Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

It is the nature of the political system that Senator Cullinane makes points about the parties in Government, who were previously in opposition and who opposed much of what was proposed in the context of this amendment. I do not want to bring up the quotes but they make for interesting and somewhat scary reading. I refer to the barbs and missiles launched at the then Fianna Fáil Minister. The Fianna Fáil proposals were to reduce the age from 22 years to 14 on a phased basis but not to seven years of age. The then Minister, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, emphasised the need to provide effective support services and child care provision before the proposed modernisation of the one parent family payment.

All of us applauded the Minister for the position she took in the Dáil and perhaps she can amplify her statements in light of the debate that followed. She can correct me if I am wrong but I understand she will not introduce this until there is sufficient child care provision structures to ensure it minimises the adverse impact on lone parents. Notwithstanding the Minister's position, which we admire, it is informed by her background and the forensic approach of her accountancy perspective of what is possible. It is also informed by her professional background working among the poor and the disadvantaged in that most Third World continent, Africa. I have never doubted the Minister's bona fides in this regard. She is in the right job and she is the right person for the job. We acknowledge the difficulties she faces in trying to reduce a budget that takes up 40% of Government expenditure on an annual basis. I am sure the Minister does not wish to be remembered as the one who dismantled the structures to help the disadvantaged. The reason I am looking at this on a macroeconomic basis is that, in light of the Minister's comments, I wonder if she will be able to achieve her ambitions.

We cannot foretell the future and I am not attempting to gaze into a crystal ball but we can look at the signs. Brendan Keenan cut to the chase, as he often does when economic matters are discussed, in a readable way in the Irish Independent today. He talked about the report of the troika and how we are the best boy or girl in the class. Well done to the Government. It is now long forgotten that Fianna Fáil, which introduced the austerity measures in the first place, adhered to the memorandum of agreement for the first couple of reports. As Mr. Keenan pointed out, as did other economic commentators, the troika will be back in town in July for the next assessment, the seventh report. By that time, the Minister and her colleagues will be engaging in the preliminary discussions on the budget Estimates for 2013 and preliminary discussions on budgetary changes and proposals formulated in the Department. I have no doubt that the Minister will fight tooth and nail, as she did last year, to hold onto as much of the budget as she can. However, the term low-hanging fruit has popped up again. It is a terrible term that effectively means the Government has managed to go after the obvious cuts, although many socially and economically disadvantaged people will not agree. In July, Departments across the board will be required to trim their budgets once again. In other areas, the effect can be lessened but in the Minister's Department everything affects those who are socially and economically disadvantaged in our society.

Wearing another hat, I operate in the child care area as chairman of the County Leitrim child care committee. Over the past number of years and particularly since 2008, I have seen the recurring reduction in the budgets of statutory committees. That, in turn, filters into the provision of services in our county. How will the Minister battle against the prevailing economic wind blowing against the Government? There will be another severe impact on departmental budgets. How will the Minister balance the introduction of this measure for new claimants once the law is passed and provide the enhanced child care provision to which she referred? The Minister set the ball rolling and it would be instructive to get an inkling of her thinking after listening to the debate since she first made the point on Second Stage in the Dáil.

I will not rehearse the arguments put forward. I understand the difficulty facing the Minister and I know why she is doing what she is doing. It is a continuation of the Fianna Fáil proposals, although more extreme in the reduction to seven years of age, but the question is whether the Minister has a plan B to square the circle. How will she retain her existing budget, which she will not be able to do? The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, will also be unsuccessful in trying to retain her budget. In each year up to now, there have been ongoing reductions. It is not that the reductions are negative but we all hear about the impact on the ground.

During the week, we met a lobby group from the youth network. The budget for that comes from the Department of Justice and Equality. The youth service in Sligo, Leitrim and North Mayo provides 70 or 80 outlets including a youth cafe in my home town of Drumshanbo. It is a wonderful advantage for young people who previously would gather in a corner or go into pubs to play billiards, with the attendant temptations in that environment. It is symptomatic of a small town where young people do not know what to do. The budget for the youth cafe is €81,000 and will be reduced to €71,000. As a result, the full-time worker in the youth cafe, called the Base Cafe, must take a reduction in pay. One part-time worker has already been lost and the same is happening across the region. That is happening not in the Minister's Department but in the Department of Justice and Equality.

The Minister will have an extraordinarily difficult time. The argument put forward from the Opposition side of the House and the Independent Senators is to withdraw the section. Alternatively, the Minister should accept the amendment as we have worded it. That would give her two options. Proposed subsection (5) allows for the provision to come into operation on a day or days decided by the Minister, which would give her some latitude. If that does not work, it would then not come into force until a date sooner than three years from the enactment of the Act.

The argument has been well rehearsed but the core point in the amendment is that while we believe the Minister, we do not think she will be able to achieve her objectives and that she will not be able to put in place the enhanced child care service provision that has been called for simply because there will not be enough money. The Minister must ask if she will hold back from implementing this, and in so doing relieve the distress among a portion of our population that is severely disadvantaged, or press ahead anyway on the basis the Minister needs the money and has no choice.