David Norris (Independent)

We have wandered widely but the Leas-Chathaoirleach has wisely restrained us and brought us back. I hope I do not fall too much in that area.

I tabled an amendment following yesterday's discussion and know the Minister's agreement in principle comes later when matters such as dental benefit will be discussed. The Minister used the word "cut". A problem that many of us have - it is not confined to those of us on this side of the House - is that a number of individuals, because of their circumstances, will be hit, not once but on multiple occasions. That is a particular difficulty. If each person was asked to take one cut, it would be one thing, but some people will have a double, triple or quadruple whammy.

In general, with regard to people with disabilities - I have something to say, in particular, about those who are blind - the evidence shows that they already face extra costs of €40 a week above those of the average citizen. This evidence was produced by a combination of the Disability Federation of Ireland and Indecon. People with disabilities are also two and a half times more likely to be unemployed, which needs to be borne in mind.

With regard to the principle I am examining in the case of jobseeker's allowance which we will discuss later, the point I was trying to make, with which the Minister agreed, was on suitable employment. The Minister has indicated - there is a rationale behind it - that to a certain extent she is presenting people with an option; they can accept the cut and go with the system or they can go to another European Union state where they will find that the competitive rate is considerably lower than it is here. The intention is to encourage people to return to education. I fully support this, but there may well be people for whom further education is not the most appropriate choice because they are temperamentally unsuited for another reason or because they just do not want to do so. The Minister has mentioned that there are a number of educators in the House. In my case, I am a retired educator and know as a tutor that one of the greatest emotional and intellectual problems with students was encountered when they were coerced into taking a course for which they were not temperamentally suited and which they did not want to take. That has to be borne in mind.

I understand there are great difficulties in the country and that we need to support the measures taken in the interests of the State where they are appropriate. Therefore, I am not overheated on this issue, but I will have more to say further down the line. There are so many variables in the equation I do not know how it can be done. I do not understand computers or whether it is computer programmed.

What about the case of somebody who is the victim of a multiple whammy? At what point does it stop? I have received letters, as I am sure the Minister and all Members have, from people who explain that they are in a wheelchair, disabled or carers. In one sense, it shows us the wonderful human resource in the country that people who are themselves disabled act as carers for their ailing parents. They are whacked in half a dozen ways in terms of the disability allowance, dental benefit and the various measures and cutbacks. A time comes when the pips really have to squeak because they are so squeezed. My sympathy goes to people who have to take cut, not once but a number of times. Small amounts such as the 50 cent prescription charge sound laughable, but if one is on a series of medications that must be dispensed at various times during the month and one also collects medication on behalf of an ailing parent, it all mounts up. That is the only point I have to make at this stage on the principle.