Seanad debates

Wednesday, 16 December 2009

Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Rónán MullenRónán Mullen (Independent)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Caithfidh mé a rá, mar adúirt mé inné, go bhfuil an-bhrón orm go bhfuil an chéim seo tógtha ag an Rialtas. Táim glan in aghaidh na gnéithe seo den Bhille. Bhí an liúntas leanaí an-tábhachtach riamh do theaghlaigh na hÉireann. Is bealach é trína léiríonn an Rialtas an tacaíocht atá á thabhairt ag an Stát agus an sochaí dóibh siúd a thógann páistí ar mhaithe linn uilig.

This is a very regrettable step by the Government. Child benefit is the key way in which the State shows the support of the entire community for the upbringing of children. Effectively, it involves the transference of money from those who do not have children to those who do. I fully empathise with what other speakers already stated; it is a very bad day when the Government slashes child benefit to any degree. Children are our future. The job parents do in bringing up children is an irreplaceable contribution to society and to attack child benefit is to attack in a very fundamental and damaging way the contribution parents make towards the upbringing of children. As I stated yesterday, as somebody who is not yet blessed with having children to provide and care for I believe that those without children should pay extra tax to support families with children. It is a no brainer in terms of the future good of society. The children of today will care for us in the future and support our pensions and happy existence.

Child benefit is an extremely equitable way of supporting the upbringing of children. Unlike other allowances, such as for child care expenses, child benefit goes to families where one parent stays in the home to bring up children and make a very valuable and important contribution and treats them equally with families who choose, because they have to as Senator Doherty stated, to put children into creches or arrange for child care in the course of the day. This is another advantage of child benefit; it is an equitable means of supporting families with children, whatever domestic or working arrangements they have.

As I also stated yesterday, the decision to cut child benefit is a first cousin of the very unfortunate policy move the Government took some years ago to introduce tax individualisation. That too was a decision against family life. It was a decision in favour of driving people out into the workforce and against recognition of the important work being done by those parents, male or female, who choose to stay in the home and contribute to the upbringing of their children. We wonder about the problems many children face today because of a lack of sufficient quality time with their parents. We have to be honest; we have created a society in which it is increasingly difficult for parents to have quality time with their children. Therefore, we should not wonder at the social problems that emerge because of the lack of quality time between parents and children. We have created a society where people are supposed to exist for the sake of the economy and not the other way around, which is the way it should be.

I take slight issue with what Senator Doherty stated. He is right to raise the issue that those on high salaries may find it difficult to empathise with those on social welfare or very low levels of income. That is a possibility and probably true of a class of people in society who may not be capable of empathising properly. However, I stop short of accusing the Government, collectively or individually, of that because I am very wary of getting into people's motivation for doing what they do. We can never explain motivation with the type of certainty that is needed for us to be allowed to pass judgment. I will simply confine myself to stating that this is bad policy; the Minister should not be part of it and the Government should not have anything to do with it. I make no assumptions about the Minister's motivation because I am sure she is as honourable as everybody else in wanting to see a just and harmonious society. However, I point out to her that she is seriously wrong-headed if she thinks this particular step contributes to the creation of a more just and harmonious society. It does not. It is an attack on family life.

I heard what the Minister had to say about the difficulty in means testing and taxing child benefit, but the approach of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in its pre-budget submission was much better than what the Government is doing in cutting child benefit simpliciter. We should see child benefit as non-negotiable, as something that involves the State recognising the contribution of every family, rich or poor, to society through the upbringing of children. We should be making our society a child friendly place with every step we take.

There are other ways to compensate for a high child benefit bill; that is why we have taxation. There are other ways to tax higher earning families. I have no problem with rich people enjoying the same level of child benefit as everybody else. I have no problem with rich people enjoying access to education systems in which teachers are paid, as is currently the case. However, that is not to say we should not find other ways to get those who are better off in our society to subvent and support its poorer members. We should not abandon the principle of universal provision in areas such as education, health care and child benefit.

I would like to see much more creative thinking about how we fund our budgetary commitments. NAMA is expansive, adventurous and risk taking in the face of the economic crisis, but we need to take a serious look at what other steps are needed for less well-off members. I am thinking of the family whom I discussed yesterday on Newstalk and who have lost possession of their house. They have a child with special needs. We need seriously imaginative solutions in supporting such families. In the case of child benefit, we should be looking at people such as those who have mortgages and those who have long since repaid theirs. That creates a serious differential between the haves and the have nots in society. In funding commitments such as child benefit and other aspects of social welfare, we need adventurous thinking to figure out who is being put to the pin of their collar and try to avoid hitting them. We need to find out who has that little extra and ask them to contribute to the common good at this difficult time.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.