Dáil debates

Thursday, 13 December 2012

Social Welfare Bill 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages

 

Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:In page 3, subsection (4), line 17, to delete “Section 13” and substitute “Sections 13, 15, 16 and 17".(Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton).

11:55 am

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point I was making last night is that while this provision may appear to be technical, it provides the Minister with permission to commence changes to the lone parents regime, including the withdrawal of the lone parent payment when the youngest child reaches a particular age. We were given an assurance last year that this provision would not come into effect until such time as child care arrangements had been put in place.

Where a lone parent payment is withdrawn, a parent will have to sign on and make a declaration that he or she is available for full-time employment. The parent will then be asked to take up a place on a Tús or back to education scheme and so on. The difficulty that arises, not for parents but for children, is that in the absence of adequate child care places children will be left to care for themselves. One would expect that where a parent leaves a child on his or her own all day social services would, possibly, take that child into care. Yet, an arm of this State will later this year commence an order which encourages this.

I do not disagree with the policy change in terms of providing people with a way back to work. However, I do not believe it is possible to do this without first ensuring there are guaranteed child care places for the children of parents forced to return to work, where those children are below an age at which they can reasonably care for themselves. If the Minister can give that commitment, then it is appropriate to enforce this arrangement. If not, she will be putting parents in impossible situations. Not alone will they lose their lone parent payment but they may lose entitlement to rent assistance. This could become a major issue during the next year.

The Minister referred to the ten new offices throughout the country. While I understand these are part of a pilot scheme, ten new offices will not cut it in terms of the number of child care places required. There are almost 450,000 people unemployed. There are not jobs and places on schemes for all of the people at whom this change is aimed. I urge the Minister to postpone this commencement order until after the pilot scheme is up and running, following which a more comprehensive scheme in respect of the provision of child care places for the children of lone parents who are going to be asked to seek full time employment can be put in place.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to put on the record of the House that much of the discussion by the Opposition around the lone parent and carers issues is confusing people. I will explain to Members what a single parent with a special needs child receives from the Department by way of income support, which with a special needs child such parent would, of course, need. A single parent of a special needs child is entitled to €188 per week plus €30 for the child. In addition, he or she receives a half rate carer's allowance. As such, a parent with one child, who is a special needs child, would receive a weekly social welfare payment of €319.80. This is important in the context of the policy debate we are having. The €319.80 payment is made up of a one-parent family payment of €188, a child payment of €29.80 per week and a half rate carer's allowance of €102 per week or €309.50 per month.

As I have stated previously, I have protected primary weekly payments. When in government, Fianna Fáil cut the lone parent payment by more than €16 per week. I want to put what is being discussed here in context. A single parent with one child, who is a special needs child, receives-----

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order-----

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----€319.80 per week. In addition, from next year the parent will also receive €130 per month in child benefit.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order-----

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister without interruption please.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Murphy raised the issue of concern for lone parents. A lone parent who is a carer - I know the Deputy is aware of this - is not, as suggested by Deputy Murphy, required to seek employment because he or she is, by virtue of being a carer, deemed to be working. In addition to the €319.80 per week payment plus €130 per month by way of child benefit, a lone parent is entitled to the household benefits package and a travel pass. The household benefits package includes a €3 per week television allowance, an estimated €2 per week free travel allowance; a €10 electricity allowance and a telephone allowance of between €5 and €6 per week. In addition, a lone parent who is a carer is entitled to a respite care grant of €1,375 per annum. In international terms - I know the Deputy is aware of this - our lone parent and carer payments are among the highest in Europe.

The lone parents with whom I have spoken say that what they would like is more certainty around the availability of respite places and other services for the child for whom they are caring. I want to make it clear that what many of the carers with whom I have spoken want, in terms of reform of the system, is more certainty in relation to respite care places. The package of payments for a carer in receipt exclusively of the carer's allowance is worth €13,350 per annum.

If the person being cared for lives with the carer and is an adult, he or she is entitled to disability payments amounting to approximately €11,000 per year. The total package, therefore, for a disabled adult being cared for by a spouse is worth €24,370 per year. Deputy Murphy and I would both like to make that payment higher, but the worst reduction in payments to such people was made by Fianna Fáil when it cut the allowance for a disabled adult being cared for by a spouse by €16 per week over the course of a number of budgets. It also took over €16 per week from carers over the course of a number of budgets. That is the cut that cut the deepest for those families comprising a lone parent caring for a child or an adult caring for a disabled person.

12:05 pm

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is outrageous.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me say, with regard to-----

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Chairman, on a point of order-----

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Dea, on a point of order.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have yet to discuss issues such as the respite care grant and various cuts that will affect people, particularly those currently outside the gate. I ask that the Minister stop filibustering and let us get on with a proper discussion-----

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, Deputy-----

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These are the facts, Deputy-----

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not a point of order.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is talking down the clock.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not a point of order, as the Deputy well knows.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is not addressing the issue raised.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The facts are very important-----

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, please.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no point of order.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----for the people who are outside the House.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, please.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Murphy wishes to make a point of order.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, Deputy Murphy, but you had your opportunity to-----

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is not answering the point I raised.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, but that is not a point of order.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a point of order. She is not speaking about the issue raised.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Murphy made a valid point and the Minister is not addressing it.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She is filibustering.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not a point of order, and the Deputy is interrupting.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is not speaking on the amendment. She is not dealing with the issue that was raised.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Deputy Murphy to resume her seat. That is not a point of order. The Deputy had an opportunity to speak on the amendment and has spoken. I ask her to allow the Minister to conclude.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is not addressing the amendment.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She is not speaking on the amendment. Does the Chairman even know which amendment we are dealing with?

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse me, Deputies, please. We are dealing with the Minister's amendment.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what we are supposed to be dealing with, but the Minister is not addressing the issue.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She is not dealing with the issue.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Deputy Murphy to resume her seat and allow the Minister to conclude.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There should be no favouritism in this House.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the amendment, we are talking about lone parents and the fact that we are reforming the one-parent family system to bring it into line with the best such systems that operate in other European countries. I took a particular category of lone parent - namely, a lone parent looking after a child with a disability - and pointed out, reasonably, that such a person is not, as the Deputy was suggesting, required to go out and find work. The fact that the person is a carer is fully recognised by the staff in every social welfare office of the Department of Social Protection.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not the point I made and the Minister knows it.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding lone parents whose children are growing up and are in school, reforms are being introduced, and I am glad - if I understood her correctly - that Deputy Murphy is supportive of this. We are providing lone parents with the options of returning to education or training, gaining work experience and getting back to work.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about child care?

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am aware that Deputy Murphy knows of and cares about many parents who are parenting on their own. The best outlook for such parents and for their children, whom they love and care for so much, will come from our assistance in getting them back into the labour force or into training and education, which will open up a life of opportunity for themselves and their children.

We have one of the highest rates of direct payments for parents and children in Europe. These figures are verifiable. Our risk of poverty is reduced by almost 50% more than even the richest of European countries because our level of transfers and payments is so high. I know that Deputy Murphy and many other Deputies would like to increase them.

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We just do not want them to be cut.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We should think about putting more of the resources into services. That is why, for instance, in this budget I am increasing funding for the provision of hot school meals and for the special initiatives for children in disadvantaged areas. Deputy Murphy, to some extent, is not looking at the question of how to ensure we have a strong social welfare system that is not simply strong in terms of income transfers. All of the European statistics show that it is exceptionally strong in that regard and even rich European countries do not, in many cases, have the level of transfers that we have. Instead, what they have is a much more active social welfare system that encourages people back to work.

I said already that we have ten offices now operating the new system of social welfare. These are not pilots but are the first wave of the transformation of the Department of Social Protection from being a passive Department that simply pays money to people who unfortunately have lost their jobs or who, for other reasons, are getting a social welfare income, to an active Department that not only pays people an income but also enters into a contract with them - a contract between the individual and the Department on behalf of our citizens and taxpayers - that the Department will give the individual and his or her family their entitlements in the form of income supports but will also oblige the person, particularly as his or her children grow up and attend school, to get back into education and training and back to work. That combination is a win for the family and a win for Irish society and taxpayers.

There are approximately 96,000 lone-parent families in Ireland. Think of all of the talent and energy that could be harnessed by my Department by helping those families get back into education and work and back to financial independence. Deputies know that the families and individuals who get back into employment and regain their financial independence are the winners. If one talks to women in their fifties or sixties who have been parenting on their own they will say that getting a good job was the best step they took. If, however, a woman in her twenties or early thirties who is looking after a baby on her own delays taking that step for a long time and delays updating her education, training and qualifications for ten or 20 years, it is quite hard for her to make up the gap in terms of getting a reasonable job and becoming financially independent. I make no apologies for saying that this is a reform-----

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about child care?

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a reform of the social welfare system about which I feel passionate because I went to school with people who, for various reasons, had to rely on social welfare for their income. The best help for somebody in his or her early twenties or thirties who is dependent on a State payment is for the State to assist him or her to become financially independent. I know from private conversations I have had with Deputy Murphy that she shares that vision. That is what we want-----

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A guarantee of affordable child care - that is all I want.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We want people of working age to be able-----

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The problem is child care.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Allow the Minister to conclude, please.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the-----

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Allow the Minister to conclude - to conclude, Chairman. That is the important bit.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will deal with that, Deputy O'Dea.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister must conclude.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, Deputy; I will deal with that.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is why I have made provision in the budget for 10,000 extra activation places, consisting of 3,000 on JobBridge, 2,500 on Tús, 3,000 in the local authorities and 2,000 in CE schemes.

When we discussed CE schemes this time last year the Deputies opposite all claimed they would close down and the supervisors would lose their jobs. We are in fact increasing the number of places. I accept these changes have to be worked through and I respect the right of Deputies to examine them minutely but they will open up opportunities for people, particularly lone parents, to become financially independent.

Amendment put and declared carried.

12:15 pm

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 2

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 are related and will be discussed together.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 3, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:“ “Act of 2012” means the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2012;”.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Agreed.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We agree to it.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These amendments are consequential on the insertion of a new section 14 providing for the deferral of the dates on which the age reductions for one-parent family payments will take effect. Under the provisions of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2012-----

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, we already discussed this.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendment is in the name of the Minister, who has the right to move it and speak to it.

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She moved the amendment yesterday. That is what we were discussing.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please refrain.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is shameful.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputies' turn will come when we get to their amendments.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will not get our turn because the Minister is filibustering.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of tabling an amendment is to have an opportunity to speak. Almost two hours were wasted this morning in chicanery -----

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

----- that could have been used to debate this Bill.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order -----

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not a point of order. The Minister is in possession.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, the Acting Chair made a comment regarding the use of time in this House. That is not his role. If he was sitting in the benches opposite it would be appropriate but as Chair he is supposed to chair the proceedings not comment on the use of time and legitimate calls for votes.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy's role as he now sees it is not what he thinks it is either. The Minister is in possession and having moved her amendment she is entitled to speak to it. If the Deputy wishes to put down more amendments -----

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She spoke on the amendment last night.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, I am dealing with the situation as it was presented to me.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am doing what the Cathaoirleach has asked me to do. I hope Deputies appreciate that. Under the provisions of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2012, the qualifying age of the youngest child for the purpose of entitlement to one-parent family payments is due to decrease from 12 to ten years with effect from the beginning of January 2013 and from ten to seven years with effect from January 2014. The new section 14 provides for a deferral of these dates to the beginning of July 2013 and July 2014, respectively. Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 provide for a common reference in the new section 14 to the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2012, which is referred as the Act of 2012 for the purpose of this Bill.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not even want an answer from the Minister.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do not give her the opportunity.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has a right to speak to the amendment. There are no preconditions, however.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why is the Chair stopping me?

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have encouraged her to respond to the Minister.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I spoke on this subject last night. The Minister opened the debate this morning by claiming that we are confusing matters. She is confusing matters. This is precisely the issue I addressed last night. Will child care places be made available for all those who are forced onto jobseeker's benefit when their youngest children turn 12 after 3 May 2012? I do not want a response. I merely want to make the point that we discussed this issue last night and this morning. I am not going to continue speaking because I do not want to wind down the clock but if the Minister is serious about this she will not commence it until there is a space for every child who requires one. There is no point in making a space for a parent on a job activation scheme unless there is also a child care place for the child.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have engaged in intensive work with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs over the past year so that the State could provide additional child care places. This is why I was happy to announce an additional 6,000 after-school places. Ireland is starting from a low base in regard to child care. All of us recognise that our child benefits and lone parent payments are among the highest in Europe. However, in most other countries in Europe, including 90 miles to the north, lone parents do not retain that status exclusively once their children attend school. This is to give the parents the opportunity to get involved in education, training and community work, which will assist them and their families to become financially independent. The best social welfare systems provide income support, particularly when the children have not yet started school full-time, while also giving tremendous support to help people return to education, training and, ultimately, employment and financial independence. That is the purpose of the changes to the lone parent payments.

These changes have been welcomed. Last night Deputy Ó Snodaigh, like most of the other Deputies who spoke in the debate, welcomed the extension of time and the additional child care places. I think this is an important initiative and I hope the House will support it as a progressive development which will open new horizons for people who are parenting alone. Even though we have been discussing painful reductions in this budget, our lone parent and childhood supports are among the highest in Europe. Successive Governments have devoted 37% of their budgets to social welfare. That has resulted in a reduction of the at risk of poverty rate of 60%, which is twice the average of almost every other European country, including some particularly wealthy ones. I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment put and declared carried.

12:25 pm

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 7, in the name of Deputy Ó Snodaigh, is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer. Amendment No. 8, also in his name, is out of order because it is declaratory in nature.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can discuss those amendments when discussing the section, but I will be brief. It is a pity, as Deputy O'Dea mentioned last night, that the rules of the House do not allow us to put practical proposals forward because they would involve a potential charge on the Exchequer. This makes our job, as Opposition Members, difficult. The Government continuously harangues us and asks us to come up with solutions or alternatives, but the rules of the House make that very difficult for us. I urge the Minister, through her Whip - I myself will raise the issue in the context of Dáil reform - to try to change the Standing Order that prevents us from being progressive and positive in our duties as legislators. This sums up what was included in my amendments.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can help the Deputy out. It is traditional in Parliament that when Members put forward an amendment that imposes a charge on the Exchequer, that must come from somewhere within the existing Estimate, and that must be qualified. That is the long-standing tradition in this House, as I know from my years on the benches. As the other spokesman will readily acknowledge, there is no provision for making an amendment to a Bill that involves an extra raising of tax and an extension of a charge that goes outside the particular Estimate.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order-----

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no point of order in regard to this.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a point of order.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, there is no point of order. The issue is not for debate at all. I gave latitude to the Deputy in whose name the amendment was put forward.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This concerns the definition section. The ruling makes it difficult for us to do our job. While part of our proposals might involve a charge, there is a benefit and saving included. I will not labour the point but just want to say that it is difficult for those of us in opposition to contribute, because we are not given the option, even where we are progressive, if there is a charge involved. Despite the fact there may be a benefit further down the track, we are prevented from contributing, unless the Government takes our suggestion on board.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was my point of order.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point is noted, but it is not a point of order.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 5, subsection (5), lines 1 and 2, to delete “Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2012” and substitute “Act of 2012”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 4

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 12, in the name of Deputy Catherine Murphy, is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Amendment No. 12 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This arises from legislation passed in 1997, which provided that the number of contributions required to qualify for pension was to double from 260 to 520. Budget 2012 gave effect to that and the legislation was passed in its wake and it has been sought to apply this to everyone from April of this year. We objected to this move at the time. We were lobbied by a number of individuals who were fast approaching retirement age, only to discover that their pension entitlement would be only a fraction of what they had expected.

This measure seems to affect women in particular. It seems the legislation overlooked some small categories of contributions and since April, some 540 people managed to qualify for the pension with only 260 contributions. What the measure does is ensure the exclusion of those categories from qualifying, unless they are able to reach the higher number of contributions. We favour a move towards a more universal basic pension. Therefore, measures that would further restrict eligibility move in the wrong direction. This measure only affects a small number of people. Given our opposition to it and given the effect it has had on people fast approaching retirement, we feel we should oppose this measure at this stage, although it will not matter so much in a number of years.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The number of people now discovering that what they had hoped would be a guaranteed pension at 65 is not what they hoped for has become more obvious during this year. This measure tends to affect disproportionately people who have had to take time out of the workforce and that is the reason I oppose this section.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As in the case of section 3, the changes I propose in this section also follow on from the pension reform measures I announced in the budget in December 2011, which were implemented from September of this year. Two changes in the State pension contributory scheme are contained in this section, one of which aligns the contribution conditions applying to the pension across all categories of claimant. The other abolishes a provision which is no longer required.

Under legislation which was enacted in 1997, the number of PRSI contributions a claimant for the contributory State pension is required to have paid in order to be eligible for that pension increased from 156 to 260, with effect from April of 2002. This further increased to 520, with effect from April of this year. That plan was set out in 1997 and was implemented in 2002, with the final part being implemented in April 2012. The 1997 legislation provided for a number of consequential amendments and for "savers" to protect existing pensioners. However, the 1997 legislation inadvertently omitted to provide for the increase from 260 to 520 in the case of a particular category of claimant for the contributory State pension.

The 260 contribution requirement still applies in the case of claimants for contributory State pension who have a reduced yearly average of between ten and 20 contributions. This means that this particular category of claimant is treated differently from all other claimants for contributory State pension, including claimants for other reduced rate pensions who are required to have paid a minimum of 520 PRSI contributions. Section 4 aligns this requirement in the case of all claimants for contributory State pension who reach pension age from 1 January 2013 onwards. Existing recipients of the contributory State pension will not be affected by this measure.

Section 4 makes a further amendment to abolish a provision which is no longer required. Special pension arrangements were introduced in 1988 to cater for people who had been affected by the operation of the earning limit for insurability purposes that applied in the case of non-manual workers before 1974. In those days, a distinction was made between manual workers and people who worked in offices. Manual workers paid a stamp, but middle management and other office workers who had access to company pension schemes did not. Before the pre-1974 arrangement was changed, certain people who had gaps in their social insurance records relating to periods when they were not covered by social insurance found it difficult to meet the existing reduced yearly average requirements for the purposes of the contributory State pension. In those circumstances, special lower rate pensions were introduced to cater for these groups. The range of reduced rate pensions generally available to claimants of the contributory State pension has been improved since 1988. As a result, there is no longer any difference between the reduced rate payable under these special arrangements and the reduced rate of the contributory State pension generally. As a consequence, section 4 of the Bill proposes to abolish these provisions in the case of those who reach pension age on or after 1 January 2013. Existing beneficiaries of these special pension arrangements will not be affected by this measure.

12:35 pm

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must put the question.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Say nothing.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This section is opposed by Deputies Joan Collins, Patrick Nulty, Willie O'Dea, Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Catherine Murphy. Is it agreed to?

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not agreed.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought the Deputies were not going to speak at all.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We were waiting for the Chair to give us an opportunity to do so.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was waiting for somebody to stand.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the most odious section of this short Bill which will have far-reaching consequences. It proposes a reduction from €1,700 to €1,375 in the annual respite care grant. I had intended to make a longer contribution on this matter, but I am aware that many Deputies want to speak on it. I have received many e-mails on this issue. I hope that by reading from an e-mail I have received from a carer which has been signed "a very tired woman", I can capture everything I had intended to say:

I am the mother of 3 children, 2 of whom have special needs. My children need 24/7 care, 365 days, that is every single day since they were born, there are no holidays away with them or from them, I am all they have as their father died last year. This cut in the respite grant plus the children's allowance having a 10 euro cut per child plus the cut in the household [benefits] package plus the increase of medical prescriptions has left me in tears, literally tears. As a one income family, I can't work as my daughter has so many therapies and hospital appointments, there is no job in the land who would employ me if I was to go to Galway Monday for hospital appointments and Dublin for treatments Thursday and the other side of Mayo for dental treatments another day, let alone the rare but needed speech therapy that was hard fought for. I barely am able to pay for the car that takes us to all these places by the Domiciliary Care Allowance and the tax/insurance is paid by the Respite Grant, the petrol is almost covered by the children's allowance but not now. It's a struggle to shop every week, to keep oil in the tank, coal on the fire, and God forbid, a letter comes home from the school looking for money for something or one of them need new shoes or rips a trousers or the car breaks down, my nightmares revolve around that, when I can sleep of course [and] as I said, my special needs child is 24/7 and sleep is a luxury at times. The money I get weekly/monthly/annually is earned, every single cent. 325 euro is small change to most in this government, it's a meal for the buddies and the 20 euro a month I am losing on children's allowance is the equivalent of ONE bottle of wine with that meal. Small change to those who can change our lives while they have never known financial insecurity or what it is to ceiling stare in fright and fear thinking and worrying about how am I going to last another 3 days with no money in my purse or bank. This government has us hard against a wall though, they know we can't protest in the thousands that we are because we can't bring the people we care for out of their homes into the streets in a lot of cases. They know we will never abandon our people like the government has.
That is part of a longer e-mail.


I urge the Minister to examine her conscience and the Government to examine its collective conscience. They need to reverse this cut. They should delete this section of the Bill. The e-mail from which I have read captures all of the despair and distress it is causing. The consequences of this cut will be felt on the collective conscience of the Government. I have mentioned that I have received e-mails from many distressed parents and carers who have contemplated the worst. I urge the Government to give them some hope by deleting this section. We have set out some of the alternative ways of gathering the small few million euro involved. If the Government does not act, it will have electoral consequences for the Deputies on the other side of the House and the poor carers in our society who are struggling day in, day out. The Minister referred to them as unsung heroes, but I suggest that was an insult to them. One looks up to one's heroes. One praises and supports them in their times of need. By introducing this measure, the Minister is not supporting them.

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is one of the main areas people believe should be protected. The Minister has made the point that this grant was approximately €700 or €900 in 2004 and suggested she is not really eating into it. This measure will have huge repercussions for every single person who is caring for someone and also for the person who needs such care. The Government should reverse this cut because it did not form part of the remit it was given when it was elected to office. It is not good enough. The amount involved is just €26.15 million. Our next amendment outlines how this and all other cuts can be reversed by taxing wealth and incomes of more than €100,000. Deputies have an opportunity to act in line with the words they spoke when they made their promises a number of months ago.

Those who look after people who need to be supported every day, week and month of the year are the unsung heroes of our society. There is a great deal of anger and the protest was smaller today. People are saying if the Government implements this cut, they will bring those for whom they are caring into accident and emergency departments and leave them there in order that the State will have to look after them. They do not believe they are being given enough support to care for those who need care. They have also said word is getting out, in the context of The Gathering next year, that one should not come to Ireland if one needs care, etc. I ask the Minister to delete this section of the Bill and support the people in question. She should not claim that the sum of €325 is insignificant in the context of all other benefits and supports they receive.

They need this money. The cost of living has gone up, in particular for electricity, gas and bus fares. Many would have travel passes but the fact is people are finding it more difficult to live and they need that protection and support. We are not asking for increases at the moment. We are asking the Minister please to not cut the respite care grant.

12:45 pm

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I listened with interest to the e-mail read out by Deputy Ó Snodaigh. I have also received numerous messages and it is distressing just to read them, let alone try to imagine the distress those unfortunate people and those they are caring for are enduring.

I appeal to the Minister. People outside the House who watch the exchanges, clashes, debates and interaction here would be surprised at how many things we privately agree on. If all of the 166 Deputies were asked privately, off the record, what their opinion of this change was, I suggest they would all be of the one view, whether they were Government or Opposition Deputies. They would simply be of the view that it is a mistake, it is unfortunate, it looks very bad for the Government and it is a pity it happened.

I am not attributing any superhuman qualities to the Minister for Social Protection. We are all human and we all make mistakes. I am nobody to lecture anybody on mistakes as I have made more than my fair share. However, I have learned in life that the best thing to do when one makes a mistake is to acknowledge it, correct it if possible and move on. It was George Bernard Shaw who said there was no shame in admitting one has made a mistake; it only means one is wiser today than one was yesterday.

To anticipate some of what the Minister might come back with, one of her central defences of the social welfare provisions in the budget is that she has not cut the basic rates. The fact is that everybody in receipt of carer's allowance is entitled to the respite care grant, so their income is not just the €204 per week, it is €204 plus the total of the respite grant which, divided by 52, comes to €32.50. Therefore, it is €204 plus €32.50, which makes €236.50, in effect. As a result of this change, they will come out with €6.50 a week less.

There are a minority of people who, for one reason or another, do not qualify for the carer's allowance, perhaps because their spouse's income is too high or over the limit. Nevertheless, they are doing a tremendous job of caring on a full-time basis for somebody who is disabled or ill. In return for that work, they get a measly €32.50 per week from the State, and that is now being cut to €26.50, a 19% cut for that particular category. Incidentally, we should bear in mind that carer's allowance is a means-tested payment so people who qualify for the carer's allowance are certainly not the rich. They must pass a means test, and while this is more generous than the ordinary social welfare means test, it is restrictive enough nonetheless.

The Taoiseach told us on the Order of Business in recent days that the Government is spending over €780 million on carers this year. I accept that and I acknowledge it is a fair chunk of money. However, the contribution which carers are making to this State, if the State had to pick up the tab for the work they are doing, is estimated by independent economists at approximately €5 billion per year. This is the only category of social welfare where we are getting back a multiple of what we are giving out. As somebody said recently, carers are the only recipients of social welfare who are actually working for the money they are getting. God knows, even as it stands, it is paltry enough for the amount of work.

There is nobody in this House, or nobody I know outside it, who works harder than a full-time carer - that is a fact. My mother died earlier this year. She was in a nursing home and two of my sisters took turns to visit her and stay with her. Even that - taking turns and visiting somebody who was being cared for by somebody else - really exhausted them. I cannot even begin to imagine what it is like caring for somebody on a full-time basis.

As I said, the State gets back six or seven times what it puts into carers. The amount of money involved here is €26 million, which is a drop in the ocean in a budget adjustment of €3.5 billion. We are told it cannot be changed but nobody has explained why. Last year, there was a bigger adjustment in regard to disability and it had to be changed and was changed. Ministers came out and said they had got it wrong, and they were respected and admired for that. There were a few journalists who wrote headlines about U-turns and so on, but people appreciated the fact Ministers saw they had made a mistake and were good enough to stand up and change their minds in regard to a much bigger amount.

We are also told that if the €26 million has to be found, it has to be found elsewhere in the social welfare budget. Why? What particular rule of accountancy or arithmetic dictates this? In any case, while I am sure the Minister could find it elsewhere within the social welfare budget, she does not have to. Some €26 million is less than €2 million across each of 14 Government Departments. If the 14 Departments are so strapped they cannot find a sum of less than €2 million each to make this up, then the slightest adjustment to the taxation system would provide €26 million without affecting the budgetary arithmetic at all.

The commitment to the troika, as I understand it, was to come in this year at a deficit of not more than 8.3% of gross domestic product. The Government has pointed out, as it is entitled to do, that it is coming in at 8.2%, which is under what is required. The sum of €26 million will not change that arithmetic one iota.

Like other Deputies, I met carers outside Leinster House last week and many of them have been in contact with me in recent days. The one issue that was really distressing them was the chasm between what they were experiencing and suffering and the stated views of certain Members in here. One Minister of State said they could stay in a top hotel for €700 a week and told them to get on with it. It is very easy for a junior Minister to express sentiments like that because a junior Minister is being paid 13 times per week the basic rate of carer's allowance. A junior Minister could earn the €325 which is being cut from the respite care grant in less than a day - their basic earnings are approximately €380 per day, before expenses and other ancillaries such as drivers, free telephones and so on. What a crass, unfeeling, unsympathetic approach to take from someone who is doing so well.

The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, when on this side of the House used to throw moral imperatives like lollipops, with several per day and three or four at lunchtime. He said this was a "modest" reduction. It might be a modest reduction for the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, because he is earning €169,000 a year or 17 times the basic rate of carer's allowance. He earns €470 per day, seven days a week. By 3 p.m. today, Deputy Rabbitte will have earned the equivalent of the cut in the respite care grant. In general, I find that if one believes one is going to subtract from rather than add to the sum of human knowledge when one speaks, it is better not to speak at all.

Photo of Stephen DonnellyStephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Deputy O'Dea please watch the time?

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will conclude on this point.

When one considers what Ireland's position might be like a year from now, the focus must be on the factors, including external factors, on which that position is dependent. These include the extent to which we can activate the domestic economy, the situation in the eurozone, whether a debt resolution agreement is reached with our European partners and so on. Whether or not this particular cut is imposed today will not make the slightest difference to where Ireland stands economically in 12 months. This decision is very bad politically for the Minister's party. I accept that she does not need political advice from me, but the reality is that it will leave an indelible stain on the record of this Government and particularly on that of the Labour Party. There is no need for that to happen. Financially, it will make not an ounce of difference but will impose disproportionate hardship on the people who least deserve it. I urge the Minister - I am doing so in a non-partisan way - to reconsider this decision. From her own point of view, it is not worth the candle.

12:55 pm

Photo of Patrick NultyPatrick Nulty (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed that the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, is not accompanied by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, today. After all, this is a Fine Gael budget. I have no doubt that if the Labour Party had framed it, the measures that we are discussing would not have been included. It is the Fine Gael Party that is driving economic policy and putting us in a situation where these measures have to be brought forward. I have no interest in what Fianna Fáil has to say. I am not a part of that political tradition, nor am I part of the political tradition of Sinn Féin. I am part of the tradition of the labour movement. I joined a trade union when I was old enough to work and the Labour Party when I was old enough to vote. In fact, I voted for the Minister, Deputy Burton. I was a socialist as soon as I was old enough to reflect on the inequalities that exist in our society.

We have been told that there are no alternatives to the measures set out in this Bill. If I could accept that as truth, I would vote for the legislation. The reality, however, is that there are plenty of alternatives. As Susan George, the great American writer, observed, the world is full of alternatives. Proposals in this regard have been made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Claiming Our Future and TASC. My colleagues, Deputy Thomas Broughan and Ms Nessa Childers, MEP, and I have presented options. Alternatives have been offered by virtually every progressive voice in Irish society, pleading with the Government to reverse the cut in the respite care grant and child benefit and instead to impose higher taxes on people earning more than €100,000 per year. In response to a recent parliamentary question by Deputy Michael Conaghan, it was revealed that a tax rate of 48% on incomes above that threshold would bring in €365 million per annum. That cannot be done, however, because Fine Gael will not allow it. The Labour Party has a choice, therefore, either to agree to a compromise which is not sufficient or to stand up to its partner in government.

Last year the Minister, Deputy Burton, and others disagreed with my decision to vote against an austerity budget. I respect their position. However, I do not accept that a single voter sent me into this House to cut the respite grant for carers and take €10 from the allowance paid to every mother in this country. These decisions are shameful. It is even more shameful that outstanding members of my party will be forced to vote for this measure out of some blind faith and loyalty to an archaic 19th century Whip system which demands adherence to the party line irrespective of personal convictions. It is my conviction that these cuts are wrong and alternatives could have been chosen. For God's sake, let us stand together to effect their reversal, no matter what the consequences. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments to this end.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Even people who are not affected by the reduction in the respite care grant are deeply concerned by it. In fact, it has become a lightning rod for public dissatisfaction with Government policy. If the Minister listens to the people in her own party and in Fine Gael, she will discover that they all have their antennae up and have realised that this measure is unacceptable. It is purely a case of stubbornness and the desire to save face that is behind the claim of there being no alternatives. As others have stated, there certainly are alternatives to what is proposed in this measure.

The Minister argued that the respite care grant has increased substantially in recent years. The reality, however, is that the demands on that payment have also increased. For example, the cost of home heating fuels has increased significantly. People engaged in caring work face a disproportionate cost in this area because they are predominantly doing so in their own home. The cost of health care has increased. Moreover, the reduction in front-line services means that the respite care grant is very often used to plug gaps such as the lack of speech and language or occupational therapy. The notion that it is used in some type of frivolous way, that it is there for the little treats or extras, is completely to misunderstand the purposes for which it is used by the vast majority of recipients. In most cases it is not about paying for a week's holiday. Even if it were used for that purpose, to afford some rest and respite for carers, it would probably make a great deal of sense from a health care perspective. One third of all carers become ill themselves as a result of the stresses and strains of looking after another person 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

I will conclude shortly because I know that colleagues are anxious to speak. I referred in this Chamber earlier in the week to a woman - a constituent of the Tánaiste - to whom I had spoken outside Leinster House. She told me that her house is locked down at all times because she is caring for her young adult child who has autism and cannot access adult services. The young person is essentially a flight risk. This woman and others like her have taken grave offence to this cut because they feel they have been singled out. Everybody in society is offended that this vulnerable group is being targeted once again. I appeal to the Minister to show a little bit of sense and reason on this particular measure. Even if it is the only change she agrees to, it would at least demonstrate a degree of humanity. If she does not want to hear what we on the Opposition benches are saying, I urge her to heed what Government backbenchers have said. This decision is simply wrong.

Photo of Brendan  RyanBrendan Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 5 is the first of a number of sections which give effect to income reductions for certain categories of people who are in receipt of social welfare. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, announced on budget day that subsidies for pension funds which deliver an income of more than €60,000 per year will be capped. This cap, which is projected to bring in €250 million in a year, is not due to come into effect until 1 January 2014. If this measure were brought in sooner, on 1 July, for example - which independent experts have indicated is entirely possible if the political will is there - it would bring in €125 million next year. I realise there would be an off-set for the levy that is currently there, but that could be adhered to for the remaining months of the year. Even if the introduction of the cap were delayed to 1 September 2013, it would potentially bring in €80 million.

In the context of the number of cuts that are being proposed in the legislation today, has the possibility of bringing forward the pension subsidy cap been considered seriously at Cabinet and, if not, why not? It is a budget adjustment that has been agreed with our partners in government, so it simply seems to be a question of timing. Given that the respite care grant is not payable until June, there is time to consider whether an earlier implementation of the subsidy cap might obviate the need for a reduction in it and other income supports.

In the area of child benefit, for example, €125 million would go a long way towards obviating the need for that cut as well.

1:05 pm

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief. The people the Minister is hitting with this measure will also be affected by cuts to the clothing and footwear allowances, child benefit and the property tax. We are talking about many hundreds of euro being taken from the income of people who are doing a service to the State by looking after their loved ones. To take this action is obnoxious and nauseating. One cannot describe it as fair; it is obscene and indecent. The Minister has claimed consistently she had no alternatives in this regard and had to make hard choices. I find the use of the word "hard" extraordinary. What carers do is hard, in fact "hard" does not even come close to describing what they have to do. They must engage intensely at an emotional, physical, economic and every imaginable level in order to care for their loved ones, thereby providing a service at a massive saving to the State. To do this to them is unconscionable.

The Minister stated there were no alternatives but when alternatives are put to her and to the Government she merely reiterates that headline allowances are being maintained and sings her own praises. Will she answer us directly and simply? Why did she make the choice to do this rather than to increase, even marginally, the tax on those with incomes of more than €100,000 a year? Will she answer that simple question? This point was made by her Labour Party colleagues, and all the groups in civil society mentioned by Deputy Nulty have asked her to do this, but we still have not had a straight answer. Instead of doing this, why would the Minister not increase the PRSI levels for those earning in excess of €100,000 a year? It is a simple choice and is contained in an amendment we tabled. The Minister could do it, and save all this hardship and suffering for people who do not deserve it, those who are the most decent people and the real heroes of our society. Will the Minister not pull back from this and show them the respect they deserve?

Photo of John HalliganJohn Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My sister is a carer. She cared for my mother for seven years and has been taking care of my father for eight years. Unfortunately - or fortunately for us - most of my family work and are unable to help her out, but we know she works 24 hours a day because my father needs that level of care. In light of the work she does and the hours she puts in, I have often thought that if she worked anywhere else in the world her work would be classified as slave labour. There would be uproar and understandable outrage that people should work so hard for so little. That is the salient point in this debate. Whatever small amount of money we are taking away, to do so is unforgivable.

I have spoken to many carers in both Waterford and Dublin. Next week there will be a Private Members' Bill on carers, which we hope the Minister will support. What is deeply upsetting for many carers is not that the Minister has taken the money away but that her Department would sit down and contemplate attacking the most vulnerable and hard-working people in Ireland today. If she speaks to carers, as she must do because all of us have done so, she will see they are deeply upset. I say that rather than "annoyed" because we are all annoyed at things now and again. Carers are deeply upset that members of the Minister's Department would sit down with her and even think about making this cut. As one who sees what a carer does, I make an appeal. I am sure other people present also have carers in their families, but I see what my sister does. She is very small, weighs only about seven stone but I know what she has to do 24 hours a day with my father, and what she had to do for my mother before she died. What upset her was not that the Minister took the money away but that she sat down and thought about doing so.

I will leave it at that because other people wish to speak. I appeal to the Minister on this, above all the cuts she has made, because it concerns the people who work hardest in society, some of them 24 hours a day. My sister has to get up five or six times every night. I did the work one weekend to give her a break and did not bother going to bed the second night because I had to turn my father in the bed so often, a consequence of the illness he has. Carers do not deserve to have any kind of cut to their grant. In fact they could do with an increase because of the work they do.

Photo of Stephen DonnellyStephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief. To be honest, I cannot understand how we are having this debate, over €26 million. The Minister is an accountant and I imagine she shares my reaction, to a degree. I can give her 100 better ways to raise €26 million. Next year €170 million will be paid in increments; €700 million has been paid in increments during the past four years. I cannot say better than Deputy Nulty's contribution. To have this type of grief and anguish over €26 million - within the scale of this budget - is beyond me.

Photo of Luke FlanaganLuke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In this country we hear a great deal about respect for institutions and various different things but from what I have seen during the past week this is the big one as far as people are concerned. It is one of many big ones but it seems to be coming to the top of the pile. On numerous occasions we have heard carers ask what we would do if they were not taking care of their people. One lady pointed out that if she had a breakdown, as she suspects she will if the Minister takes this money away from her, it would cost €300,000 a year to take care of her two beautiful sons.

Alternatives have been proposed in the Chamber, even by Government Deputies. Carers have described what would happen if they were not taking care of their charges any more. They have asked what would happen if they left their charges at accident and emergency departments. As Deputy Collins mentioned, some of us have just returned from meeting the carers who were demonstrating outside the House. Four of them made it clear, in consultation with the people they care for, that today they will be leaving four people - human beings - at accident and emergency departments. We talk about respect. What about respecting these people? There does not seem to be any respect from journalists; none of them is present. Neither does there appear to be any respect from Government Deputies - there are only five present. If they had respect for these people they would do something about this. Unfortunately, in this country we have respect for the wrong things. There is a Deputy present in the Chamber who has done a great deal of mouthing off about this topic during the past week but he has not shown much respect today because he has not said anything about the matter. Will he vote against the measure?

Photo of Noel GrealishNoel Grealish (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He does not say it in the House.

Photo of Luke FlanaganLuke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When it comes to leaving the Chamber, however, he bows because he has respect for the Chair. I suggest his party changes its values concerning what it respects.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know whether the Minister has ever been a carer. I can only presume she has not, given the cuts she proposes to implement. My mother was a carer. I say "was", because she used to care for my father who passed away last August. She never went on a holiday while she was caring for him but used the respite care grant to subsidise my father's medical care so that we could keep him at home and grant him his final wish to die in peace with his family. If we had not used the grant to do that it is possible we would have had no choice other than to put him into a home. We would then have been unable to grant his dying wish.

The Minister stated, as did many other speakers in the Chamber, even today, there are alternatives to implementing this measure. A sum of €26 million is in question; every Deputy has provided the Minister with alternatives for sourcing it. For people like my mother and other carers, there is no alternative.

These people have no alternative. They either care for their loved ones or they do not do so. That is not a choice they can make. Those to whom I refer do not have the luxury of alternatives or of choosing not to care for their loved ones.

The Minister has the opportunity to make a different decision in respect of how to obtain the €26 million at issue here. I appeal to whatever sense of decency and humanity she may possess and I plead with her not to proceed with this proposal. The saving involved is €26 million out of total savings of €3.5 billion. These are just figures. My mother and the other 77,000 carers throughout the country are not interested in figures, they just want to be given the resources and to have the capability to do what is right by their loved ones. If the Minister proceeds with this cut, she may be denying some mother, father, son or daughter the ability to care for a loved one in their own home. In my book, that is just immoral. I appeal to the Minister not to proceed with what is proposed.

1:15 pm

Photo of Denis NaughtenDenis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on this proposal. When one considers the latter in conjunction with what is happening in the Department of Health, one can see that a combination of things are affecting carers. Sadly, the Minister is caught in the middle of the storm. That statutory two weeks respite to which elderly people are entitled has been removed. Even though there is statutory provision, people cannot avail of this. The cuts to home help hours represent a clawing back of the supports available to people in their own homes. There are those who increasingly rely on the respite care grant to subvent those cuts that are being made by the Department of Health. This highlights the fact that it is not possible to deal in isolation with an issue which has implications across the entire budget.

It is extremely frustrating that for one third of those who are in receipt of it, the respite care grant is the only State recognition they get. These people do not receive medical cards or many of the other allowances and entitlements that are available. Those to whom I refer feel really hurt in the context of the proposed cut to the grant. If one considers this cut in tandem with the delay which exists in respect of carer's allowance applications - this currently stands at approximately 11 months - and the impact this has in the context of delays with regard to the processing of the respite care grant, it is obvious that what is happening is placing an additional administrative burden on the Minister's Department and leading to overpayments of supplementary welfare allowance. Efficiencies could be achieved by streamlining the process to which I refer and these, in turn, could give rise to savings.

The Bill also contains a proposal in respect of farm assist and I am of the view that this will actually cost money rather than give rise to the saving of €5 million that is envisaged. I have put forward proposals to the Minister regarding how we might save €50 million in respect of the child benefit budget by addressing the issue of fraud and non-resident children. A number of suggestions have also been put forward by other Deputies in respect of the changes to pension relief. If these were brought forward, the savings to which the Minister refers could be made.

I accept that the Minister is in an extremely difficult position in the context of the proposed cut to the respite care grant. The saving involved - €26 million - is relatively small in the context of her Department's overall budget. In light of the fact that this proposal will not be implemented until next June - when the respite care grant is due to be paid - I suggest that there is a window of opportunity available to the Minister during which she might reconsider the position. A second social welfare Bill is normally introduced in the spring. In that context, will the Minister postpone what is proposed here and, during the window of opportunity to which I refer, ask the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection to consider the views of and suggestions put forward by those in opposition and come up with an alternative - within the Department's budget - to the €26 million cut to the respite care grant? I am of the view that it would be possible to make savings within the Department of Social Protection's budget by improving efficiencies.

The Minister should provide the window of opportunity to which I refer in order that we might take the time to deal with this matter. The provision in this regard will not kick in until the middle or the end of June. Rather than dividing the House on this issue, all the Members should work together to arrive at a workable solution in respect of this matter.

Photo of Noel GrealishNoel Grealish (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not rehearse what previous speakers stated. Everyone is aware of the tremendous work done by carers and of the money they save the State by keeping people in their own homes. Like Deputy Nulty and others, I would like to know why the Labour Party dropped a proposal it put forward in the context of the budget to the effect that there be a 3% increase in the universal social charge. Such a move would have brought in €365 million. I gave an interview on my local radio station-----

Photo of Seán SherlockSeán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would have brought in €71 million.

Photo of Noel GrealishNoel Grealish (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well €371 million, there is not much difference.

Photo of Seán SherlockSeán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, the figure was €71 million.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would have brought in €200 million if the self-employed were taken into account.

Photo of Noel GrealishNoel Grealish (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I stand corrected. My figures are wrong in this regard. I gave an interview on my local radio station this morning in which I stated that I would have supported such a proposal if it had come before the House, particularly as it would have removed a number of difficulties for the Minister's Department. I am of the view that the Minister does not believe in what is being done here and that she is going against everything for which she stands by introducing these cuts. Perhaps she will indicate why the proposal to which I refer was dropped and why it was voted down by Fine Gael.

Photo of Róisín ShortallRóisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I add my voice to those of others who have objected to this proposal to cut the respite care grant, which is probably one of the most mean-spirited aspects of the budget. We are all fed up listening to representatives of the Government speak about the budget. Those to whom I refer stated - prior to its introduction - that the budget would be tough but fair and they continue to say this. As the Minister is well aware, the budget is nothing like fair. As previous speakers stated, if it had been the case that the Government had no choice but to make these draconian cuts, people would have faced up to the reality involved. The truth is, however, that the Government had several options open to it. For example, it could have increased the universal social charge or introduced a solidarity levy. God knows we need solidarity now more than ever before and if we had introduced a 5% solidarity levy in respect of people with incomes in excess of €100,000 - in the context of the element of those incomes that is above that amount - we could have raised €320 million.

I put it to the Minister that a majority of the Members of this House would favour a solidarity levy. Such a levy was first mooted by a number of Fine Gael backbenchers last year - I believe they still support it - and I am of the view there is widespread support within the Labour Party and across the Opposition benches for such a measure. A levy of this nature is necessary because we need those who are wealthy and who have been fairly well protected from the cold winds of the recession to show solidarity with people who are desperately badly off and really struggling. If a solidarity levy had been introduced, it would have negated the need to bring forward any welfare cuts in the budget. Unfortunately, the Government has chosen to hammer people on low and middle incomes. That was a very definite choice that was made within Government. As already stated, it had options.

The Government could also have tackled the inequalities relating to the pensions regime. Last year it stated that it would do so this year and now this year it is saying that it will perhaps take action next year. That is just not good enough. There is an obvious target in this regard, namely, making the pensions regime much fairer and thereby saving a considerable amount of money. If the Government had done that this year - as should have been the case - it could have raised €250 million and there would not have been a need for any of these awful cuts which are going to place enormous pressure on the poorest people in our country.

The Government had options. In such circumstances, its members should stop saying that the budget is fair. Will the Minister, the Tánaiste and their ministerial colleagues please stop saying that they have protected the vulnerable? They have not done so. They had the option to do it. They could have given effect to that aspiration but they did not do so. They chose instead to leave those in the protected sectors - namely, those who are much better off - alone. Again, these people will not be expected to contribute anything this year. I am already on record as stating that this has something to do with the fact that the 12 or 15 people who drew up the budget behind closed doors are all in receipt of a minimum of €160,000 per year.

They are very much removed from the reality of life for so many families who are struggling. Too often, the respite care grant is regarded as an optional extra for families. For those caring for elderly people or people with disabilities, it enables them to meet the additional costs of providing care such as higher heating bills and the cost of special foods needed. In many cases, it enables them to access the critical therapies required such as speech and language therapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy, all of which have been run down by the Government.

This is a hard-hearted cut and reprehensible. I do not see how anybody who promised the public that there would be fairness and owes his or her position here to the making of that promise can support a measure such as this. I urge Members who have any sense of decency to reject this proposal.

1:25 pm

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A number of Deputies, including Deputies Denis Naughten and Brendan Ryan, have raised the issue of the quality of the available services. I know that this aspect is of most concern to carers. They have told me that when caring for an elderly person or a cancer sufferer, they do not necessarily need respite for themselves - although it is welcome - but for the person for whom they care.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They have been cut also.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not interrupt the Deputy.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My apologies, but they have been cut also.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking about a vision for how we can provide for solidarity in society. If the Deputy has ever cared for someone who is very ill, elderly or in need of care, he will know, as Deputy Denis Naughten rightly described it, it is critical in his or her daily round of work for a carer to know with certainty that a respite place will be available for a definite period of time. This is probably the single most important reform needed in the system.

Photo of Róisín ShortallRóisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That service is not available either.

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please allow the Minister to respond to the debate.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When Deputy Róisín Shortall was in the Department of Health, she was extremely aware of this point which was discussed by the Select sub-Committee on Social Protection. Every Deputy who has spoken regards it as a very serious issue. Some Deputies or their close family members have personal experience of this work and have described what I know to be the reality. The committee could examine the range of supports supplied. Some Deputies may not wish to hear what I am saying or take it into account, but the level of departmental expenditure this year to pay the weekly carer's payment, the weekly half-rate carer's payment and the respite care grant has increased by €20 million because we are paying more carers. I have provided for an increase in total expenditure next year on carers. In the clamour Members may not have appreciated how much was spent on carers. I concur with Deputy Catherine Murphy that no matter how much money is spent on direct income supports - I refer to the earlier discussion on child care - the services provided are a critical factor.

I refer to Deputy Denis Naughten's comment about the job to be undertaken by the committees of this House. Various committees should consider the supports available for children such as those provided in schools and the therapies to which Deputy Catherine Murphy referred. They should also consider the important issue of respite care for the person receiving care. Some carers care for more than one adult or one child and they receive a double payment, which is a very important support for them. We should look at all of these factors. However, it must be borne in mind that citizens and taxpayers will be spending more than €20 billion on social welfare payments. Some have suggested there is a lack of solidarity in society, but they are mistaken. I suggest they compare social welfare payments here with those made in very wealthy countries. Our weekly social welfare payments are very high relative to those made in more well-off countries. What distinguishes Ireland from some of these wealthy countries is that our service provision is not as good.

My ministerial colleague, Deputy Brendan Howlin, will address the issue raised by Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly of the salaries paid and payments made to workers in the public service as part of a structured discussion. I know many of those who work to provide the services on a professional basis, as opposed to carers who work at home, all my life. They work around the clock and are always available. Deputy Willie O'Dea will remember that the respite care grant was originally introduced to help carers to take a break on the premise that respite care was available for the person being cared for. I accept that the grant is used and spent in a variety of ways, usually for the benefit of the person being cared for. It is to be hoped carers will use it to take a break which would be very good for them. Deputy John Halligan spoke about his sister whose situation is typical and familiar to us all. She is helping to care for her parents at home and her dad is bedridden.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly and others referred to other ways to make savings in the social welfare budget.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are included in the amendments.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, there are requests for more money in every part of the social welfare budget. While the balance and proportions of expenditure and taxes can be varied, the troika has set expenditure ceilings. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly has professional experience, having worked with the World Bank and the IMF, and will know that in countries in which expenditure ceilings are part of the package, they are not as flexible as implied. Some variations are permitted, but total flexibility is not. In fairness to my ministerial colleague, Deputy Brendan Howlin, he has worked with the troika such that the budget reflects the proposed reduction in the pension ceiling - a change I have advocated for a long time.

I refer to Deputy Brendan Ryan's detailed proposal, about which I will speak to the Minister for Finance. It may be a matter for the finance committee and there is a job of work to be done. Given the collapse of the country, the position is difficult. We have to recover to enable us to have the social welfare system we all want.

If we do not see the other side of this programme and recover our financial sustainability, the people who will suffer most will be those dependent on the social welfare system.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh has given as an example a widow with three children, one of whom has special needs. She sent the Deputy an e-mail. A widow who is a carer would receive a weekly widow's pension and half-rate carer's allowance. These benefits, with some others, amount to over €18,000 per year. If the individual has two children in addition to the child who requires care, as the Deputy suggested, this will result in payment of a further €60 per week. Of course, a monthly child benefit payment will also be received. If the Deputy gives me the details of the case in question, we can check the position for him. With regard to respite care, the recipient will be receiving €1,375 next year for the child who requires care.

The Irish carer's package is unique by comparison with packages in the rest of Europe. Very few other European countries have a carer's package like ours, but there is a weakness in the provision of services. Deputy Johnathan O'Brien will know this, given the position of his father. If we are to have a discussion on this issue, which I welcome, we should examine holistically how we can have good value services available to those who provide care. This is one of the most important points for a carer. As Deputy Catherine Murphy said, various therapies for children with special needs, particularly therapies associated with speech, language and movement, probably represent the most important services a child can access, in addition to mainstream education.

1:35 pm

Photo of Róisín ShortallRóisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, there are 12 amendments remaining. Members are very keen to talk about other aspects of this legislation.

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no restriction on anybody.

Photo of Róisín ShortallRóisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In fairness, there are 18 minutes remaining and others would like to have an input.

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to reply.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I listened to the Deputy and every other Member who spoke and took notes on the individual cases and issues raised.

Photo of Róisín ShortallRóisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are many issues to be dealt with.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is because I take very seriously the points made by the Deputies, including Deputy Róisín Shortall.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Lift the guillotine.

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to proceed.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I lost an hour and a half yesterday morning that could have been used to discuss the Bill because of the carry-on that had nothing to do with social welfare. This morning I lost another hour and a half. Deputies have raised very important points. It is part of parliamentary practice that there not be a one-sided discussion and that if a Deputy raises a point, the Minister is obliged to consider and reply to it. If the Deputy would prefer me to sit down and say nothing, he should realise it is not the way I operate.

I want to see a significant improvement to the package of services the country provides for carers-----

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why does the Minister not answer the question we asked about alternatives?

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not interrupt the Deputy.

With regard to Deputy Willie O'Dea's comments, I realise and as he knows there are higher levels of disability in parts of his constituency, Limerick city, than in any other area of the country. The option Fianna Fáil chose on two occasions was to cut weekly payments for the carer and the adult who is cared for, both by €8.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister reverse the cut?

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In a carer's household-----

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Reverse it.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reduction in respect of an adult caring for another adult was over €32.50 per week.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are asking questions on behalf of the people at the gate.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a very tight, difficult budgetary position which requires us to effect change in regard to carers that preserves the weekly payment. Fianna Fáil disagreed because, on several occasions, it cut core weekly payments across the board.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We increased tax on the rich also, unlike the current Government.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In respect of the kinds of cases about which we are talking, there was a cumulative reduction of €32 per week. Carers still feel very strongly about this, just as pensioners feel strongly about Fianna Fáil's cancellation of the Christmas bonus.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that the Minister's answer? Is she reversing the cut? She is filibustering.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Another important point on carers was raised, including by Deputy Denis Naughten. The income disregard and means test for carer's allowance to which the Deputy referred-----

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tick, tock.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----are actually the most generous in the social welfare system. A couple under 66 years with two children and earning a joint annual income of up to €35,400 can qualify for the maximum rate of carer's allowance. Such a couple earning up to €60,000 per year can still qualify for the minimum rate of carer's allowance. The Deputy did not mention that carers who work fewer than 15 hours a week have no means test in regard to the respite care grant. That is why the grant is the only payment made to some people. It is because their income is above the level required for the general means test. I refer to the disregards for carers. For the most part, the individuals in question have a significant income. Nonetheless, the State, in recognition of the care work they do, pays a respite care grant to over 6,000 people in respect of whom there is no means test. That, again, is a very positive feature of the system. The payment next year, at €1,375, will still be significantly higher than that in 2006, at the height of the boom.

Bearing in mind total social welfare expenditure, several Members mentioned fraud. We have launched very significant anti-fraud campaigns in the Department. Some Deputies had a problem with this last night. Through the budget, I am making arrangements to recover overpayments-----

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Respite care.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is filibustering.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tick, tock.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

------and payments as a result of fraud and abuse. They were recoverable, as the Deputy knows, at a rate of only €2 a week.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That has nothing to do with the section.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Up to €350 million in overpayments are due to my Department. Deputy Patrick Nulty should note this is relevant because, if we can recover the bulk of those payments, it will take the pressure-----

Photo of Patrick NultyPatrick Nulty (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it relevant to cut respite care payments?

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some Members were unhappy last night with the idea that we would recover, at a rate of more than €2 a week, payments obtained in a fraudulent way.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister reinstate the respite care grant?

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Deputy has a problem with this, he should note it is one of the reforms introduced in the Bill that is extremely important. It will actually provide us with more resources.

I know Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett has a particular problem with recovering payments made as a consequence of fraud.

1:45 pm

Photo of Róisín ShortallRóisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why is the Minister continuing to talk on this section? This is her-----

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please allow the Minister to continue, without interruption.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She should speak to the topic we are discussing.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are going to recover the money and in recovering it we will make more funds available for those who rely for their income on the Department of Social Protection. The sum of €20.2 billion provided by taxpayers and those who lend us the funds represents 37% of all Government spending. For those who are concerned about social solidarity in Ireland, €20.2 billion is a very large sum. However, for some Deputies it is not enough. I appreciate this and personally would like if it was more, but in order to protect social welfare payments, we have to return the country to economic sustainability.

On the suggestions made by Members, including Deputy Ryan, I will raise them with the Minister for Finance specifically because they have a good deal of merit and merit detailed examination.

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, as one of the proposers of this measure, I seek the permission of the other proposers to have the section put to a vote now.

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Michael Lowry has indicated that he wishes to speak.

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think he is going to speak.

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He has indicated to me that he wishes to do so.

Photo of Michael LowryMichael Lowry (Tipperary North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before the question is put on the section, I add my voice in opposition to the cut to carer's allowance - the carer's grant. It is not all that long ago when the Minister was waxing eloquently and strongly in favour of the poor and the underprivileged. Looking at the budget, there is only one description for it. It is unfair and lacks compassion, particularly in the case of the Minister's Department. It punishes the poor, carers in particular, through the reduction of the carer's grant. Carers believe they are a burden on the State because of the reduction in the fund. They should be looked upon as a very special resource - people who have the skills and the time and who make sacrifices on an individual basis to give love and provide care and attention for their families and others within their communities. Instead of reducing the carer's grant, we should be acknowledging the contribution they make. We should also acknowledge that they are not a burden on the State, but rather that they make a generous contribution to the health and welfare of others. I support the proposal which should be put to the House.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I reply briefly to Deputy Michael Lowry?

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We want to have the section put to a vote.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This year the Government increased spending on carers by €20 million.

Photo of John HalliganJohn Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Ceann Comhairle put the section to a vote? We want to vote on it now.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the Estimates for next year I have provided for an increase in spending.

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Cheann Comhairle, I would like my proposal to be put to a vote.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last week, on the morning of the budget, Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin Deputies-----

Photo of Róisín ShortallRóisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is an abuse of the House.

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is Committee Stage and the Minister is entitled as the Deputy is to speak.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think members of the Technical Group were there, but Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin Deputies supported an increase of €680 million in a Supplementary Estimate to increase the overall social welfare spend in 2012 to fund payments made to persons such as carers. I thanked Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin for supporting the Estimate. The Estimate for next year means that the spend will increase. I want Deputy Michael Lowry, when he makes comments about the economy in general, to take into account the fact that a sum of €20.2 billion will be spent. We support programmes in all Departments. It will be one of the highest amounts spent in Europe.

Photo of John HalliganJohn Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have heard all of this already. Show us some decency and let us vote on the section. The Minister said all of this last night and is saying it all again now.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am entitled to respond to Deputy Michael Lowry.

Photo of John HalliganJohn Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is using up the time allocated for this debate.

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please, Deputy. This is Committee Stage and Members are entitled to come in and out. That is the rule of the House and it applies to the Minister as well as to every other Member. If the Minister wishes to reply, I am obliged to allow her to do so. Has she finished?

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Question put.

The Committee divided by electronic means.

1:55 pm

Photo of Seán Ó FearghaílSeán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a Teller, I wish to call for a vote by other than electronic means.

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Deputy is a Whip, he is entitled to call a vote through the lobby.

Question again put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 89; Níl, 55.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Seán Ó Fearghaíl and Aengus Ó Snodaigh.

Níl

Question again declared carried.

2:05 pm

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am now required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Social Protection and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, that each of the sections, or as appropriate, sections, as amended, are hereby agreed to, that the Title is hereby agreed, Report Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed." Is that agreed?

Deputies:

No.

Question put: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Social Protection and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, that each of the sections, or as appropriate, sections, as amended, are hereby agreed to, that the Title is hereby agreed, Report Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

The Dáil divided by electronic means.

2:10 pm

Photo of Seán Ó FearghaílSeán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In light of the inadequate time made available to the House to discuss the many unfair provisions included in this legislation, which will impact very negatively on women, children and on the vulnerable-----

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl's party took €16.50 per week off them.

(Interruptions).

Photo of Seán Ó FearghaílSeán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and with a desire to be helpful to Government Deputies who might want one last opportunity to examine their conscience, I call for a vote to be taken by other than electronic means.

(Interruptions).

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under Standing Order 69, Deputy Ó Fearghaíl is entitled to call a vote through the lobby.

Question again put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 93; Níl, 53.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Seán Ó Fearghaíl and Aengus Ó Snodaigh.

Níl

Question again declared carried.