has been put into infrastructure and higher education. These are all positive provisions in the budget. We did some things that normally we would not like to do, but we must live in the real world. When one is borrowing €500 million a week to support social welfare——-

Senator Pearse Doherty

Some of those borrowings are used to support tax breaks for property developers and to support the wages of the Taoiseach and Ministers. Do not blame it all on social welfare recipients.

Acting Chairman

Senator Butler to continue, without interruption.

Senator Pearse Doherty

What he is saying is crazy.

Acting Chairman

The Senator may not like it, but it is not for him to decide. Everybody is entitled to make a contribution.

Senator Pearse Doherty

He should be factual at least.

Acting Chairman

I ask the Senator to sit and listen quietly. The Minister will be invited to respond. You may resume, Senator Butler, but you are being provocative.

Senator Larry Butler

Yes, I am. I am responding to other speakers.

Senator Paudie Coffey

The Senator is drawing fire.

Acting Chairman

Senator Butler to continue, without interruption.

Senator Larry Butler

It would be a good idea for members of Senator Doherty's party to take degrees in economics to enable them to learn how to run the country, even from a Sinn Féin perspective. That would make a pleasant change.

Senator Paudie Coffey

Fianna Fáil is bankrupting the country for the second time in 30 years.

Senator Pearse Doherty

Senator Butler should name one proposal Sinn Féin made in its pre-budget submission. He is waffling and does not have a clue.

Acting Chairman

Senator Doherty is being most unfair. He has interrupted constantly despite not being interrupted when he spoke. Senator Buttimer cannot expect other Senators to refrain from interrupting him given that he constantly interrupts other speakers. I ask Senators to show courtesy and allow Senator Butler to continue without interruption. The Minister will respond to all the contributions.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I expect interruptions.

Senator Larry Butler

The country faces a difficulty and the three main political parties agreed public expenditure should be reduced by €4 billion. The two main Opposition parties had proposals on how they would achieve this reduction. The Government had to devise a policy and introduce permanent measures as opposed to making short-term decisions, as many people proposed. Short-term decisions would have eventually cost us dearly in terms of borrowing. We must, therefore, meet budget restrictions.

I support the Minister who had a difficult job to do but did it extremely well given what she had to work with. We are making great investment in education, children and young people. When circumstances improve we will provide better support to families.

Everyone is hurting a little but it is important we all play our part. Over the weekend, a number of older people told me they were willing to help out. Senator Mullen referred to older people who do not have mortgages. It would be wrong to attack those who worked hard throughout their lives by taxing them on the basis that they do not have mortgages to pay. That would not make sense and I would not go down that route.

Senator Paudie Coffey

The Government tried it last year and got its answer.

Senator Larry Butler

I thank the Acting Chairman for her forbearance.

Senator Phil Prendergast

I join colleagues on this side in asking the Minister to explain the reason the Government did not target the very wealthy and those who avail of tax breaks, including property based tax reliefs, when it had an opportunity to do so. The Labour Party identified more than €400 million in savings which could be achieved by tackling these reliefs. Those availing of reliefs were not touched in the budget.

The Government learned through its focus groups that it would be unwise to attack older people because they tend to vote. The exception was blind older people.

I am horrified that carers, who provide 3 million hours of work per week, have had their payments cut. Representatives of carers appeared before the Joint Committee on Health and Children. A further meeting held in a nearby hotel was attended by many members of all parties. Those present heard cogent arguments for not cutting the carer's allowance. I visit carers who look after highly dependent relatives three or four times per week. Many of them lead awful, nightmarish lives and cannot understand what has been done to them.

The decision to cut child benefit by 10% has created a new poverty trap. I met a number of women in Ardfinnan and Fethard last week who are considering whether it is worthwhile to continue working. While €16 per month may not appear to be much, it will make a great difference to those who live on tight margins. The three women with whom I spoke will decide whether to become social welfare recipients. These are genuine cases. I have met people in these circumstances at my clinics. They will do the sums by setting their outgoings on child care and so forth against their income. Every week, 20 cars travel in from Ardfinnan because people cannot avail of the bus service, which is not full, yet a member of the Green Party is Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The Labour Party pre-budget submission clearly set out how to achieve the savings required in the budget but the Government refused to listen. Will the Minister explain the reason it was fine for rich people not to make a contribution when those in receipt of child benefit and social welfare payments, including blind people, the disabled and carers, were targeted in the budget?

I have been at meetings with carers' representatives which were attended by Members from all sides. We listened to their stories, watched videos and so forth. These individuals go to considerable trouble to travel to Dublin to inform Members about the difficult position in which they find themselves. They must work 24 hours per day, seven days per week. I am at a loss, therefore, when I listen to Senator Butler's remarks. I cannot understand the type of hypocrisy he has shown.

Opposition parties made genuine proposals for securing the €4 billion in savings we all agreed were required. The Minister indicated that the carer's allowance was the last item she wanted to cut. That cannot be the case when a large number of rich people were not touched by the budget. The pay cuts imposed in the budget are unjust and unfair. For example, the Minister for Finance and the person cleaning his office have taken the same pay cut of 5%. The budget has made the social divide much worse.

Will the Minister explain the reason the Government supported wealthy people who have a range of tax breaks available to them and can legitimately avoid paying tax by availing of loopholes? Those who can afford to put away several million euro in pension pots have been left alone. Why did the Government decide to target a group of people who are already suffering disadvantage?

On the economics of the cuts, if the three women I met last week choose to give up work, stay at home and avail of social welfare, it will cost €60,000 to support them. It will no longer be worthwhile for them to remain in employment given increasing child care and fuel costs. I have heard optimistic voices say they will get over Christmas. In January, when the cuts impact, the weather is colder and everything is dearer and appears more bleak, rates of illness, depression and suicide will increase, as will the number of children requiring psychological and psychiatric services, and people will be afraid to visit their general practitioner or hospital for cost reasons or because they fear contracting swine flu, MRSA or clostridium difficile. People are becoming more frightened and increasingly angry. I have never experienced anything like the reaction to this budget. People are withering.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I join my colleagues in registering my strong opposition to the changes proposed. I do so for a number of reasons. My colleagues have noted the effects the change will have for different members of society. I propose to focus on two sectors of society. The first group comprises those whose main source of income is derived from social welfare payments. The second group comprises those in the middle, above the income thresholds needed for social welfare payments or supplements but for whom the amount of income they generate from work is insufficient to provide security and peace of mind. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul's pre-budget submission accurately described this group of people as the working poor. They are a part of society we depend on to a great extent for tax, for the effort they put into the economy and the work they do. They are also under great pressure. I am concerned the pressure they are under is set to grow.

The main cause of that will be the change in interest rates. The main change in the past few years to trigger large increases in the amount of disposable income for people who own homes and pay mortgages has been the speed at which interest rates have decreased and how long they have stayed at consistently low levels. For reasons we are all familiar with, change will happen and interest rates are likely to rise in the near future or soon after. The current interest rates are needed to keep the economy going but it is not at a sustainable level. In many cases rates will need to increase in order to generate profit for the banking industry.

There are three particular consequences of this. I have heard some people's comments on this and I wish to add my voice to it because it is very important. I agree with Senator Prendergast's point on poverty traps. Recent Governments were good at recognising that if levels of social welfare payments or allowances were dependent on levels of income, people lost allowances as they worked more. That reduced the incentive for people to work or to work more hours. An edition of The Irish Times contained brilliant analysis of this phenomenon, which I referred to on the Order of Business in this House a couple of weeks ago. This compared the social welfare payments for a two-parent family with two children, where one parent was at work and one was not at work. Social welfare payments, tax allowances and rates of tax meant the difference in the total amount of disposable income was very small. This is the thinking driving some of the changes made to social welfare payments but I am concerned the introduction of the half rate qualified child increase and the qualified child increase of €3.80 will reduce the incentive for people to move from social welfare payments and will reduce the incentive for people to increase their income for fear of losing these payments. This is creating the kind of poverty trap that many of the Minister’s predecessors identified as something that must be avoided.

I deal with many families in constituency work who say they want to work even in the difficult times we are in. They seek ways to bring more income to the family but they are reluctant to do so because of the social welfare payments they will lose. They do not want to do it because they will lose money. This is an amazing source of despair. I am concerned at the reintroduction of measures that seek to offset the reduction in child benefit because it flies in the face of much of what we have learned about reducing poverty traps and getting people working.

I also wish to emphasise the working poor, those who are in the middle and are neither poor enough to receive the full support of the social welfare system nor well off enough to be secure in their homes and secure in the future income they will have. These changes will reduce the amount of income coming in but will create a mentality that they will lose next year what they have now. Senator Doherty referred to this point in his contribution, talking about parents with kids in crèches. I have two kids in a crèche and my payment to the crèche is almost as much as I pay on my mortgage. I am surrounded by families in similar situations. Thank God I am so well off and so well paid for what I do. I am so lucky to be able to do this and be well paid for it. We do not talk much about these people. They were dependent on child benefit and its maintenance into the future to get through these difficult times and to ensure they have enough money to keep their kids in crèches. The low levels of income many receive through work — affected by tax increases and falling wages in the private sector and the wage reductions in the public sector, which we will discuss tomorrow — is another source of pressure and anxiety.

The last point concerns the increase in family income supplement. This is a supplement I hear much discussion about and it is used a great deal, particularly by community welfare officers. I am surprised at the take-up of this supplement, which is much lower than I expected. I am concerned that although we are increasing the supplement by €6 per week, the number of people in receipt as opposed to the number that could be getting it is not high enough to offset some of the difficulties these reductions will bring about.

Some of my colleagues have made the same points I have made. These measures will create a poverty trap. What will happen to the family supplement and the increase in it? How we can drive the take-up rate of family income supplement? I emphasise the case of those in the middle, those who are lucky enough to work and lucky enough to have one, one and a half or two incomes coming into the family and the change this will have on the money coming into these people and the change to psychology and to what they expect in the future.

On the Order of Business I mentioned that I attended the launch of the Children's Mental Health Coalition yesterday morning. I went along not because I have policy responsibility for this area but because I have a deep interest in the area due to the number of children I deal with in terrible difficulty through no fault of their own. The vast majority of families are doing their best but find themselves in despair about how they will help and how they will support their children. These families are not just the families in receipt of social welfare payments and who use the community welfare officer and the families we expect to have these problems. They are our neighbours and friends and people who live in estates and on roads dotted all around the constituencies and communities we represent. The importance and beauty of child benefit was that it was the one payment that had a high degree of certainty of going to those who needed it the most, namely the children.

It is disappointing that in the number of weeks leading up to this debate we have had several discussions on the Ryan report, the Murphy report and the need to cherish our children. One of our colleagues quoted the 1916 Proclamation this morning. It refers to cherishing all the people of our country equally yet we find that those who have the least and have the least say in the future of our country and its direction are those who will suffer the most because of this change.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

When one hears Senator Butler criticising others and throwing out remarks, one knows he is in trouble. He is defending the indefensible. Part of me admires his tenacity and fortitude. At least he is here. None of his colleagues is present.

I am not a parent but I am a devoted godfather and an adoring uncle. Some of my colleagues on both sides of the House struggle to balance their family, work and home lives. This section of the Bill is grossly unfair. It reinforces the poverty trap. More importantly, it is no more than a blunt measure for savings. There is no thoughtful acceptance or sincere understanding on the part of the Government of where people are at. This section, like the rest of the budget, contains no stimulus, no economic plan and no social strategy for inclusion. Any effort to build a sustainable, caring and safe social environment has been abandoned and replaced with the polarisation of society. Senator Mullen was right to say that a differential now exists, thanks to this Government. People are being penalised.

I hate to single out Senator Butler, who is the only Member on the Government side present. He spoke about the great things Fianna Fáil did. Absolutely. Holy God, sure it ran the country into the ground for the last ten years. When Deputy Bertie Ahern was Taoiseach——

Acting Chairman

I ask the Senator to speak to the section before the House.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I am speaking about child benefit, which is the subject of this section.

Acting Chairman

Good.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Deputy Bertie Ahern and his Government could not wait to run out to Drumcondra to give money to people and say: "Look what I am giving you." The largesse of Fianna Fáil ended with a bang. It was all squandered. I will not go into the details. The Members on the Government side know what they did.

Will the Minister tell the House who made the decision at Cabinet to single out the mother and the child? Who singled them out? Who made the decision? I am familiar with the concept of collective Cabinet responsibility. I sincerely hope the Minister with responsibility for family affairs did not acquiesce in this decision. I hope she did not lie down like Shep and agree to the plans of her Cabinet colleagues. That is what happened in the case of social partnership and we have it now again. I would like to refer to four e-mails I have received on this issue.

Acting Chairman

Is the Senator proposing to read the entirety of the e-mails?

Senator Jerry Buttimer

No. I will refer to them briefly.

Acting Chairman

That is okay, as long as it is relevant.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

It is good for the Chair to be impartial.

Acting Chairman

Did the Senator read them into the record on the Order of Business?

Senator Jerry Buttimer

No.

Acting Chairman

They are different.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I appreciate that Members on the Government side are upset about the budget. I do not blame them for that. I understand where they are coming from. The first e-mail was from someone who complained that everything for children, including their activities, was expensive. They pointed out that children did not stop growing overnight and assured me that they needed all the money they could get to buy clothes. The second e-mail argued that it was a disgrace that child benefit was being cut. The person in question used €120 from last month's child benefit to buy shoes with special insoles for their two boys. The third e-mail I received was from a person who used their child benefit to pay for groceries because they could not afford to live otherwise. The fourth e-mail was from a person who used their child benefit to pay for extra grinds and tuition for their son who needed extra help.

Fianna Fáil and its cohorts in government have lost sight of the fact that we are dealing with the lives of people like the four individuals who sent me those e-mails. It is easy to quote the Constitution and to speak about cherishing all the children of the nation equally, but society would be of no value today without the vision and bravery of the great men and women of 1916. All we have today is the soft touch. I remind Senator Butler, who mentioned that John Bruton tried to tax children's shoes in one of his budgets, that child benefit was not cut at that time.

Senator Larry Butler

It was so low that he could not cut it.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

If the Senator checks the records, he will find that John Bruton actually increased child benefit. This Bill is a fundamental attack on children and women. When I was growing up, my mother would get the children's allowance and go into town on the first Tuesday of each month. She would pick up the money and spend it on something for us. That is what it was about. That is replicated across every community in this country. Women use that money for their families.

In advance of the 1987 general election, the late Hugh Coveney, God rest his soul, made a comment on the old "Frontline" programme that may have cost him his seat. He was partly right when he said he did not need children's allowance, as it was then called, because of his income. Perhaps we should examine the universality of child benefit, but we should not engage in an attack such as that proposed in this Bill. We are all advocates of various special interest groups.

As an educator, the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, will understand the benefit of educating children so that they can be healthy and prosper. We are dismantling that again. This section of the Bill follows the same trend as the decisions of the Minister, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, to cut the leaving certificate applied programme, reduce places, increase the pupil-teacher ratio, place an embargo on recruitment and freeze posts of responsibility.

How can people survive? Senator Donohoe spoke eloquently about the cost of child care. My brother and sister and others could speak about the same thing. This part of the budget is taking from people the discretionary money they used to pay bills, etc. That money was the lifeline that allowed people to survive at a certain level.

People are in trouble as a result of the reduction in private sector pay, the problem of negative equity, last year's cut in public sector pensions and this year's taxation decisions. I suppose we have all signed up to the Green Party's great model of carbon tax.

Acting Chairman

I draw the Senator's attention to the fact that he has been speaking for eight minutes. Two other speakers are offering. Senators may wish the Minister to reply before this debate adjourns at 5 p.m. I hope Members are conscious of what needs to be done if they would like the Minister to reply before 5 p.m.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Is the Acting Chairman imposing a guillotine on the Bill?

Acting Chairman

Absolutely not. I am merely making a point.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Will the Minister be present when the debate resumes?

Acting Chairman

Of course, she will return. It might be better for her to respond to the comments on this section of the Bill while they are fresh in her mind. I am merely putting it out there.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I would be very happy to resume my seat and to resume this contribution after the Minister has spoken, if that is in order.

Acting Chairman

Of course, it is in order. The Senator has every entitlement to continue at that stage.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I am not concluding my remarks.

Acting Chairman

I am merely trying to save time. Members have spoken on this section for an hour. I am not saying they are not perfectly entitled to do so. I am reminding the Senator that his colleagues might like the Minister to reply to their queries before we adjourn at 5 p.m. I am giving the Senator that option.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I understand that the Minister has a busy schedule and that the business of the House has been agreed.

Acting Chairman

I ask the Senator to continue his remarks on section 7.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Before I do, I would like to say, with respect, that the Acting Chairman's interventions have not been very helpful to parliamentary business.

Acting Chairman

Okay. I am not cutting the Senator off.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

You are, in effect.

Acting Chairman

I am not.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

You are imposing a guillotine. I am the only Senator——

Acting Chairman

Please speak on the section.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I will not argue with the Chair. I understand where she is coming from in lots of ways.

This is a fundamental attack that should be reversed. Women and children, in particular, have suffered in the budget in many ways, which further accentuates the difficulty.

Senator Maurice Cummins

I should treat Senator Butler's comments with the contempt they deserve, but they need to be answered. He said the Fine Gael policies had not been costed or were fairytales. The Fine Gael policies advocated last Friday week were clear, had been costed and were about choices as to whether we hit the most vulnerable in the community or else taxed the wealthy. We advocated abolishing the cap on PRSI payments, not just for public sector workers but also for private sector workers who got off scot-free also. That is how we would have paid for it. I want Senator Butler to know this. If the Minister's own targets in regard to fraud were met, there would not have been a need to attack carers, those who cannot see and other people with disabilities. That is where we could have got the money. It is about choices such as choices as to whether we should hit the poor or tax the rich. Fianna Fáil has never been good at this because the policies it has advocated are like Wanderly Wagon economics. The people are fed up with that at this stage. Opinion polls will show that Fianna Fáil has never been as low because it is not listening to the people.

Senator Buttimer was right. The budget should have been about people but it was not. It was just a blunt instrument to satisfy the financial markets and that was it. Poor people were hit the worst, as well as public sector workers earning less than €30,000. They are the ones who are suffering, but the Government does not give a damn about them. It was a case of "Hit the poor people; let the rich be." The Government had choices; it made its choices and will have to live with them.

Senator Donohoe has made the good point that some have to pay an excessive amount for crèches which is supplemented by their child benefit payments. A cut of €16 a month is very severe for those who have a couple of children in a crèche. Admittedly, there are those who save their child benefit. I heard a person boasting about having €18,000 in his bank account. However, there are others who use their child benefit payments to put bread on the table and feed their children. There are many mean men who do not hand up a lot of money to the household and it is left to women to pay from their child benefit payments to put bread on the table.

The Government had choices. It could have done what we suggested. It could have decided to tax child benefit if it had wanted to, but it did not. It made the decision to bluntly and universally cut it. That was its choice. A Senator referred yesterday to the cutting of a shilling from the old age pension in the 1920s and another referred to taxing children's shoes, which never happened. What will they say in 80 years' time when they see that one of the richest countries in the world squandered the money it had available and preferred to finance bankers and bond holders and then take the money from people in receipt of child benefit? That is the legacy of the Government. That is what the people will think of at the next general election.

Senator John Paul Phelan

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the cut to child benefit proposed in the Bill. Senator Buttimer referred to many issues I wanted to cover in my contribution. He is right. Essentially, what we are all about is helping families and others. I object in the strongest possible terms to Government policy. Before the budget, many Government Members and their supporters decried child benefit because it was a universal payment. They then came along in the budget and used a universal method to cut it.

Those on higher incomes do not need the same level of child benefit; in some cases, they do not need any. I have no problem with this. However, for many families it is the difference between putting clothes on children's backs and putting food on the table, or not being able to do so. I mentioned on Second Stage that I had recently been in the company of two women, one who had boasted — Senator Cummins referred to a similar incident — that she would give all of her child benefit payments to the child when he reached 18 years, although she said child benefit should not be touched in the budget; and the other who was from a very modest background and had four small children and who I knew depended on child benefit to meet bills and keep the show on the road. It is very unfair of the Government to penalise both equally. That is effectively what is being done and it is absolutely wrong.

I come from a very rural part of Ireland. In my area there are many households and many women rearing children. In some instances, child benefit is the only money they get into their hands, particularly for women who are not working outside the home but who are very much working in the home. That is the sad reality of what is being proposed in a cut to child benefit of this magnitude. I urge Senators on the other side to see the error of their ways at this juncture and to rethink how we can more fairly reconstitute the child benefit system in order that it would be brought within the taxation system. Most would agree with this. Ultimately, however, those on the lowest incomes and those who depend on social welfare should not suffer the same monetary reduction in their income — in fact, it is a much greater reduction in real terms when one takes into account the universal hatchet job done on child benefit, as proposed in this section of the Bill.

Senator Joe O’Reilly

The problem one has at this stage of the debate is that one tends to repeat earlier arguments. However, against that, the arguments are of such seriousness and validity that they merit repeating. The big point about child benefit is that it is a universal payment, available across the board. It is a payment particular to children who are not in a position to generate their own income or determine their own destiny. This is something passed on to them directly by society. Any reduction in this is wrong for the very reason that it is a direct attack on the guaranteed income of children.

Child benefit is a very important payment for women and children. We all prefer to talk about ideal homes and families where the situation is wonderful and idyllic. Tragically, that is not the reality for many families. There are still women in our society who, although we deplore it, are the victims of abuse to the extent that adequate money is not passed on to them for the wrong reasons, which include that they have negligent partners and sometimes partners with substance abuse and addiction problems. For those women and the children in their care, child benefit is their lifeline and of enormous importance. For that reason, we strongly oppose this cut. We discussed the matter at meetings of our parliamentary party over a number of weeks before the budget and the point was always argued that child benefit should remain untouched. We costed this proposal and provided alternatives. It is important to vulnerable children.

The cumulative effect on people on low incomes must be looked at. Those earning less than €30,000 in the public service will now be the victims of this decrease, plus 5% of their salary, the pension levy and the income levy. Adding this cut will aggravate the situation.

In County Cavan small farmers have seen their incomes devastated. CSO figures confirm this, as do Teagasc figures for 2008, showing incomes of €8,500. All available data confirm small and mixed farmers face a real decline in income in the region of 41% in the last two years. Those farmers throughout County Cavan have families for whom the cut in child benefit will have a colossal impact.

Many people in County Cavan worked in construction. Those who have been dislocated from the industry will be in a vulnerable position with the reduction in child benefit. I ask the Minister to reflect on this and consider changing the legislation, even at this late stage.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

I am taken aback that for once Senators are showing a complete lack of perspective. The arguments made today would be valid if we had abolished child benefit, but we are talking about a cut of €4 a week. There are people for whom that cut might be significant, but the recommendation in the McCarthy report was that we cut it by €30 per week for the first child and €67 per week for subsequent children.

Senator Maurice Cummins

The Tánaiste said that was rubbish.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

The recommendation of the Commission on Taxation was that it should be taxed which Senators have recommended today. If we were to do this, a middle income earner would see an effective reduction in child benefit of €66. If two people are earning, they are paying tax at 41%; therefore, child benefit would be taxed at that rate, meaning it would be reduced to €100. That would be far more penal for working families. It was not just because of administrative reasons, but that is one of the reasons I did not support such a measure.

This is a universal payment, but it is not a universal cut. We have protected those at the bottom who are dependent on social welfare and in low income jobs. Both here and in the Dáil Members have talked about the meanness of men. It is not a general attribute, but there are women, even in the high income bracket, for whom this is their only payment. I recognise this, which is why we did not take it from them. Much thought has gone into making this cut.

Senator John Paul Phelan

There will be a meanness test now for men rather than a means test.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

People on low incomes need child benefit to support their children; that is why we have protected them. In an effort to avoid creating a poverty trap, we ensured an increase was also given to people in receipt of family income supplement, protecting those on low incomes who are working. The cut was kept to a minimum.

Parents of any nine year old to an 18 or 22 year old, depending on their education, currently receividng child benefit remember what it was like when their child was born. In 2000 the rate of child benefit was £53.96. It is now €166 and being reduced to €150. They are still getting almost €100 more per month than when their child was born. Equally, it was £71.11 for the third and subsequent children in 2000, which figure is now €203. The very same parents are the first to acknowledge the cut but also acknowledge the increases in recent years.

Huge investment has also been made in the provision of child care and community places to support those on lower incomes and in the provision of a pre-school year, a genuine contribution to both parents and children. This can ensure better outcomes for all children and will take effect from January.

I would never question the bona fides of those Senators making this argument. We all realise the pressure families are under. I will not tolerate, however, any Senator questioning my bona fides or those of other Ministers.

Senator Paudie Coffey

The Government is cutting the allowance.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

We were not born Ministers; we were born real people with real families.

Senator Maurice Cummins

They would do well to remember that.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

We have real siblings, parents and children. We have been elected to Dáil Éireann by our constituents who hold us accountable.

Senator Maurice Cummins

They will certainly hold the Government accountable at the next election.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

We meet them every day; therefore, we know their needs and demands. We are accountable to them. It was disingenuous, therefore, of Senator Doherty to question our bona fides in the work we do.

As Ministers, we are very well paid. Senators and Deputies are also very well paid. That is why, as Ministers, we took a formal, legal and permanent cut of 15%. We are still well paid — I am not making an issue of it — and there is no point trying to prove otherwise. When we are faced with having to reduce expenditure, we cannot just look at income; it cannot all come from revenue raising measures. We had to reduce our expenditure in order that we could make the structural changes that will apply for several years.

Fine Gael also recommended cutting expenditure on social welfare.

Senator Maurice Cummins

We did not recommend cutting child benefit.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

It recommended cuts to the lone parent payment, the farm assist scheme, for the unemployed, the young and widows.

Senator Maurice Cummins

No. The Minister should read the document.

Deputy Mary Hanafin

Let us be genuine about the arguments we are making. Senator Buttimer accepted this when he quoted some elements of the Fine Gael policy

We would all prefer to be in a position where we could do what the Government has done successively in recent years, to increase child benefit by 300%. We should keep the matter in perspective; we still support families and parents. I am sorry we have to introduce the cut of €4, but we are protecting those on lower incomes and social welfare.

Senator Maurice Cummins

And bond holders and the bankers.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 20.

Tá

• Boyle, Dan.
• Brady, Martin.
• Butler, Larry.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Carroll, James.
• Carty, John.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Corrigan, Maria.
• Daly, Mark.
• de Búrca, Déirdre.
• Feeney, Geraldine.
• Glynn, Camillus.
• Hanafin, John.
• Keaveney, Cecilia.
• Leyden, Terry.
• MacSharry, Marc.
• McDonald, Lisa.
• Ó Brolcháin, Niall.
• Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
• O’Brien, Francis.
• O’Donovan, Denis.
• O’Malley, Fiona.
• O’Sullivan, Ned.
• Ormonde, Ann.
• Phelan, Kieran.
• Quinn, Feargal.
• Walsh, Jim.
• White, Mary M.
• Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

• Bacik, Ivana.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Burke, Paddy.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Coffey, Paudie.
• Coghlan, Paul.
• Cummins, Maurice.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Hannigan, Dominic.
• Healy Eames, Fidelma.
• McFadden, Nicky.
• Norris, David.
• O’Reilly, Joe.
• O’Toole, Joe.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Regan, Eugene.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Twomey, Liam.
• White, Alex.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Maurice Cummins and Nicky McFadden.

Question declared carried.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.