Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

For most people, two measures in particular stand out from the recent budget, namely, the cut in the respite care grant and in child benefit. I was surprised by the Government's decision to proceed with these cuts, despite all the rumours in the media prior to the budget announcement. It seems clear to me that they were a bad idea both for those at the mercy of the cuts and from the perspective of the Government itself. If one actually wanted to increase child poverty in this country, one of the most proactive steps to take would be to reduce child benefit. It is a measure guaranteed to yield results, and an increase in child poverty is exactly what will happen as a consequence of the measure introduced in the budget.

Most people find it difficult to comprehend how the reduction in the respite care grant can be worth the saving of €26 million it will yield. It defies logic that the Government would go down this route. There has been endless talk from Members opposite since I came into this House about the importance of primary care. It is certainly the right way to go, particularly the philosophy of keeping people in their homes. This particular measure, however, flies in the face of that philosophy. Before becoming a Member of this House, I had not met many people working as carers in the home. Since then, I have been struck by how incredibly difficult a job it is. It is, moreover, a job which is vastly underrated and unappreciated by people in general, including by me before I met some of these individuals in person.

Apart from making their job more difficult, the cut in the respite care grant is an insult to carers because it detracts from the value of what they do. We should be taking the absolutely opposite approach. I would not like to have to endure the working conditions that are a feature of life for so many carers, irrespective of what I received for doing so. Instead of subjecting them to more hardship, we must give credit to those who sacrifice so many aspects of their life to undertake this role. I was taken aback by the evident hurt of the people I met outside Leinster House last week. It is not merely that their lives will be made even more difficult by this loss of income, but there is great hurt at the conviction that they are not appreciated for the work they do.

There were alternatives available to the Government in this budget. We are told that the corporation tax rate is sacrosanct and an increase would lead to a diversion of foreign direct investment. We are told that the tax relief on large pension funds must remain unchanged lest investment moves out of this country. It is not a good idea, we are warned, to impose a higher tax rate on incomes above €100,000 because this would have a negative impact on jobs and investment in the long term. Yet it is okay to reduce supports for carers and children. There is a lack of logic there. Poor households will have poor children. Do we have a responsibility to ensure children do not go hungry, that they have proper shoes and do not have to sleep in damp bedrooms? Do we in this House have a responsibility when we have made conditions so difficult for households that such deprivations are bound to arise?

See this speech in context