Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

When the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform introduced the first part of the budget, he said the sharp reality is that the Government faces a level of social welfare expenditure that cannot be sustained from the funding base now available. That is true because we were told during the election that we could not cut and tax our way out of this situation. The reality is that is exactly what is being attempted and what we are talking about today is the manifestation of that. The budget fails to address the fundamental issue, the fact that we need to get people back to work.

The Government also claimed it was committed to not cutting any headline social welfare rate. The reality is that the changes to the disability payments for people between 16 and 25 were a direct attack on a headline social welfare rate. I welcome that there will at least be an amendment to the Bill to postpone that but the problem is that there will be another social welfare Bill by Easter and all that is proposed is a review of the domiciliary grant, the 16 to 18 year olds' payment, not the payment for the 18 to 25 year olds. Families will be worried sick about what will happen. All that needed to be done was to reverse the cut for 18 to 25 year olds because nothing is being proposed in any sort of review of that cohort.

There is a sense of disbelief that the political judgment of the Government could be so flawed when it comes to such a vulnerable group. It was expressly stated that fairness would be at the core of the budget but that was simply unfair. There is supposed to be collective Cabinet responsibility but it is obvious the Minister for Finance wanted to dissociate himself from that decision and hung it around the neck of the Minister for Social Protection.

The cut was aimed initially at 16 year olds whose parents are paid a domiciliary care allowance. Anyone who knows anything about getting that allowance knows a person is put through the wringer to get it. Citizens Information states that this payment is only paid in respect of a child with a disability so severe the child requires care and attention and supervision substantially in excess of that required by another child of the same sage. This care and attention must be provided to allow the child to deal with the activities of daily living. The child must be likely to require this level of care and attention for at least 12 months. At the age of 16 the child who up to now has been eligible for that payment on those criteria is now supposed to be in a position to compete on the open labour market. That is outrageous. Where was the political judgment when that decision was being made.

The sense of outrage is palpable. Parents are saying to me that they were so angry they could not even sleep. Even in the good times this was a group that always had to battle for services and supports. Anyone who knows someone with a child who has a disability will go into the house and there will be a bundle of files prepared by the parents who are constantly lobbying for the meagre and threadbare services that are already there. This is yet another attack on them. I am pleased to hear this is being reviewed but that is too tame; it should be reversed.

The Combat Poverty Agency states one parent families are more likely to be poor than two parent families or single people. Barnardos, even before we debated the budget graphically described how Croke Park and the Aviva stadium could be filled with the 130,000 children in this country who are living in poverty. That means poor diet, missing developmental milestones, ill health and struggling in school. A teenager who is out of work is more likely to be out of work as an adult.

Where were children placed in respect of this budget? Was there any strategy to look at children? If not, why not? They are the most vulnerable. All the evidence suggests that one parent families are most at risk of poverty. The principle of encouraging lone parents to upskill is a good one and it must be supported but it needs resources. I question the wisdom of doing that at this time when there are so few jobs and the transition for the parent of a seven year old is made all the more difficult by the inadequate supports for child care payments when someone goes to work.

Ms Nora Gibbons, the director of advocacy in Barnardos said that poor children live in poor households. The 4% cut to the adult welfare payments and the €5.30 cut in the qualified adult payment, on top of last year's €8 cut, mean many children will go without a full meal every week. I ask Deputies to imagine what it would be like if their children had to go without a full meal. As it is, the €10 and €20 cuts in child benefit will make it difficult for many families to pay for fundamentals such as heat and electricity. At the same time we are increasing the cost to the same families that are so challenged. Child benefit has been the Government's tool of choice in tackling poverty in the past ten years and it now appears to be under attack. OPEN, the group which represents one-parent families, has stated the most important statistic that should inform policy development as well as public debate is that children in one-parent families account for 65% of the level of child poverty in the State.

I declare an interest in community employment schemes as I am on the board - on the volunteer side - of a few schemes, including the County Kildare Centre for the Unemployed which has been established for many years. The cut from €1,500 to €500 in the materials allowance means it will not be able to pay the rent. It also means community employment schemes will no longer be viable. Participants are involved in packing bags in supermarkets and running raffles, even before the cut takes effect. The schemes offer people the possibility of progression into the workforce by giving them their confidence back. Very often a person will be on a community employment scheme before gaining the confidence to go back to education.

The Bill proposes to cut the eligible period for fuel allowance from 32 weeks to 26 at a time when fuel is increasing in price and will increase further as a consequence of the budget. I question whether this will be false economy. It will mean that people will not turn on the heating and will end up in accident and emergency units of overstretched hospitals, thereby costing more because we have so neglected them.

Some of these choices are very difficult to figure out. As has been said, there were others who could have been targeted, including, for example, the wealthy, which would have negated the prospect of having to do this. Those were the choices I had expected to be made, particularly given the Labour Party component of the Government. The budget has made a number of very serious attacks on some very vulnerable people, which is shameful.

See this speech in context