Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this Bill and related matters. The 2008 budget was the Government's opportunity to show it was serious about tackling poverty and disadvantage, however, other than tinkering with the figures, the larger issues remain ignored.

While Fine Gael welcomes the increase in child income supports we have serious concerns about the real impact these changes will have on tackling child poverty and delivering to those who are most in need. In 2006, according to the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions, EU-SILC, which the Minister quoted, 11% of children under 14 were living in consistent poverty and 20% were at risk of poverty, effectively children living in families whose income was below 60% of median income. Compared to this the budget 2008 provision for child income support is minimal, with less than a €6 per week increase for school-going children under six and less than €4 for children in secondary school.

Parents with children under the age of six will see the qualified child allowance increase by €2 per week, child benefit by €1.39 per week, the back to school clothing and footwear allowance by 39 cent per week and the early child care supplement by €1.92 per week. In total, child income supports for children under six years of age have increased by €5.69 per week. Parents with secondary school children will also see the qualified child allowance increase by €2 per week, child benefit by €1.39 per week and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance by 39 cent per week bringing an increase of €3.77 per week.

Under this Government one in nine children live in consistent poverty, poor as part of a family, and if we are to tackle child poverty we need to support families. The Minister will accept that child poverty is not a catchphrase or buzzword but a harsh reality for many Irish children. It is about children going to bed hungry, malnourished and cold, without a change of shoes or a winter coat. An increase of €5.69 and €3.77 respectively will do little to assist the poorest children in our society and will do nothing to end the scandal of child poverty.

This is all the more disappointing considering the Government made a commitment to reduce the number of children in consistent poverty to below 2%, and to eliminate child poverty by 2007. Deputy Cullen will probably tell us the timescale was too optimistic, which is a nice way of telling us it meant little in the first place. It is yet another commitment that was not fulfilled.

I welcome the increase in the back to school clothing and footwear allowance of €20 per child, however real reform of this payment is needed. Why must this payment remain a stand-alone payment requiring a separate application process? Has the Minister examined linking it to other payments such as the qualified child allowance and making it an automatic payment? There is also considerable merit in making the payment in two or three stages to help families budget better. Any parent will tell you the cost of sending a child to school does not begin and end in September.

Budget 2008 saw no increase in direct provision, the weekly payments for asylum-seekers and their children. The children of those living in direct provision are expected to survive on €9.60 per week. The Minister and I, and our colleagues, have debated this issue on many occasions. I welcome the Minister's call for constructive debate on the Bill so we will probably have more debate on the point. He is due before the committee next week. Despite his stubborn approach to this issue and the fact he and his Department are hiding behind the Attorney General's advice, I still hope he will look at this issue from a compassionate viewpoint and realise the policy his Department is pursuing is exclusionary, deeply unfair and discriminatory.

Existing policy excludes the children of those living in direct provision from receipt of child benefit. Not only is this policy unfair to children, I still maintain, despite the comments of his officials at committee last week, that it contravenes the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child and is contrary to the State's policies for the reduction of child poverty. I am still awaiting a note from the Department on the Attorney General's advice. I do not know whether Deputy Shortall has received it. The Minister is probably aware that we were refused access to the Attorney General's advice, which is par for the course, so I am not sure what will be in the note. I ask the Minister to make as much information as possible available to us so we can see the thinking behind this rule.

See this speech in context