Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

She continues to champion the cause. The main theme of her contribution was reform of social welfare and that nobody on social welfare should lose money. That is essentially the core of this motion.

I must take issue with the Minister because ultimately this is a political Chamber and it is nothing personal but I am not standing here and hoping that by defeating the Government, it will be kudos to Fianna Fáil. I support this motion because I believe it is the right thing to do. That is the reason. It is also the reason the other Members made their contributions. They think what the Government is doing on this issue is wrong. It is a wrong decision. There was a rather interesting montage on the screen when I was listening to Senator Heffernan, a former Labour Party Member who put his money where his mouth is, which we respect. However, in the frame of the screen image one could see a young child nestling in the arms of her mother. I presume it was her mother; I did not look around but just looked at the picture. Why should that child be an innocent victim of a Government policy that is essentially inhuman and is affecting people's right to be able to live a proper life?

I wish to refer to the other element of my contribution because the Minister only mentioned it briefly in his comprehensive reply. The key to this might not necessarily be about rolling back all that the Government has done; the key to it might be to examine the child care issue.Child care is the single most expensive element, particularly for lone parents, even taking account of the free year of early childhood care and education, as that provision ceases at the end of school term and those parents then have to provide sustenance, protection and care for their child or children. The issue of child care was raised in all the e-mails we received, to many of which various contributors referred. We read in those about the amount of money it costs those parents to live and that they have to factor in rent supplement, mortgage repayments in some cases, the cost of food and the cost of child care. However, we would all accept that the cost of child care is excessive.

I made a plea in this respect in my earlier remarks, and I make it again now, namely, that I have every hope in the Labour Party, and I have no difficulty with the compassion that party, traditionally, has shown towards the most vulnerable in society, and I would see myself, traditionally, as being on the left of my party. Many of its policies, and we were in government with it previously, have worked successfully. There is a meeting of minds in that regard. I have no monopoly on compassion. I understand, and have put on the record, that the budgetary priorities and constraints that are imposed on the Government as a result of the crash make life very difficult in terms of making decisions, particularly in social welfare areas. However, I believe that there is a way out here, and, admittedly, the Government will want to hold the line, as it has been doing on existing social welfare payments, but it would be worthwhile for it, with whatever resources are available, to examine if the cost of child care could be addressed.

A statement was made by a Limerick academic at a conference in the past day or two, which was reported in the newspapers, to the effect that the cost of child care is the single most difficult obstacle for people, and that one of the reasons it is so costly is that 80% of the income received in the sector goes on wages which leaves only 20% to cover overheads and other costs. At the same time there are people working in the child care sector who are living on very poor wages. Ultimately, there must be some way the Government can come up with all the necessary resources, with some formula, to address the cost of child care, targeted at lone parents and those vulnerable people at the lower end of the income bracket. It must do something about that issue. This is seen as an unfair financial imposition on a very vulnerable sector of society and that is the reason it has prompted the response the Minister of State has heard here today.