Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

I am not seeking a commission of inquiry at the moment but, depending on the Minister's answers, I might be. I am here to ask that the Minister for Social and Family Affairs explain the discrepancy between payments to a family which voluntarily raises an orphaned child and the vastly superior payments to a family which raises an orphaned child who has first been the subject of a care order by the health board. This is one of the many anomalies that exists in the social welfare system. I am glad the Minister of State with responsibility for children is here. I hope we can obtain a resolution of this issue once and for all.

In the north inner city, in my constituency of Dublin Central, two families experienced tragedy. In each case the mother died and a child was orphaned. Both immediate families did the honourable thing and voluntarily took responsibility for rearing the children. They put roofs over their heads, fed them, raised them and provided medical care — one of the children requires constant medical attention and attendance at the Mater Hospital — as well as educational and family care. In all of this they saved the State a substantial sum of money. Institutional care was avoided and happy family contexts were provided for raising the children.

However, the State has the unhappy knack of taking advantage of families' generosity and voluntary assumption of responsibilities. As a result, each family is in receipt of a weekly payment of €97, which is now going up to €107. This is called the orphan's payment by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. However, if care orders had been signed and the children had been taken into the care of the health board, the families fostering the children would be in receipt of €289. Effectively, the families are penalised for saving the children the trauma of being taken into care and then removed from an institution. The ridiculous nature of the system is highlighted by the fact that in each case the same children would be involved and the costs of raising them would be the same. It is simply a matter of a minor mechanical difference in dealing with the care of the children.

Trying to find out anything about the matter is a trying and circuitous business. One must contact the Department of Social and Family Affairs, which refers one to the health board, followed by Park House, a social worker and the health board again. The message eventually obtained is that this is how it is. The rules were made and there is to be no change. One is told it is the way things are, as though it were cast in stone. It is not good enough. Children should be treated equally. I ask the Minister of State to correct this anomaly and not to discriminate against the many children and families in this situation.

See this speech in context