Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)

I broadly support Deputy Stanton's amendments although he has indicated he will not press them. The Minister is acutely aware of the issue of child poverty and I do not doubt his bona fides with regard to his efforts to eradicate it. The eradication of child poverty is a challenging objective and cannot be achieved easily. There is no one size measure to fit all that will deal with child poverty, which is part of the problem. If money alone could address the issue, the Minister would have made a good stab at it. Coming into an election year, the Government would have been very eager to obliterate the issue from the political agenda and not have people like us returning to the issue on a recurring basis.

I will not address the issues of back to school clothing and footwear allowances etc. The Minister would obviously say those allowances are significant as is the provision of school meals and the extension of that programme. I urge that fruit would be included as part of the school meals programme. Some of the schools in my area benefit from this programme and I believe the Department gets a good return from the moneys invested in it. Those involved in the administration of the scheme are top class and ensure the programme achieves its objectives and targets. This means the programme provides a good return for the moneys spent, which should be of some solace to the Minister. However, oranges, apples and other fruit should be included in the meals programme to ensure improved health and nutrition for young children. Issues such as food and nutrition are interlinked with other poverty issues. The issue of poverty is homogenous and includes various issues that the Minister must make an effort to address.

The ESRI is examining the amalgamation of the family income supplement, child dependant allowance and the various other allowances provided to help address poverty. I can see where Deputy Stanton is coming from in this regard when he seeks an employment-neutral payment. It is important that future supports be employment neutral. Whatever status a person holds, we want the Minister's efforts to achieve the objective of the eradication of child poverty to apply. The Minister has said one child in poverty is one too many, particularly in a time of affluence.

Sometimes when we change a system an unintended consequence of that action is that we create another poverty trap. This was part of the problem with regard to the lone parent proposals. I remember a paper being presented on the issue to the One Parent Exchange Network which demonstrated how we were almost sleepwalking into a minefield of various poverty traps. People would have ended up worse off and being penalised for progress. I compliment Deputy Stanton on how well he has covered that issue. I understand what the Minister is saying but it is time we examined the idea of a second tier of child benefit supplement. It is important that the universal principle of child benefit is preserved because it goes generally to the mother in the home who uses it to discharge various costs and expenses associated with the rearing of the child. Child benefit is often the only source of a mother's independent finance. Child benefit is sacrosanct and it must be protected. As the Minister said, he is increasing it and in that regard he is doing well so far.

The Minister will be glad to hear I am ad idem with him regarding child benefit supplement which must be geared to a certain income level to ensure it is targeted at the families experiencing poverty, particularly child poverty, which is the issue on which we are trying to focus. The child benefit supplement must be employment neutral but a sum of €25,000, €30,000 or €35,000 must be fixed. People must realise this is a political objective. Universal child benefit is appropriate but we are trying to come up with a solution to a problem that has been a source of great annoyance to many people and to the various organisations that have worked in this area. It is important that we focus on that, although I realise the Minister will reply to the effect that he has implemented many measures in that area.

On the child dependant allowance, my colleague, Deputy Paul McGrath, in one of his last contributions on social welfare, a subject on which he has much expertise — I bow to him in that regard because he has an intuitive grasp of the complexities of the social welfare area — was eager to ensure there would not be discrimination. If ever a person achieved objectives it was Deputy McGrath, who wore out the Minister's officials on this issue. The Minister dealt with him as spokesperson for only a few years but I worked with him for several years during which time he made a point on this issue. When the election is called, Deputy Sean Ryan and Deputy Paul McGrath will leave this House having made no small achievements. They are both parliamentarians who persisted and achieved something, and they should be proud of that.

In this context, the child dependant allowance is important because it is targeted at people on social welfare, those on low incomes and so on. As the Minister said, he eliminated the discrimination surrounding the particular type of social welfare payment being paid by the Department.

The allowance was frozen because only those who were unemployed were paid it and if somebody moved into any sort of employment they immediately lost the allowance. We went out of our minds here every year arguing with the Minister and his predecessors, including Proinsias De Rossa MEP — I will not politicise this — about this issue. That was the rationale behind all the Ministers' thoughts in this regard, and probably those of their departmental officials who considered this aspect. This allowance was part of the child support system that was tied to unemployment payments and once the unemployed person or single parent moved to employment or went back to education, they lost substantially.

The second tier payment would help those on social welfare and those who moved to employment, which is obviously the best route out of poverty. If we could devise a workable scheme which would not create a new poverty trap it would cover those people who are in receipt of social welfare payments and those who take up work. I am not talking about people earning €60,000 or €70,000 but those who might earn €27,000, €28,000, €30,000 or €35,000, or whatever the cut-off point would be. They would continue to receive child dependant allowance. That is the way to deal with poverty. Deputy Stanton used the term "employment neutral", which is an excellent phrase and one we will all borrow in the future.

The non-means tested child benefit payment is universal and is paid to the primary carer, usually the mother. It is often the only independent income the primary carer has and research shows it is almost always spent on children. It is important that we continue to pay child benefit on a universal basis and target an additional tier or child benefit supplement at those on social welfare and those in jobs with a low income base but who nevertheless are getting their foot on the employment ladder. They should not lose it immediately. The income they derive from taking up employment is negatively impacted upon in so far as they would lose a benefit they had previously. We must get to that stage and it is worth examining in terms of tackling child poverty.

Child care costs is a major issue. For many people it is the equivalent of a second mortgage. Somebody told me the other day that child care can cost €800 a month or more, which is more than the cost of a second mortgage. People living in south Dublin, south-west Dublin and elsewhere are probably more acutely aware of the cost because it is probably higher. If child care costs €750 or €800, that now has displaced the mortgage repayments as the biggest outlay one has on a monthly basis. We need people in work to sustain the level of economic activity and to ensure we continue to get growth rates of 5%, 6% and more for the foreseeable future, but the negative aspect in that regard is that a significant amount of the income people generate is consumed by the payments they have to expend on child care and on the cost of travelling to work. If the Government ensured we had a good public transport system which would get people to and from their place of work quickly, it would help both from a quality of life perspective and in ensuring people spend less on child care.

Child care supplement is an important issue yet there was not much reference to it. The Minister said it is a matter of choices but we cannot accept that. I might make a different choice and the Minister would argue, probably correctly, that I made a wrong call on particular areas but he has made his choices. Those are areas that will not go away. Child poverty will not disappear overnight. It must be a sustained and focused attack to eradicate child poverty once and for all. Regardless of when we leave this Dáil, alleviating and eradicating child poverty must be a primary focus of our political objectives. If we fail to do that, we will stand indicted in the eyes of many people, particularly some of the organisations dealing with children, including Barnardos and others, which have asked the reason we have not achieved that goal. We have the resources and now is the time to ensure the problem is tackled in a fundamental way.

See this speech in context