David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

We are aware of that. In some situations, they may qualify for an increase in family income supplement, FIS, but that will not compensate for this cut. The Minister is trying to put everyone on a par with the jobseeker's allowance, but not everyone should be. How can carers be on a par with jobseekers? There is a clear difference. The half-rate qualified child increase exists for a reason.

No amount of spin from a Government representative or anyone else can counter the example of two parents in a family, one of whom is a carer and in receipt of carer's benefit while the other is working with a salary of €450 per week. We all understand that someone earning less than €400 per week will continue to receive the payment, but the amendment will abolish it completely for anyone earning in excess of €400. A cut will be made to people earning €420 or €430 per week. Perhaps discretion will be used in the case of a person earning €403, €404 or €405, but a difference of €10 or €20 is a small amount of money.

The Minister missed the Opposition's point. We are cutting the number of incentives to go to work. In the hypothetical situation that I outlined, the family will lose approximately €15 per each of its two, three or four children. This will impact on the family's quality of life. No amount of spin can take away from the fact that this is a cut.

The Minister should examine the disincentives for people in receipt of jobseeker's allowance to return to work. She should ensure that incentives are built into the social welfare system so that someone earning €450 per week at work does not lose all of his or her benefits. We should be moving towards this approach, not cutting people's entitlements. Those currently in receipt of this payment will be covered, but new applicants will not.

The Minister laboured this point — pardon the pun — for many years while in opposition. She was correct, in that we need to tackle some of the traps in the social welfare system that act as disincentives to work. The removal of this payment is one such disincentive and will affect the types of family described in my example. Irrespective of any FIS increase, there will be a net cut in their incomes. It is regressive and wrong.