Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

This budget's cuts target children and I have already highlighted the cuts in child benefit. I will move on to another area in which the budget and this legislation have been very disappointing. I refer to children who could be described as the poorest of the poor — the 96,000 children under the age of 14 who are living in consistent poverty. I am thinking particularly of those children whose parent or parents are exclusively dependent on social welfare. There has been a debate about whether it is best to use child benefit to assist those children and lift them out of poverty or to increase the qualified child allowance. Over the years it has been accepted that the best approach was to employ child benefit. There is no doubt that in the past there have been significant increases in child benefit. However, in these more straitened times, given the existence of this cohort of children who are lagging way behind, there is an argument for targeting these children by providing an additional payment to them. That principle was accepted in the context of the debate that was going on a number of years ago about the provision of supports for lone parents. At that time the thrust of such proposals was very much welcomed, although the detail needed to be hammered out, and concern was expressed by some groups working in that area. However, the principle espoused in these proposals — that there should be a supplementary payment to children in poor families irrespective of whether their parents were married, whether there was one parent or two in the family home, and whether their parents were working — was precisely what was needed. It was a measure which would support children in poverty irrespective of their other family circumstances. That is still very much needed. In the absence of progress in this area, however, there is an unanswerable case for targeting those children who remain in consistent poverty with supports. For that reason, the miserly €2 per week increase in income support for those children is very disappointing.

The restriction of the early childhood supplement has been portrayed as a change that will be introduced to end the payment of the supplement at five and a half years of age. There is no basis for that decision. I do not know why it is happening and I think it is mean. However, it goes further than that. Hidden in that proposal is something that has not been spelt out by the Minister — the change in the method of payment of the supplement from a quarterly to a monthly payment. No reference at all is made to the fact that this change encompasses a particularly sneaky cut. It is not just a half-year's payment that will be lost; it is more than that. Previously, the early childhood supplement was paid up to the time the child was 75 months. Now it will be paid only until the age of 66 months. This will result in a loss of €800 to parents of children aged five and a half. This is a retrograde step and I do not know why it has been introduced. It is a particularly sneaky cut, targeted at families with small children, many of whom are on low incomes. It should not be happening. There are many other targets that could have been hit in order to make savings.

There is serious concern about the provisions regarding claw-back in the rent supplement scheme. As a result of the €5 claw-back on rent, people in private rented accommodation on rent supplement and who are in receipt of a social welfare payment are getting an increase of only €1.50 rather than €6.50 per week. I spoke to the Minister about this earlier during Question Time. She gave a long explanation after which she stated that this was entirely reasonable. It is incredible that the Minister for Social and Family Affairs would say it is entirely reasonable for a person on social welfare to get an increase of €1.50, which is what it amounts to. In real terms, this amounts to a substantial cut in these people's incomes. Rather than being entirely reasonable, it shows that the Minister is entirely out of touch. If she thinks people can survive on that level of income, she is on a different planet.

There are a number of omissions from the Bill which are very disappointing. There is no improvement in the back to education initiative and nothing on the back to work enterprise initiative. There is no mention of pension reform, in spite of promises given during the Green Paper process of firm proposals with regard to the burning issue of pensions. There is nothing for lone parents, in spite of the fact that the previous two Ministers promised changes in this regard. There is a major need for reform in this area to bring it up to date and deal with the issue of cohabitation. There is also no reform to the rent supplement scheme, despite the increase in the numbers availing of and relying on the scheme. There is a need to introduce a differential rent, as in the rental accommodation scheme — that is the benefit of RAS. This could be done in respect of people who are in receipt of rent supplement. It is extremely disappointing that in spite of promises over many years there is still no carers' strategy in place. It had been promised for the end of 2007 but there is no sign of it yet. This is yet another in a long list of omissions from this legislation. Overall, it is extremely disappointing and that is the reason the Labour Party will be opposing it.

See this speech in context