Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

The Minister stated there was a social value and a value in interaction.

Now that finances are tighter and the Government wants to make savings but does not want to be seen as too much of a bad guy because the local elections are coming up, it will cut and then abolish the early child care supplement and replace it with a free preschool place for one year. I am not sure if the Government has really worked out the mathematics. I am sure it did from its own perspective in saving money, but it was not from the perspective of a family with a newborn child who would be losing a payment for five and a half years to be replaced by preschool support for 38 weeks. It provides little comfort for families who must make some really tough decisions. It is critical to remember that these are the same families who bought houses in the past few years at extortionate prices and who are paying massive mortgages, one third of which is actually a payment to the Government because that is the portion of their mortgage that relates to the tax they are paying on their home. These young couples are faced with a choice - can they both afford to stay at work? Can they afford the cost of child care or can they afford to stay at home? Even a difference of €30 to €40 a week in income is immense help in making such decisions and trying to budget and balance their books.

The way in which Fianna Fáil introduced the early child care supplement was a typical example of the way it moved to gain kudos with the electorate. On six occasions in the House after it was introduced Ministers, as well as the former Taoiseach, gave different figures for what it would cost. Nobody at the time realised that it would have to be paid for children not in this country but whose parents were, even though the supplement was supposed to meet the cost of child care provided here, and with a click of the fingers it is gone.

I still have questions on the provision of a free preschool place for one year. I still question the Government's ability to deliver on such a measure by next January. We are spending €50 million a year on prefabs in the primary and post-primary sector, yet the Government thinks it can deliver up to 80,000 places by January. I do not think anybody believes that is possible. We have yet to see a breakdown of how and where the places will be provided. All the press releases issued since the announcement have not answered these questions. The Minister is asking the House to vote to abolish the early child care supplement when she has given little or no consideration to what will be in its place and the impact on families.

The Minister has stated the figure "equates to a weekly capitation grant to the service provider of €64.50 and parents with children enrolled in these services will not be charged." I spoke to a child care provider today who has had some discussions with whoever is in charge in the Department and the provider seemed to be of the opinion that there would be an ability to charge a top-up fee. I ask the Minister if she is sure of the figure of €64.50 and that top-ups will not be charged because people are not sure. Where providers are charging more already I cannot see how they will reduce their prices. Will families have to pay a top-up charge to some providers? There are not uniform charges across the country. Will we now see those, perhaps in more rural areas, charging less upping their prices? How did the Minister arrive at the figure of €64.50? What about the extra facilities that will be needed? Currently, there is no funding available because of the review of the NDP. These questions need to be asked. People know when they are being sold a pup, as they certainly are in this instance.

The decisions taken in the Bill echo those taken in the budget. There is a lack of vision, strategic thinking and real reform. What there has been is much tinkering, mostly aimed at saving money with the odd nod towards the possibility that people will be given a little bit of a break. However, all it is is a nod.

Twice the Minister almost bragged about an increase in social welfare expenditure. The only reason it has increased is the numbers unemployed have increased. This is something we should all deplore rather than speak of as something for which the Department has received a little extra because those affected are not getting it.

The Minister spoke about deflation and the protection of living standards. Much of the deflation has been in the area of mortgage payments. Gas prices, electricity prices, bus fares and cost of primary education have increased. The week before last I met the Society of St. Vincent de Paul which told me that there had been a 30% increase in the number of calls made to it. The only places where it has not seen an increase are the Border counties where people are able to cross the Border to buy food where it is cheaper. That highlights the difficulties being experienced by families. Deflation may help some but it is not helping everyone and it is disingenuous to suggest it is.

The positive changes made are not enough to really make a difference or a dent in the live register figures and get people into training or back to work. The changes to the rent supplement scheme are too blunt and what could have been really good cost saving changes are only going to hurt a significant number of people rather than truly take advantage of falling market rates. The idea of incentivising young people to return to education or training through profiling is only window dressing aimed essentially at cutting payments to them. The reduction in the value of the early child care supplement and its abolition will cause untold difficulties for young families.

We still have received no details on the information which must be provided by claimants in making a claim for benefit. Overall, there is nothing in the Bill that will facilitate people in getting back to work. Everything depends on the work of 60 facilitators who will deal with hundreds of thousands of unemployed persons. The Christmas bonus is being removed but it is not even mentioned in the legislation. It was a quick lazy attempt at saving money. The Government in no way tried to deal with or solve the problems endemic in the system. As a result, we will still have queues at social welfare offices and community welfare officers will be unable to cope with the level of demand. In fact, this will be compounded by the changes to the rent supplement scheme. No assistance is being given to facilitate the changes. More and more people will turn to community welfare officers seeking exceptional needs payments because of the social welfare cuts contained in the Bill. No extra assistance has been given to MABS or funding made available for mortgage interest supplements.

On the changes to the Bill that the Minister announced she will introduce on Committee Stage, I will wait until then to comment on them. However, it is time to bring forward the recommendations made in the White Paper on pensions rather than just tinkering with the system. Real decisions need to be taken.

See this speech in context