Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Speaking as someone who comes from a part of the country that is socially and economically disadvantaged, like many of my colleagues, I am aware that community employment schemes have proven to be a lifeline in particular for single men in isolated areas who have an opportunity through the schemes to live their lives with dignity. From that point of view there is more than just number-crunching involved in terms of what the schemes bring to the table. I am sure the troika will have views, as other European institutions did, about the way this country has operated community employment schemes in recent years. I am particularly pleased from that point of view.

The Minister outlined details on the national carers? strategy. To cut to the chase, a great deal of the discussion in recent weeks has centred on the possibility of child benefit cuts. A report compiled by an advisory group to the Minister for Social Protection which was leaked to ?The Week in Politics? in September created an awful furore in recommending a two-tier child benefit system. What is forgotten to some degree is that reductions in child benefit have already been implemented in the previous budget and will continue into the next budget. That is in isolation to any other propositions that might be forthcoming from the Minister. I accept we are speaking in somewhat of a vacuum because the Minister is putting forward her Estimates and will be doing battle around the Cabinet table in the coming months. We will have to wait until budget day before we get an indication of what will happen in the Department.

Fianna Fáil is opposed to the cuts for a number of reasons. The Minister is very much aware of them. One or two issues are of particular concern. The elimination of payments on multiple births ignores the significant costs incurred following the birth of twins, triplets or more children. I understand that approximately 1,200 families will be affected annually by such a cut. The Minister must take account of public concern expressed by all of those involved in the area. It will create a great difficultly for her. Barnardos has warned that a third cut in a row to child benefit could worsen the situation of 90,000 children living in poverty. The National Women?s Council said the payment had become an easy target for successive Governments and that any reduction would lead to further hardship. Early Childhood Ireland, which represents preschools and day care services, said such a proposal would hit poorest families hardest. The Children?s Rights Alliance said low-income families would have to be compensated in the event of a cut because of the massive impact it would have on them.

I have had some equivocation and ambiguity in my attitude previously - the same might be true of colleagues on all sides of the House - on whether one would continue with the universal payment or start tampering with it. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, said that a two-tier proposal must be considered at a time when one has to prioritise spending for families who need the most support. On the one hand one could argue that it is a logical way forward that one would target those most in need. I have never to been able to grasp why the computers cannot talk to each other in that regard. Perhaps the Minister might comment on the issue. In this high-tech age I cannot figure out why one cannot take a cut-off of people who are on an income of ¤150,000 who clearly do not need child benefit, and isolate them. Perhaps it is not worth it in the overall scheme of things to separate those one assumes do not need child benefit. The assumptions could be totally incorrect. We do not know the domestic situation in the most affluent of families. Perhaps the wife does not receive any money and as a result the money received in child benefit is badly needed for basic essentials for the children. I am not sure how the Minister will tackle the situation. On the one hand, logic would dictate that one would target those most in need but on the other hand one must question why successive Governments have shied away from diluting the universal payment concept. In that sense, I would have to come down on the approach that it is best to leave well enough alone in that regard.

I refer to the disability allowance. The Government suspended its announced cuts to this allowance pending a further review to be undertaken by the chairperson of the Commission on Social Welfare and Taxation. The most recent statistics published by the CSO last week reveal that consistent poverty experienced by people with disabilities increased from 8.8% in 2009 to 13% in 2010. The reality, of which I am sure the Minister is well aware, is that young disabled people on disability allowances are excluded from all the activation programmes announced to date from her Department. A recent survey by the ESRI found that two thirds of this group were willing to work with the correct supports but employment opportunities are limited for people with a disability. Hence the relationship between disability and a higher risk of poverty. Approximately 4% of people aged 18 to 34 have a disability.

I refer again to the programme for Government which states: "We will ensure that the quality of life of people with disabilities is enhanced. We will also facilitate people with disabilities in achieving a greater level of participation in employment, training and education." There is an issue which I do not believe to be in the Minister's mandate; rather it is HSE-related. When those with a disability or special needs achieve the age of majority at 18 years, they hope to go into adult education programmes. However, the budget for such programmes has also been cut. What will happen those young adults who already suffer from a disadvantage and must now try to get into the workforce without having any proper training? The Minister might comment on how this issue can be addressed. The programme for Government committed to the enhancement of the quality of life of people with disabilities.

The Minister was taken to task last week about a comment she made on maintaining core payments. In this debate it might be useful if she clarified what she means by core payments.

The eligibility criteria for the disability allowance have changed in the past year and the refusal rate has gone up significantly. What is the current status of rejection rates by the Department? I am sure the Minister is not satisfied with these rates. Why are they so high?