Ulick Burke (Galway East, Fine Gael)

If one was to accept Deputy O'Rourke's claim of a 20% increase in the social welfare budget, one would imagine it applied to every social welfare allowance. Deputy O'Rourke, however, has not recognised the significant increases in unemployment rates across the country. The greater proportion of the budget increase, other than the 3.8% provided in the October budget, is going towards unemployment allowances. For the Deputy to make such a statement and walk away from it, leaving it unexplained, is part of the Government sides' spin on the current economic circumstances to which we have become accustomed in this House.

Earlier, the Minister said in the context of the current economic circumstances, it has been necessary for the Government to take steps to reduce overall public expenditure to restore stability to the public finances. However, if there were a plan to stabilise the public finances, the recent demeaning statements by a US economist about the Irish economy would not have been made. I accept some cuts had to be made to make some effort to tackle the problem.

The tragedy, however, is that the Government can see no other way to stabilise the public finances other than hitting workers and taxpayers. I am not referring to high income workers but those with incomes as low as €15,000 per annum, those earning the minimum wage. Deputy O'Rourke claims there is no other alternative but it is obvious she had not listened to the Fine Gael Deputy Leader and finance spokesperson who outlined an alternative budget in this Chamber in which the majority of necessary savings could have been found by elimination of waste in and reform of the public service.

While the Minister claims there has been a 20% increase in the social welfare budget, she does not realise that this has gone towards payments in the unemployment blackspots across the country, particularly in the west. The main concern of most of those who have contacted me about this Bill is about becoming homeless. Many organisations which help the disadvantaged are concerned about the capping and reduction of rent supplements. The Government has again taken the soft option of reducing the cap on rent supplement to save X amount. The reality is that rent allowance recipients, already at their wits' ends, will have to top up their payments. In a Department of Social and Family Affairs context, this can be seen as an illegal top-up. Does the Minister want to see an increase in homelessness? I hope this provision in the Bill will be amended on Committee Stage.

The replacement of the early child care supplement with a free preschool year would have been fine in the good times. However, where is the educational infrastructure to safely accommodate these extra children? What about the supervisory and educational personnel for this scheme? Will they be trained? We are concerned here with a number of people who will have to go into a new situation dealing with the children. There are dangers involved in this provision if it is only half thought out, as I believe it is, and it will come home to haunt the Minister unless it is done properly. I do not believe it can be achieved in a proper manner in such a short time. I hope the Minister will address this.

It is deplorable that the Minister saw fit to reduce the early child supplement by half until the end of the year and to totally abolish it thereafter. That payment has been important, particularly to single parents who are on very tight budgets, but the Minister has decided that from January it is to be eliminated altogether. That is a very serious step. Tragically, I am sure there will be a very serious fallout from that situation.

Everybody welcomed the additional funding that was made available to FÁS for training places and further education. However, we cannot say we will do that and at the same time have an embargo on recruitment, particularly for trainers. I will give one example. Tragically, 198 jobs were recently lost at Sigma in Loughrea. To be fair to FÁS, it immediately came on site and provided for training for some of the employees as they became redundant. However, I was told only last week that FÁS will no longer be able to recruit trainers for the remaining people who are leaving work and who could avail of further training on the premises. It cannot do so because of the embargo on recruitment. As I have said to various Ministers, there should be a derogation in the case of recruitment of trainers in FÁS, which is delivering a very important service that cannot be delivered without properly trained people.

See this speech in context