Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputy Dooley.

I listened with interest to the speech of the Minister. With regard to fraud, one of the issues I have become aware of across my constituency desk is an aspect of the respite care grant that she is targeting. I refer to respite care grants paid in 2007 to 2010, inclusive. In particular, the Department is targeting farmers' wives, a number of whom have come to me. These women, in partnership with their spouses, are caring for elderly relatives in their own homes. It has always been the tradition that the elderly relative lives in the home and is looked after by a member of the family. The Department is writing to these women stating that, because they are showing up on the PRSI system as having paid PRSI in a particular year, they must have been in paid employment or must be self-employed, so they could not have been providing the full-time care and assistance to qualify for the respite care grant. It is seeking the return of three, four or five years of the respite care grant. I ask the Minister to look at that because it is unfair. I understand where she is coming from on fraud measures. Everybody welcomes them for those who deserve them, but the Minister is incorrectly targeting these women just because they are on the PRSI system as they are in partnership with their spouses on family farms. They certainly are not working in excess of the 15 hours applicable. This carte blanche letter has been sent out to them stating that the Department now has information that they were on the PRSI system and, therefore, they cannot qualify for the respite care grant. Enclosed is a self-addressed envelope in which to return the cheque in respect of the respite care grants for 2007 to 2011 with immediate haste. The Minister might take that up when she returns to her Department. It grossly contravenes the spirit of respite care and the effort to keep the elderly in their own homes as long as is humanly possible. I suppose the optimum would be for them to see out their lives in their own homes.

There are a number of aspects to the budget and where policy is going over the years. While we have rushed to balance the books, yesterday there was an extremely cynical attempt to hide the bad news from the general public, get through budget day and state that everything is rosy in the garden. There are a number of cuts coming through but we will deal with them as they come.

On the bereavement grant, I suppose every politician in this House and beyond has dealt with people who were in a vulnerable position after a bereavement and were trying to cope with the costs, particularly in cities, where the costs are a multiple of what they are in the countryside. What the people are saying to me this morning is that they have paid their PRSI for this. It is not as if it was a grant for nothing. PRSI has been paid; they have made contributed towards it and they cannot see how this grant can be cut. This is one of the measures with which I take major issue.

Last week we held a debate on medical cards here and there were Leaders' Questions on medical cards. There was complete denial from Government about what was happening in the medical card section. Any fair assessment of the evidence that was put before the House last week and that is continuing to flow shows that there has been a change in policy in this regard. One can dissect the English language with a dictionary and ask what exactly is a change in policy, what it takes for something to represent a change in policy and whether the Minister needs to bring statutory instruments or regulations on the matter before the Dáil, all of which is technical, but the bottom line is that there are people in significant hardship who have been targeted by the section and who are getting letters on a weekly basis in an effort to reduce the number of medical cards and to frustrate those who apply for medical cards. What was discussed here last week was a true and meaningful reflection of what is happening.

The issue to which I will refer in the few minutes remaining to me is affecting rural communities and provincial towns.

The retail sector has been on the floor during the past couple of years. Every speaker has said that different decisions should have been made during the height of the property bubble. Rural communities, provincial towns and the countryside as a whole have been suffering depopulation and this must be addressed. The assessment of Government policy and State spending is that these communities cost less to run. Government policies in the 1950s and 1960s resulted in an urbanisation of Irish society and we are still paying and will continue to pay a very great price for those policies.

The best way to service our rural communities is to have targeted policies and one of the most proactive ways over the past 20 years has been how EU Leader funding was distributed. Leader has funded meaningful employment in communities and it should be used as a model for providing significant value for money.

There is no justification for the reduction in the telephone allowance. The spin on the story says that there has been no cut in income for pensioners. The telephone allowance is factored into the weekly budget of pensioners and it will mean they will need to spend an extra €9.50 a month. That is a cut in their income. Ministers may argue that the pension was not cut. However, everything else around it has been cut and people will see through this spin. My constituents have told me that they can see what the Government is doing.

I refer to the issue of medical cards for elderly people and the moving of funding from one cohort of the population to another to give the impression that no cut has been made. The Government wants to give the impression that this will not have a significant impact, but this is beyond credibility.

I wish to deal with a number of other issues. The Minister for Education and Skills made an announcement with great fanfare about his success in education. Everyone knows that the education sector has taken a very great hammering over the past number of years and that it is suffering a funding crisis. Every school and board of management is fund-raising in order to maintain services.

Last Friday a constituent described to me how the case of her child has fallen between the Department of Health and the Department of Education and Skills. Funding for a personal assistant was given and subsequently withdrawn because the parents decided to enrol the child in a mainstream preschool rather than a specific preschool. This would, in the long run, have cost the Department and the Exchequer less money.

I refer to the CABAS project in Cork city and I have noted the beneficial aspects of that early intervention programme for children with autism. In the past autism and the autistic spectrum were not fully understood but this project has helped children significantly so much so that some have progressed to mainstream education. The services have decided that the four year old child to whom I referred has fallen between two Departments. The Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Health are unable to discuss the case of the child and this will be at a significant cost to the State in the future. They should adopt a common sense approach and decide what is the best solution for this child to ensure that he can reach his full potential and which will also be of benefit to the State.

See this speech in context